Jump to content

Time to End the Draft System?


Fan4Life

Recommended Posts

http://www.npbtracker.com/2009/07/time-to-end-the-draft-system/

....What I’d propose is a regulated amateur free agent system, in which the draft is discarded entirely. Every amateur player who meets the entry criteria (age, education, whatever) would be allowed to negotiate and sign with any team, regardless of national origin. The single regulation I’d put in place would be a spending cap and a spending floor, based on league revenues......

I think most of us realize the draft needs some work... do you think this idea is the solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be great for the Yankees. Horrible for everyone else and baseball in general.

Unless it's a very strict cap that is still under a reasonable amount, say $8-10M total on signings each year. Then teams would have to decide between going with 1-2 really high priced bonus guys or spreading the wealth amongst many 2nd-3rd round type talents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of as discussed here, I think it would actually work better if the cap was on # of players you can have under contract, and not a salary cap.

Let the Yanks spend as much as they want, but only give them 40 spots to place the Jeters of the world along with the youngsters. That way talent would have to spread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of as discussed here, I think it would actually work better if the cap was on # of players you can have under contract, and not a salary cap.

Let the Yanks spend as much as they want, but only give them 40 spots to place the Jeters of the world along with the youngsters. That way talent would have to spread.

Were you commenting on this specific idea or just how to fix the draft in general? The Author comments on your suggestion as well...

There could also be a maximum and minimum number of players signed, to keep teams from giving their entire budget to one player. Beyond that, teams would be free to compete with each other on the basis being well-run operations. Essentially, the system would give the players the freedom to choose where they work and the teams the freedom to allocate their budgets as they see fit, while taking money out of the equation to a certain extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What might work better would be that teams pay into a draft bank. The bank receive money in a progressive format where teams that take in more money than others pay more to it. Each team is allotted 35 slots and those slots have a cost fixed to them that decrease.

For instance:

1 slot at 5MM

1 slot at 2.5MM

1 slot at 1MM

1 slot at 0.5MM

1 slot at 0.3MM

15 slots at 0.05MM

15 slots at 0.015MM

Players can sign with any team and if a player exceeds the slot in terms of MLB performance, MLB pays dividends out to the players until they reach arbitration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were you commenting on this specific idea or just how to fix the draft in general? The Author comments on your suggestion as well...

There could also be a maximum and minimum number of players signed, to keep teams from giving their entire budget to one player. Beyond that, teams would be free to compete with each other on the basis being well-run operations. Essentially, the system would give the players the freedom to choose where they work and the teams the freedom to allocate their budgets as they see fit, while taking money out of the equation to a certain extent.

Yeah I saw that and liked that better than the salary cap idea, which I think could be easily worked around. I think the author has some pretty good thoughts and would love to have a beer with him/her and talk it over, but I think ending the draft should only be part of a larger overhaul of the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End the draft, pay players according to their performance from an MLB compensation pool funded by a fixed percentage of teams revenues, and limit roster sizes based upon how players performed in the previous season. Since rookies wouldn't have a "previous season", they wouldn't count against the previous season base for purposes of limiting roster sizes.

The roster size restrictions would prevent rich teams from stocking up on the best players. Yes, the Yankees might field a team consisting entirely of all stars, but the consequence would be having to play with a roster of 18-22 players instead of 25, depending upon how "all star" they were.

Players would be free to join any team that would have them. Teams which had a bunch of over achievers the previous season would be forced to release some of them to avoid the roster size reductions, thereby leveling the playing field.

Instead of negotiating multi-year contracts, a GM would be constantly trying to figure out which players were likely to improve their performance significantly over their previous season and persuade those players to sign with his team. This would put a premium on younger players, so the cost of veterans would need to be discounted in the system as they aged, in order that they would retain good value to teams.

In addition to discounting veterans, the cost of players could also be discounted based upon their longevity with their current team. This would provide an incentive both to players and to teams to stabilize rosters, thereby increasing fan loyalty.

The great thing for players is that they'd be paid what their performance was worth from the beginning, instead of having to wait until they were eligible for arbitration and/or free agency. The great thing for teams is that they'd no longer be paying players under multi-year contracts who could no longer perform. A standard insurance policy, covered by the compensation fund, would partially protect players from losing out on future season due to injuries. Players could be offered the option of purchasing additional coverage for extra seasons. The only losers would be the players' agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of as discussed here, I think it would actually work better if the cap was on # of players you can have under contract, and not a salary cap.

Let the Yanks spend as much as they want, but only give them 40 spots to place the Jeters of the world along with the youngsters. That way talent would have to spread.

Yea, I think a pretty simple solution would be to cap the number of players you can have under contract at about 40. Maybe less than that. Minor league systems would shrink and be augmented by indy leagues.

No salary caps, no salary floors. But have a pretty substantial revenue sharing system based on individual market sizes. And you wouldn't even need or want that if they'd get rid of territorial restrictions at the same time you force teams to pay full market rent/mortgage on their stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Posts

    • Yeah I just think he's a super interesting guy. Much like his time with the Red Sox, he's a divisive guy who had moments of greatness mixed with moments of not.  The same guy signed Chen, but got himself blacklisted in S. Korea. The same guy turned Miguel Gonzalez and Jason Hammel into very good pitchers, but couldn't get basically any pitching prospect to pop. Just an interesting, mixed body of work. 
    • I see Duquette as a mixed bag, neither all good nor all bad.  I do find it interesting that, despite having some success in his various stops, he went 9 years without a job in MLB after Boston fired him, and he’s been unable to land another position in the 4+ years since being fired by the Orioles.  That suggests he’s not the easiest guy to work with, regardless of whatever other merits he has.  At this point, I think time probably has passed him by.   
    • Oh right, I do remember that. Few things:   1) Britton was injured that year and was going to be expensive the next year, so the value was only so high. 2) We have no idea who else was in the trade. Just because players aren’t/weren’t top 100 guys doesn’t mean they don’t end up being very good players. What if Cristian Javier was a guy they identified (not even sure if he was in the org at that time but the point remains the same)?   
    • An epic derail one post into the thread. Some fans cannot get over their Chris Davis hangup.  Feel bad for @wildcard who had a nice original point that there are a lot of players **on the 40-man roster** (i.e.: not Chris Davis) Elias did NOT jettison simply because they weren't "his" guys. 
    • Had an offer on the table from Hou that had Colin Moran as a headliner.  Was nixed because of medical issues.  https://www.camdenchat.com/2017/8/31/16234234/orioles-trade-rumors-zach-britton-astros-colin-moran
    • DD did some good things, as for the rest of this thread, sheesh, has Spring Training started yet?
    • Davis contract, Trumbo contract, Hardy contract, Cobb contract... The rebuild has been painful and Duquette was the one who put us in that position. Ownership likely pressured Duquette and influenced his strategy and it sounds like Brady/Peter made the warehouse culture pretty toxic, so it's not all his fault, but his signatures were on all the contracts. It's good that Kremer has turned into a legit option but that's pretty much the bare minimum we should have gotten back for a player like Manny. I'm very bullish on Grayson but bearish on Hall. After those two you have Sedlock, Stewart, and Harvey... Gunnar alone is worth more than that group. 
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...