New CBA proposal on draft lottery

[Can_of_corn]

23 minutes ago, justD said:

According to this article by Evan Drellich, the MLB is proposing what you state, but the MLBPA's proposal is this:

The MLBPA's proposal is much more interested in dividing teams into two camps - small-market teams and large-market teams - and then applying draft pick rules to each camp differently.  So there's also this:

And finally, this:

"Its proposal is not only intended to disincentivize tanking but to also incentivize winning by granting teams that do well additional draft picks."

https://theathletic.com/3101823/2022/01/31/lets-talk-about-cba-issues-the-draft/

 

So the Astros could do an Astro-style rebuild more easily than Baltimore could?

Am I reading that correctly?

What is the cut-off for small and large market?

Under this arrangement would the Rays pick ahead of say the Angels in the draft?

The Rays would get an extra first round pick and an extra competitive balance pick?

So many questions. 

[wildcard]

42 minutes ago, justD said:

According to this article by Evan Drellich, the MLB is proposing what you state, but the MLBPA's proposal is this:

The MLBPA's proposal is much more interested in dividing teams into two camps - small-market teams and large-market teams - and then applying draft pick rules to each camp differently.  So there's also this:

And finally, this:

"Its proposal is not only intended to disincentivize tanking but to also incentivize winning by granting teams that do well additional draft picks."

https://theathletic.com/3101823/2022/01/31/lets-talk-about-cba-issues-the-draft/

 

If this applied to the 2022 draft the  team in the lottery would be:

Nats,  Marlins,   Cubs, Twins

Orioles would draft 5th.

Orioles, D-backs, Rangers and Pirates would not be eligible for the lottery.

[justD]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

What is the cut-off for small and large market?

This was my main question. 

[OriolesMagic83]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

If this applied to the 2022 draft the  team in the lottery would be:

Nats,  Marlins,   Cubs, Twins

Orioles would draft 5th.

Orioles, D-backs, Rangers and Pirates would not be eligible for the lottery.

So if you have a top payroll and you're terrible, that's rewarded, but small market teams are punished for doing poorly. 

[OriolesMagic83]

Reread it and there are punishments for large market teams tanking, but the punishments on small market teams have wider parameters.

I know the union isn't interested, but the solution is making progress on equalizing revenue, not punishing small market teams. 

 

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

So if you have a top payroll and you're terrible, that's rewarded, but small market teams are punished for doing poorly. 

If I'm reading it right you can see how this would encourage big market teams to do a two year tank.

Let's say you have a 15/15 split on markets.

I read it as a large market team can't pick higher than 16th unless they are in the lottery, wouldn't that encourage them to embrace the tank?

What's the advantage in finishing with the 8th best record and picking 16th or 17th?

[OriolesMagic83]

Looking at this proposal from the union's point of view, it makes sense.  They want to incentivize spending by bad teams to avoid being penalized in the draft.  So teams like the O's and Pirates will sign mid level free agents that won't help the team win, but will prevent them from being one of the worst teams in baseball.  The 1998-2011 Orioles were a perfect example of this, and that worked out very well.  Looking forward to the next Segui and Omar Dahl. 

[Paul in Virginia]

Just stumbled onto this, for what it's worth:

"The fact that each side is offering up a version of a lottery in its latest proposal, though, sure does seem like strong evidence that it’s a concept enough folks are on board with that it’ll be employed in some form or fashion. Thus, I got more curious about how *precisely* the draft lottery would be deployed in the vision of each side, and how they might bridge the gap to something we’ll actually see in place in 2023 and beyond (no version is going to kick in for 2022, so don’t worry: the Cubs’ number 7 pick is safe).

 

MLB Draft Lottery Details: What Exactly Each Side is Proposing (bleachernation.com)

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Paul in Virginia

[Camden_yardbird]

On 1/28/2022 at 11:36 AM, Moose Milligan said:

I think the tanking angle is overrated. 

This isn't the NFL where you can get the best quarterback in the country and change the shape of your franchise with the #1 pick.  This isn't the NBA where you can select someone like LeBron James or Giannis that'll make you a contender.   You can get an Adley Rutschman but that doesn't change the structure of your organization.  That doesn't make you a contender.  The way baseball is set up is inherently different than the other sports.  

In the NFL, even a player picked 27th is going to make the team the first year.  They're going to most likely be a starter.  Picked 27th overall in the MLB draft?  You're lucky to make the majors at all.  

That's not to say the draft isn't invaluable...it is.  But I don't really get the need for a lottery system.  I mean, some team has to be last place, some team has to be the worst in the game.  That doesn't necessarily mean that they're tanking.  I don't really see why you wouldn't want to give the worst team in the game the #1 pick when the #1 pick isn't going to be transformative for the franchise anyway.  Obviously the flip side of that coin is if the #1 pick isn't going to be transformative, does it really matter who gets it?

I'm more inclined to keep the draft the way it is and not have a lottery system because if there's a slight edge to be had at picking at the top (there is, but it's a quick dropoff) the worst team should have it.  

I don't know if this really exists.  I don't know if there's anyone saying this is the only way you can contend again, nor do I see "sales jobs" being done by organizations that are brilliant. 

It been shown through WAR analysis that higher picks matter.  We know that.  

https://community.fangraphs.com/success-rate-of-mlb-first-round-draft-picks-by-slot/

Has the lottery in the NBA lead to less tanking?  No.  Has it lead to teams maxing out their payroll every year?  No.  Has it lead to teams who deserved the top pick to lose it? Yes.

If you look at teams with the worst luck in the lottery you find a list of teams mired in mediocrity or worse.  Timberwolves, Kings, Magic.  Does bad management have something to do with?  Of course, but you can't help but wonder if some teams would be in a better position had things gone their way.

Baseball would not be in a better position with a draft.  Boras only suggested it because it might result in his top prospects ending up in places with teams with unlimited resources more often (NY, BOS, Chicago, LA).  That means better extension and higher contracts.

[Tony-OH]

21 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

Looking at this proposal from the union's point of view, it makes sense.  They want to incentivize spending by bad teams to avoid being penalized in the draft.  So teams like the O's and Pirates will sign mid level free agents that won't help the team win, but will prevent them from being one of the worst teams in baseball.  The 1998-2011 Orioles were a perfect example of this, and that worked out very well.  Looking forward to the next Segui and Omar Dahl. 

Let's be honest here, that's all these proposals are about. It has zero, and mean zero to do with stopping tanking from a winning and losing standpoint, and everything about forcing bad teams to go out and overpay some mediocre 30 something like the old days. 

I haven't seen one Lottery proposal that makes sense to me. But the players are just trying to figure out how to beat the analytics that tells good GMs that signing 30 somethings to large contracts are risky propositions. 

Anyone who thinks the players union is doing anything to better baseball or the fan experience is fooling themselves. Everything they want is about raising their already outrageous paydays because what really need is more Ubaldo Jimenez's making $12 million a year. That's fun.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Let's be honest here, that's all these proposals are about. It has zero, and mean zero to do with stopping tanking from a winning and losing standpoint, and everything about forcing bad teams to go out and overpay some mediocre 30 something like the old days. 

I haven't seen one Lottery proposal that makes sense to me. But the players are just trying to figure out how to beat the analytics that tells good GMs that signing 30 somethings to large contracts are risky propositions. 

Anyone who thinks the players union has is doing anything to better baseball or the fan experience is fooling themselves. Everything they want is about raising their already outrageous paydays because what really need is more Ubaldo Jimenez's making $12 million a year. That's fun.

This is all true but in fairness, isn’t this what the union is supposed to be doing?

[Tony-OH]

50 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

This is all true but in fairness, isn’t this what the union is supposed to be doing?

Yes, to an extent. I do realize the union's job is to make the most money possible for their constituents, but they also need to be worried about the health of the game and the relationship with the fans. 

Baseball is at a crossroads where they seemingly are making more money from TV and merchandising as they do from gate receipts. Ticket prices have flown through the roof as players have gotten richer and richer and at some point, it's going to reach a point where it's going to affect the average fan's interest.

Now I'm not talking about the diehards like those of us on here, but I do believe baseball is losing a generation of kids and eventually that's going to catch up to them. Gone are the days high school kids would skip school to see a day game or go out with their friends on a weekend, get some cheap tickets, and enjoy a game. Families of four now have to pay over $200 for a decent experience at a game and the more money the players end up squeezing out of the owners will just get pushed back on the fans. Playoff and World Series games start at 8 PM and last long past the bedtimes of most children under 15.

This is why I believe profit sharing is so important and should be the focus. At the end of the day, if baseball does well, then the players should share in that success with the owners but unfortunately, this is where the owners fail the fans because they are not willing to open the books to the players so they can get an accurate profit share.

IF this work stoppage ends up costing the fans regular season games, I think it's going to have a devastating affect on the game, especially if it goes on for s significant amount of time. People have way more options for entertainment than they had in 2004. Post COVID, some people are going to seek out different types of entertainment than packing a stadium so any kind of work stoppage is just going to alienate more of the average common fan and they may very well not return.

The player's unions should realize this. No one in major league baseball is worried about their next meal and while it's understandable that they are trying to get the best deal possible, ultimately they will be losers in the billionaires vs millionaires fight.

[Sports Guy]

27 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Yes, to an extent. I do realize the union's job is to make the most money possible for their constituents, but they also need to be worried about the health of the game and the relationship with the fans. 

Baseball is at a crossroads where they seemingly are making more money from TV and merchandising as they do from gate receipts. Ticket prices have flown through the roof as players have gotten richer and richer and at some point, it's going to reach a point where it's going to affect the average fan's interest.

Now I'm not talking about the diehards like those of us on here, but I do believe baseball is losing a generation of kids and eventually that's going to catch up to them. Gone are the days high school kids would skip school to see a day game or go out with their friends on a weekend, get some cheap tickets, and enjoy a game. Families of four now have to pay over $200 for a decent experience at a game and the more money the players end up squeezing out of the owners will just get pushed back on the fans. Playoff and World Series games start at 8 PM and last long past the bedtimes of most children under 15.

This is why I believe profit sharing is so important and should be the focus. At the end of the day, if baseball does well, then the players should share in that success with the owners but unfortunately, this is where the owners fail the fans because they are not willing to open the books to the players so they can get an accurate profit share.

IF this work stoppage ends up costing the fans regular season games, I think it's going to have a devastating affect on the game, especially if it goes on for s significant amount of time. People have way more options for entertainment than they had in 2004. Post COVID, some people are going to seek out different types of entertainment than packing a stadium so any kind of work stoppage is just going to alienate more of the average common fan and they may very well not return.

The player's unions should realize this. No one in major league baseball is worried about their next meal and while it's understandable that they are trying to get the best deal possible, ultimately they will be losers in the billionaires vs millionaires fight.

But the owners have to realize it too.  

[wildcard]

I think the union has to realize that the players overall are making a ton of money now. The multi year contracts that have been signed this off season have been outrageous in many cases.  They should want to their players to collect all of that money without a work stoppage.

Getting young players, especially 1-3 year players, more money is something the union should be focused on and I think that is something the owners will bend on by agreeing to a higher minimum salary.

Arbitration is something the owners don't like but are  stuck with.   If the formula now is  3 year players get 40% of the open market,  4 year get 60% and 5 year get 80% and the union believe these players should get more while in their age 20s then increasing those levels to 50%, 70% and 90% would help.    That is a win for the players and their union and the owners keep control of players for 6 years which is a win for the owners.

If the union wins by getting more money for the young players for the first 6 years then the owners should hold firm on revenue sharing and the luxury tax staying at 210m if not lower.  

Expanding the number of playoff teams will help to lower the number of teams tanking. If team have a chance to make the playoffs they are not tanking.  If the O's could add a few FAs and make the playoffs they would not be tanking.  The  AL East may be super competitive but if the number of playoff teams are expanded the O's are really competing with he AL Central and AL West for a playoff spot.    A balanced schedule would also help competition and minimize tanking.

The bottom line is there are ways for the union and the owner to both get a win here.  Get an agreement done and lets play ball.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

But the owners have to realize it too.  

Really, it’s more on them than on the players to do what’s good for the long term health of the sport.   Owners last a lot longer than players do, so they’ll be the ones feeling the consequences of baseball losing popularity over the long haul.