Should the draft be a competitive balance solution (or why do we reward losing?)

[BaltimoreTerp]

No way we can ban idiots from owning teams. You are forgetting the greater fool theory. At some point each owner will consider cashing out, and at that moment the bigger the idiot the better.

What if, instead of a draft, there is a third layer of roster size limits? Right now there is a 25-man and a 40-man. What if there was also a limit of say 75guys you can have in your system (including the guys on your 40 man)? Everyone else would be signed by minor league clubs? Teams would face tough choices between signing a 16 year old phenom from the DR who might be a future all star but who is years away, or a 23 year old with limited upside but who provides protection at AAA in the event of an injury. And a lot more of these mid-talent guys would be let go and dispersed throughout baseball each year, potentially doing more for competitive balance than the draft does today because those guys are easier to project than high school kids.

I am sure there are a ton of holes in this, but just thinking out loud. I just don't accept that the draft is the best way to ensure competitive balance.

The draft isn't perfect, but there really isn't a perfect system out there, especially in a sport where prospects take so long to develop and can come from absolute nowhere.

I think what you are suggesting with the extra roster is the purpose of the 40-man: allows for protection of certain players after a certain time so that you don't have a team signing every good player and holding them indefinitely.

Now, maybe you want to change the 40-man rules to something like having those players completely protected, but anyone in the minors only will sign a one-year contract and can become free-agents in the off-season. I think that would get to what you are saying, but again in this sport it probably doesn't work.

[Baltimoron]

That's not true, because you could work for another school system, or for private schools (equivalent to Japan or Mexico, or the independent leagues).

Or you could choose a different profession.

We need to remember that within itself, Major League Baseball isn't a free market, any more then it's a free market within a franchised corporation like McDonalds.

If McDonalds wanted, they could choose to hire many employees at once, then parcel them out to individual franchises based on training performance and the performances of the franchises.

Switching the draft around sounds like a decent idea at first, because it does give an incentive for better performance.

However, it can also turn a dominant franchise into a complete dynasty, by creating a cycle where the best teams can not just overpay for the best players but can pick them in the draft.

Neither way is perfect, but I think this way is closer to working.

I prefer the idea of actual slots for picks, because just like no person in any other occupation would get top money coming out of college or high school, it shouldn't happen in professional sports, either.

What?

There is only one school that hires teachers (practically speaking), to continue the analogy.

Notice the practically speaking. Are you seriously presenting playing in an independent league for a peanuts as a colorable defense to the suggestion that MLB is your only ticket to playing pro ball?

That you can leave the country is immaterial to the application of U.S. anti-trust law.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't much like it, either, and think given the right circumstances it might be declared illegal one day. After all you have a monopoly, with individual franchises essentially colluding to limit the free market value of prospective employees.

No you don't, at least not like you are implying.

Major League Baseball might not be exactly like a franchised corporation like McDonalds, but it acts in a similar way. The league office is the central headquarters, and the teams are the individual franchises (hence the term). The teams have certain independence, but also must stay within the rules and control of the league.

Like I said, McDonalds could hold what is essentially a draft of new employees if they so wished, because it is within their corporation.

[Baltimoron]

To work with your McDs analogy, it would fit if McDs was the only restaurateur you could work for. While they have market power, they aren't the only entity operating in the market.

[BaltimoreTerp]

To work with your McDs analogy, it would fit if McDs was the only restaurateur you could work for. While they have market power, they aren't the only entity operating in the market.

Neither is MLB.

Like I said, you can go to Japan, Mexico, or independent leagues.

[Baltimoron]

Neither is MLB.

Like I said, you can go to Japan, Mexico, or independent leagues.

That's cool, but what you think to be the case and what U.S. anti-trust law holds *is* the case are different.

Why do you think we should defer to your opinion in lieu of the applicable federal law?

[geschinger]

To work with your McDs analogy, it would fit if McDs was the only restaurateur you could work for. While they have market power, they aren't the only entity operating in the market.

It just depends on how specific you define an industry. MLB isn't the only professional sports league that athletes can work for. It may have by far the best benefits but there are other options. But that was a secondary point in my post.

The point I'm trying to make is that in many unionized industries individual rights are collectively bargained away - not too far removed from the MLB system. If you want to be employed by MLB you have to subject yourself to a players draft, if you want to work in certain industries you have to subject yourself to joining the union and working under a predetermined salary and benefit structure determined by collective bargaining. There isn't a big distinction there.

I am curious though - does anyone know if any player has ever challenged the legitimacy of the draft in sports that do not benefit from an anti-trust exemption?

[Baltimoron]

It just depends on how specific you define an industry. MLB isn't the only professional sports league that athletes can work for. It may have by far the best benefits but there are other options. But that was a secondary point in my post.

The point I'm trying to make is that in many unionized industries individual rights are collectively bargained away - not too far removed from the MLB system. If you want to be employed by MLB you have to subject yourself to a players draft, if you want to work in certain industries you have to subject yourself to joining the union and working under a predetermined salary and benefit structure determined by collective bargaining. There isn't a big distinction there.

I am curious though - does anyone know if any player has ever challenged the legitimacy of the draft in sports that do not benefit from an anti-trust exemption?

I agree about defining the market. My point is the way the market is defined under US law would not support the definition you are advancing.

I agree its very similar because of the union connection. I am raising a separate issue that distinguishes MLB from most other unionized industries: the number of employers in the industry.

The notion that the draft might be declared illegal flows not from the fact there is a union and collectively bargained rights in which each side makes concessions, but from the idea that the 30 MLB employers (effectively the only employers of pro baseball players in the US, which is where US law applies) might be colluding in violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.

For the record I don't think MLB is in any jeopardy.

[geschinger]

I agree about defining the market. My point is the way the market is defined under US law would not support the definition you are advancing.

I admit, I have no clue on the intricacies of market definitions. Would MLB be considered any more of a monoply than the NFL, NBA or NHL are?

J.D. Drew and Boras. It went into MLB arbitration, and the arbiter found Drew lacked standing because he wasn't a member of the union.

Wasn't that related to determining whether he was subject to the draft after signing a professional contract w/another league rather than the legitimacy of the draft itself?

If not, is there any case - in any sport that you are aware of where a player challeneged the legitimacy of being subjected to the draft? I guess the crux of it is, that if a draft is something that could be interpreted as being illegal why hasn't it successfully been challenged and abolished in the sports that do not enjoy an anti-trust exemption?

[BaltimoreTerp]

That's cool, but what you think to be the case and what U.S. anti-trust law holds *is* the case are different.

Why do you think we should defer to your opinion in lieu of the applicable federal law?

Are you referring to the "anti-trust exemption" that gets so much play at times?

As far as I know, that doesn't MAKE Major League Baseball a monopoly; it just allows it to operate as such outside the laws that normally prevent monopolies.

It doesn't prevent a baseball player from going to another league, whether it is independent or foreign, nor someone from starting a new league.

[BaltimoreTerp]

It just depends on how specific you define an industry. MLB isn't the only professional sports league that athletes can work for. It may have by far the best benefits but there are other options. But that was a secondary point in my post.

The point I'm trying to make is that in many unionized industries individual rights are collectively bargained away - not too far removed from the MLB system. If you want to be employed by MLB you have to subject yourself to a players draft, if you want to work in certain industries you have to subject yourself to joining the union and working under a predetermined salary and benefit structure determined by collective bargaining. There isn't a big distinction there.

I am curious though - does anyone know if any player has ever challenged the legitimacy of the draft in sports that do not benefit from an anti-trust exemption?

I think all professional sports in America come under that ruling.

The only challenge I know of at all is Maurice Clarett/Mike Williams against the NFL a couple years ago, and they lost.

The union is the other part of this as well. The players could choose to negotiate, fight and strike if they don't like the rules.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I agree about defining the market. My point is the way the market is defined under US law would not support the definition you are advancing.

I agree its very similar because of the union connection. I am raising a separate issue that distinguishes MLB from most other unionized industries: the number of employers in the industry.

The notion that the draft might be declared illegal flows not from the fact there is a union and collectively bargained rights in which each side makes concessions, but from the idea that the 30 MLB employers (effectively the only employers of pro baseball players in the US, which is where US law applies) might be colluding in violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.

For the record I don't think MLB is in any jeopardy.

From Dictionary.com

col·lu·sion /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

The draft isn't a secret agreement for fraudulent or treacherous purposes, nor a secret understanding to gain something illegally.

Collusion in baseball would be more like what happened in the late eighties where the owners colluded to not pay for free agents (which they were caught doing), or the more recent "unwritten rule" of not claiming players on waivers between the trade deadlines (although that wasn't exactly secret).

[Baltimoron]

Are you referring to the "anti-trust exemption" that gets so much play at times?

As far as I know, that doesn't MAKE Major League Baseball a monopoly; it just allows it to operate as such outside the laws that normally prevent monopolies.

It doesn't prevent a baseball player from going to another league, whether it is independent or foreign, nor someone from starting a new league.

no. please stop.

[Baltimoron]

Wasn't that related to determining whether he was subject to the draft after signing a professional contract w/another league rather than the legitimacy of the draft itself?

If not, is there any case - in any sport that you are aware of where a player challeneged the legitimacy of being subjected to the draft? I guess the crux of it is, that if a draft is something that could be interpreted as being illegal why hasn't it successfully been challenged and abolished in the sports that do not enjoy an anti-trust exemption?

Drew was a challenge to the way the draft was conducted. They changed the rules after he was drafted and made them retroactive.

Professional drafts are illegal per se under anti-trust law. Its complex and uncertain legal waters out there, but for simplicity sake lets just say that even though they are per se illegal, pro drafts are OK if they are the product of a good faith collectively bargained agreement. I think you understand this point, as its what you were getting at earlier in this thread.

So the issue (theoretically) is that is MLB is collusive, there could be a basis to argue that the CBA is invalid because MLB has acted in bad faith. This is just one possible way the draft could go bad. Lets just leave it at that. Really smart people can advocate for either side, and if in fact a dispute arose, really good legal arguments would lay on both sides.

The reality is MLB union likes the draft, because it owes duties to its existing members, and the less the new (non-union) guys get paid, the more there is for the (now) existing members of the union.

[Baltimoron]

The baseball anti-trust exemption has nothing to do with this. That only applies ot the fact that MLB can control the movement of other franchises. Al Davis sued the NFL, and they didn't have such an exemption, so Al got to move. No go in MLB, gotta get the other guys OK.