New CBA proposal on draft lottery

[DrungoHazewood]

49 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Why should anyone tell a team how they should rebuild?

I'm not even saying what the Orioles have done was the right way or not, I'm just saying that no one should penalize a team for trying to rebuild how they see fit.

I like the concept, which is becoming more and more foreign, at least in the US, that a team is part of a city and a region's civic pride.  That the Baltimore Orioles are part of Baltimore and Maryland, and maybe Peter Angelos and his family own it for a while, but it's really part of all of us.  And the idea that you'll tank for 4, 5, 6 years and give everyone a crappy product shouldn't be something you enter into lightly. 

Also, that the sport shouldn't make that an option.  The powers-that-be should incentivize teams to win as many games as they can every year, and not benefit from minimizing payroll and sucking.

That's why we should be telling them how to rebuild.  We (the larger we) should be telling every team they should rebuild as quickly and as entertainingly as possible because otherwise it's no fun and reflects badly on all of us.

Unfortunately things seem to be going the other direction, where a franchise is something the league bestows on us if they see fit and can take away if we don't give them enough tax money to build a beautiful enough stadium.

[LTO's]

3 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

more than allowing unfair advantages to big market teams.

So there's the rub. The players getting paid more money is effecting YOUR fan experience, not necessarily everyone else's. It doesn't effect mine one bit. Doesn't effect my friends who are Yankees/Phillies/Red Sox fans. Fan opinion is largely on the side of the players. You are a fan of a team that has owners that will not invest at the level they could/should even though they have in the past.  I don't watch the Orioles lose to the Yankees and Red Sox and blame it on BS excuses about competitive balance. The reason they are where they are today is because ownership has made terrible decisions in the not so distant past and every other team in our division(like the Rays for a good example) have not. 

The problem isn't that the Orioles paid Alex Cobb and Ubaldo all that money. It's that, among many other things, they didn't pay guys like Nelson Cruz and Markakis etc etc that money instead. You want the players to take the hit for the incompetence of owners and GMs and not the other way around.  Especially when owners benefit greatly for years from players making way less than they should initially. I'd rather Alex Cobb have that money than have it sit in the bank accounts of our nepotistic ownership group. 

[spiritof66]

56 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

But why should this bother you if a team choose to rebuild that way? I get watching teams like the Orioles stink at record levels each year is no fun, but as fans we have a choice to stop watching if we want to. Why should anyone tell a team how they should rebuild?

I'm not even saying what the Orioles have done was the right way or not, I'm just saying that no one should penalize a team for trying to rebuild how they see fit. 

Perhaps a way around this is to to take the last three years records to determine the draft order. I like this idea because it stops the Red Sox from tanking once they know they are not going to be good and then get a high draft pick while signing every high price free agent and be to competitive the next season.

 

The problems with a team purposefully being really bad, like ML-worst bad, for an extended period have been discussed about a million times. I don't buy into them completely, but I do to some extent. But more than that, the practice bothers some fans of those teams, other teams and baseball generally, and that ain't good.

Using the three-year average would be much better than a lottery and an improvement over the current system, IMO, though I think it would be better to have (or to add) something that prevents a team from drafting #1 two (or maybe three) years in a row. And you wouldn't need to use average records for teams that finished in the top 15 (or 20, or wherever you want to cut it off) the preceding season. 

[Tony-OH]

15 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I like the concept, which is becoming more and more foreign, at least in the US, that a team is part of a city and a region's civic pride.  That the Baltimore Orioles are part of Baltimore and Maryland, and maybe Peter Angelos and his family own it for a while, but it's really part of all of us.  And the idea that you'll tank for 4, 5, 6 years and give everyone a crappy product shouldn't be something you enter into lightly. 

Also, that the sport shouldn't make that an option.  The powers-that-be should incentivize teams to win as many games as they can every year, and not benefit from minimizing payroll and sucking.

That's why we should be telling them how to rebuild.  We (the larger we) should be telling every team they should rebuild as quickly and as entertainingly as possible because otherwise it's no fun and reflects badly on all of us.

Unfortunately things seem to be going the other direction, where a franchise is something the league bestows on us if they see fit and can take away if we don't give them enough tax money to build a beautiful enough stadium.

While I don't disagree that teams should try to rebuild in an entertaining way, I believe in free market. If a team thinks this is the best way to get back to be competitive year after year, the league should not be telling them they can't do so. 

If the fans revolt or lose interest because of the lengthy uncompetitive build, then that's on the team to try and win those fans back by winning. 

While I'm about done with losing and knowing the team is going to stink once again, I don't feel it's MLB's place to stop teams from doing what they feel is best. Now, if a team is clearly not trying and has no plan to try, then the league should move or force ownership change.

I'm not saying I loved the major league product the Orioles put on the field the last 3-4 years, especially last year when they were promoting players that did not belong in the big leagues, but I don't think changing the draft around or going to this low small and big market thing makes any sense.

[Tony-OH]

12 minutes ago, LTO's said:

So there's the rub. The players getting paid more money is effecting YOUR fan experience, not necessarily everyone else's. It doesn't effect mine one bit. Doesn't effect my friends who are Yankees/Phillies/Red Sox fans. Fan opinion is largely on the side of the players. You are a fan of a team that has owners that will not invest at the level they could/should even though they have in the past.  I don't watch the Orioles lose to the Yankees and Red Sox and blame it on BS excuses about competitive balance. The reason they are where they are today is because ownership has made terrible decisions in the not so distant past and every other team in our division(like the Rays for a good example) have not. 

The problem isn't that the Orioles paid Alex Cobb and Ubaldo all that money. It's that, among many other things, they didn't pay guys like Nelson Cruz and Markakis etc etc that money instead. You want the players to take the hit for the incompetence of owners and GMs and not the other way around.  Especially when owners benefit greatly for years from players making way less than they should initially. I'd rather Alex Cobb have that money than have it sit in the bank accounts of our nepotistic ownership group. 

You're getting into an entirely different subject when it comes to the crappiness of the Orioles decisions (owner on down) that put them where they were when Elias took over.

Either way, of course a big market fan does not care about competitiveness or fairness because they have the advantage. That doesn't make it right or fair to everyone. 

If all you are going to care about are the large markets, then this league was crash and fail because an uncompetitive league where the same big market teams are the major competitors each year is going to lose the fan base of the other 24 teams or so that are not. 

But hey, as long as your millionaires become multimillionaires, who cares, right?

 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

32 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

While I don't disagree that teams should try to rebuild in an entertaining way, I believe in free market. If a team thinks this is the best way to get back to be competitive year after year, the league should not be telling them they can't do so. 

If the fans revolt or lose interest because of the lengthy uncompetitive build, then that's on the team to try and win those fans back by winning. 

While I'm about done with losing and knowing the team is going to stink once again, I don't feel it's MLB's place to stop teams from doing what they feel is best. Now, if a team is clearly not trying and has no plan to try, then the league should move or force ownership change.

I'm not saying I loved the major league product the Orioles put on the field the last 3-4 years, especially last year when they were promoting players that did not belong in the big leagues, but I don't think changing the draft around or going to this low small and big market thing makes any sense.

There is no free market when there's no alternative baseball team for me to root for.  Don't even say Nationals...  Baseball is a monopoly with an anti-trust exemption that gets $billions in taxpayer subsidies.  There should be a responsibility inherent in getting free stadiums and tax breaks and legal protections, and part of that responsibility should be to try to win and provide an entertaining product.  Not just to guarantee that the Angelos family gets a profit.

[Tony-OH]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

There is no free market when there's no alternative baseball team for me to root for.  Don't even say Nationals...  Baseball is a monopoly with an anti-trust exemption that gets $billions in taxpayer subsidies.  There should be a responsibility inherent in getting free stadiums and tax breaks and legal protections, and part of that responsibility should be to try to win and provide an entertaining product.  Not just to guarantee that the Angelos family gets a profit.

But the Orioles under Elias are trying to just that. It's just he choose or was told to do it this way at the major league level.

If someone told you that the Orioles will be perennial contenders for 20 years but they'd had to lose awful like they have over the last three years, would you do it? 

 

[Number5]

Just now, spiritof66 said:

The problems with a team purposefully being really bad, like ML-worst bad, for an extended period have been discussed about a million times. I don't buy into them completely, but I do to some extent. But more than that, the practice bothers some fans of those teams, other teams and baseball generally, and that ain't good.

Using the three-year average would be much better than a lottery and an improvement over the current system, IMO, though I think it would be better to have (or to add) something that prevents a team from drafting #1 two (or maybe three) years in a row. And you wouldn't need to use average records for teams that finished in the top 15 (or 20, or wherever you want to cut it off) the preceding season. 

If MLB and the MLBPA really were concerned about a team being really bad for an extended period of time, they would reorganize the divisions every now and then.  Why set up a small market team to lose by putting them in the same unfair division with the same unfair imbalanced schedule year after year after year after year after year - and then complain that they are consistently losing?  Year after year.  After year.  The Orioles actually did a remarkable job to compete for a 5-year period recently.  Tampa is doing an amazing job now, but I don't believe it will stay that way forever.  Tampa Bay was terrible for a very long time.  Being in the AL East had a lot to do with that.  I think the team that has truly tanked a couple times in relatively recent seasons is the Boston Red Sox.  Despite their obvious financial advantage over most teams, they have on several occasions somehow finished last and got high draft picks as a result-- only to miraculously finish first the next year.  That is tanking.  Toronto is a very rich team with a huge market that fails year after year.  Just because they don't finish dead last very often doesn't mean that they are a well-run organization.  MLB obviously has no intention of leveling the playing field with true revenue sharing and a real salary cap, so division realignment is the only thing that will make a small dent in the imbalance.  Switch up the divisions every few years and a lot more will be done to resolve this perceived tanking issue that anything they are talking about in these negotiations.  Sorry for the rant, but this unfair system has me ticked off -- especially since super-rich loudmouths like Boras lie and make it sound like the small market teams are the ones at fault.  And this absurd expectation that teams like the Orioles should just be happy spending as much as they possibly can in hopes of finishing .500 every now and then just plain sucks.  Sorry.  Carry on.

[wildcard]

If they mess with Spring Training beginning on time I say:

A Pox on Both Your Houses

Its been a long hard winter with the virus and nasty weather I don't  need owners and players adding to the misery.

They can push fans only so far.

If they don't watch out I will be organizing a cornhole tournament  in the park and spending my summer evenings enjoying myself without MLB baseball.

Fans can find other things to do.

[jarman86]

57 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

You're getting into an entirely different subject when it comes to the crappiness of the Orioles decisions (owner on down) that put them where they were when Elias took over.

Either way, of course a big market fan does not care about competitiveness or fairness because they have the advantage. That doesn't make it right or fair to everyone. 

If all you are going to care about are the large markets, then this league was crash and fail because an uncompetitive league where the same big market teams are the major competitors each year is going to lose the fan base of the other 24 teams or so that are not. 

But hey, as long as your millionaires become multimillionaires, who cares, right?

 

 

The problem with your thought process is it assumes teams want to compete and win and that is flawed. It is also flawed to think the team that spends the most money wins. If that were the case there wouldn't be such a variety of teams going to the World Series. Now you can argue that is due to competitive balance measures currently in place, but still, Yankees have not really had a successful season by Yankee standards in years. And they are usually one of the big spenders who can buy anyone.

With revenue sharing, draft picks etc... it doesn't really make a team want to win. Sure you have your Billy Beane's and your Tampa Bay Rays, but you have your Mariners, Orioles, Marlins, and Pirates. You also have your Indians and Royals type situations, and in 2012 era Orioles who did get lucky via draft picks, but nothing more. There is hardly any incentive to put forth a good team when it is given to you. There is hardly any incentive to put a winning team together with shared revenues. Players getting paid more won't alter the universe of competitive balance. You will still have your franchises content to never win a playoff game. 

At UB Law, one of my professors was heavily involved in the NFL concussion lawsuits and the NFL itself as a former agent. He stated that the Bengals, though he may be proved wrong, will never win a Super Bowl. The owner has no incentive because win or lose he still gets 40% of revenues when the team plays away games and still makes money, even if no one shows at Bengals games. He doesn't have to worry about a stadium because he can move the team on the drop of a hat because cities are DYING to own one of only 32 teams in the country. Valuation of professional sports teams are increasing no matter the product on the field because there is a finite level of teams.

If you want to make competitive balance and increase fan experience, create promotion and relegation. Create lower leagues where a Norfolk or Indianapolis can knock a Baltimore or Miami out of MLB.  I'd love to see a billionaire buy a team like Indianapolis or something, put a winning team on the field and knock the Pirates out of MLB, or whoever. Force teams to actually put quality product on the field to earn their revenues.  That obviously will never happen because owners would have to decide this. Teams hold players down in the minors not just because they are "rebuilding" but because it controls the length of time they own the player. A team can control a player for hypothetically 12 years or more. 

I find it fascinating that you would think players should not look out for their own interests just because they make too much money...so do the owners. Why do you think they won't release their financials? Why do you think no one is rushing to sell their franchises?  That money isn't trickling down to the fans. And current(old) CBA didn't do much to increase the competitive balance, and I don't think anything done in this CBA will affect it either as long as MLB has revenue sharing and monopolies on markets. Each team gets roughly $100M just for putting 26 bodies on the field via MLB revenue sharing. So Angelos would have had $60M roughly after payroll expenses last year. That isn't including MASN revenues, gates, advertising, sponsors, etc... Obviously there are numerous operating costs. 

Its a two way street here and fans are not part of the equation for either side. 

[jarman86]

32 minutes ago, wildcard said:

If they mess with Spring Training beginning on time I say:

A Pox on Both Your Houses

Its been a long hard winter with the virus and nasty weather I don't  need owners and players adding to the misery.

They can push fans only so far.

If they don't watch out I will be organizing a cornhole tournament  in the park and spending my summer evenings enjoying myself without MLB baseball.

Fans can find other things to do.

Problem is, I don't think fans matter. Help me out, but as a guy who was desperate for live sports during COVID, there are not many summer sports to fill air time. As I think I've previously stated, colleges are out of session, UFC is on weekends, Soccer is only MLS and that is I think Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday, with occasional Fridays. WC of soccer is in December now, I guess WNBA but I don't think the 6 games twice a week over 7 days will be that much in demand. Nascar on Saturday and SUnday?  

I think pressure will be placed on owners by networks and I guess now casinos and sites like fanduel than fans choosing not to watch. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

But the Orioles under Elias are trying to just that. It's just he choose or was told to do it this way at the major league level.

If someone told you that the Orioles will be perennial contenders for 20 years but they'd had to lose awful like they have over the last three years, would you do it? 

 

If someone told you that the Orioles will be a few games over .500 for a few years before falling back into irrelevance but they'd had to lose awful like they have over the last three years, would you do it?

We have no guarantee this pain will lead to any success, certainly not two decades worth.  Look at the Phillies rebuild.

[Frobby]

36 minutes ago, wildcard said:

If they mess with Spring Training beginning on time I say:

A Pox on Both Your Houses

Its been a long hard winter with the virus and nasty weather I don't  need owners and players adding to the misery.

They can push fans only so far.

If they don't watch out I will be organizing a cornhole tournament  in the park and spending my summer evenings enjoying myself without MLB baseball.

Fans can find other things to do.

I think fans will get over it unless there is a significant loss of regular season games.   I’m personally very bummed out at how this is going, but at the end of the day, I’ll still be watching once play resumes.   But I do think there are others who may walk away for some considerable time.  

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If someone told you that the Orioles will be a few games over .500 for a few years before falling back into irrelevance but they'd had to lose awful like they have over the last three years, would you do it?

We have no guarantee this pain will lead to any success, certainly not two decades worth.  Look at the Phillies rebuild.

There are no guarantees of success, but I don’t see an alternative that was more likely to lead to better long term outcomes than this one.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

But the Orioles under Elias are trying to just that. It's just he choose or was told to do it this way at the major league level.

If someone told you that the Orioles will be perennial contenders for 20 years but they'd had to lose awful like they have over the last three years, would you do it? 

 

Sure, and I get why they did it.  Elias really didn't have a choice.  He inherited a 47-win team with budget constraints and a terrible farm system.

But I think MLB should be setting up incentives so that blowing your team up and not trying to win for a while is absolutely a last-ditch resort. Not something the Nats and Cubs do when they're five games out in July and they don't have all their potential free agent contracts lined up quite right.