How will the draft change?

[wickedwitch]

Other than the Marlins, I don't think there's a team in the league that hasn't put a lot of money into the draft at least one of the past few years. All baseball teams can afford the price of top draft picks, with the possible exception of players getting $10 million plus, which as of now, is a very short list. $6 million isn't a lot to any baseball team.

[LookinUp]

That almost sounds like a ... [shudder] ... free market to me!

Un-American! Blasphemy!

A free market doesn't restrict competition. The last I saw, Scranton, PA isn't able to field a MLB team. A real free market is also not dependent on maintaining more than 2-3 competitors...certainly not 28 to 32.

Professional sports are not free markets, they're fixed market places. You are either ok with fixing the markets strongly in favor of the financially stronger teams, fixing the markets mildly in favor of the financially stronger teams or you favor 100% complete revenue sharing. Those are the options, with degrees of each certainly possible.

MLB is in currently structured strongly in favor of the financially strongest franchises. Conversely, the NFL - where parity reigns supreme - is somewhere between 100% revenue sharing and mildly in favor of richer teams.

[hoosiers]

Just as no Baltimore fan wished for a salary cap in '97.

Eventually the big boys realize the market inefficiencies.

Right now, the draft works quite well and a large reason why is that several teams ignore it.

IMO, the more teams like KC, Bmore and Pitts shell out for the draft, the more "efficient" it will become in terms of distributing talent. The less high ceiling talent available for Bos and the NYY to draft the better.

I am not a big fan of slotting. I would be a fan of limiting over-signing after the fifth round or so to $2M per team.

[allstar1579]

That almost sounds like a ... [shudder] ... free market to me!

Un-American! Blasphemy!

So are you basically saying that you think every sport should just let every player sign with whomever they want? It's not a question of being "un-american" but these procedures are put in place in order to keep the balance of the sports. Look at how fed up our fan base is after losing for 10 years, when that gets to 20 years you wont have fan base to support a team, and then you have markets that just don't have professional sports because teams can't win if they can't keep an influx of talent.

Sorry, really couldn't tell if it was just an off the cuff comment or loaded with sarcasm, stupid lack of internet context.

[allstar1579]

IMO, the more teams like KC, Bmore and Pitts shell out for the draft, the more "efficient" it will become in terms of distributing talent. The less high ceiling talent available for Bos and the NYY to draft the better.

I am not a big fan of slotting. I would be a fan of limiting over-signing after the fifth round or so to $2M per team.

I'm not a huge fan of slotting either, but you see how the rookie cap works in the NBA, every player in the first round gets signed to the max deal you can offer, if you have a round by round cap every player in that round will make that much money which is a possibility. I'm honestly torn on which way I'd rather have things, but I do know that there needs to be a limit on how much these rookies can make their first couple years before they actually earn anything, and if they can't extort extra money out of guys, it will make them all easier signs which should help distribute talent better.

[crawdad]

A free market would be ideal. Setting up 2 or 3 more teams in NYC would sufficiently reduce revenue there for the Mets and Yanks . . . which would enable mid market teams to compete more directly. Of course, small market teams would have to turn toward minor league ball.

I'd be for that.

[RVAbird]

So are you basically saying that you think every sport should just let every player sign with whomever they want? It's not a question of being "un-american" but these procedures are put in place in order to keep the balance of the sports. Look at how fed up our fan base is after losing for 10 years, when that gets to 20 years you wont have fan base to support a team, and then you have markets that just don't have professional sports because teams can't win if they can't keep an influx of talent.

Sorry, really couldn't tell if it was just an off the cuff comment or loaded with sarcasm, stupid lack of internet context.

Almost completely off the cuff. Woke up way too early this morning!

[DrungoHazewood]

A free market doesn't restrict competition. The last I saw, Scranton, PA isn't able to field a MLB team. A real free market is also not dependent on maintaining more than 2-3 competitors...certainly not 28 to 32.

A real free market lets the market determine the number of competitors. Not some idea that Scranton can't have a team because Bud Selig and his cronies decided that professional baseball should be 30 fixed "real" teams and a few hundred teams solely dedicated to funneling players to those real team.

Professional sports are not free markets, they're fixed market places. You are either ok with fixing the markets strongly in favor of the financially stronger teams, fixing the markets mildly in favor of the financially stronger teams or you favor 100% complete revenue sharing. Those are the options, with degrees of each certainly possible.

You have a very North American-centric viewpoint. Other sports in other parts of the world operate under very different rules. Most soccer leagues use an open system where anyone can form a team and join in the lowest levels of competition. As they succeed or fail in the market (and, of course, on the field) they move up or down to the level where they can best succeed. There are towns much smaller than Scranton in the top levels of many big European soccer leagues.

A free market would be ideal. Setting up 2 or 3 more teams in NYC would sufficiently reduce revenue there for the Mets and Yanks . . . which would enable mid market teams to compete more directly. Of course, small market teams would have to turn toward minor league ball.

I'd be for that.

Right, I've used London as an example many times. In the context of the UK London is a media/population market similar to New York, LA, and Chicago combined. If the English Premier League used MLB's closed structure, and MLB's model of never putting more than two teams in any market, then Arsenal and Chelsea would have 5738 times the revenues of any other team, and they'd have payrolls that dwarf everyone else by leaps and bounds.

But in their open system there are four or five Premiership teams in London, and a good number of lower level teams there, too. This splits the market and keeps any one team from dominating, and exploiting the London market for a huge financial advantage.

Not that the open system doesn't have it's own flaws, but that's another discussion.

The point is that there are plenty of real world examples of wildly successful sports leagues that don't have a draft, don't have territorial rights, don't have a salary cap, don't really have comprehensive revenue sharing, and don't have their franchises hand-picked by an exclusive group of rich guys. Free market competition in Europe solves some of the problems that government-sponsored monopolies create in the US.

[Fan4Life]

It is for financial reasons, but they had a choice. They could invest in amateur player acquisition or they could sign a washed up player and a poor 1st round choice. That is the example I gave. The Pirates had every ability to sign Wieters, but they chose to redirect money they had. Financially, they were quite capable of signing him.

That is not a flaw in the system. That is showing a system where teams have multiple approaches at fielding a competitive club and will try to use what they think is optimal in terms of strategy. They went with the idea that you go low in the draft and go for the 'proven veteran.'

The system can be anti-competitive, but it is not now. What I am saying is that Stark's article does not apply to what is currently happening. Rather, it is probably quite applicable to what will happen in 5 years.

Yes but considering all teams aren't on the same financial footing, which you admit, how can a team with more limited resources afford to spend a larger percentage of their total $$$ available on amateur players? Considering from what I've read on here, less than 50% of first round picks will ever become a MLB player and much less an everyday player. I think this issue has caused many smaller market owners to pocket their revenue sharing money as opposed to investing it. If they had an equal chance at getting top talent, and could afford that talent not producing, I think they would. The amount of money at risk on these types of players now, doesn't allow for that risk to be taken. The Yankees can afford to pay top bonuses for players that may never see a MLB field, most teams can't take that risk, and obviously don't.

[RVAbird]

A free market would be ideal. Setting up 2 or 3 more teams in NYC would sufficiently reduce revenue there for the Mets and Yanks . . . which would enable mid market teams to compete more directly. Of course, small market teams would have to turn toward minor league ball.

I'd be for that.

A free market doesn't restrict competition. The last I saw, Scranton, PA isn't able to field a MLB team. A real free market is also not dependent on maintaining more than 2-3 competitors...certainly not 28 to 32.

A real free market lets the market determine the number of competitors. Not some idea that Scranton can't have a team because Bud Selig and his cronies decided that professional baseball should be 30 fixed "real" teams and a few hundred teams solely dedicated to funneling players to those real team.

You have a very North American-centric viewpoint. Other sports in other parts of the world operate under very different rules. Most soccer leagues use an open system where anyone can form a team and join in the lowest levels of competition. As they succeed or fail in the market (and, of course, on the field) they move up or down to the level where they can best succeed. There are towns much smaller than Scranton in the top levels of many big European soccer leagues.

Right, I've used London as an example many times. In the context of the UK London is a media/population market similar to New York, LA, and Chicago combined. If the English Premier League used MLB's closed structure, and MLB's model of never putting more than two teams in any market, then Arsenal and Chelsea would have 5738 times the revenues of any other team, and they'd have payrolls that dwarf everyone else by leaps and bounds.

But in their open system there are four or five Premiership teams in London, and a good number of lower level teams there, too. This splits the market and keeps any one team from dominating, and exploiting the London market for a huge financial advantage.

Not that the open system doesn't have it's own flaws, but that's another discussion.

The point is that there are plenty of real world examples of wildly successful sports leagues that don't have a draft, don't have territorial rights, don't have a salary cap, don't really have comprehensive revenue sharing, and don't have their franchises hand-picked by an exclusive group of rich guys. Free market competition in Europe solves some of the problems that government-sponsored monopolies create in the US.

All this.

That's more or less what I would have attempted to add to this thread if I had gotten more than 3 hours of sleep. But what's the point in posting when you know someone will inevitably come along and say what you want to say better. Kudos.

[DrungoHazewood]

An interesting take here.

Sounds like a couple scouting directors are a little salty. I'm sure the player's union is fielding a few phone calls about this as well.

This will be something to pay attention to going forward.

Stark seems really hung up on the idea that Strasburg got more money than Pedro, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, and some other mid-tier free agents.

Why?

Strasburg grades out as an A++ prospect. He's probably the Nats' best pitcher right now, and should just get better. If Strasburg was a free agent, able to negotiate with any team, who in their right mind would pay more for the last 10% of Pedro's career than 100% of Strasburg's? Why in the world would anyone think that Strasburg was worth less than any of those guys?

I don't understand why people think that a player's value should be nearly 100% based on past major league performances, and almost 0% on likely future value. It's not about "earning" your bonus, it's about taking advantage of your abilities (i.e. assets that are valuable to a team) to get a fair deal.

[crawdad]

Yes but considering all teams aren't on the same financial footing, which you admit, how can a team with more limited resources afford to spend a larger percentage of their total $$$ available on amateur players? Considering from what I've read on here, less than 50% of first round picks will ever become a MLB player and much less an everyday player. I think this issue has caused many smaller market owners to pocket their revenue sharing money as opposed to investing it. If they had an equal chance at getting top talent, and could afford that talent not producing, I think they would. The amount of money at risk on these types of players now, doesn't allow for that risk to be taken. The Yankees can afford to pay top bonuses for players that may never see a MLB field, most teams can't take that risk, and obviously don't.

What I am saying is that the draft is the least of MLB's worries about competition. As the draft works . . . everything is going fine. We are still in the Young Man Go West phase on this part of the plan.

I think you are rolling it into everything else.

Again, what I am saying is that the system has flaws, but that the big boys have yet to bother themselves with exploiting the flaws as they exist in the MLB draft.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yes but considering all teams aren't on the same financial footing, which you admit, how can a team with more limited resources afford to spend a larger percentage of their total $$$ available on amateur players? Considering from what I've read on here, less than 50% of first round picks will ever become a MLB player and much less an everyday player. I think this issue has caused many smaller market owners to pocket their revenue sharing money as opposed to investing it. If they had an equal chance at getting top talent, and could afford that talent not producing, I think they would. The amount of money at risk on these types of players now, doesn't allow for that risk to be taken. The Yankees can afford to pay top bonuses for players that may never see a MLB field, most teams can't take that risk, and obviously don't.

Because the return on investment is much, much higher on amateur talent. The Pirates or Royals wouldn't be any worse, and they'd probably be better, if instead of signing a bunch of mid-tier free agents like Jose Guillen they went and spent that money on international talent and overslot draft picks. Guillen has been a below-replacement performer for $36M. For $400k they could have signed a guy like Oscar Salazar, got equal or better production, then used the remaining $35.6M to become the kings of international and over-slot acquisition.

[crawdad]

Stark seems really hung up on the idea that Strasburg got more money than Pedro, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, and some other mid-tier free agents.

Why?

Strasburg grades out as an A++ prospect. He's probably the Nats' best pitcher right now, and should just get better. If Strasburg was a free agent, able to negotiate with any team, who in their right mind would pay more for the last 10% of Pedro's career than 100% of Strasburg's? Why in the world would anyone think that Strasburg was worth less than any of those guys?

I don't understand why people think that a player's value should be nearly 100% based on past major league performances, and almost 0% on likely future value. It's not about "earning" your bonus, it's about taking advantage of your abilities (i.e. assets that are valuable to a team) to get a fair deal.

He also has an artificially lowered contract based on the restrictive nature of new talent. Only the Nats could deal with him and they own him for at least 6 years.

[DrungoHazewood]

He also has an artificially lowered contract based on the restrictive nature of new talent. Only the Nats could deal with him and they own him for at least 6 years.

Absolutely. If he'd been able to negotiate with all 30 teams he'd have gotten a deal somewhere in the neighborhood of the Burnett contract.

Let's say Strasburg doesn't reach all of his potential, and ends up as the new Ben McDonald. McDonald's roughly six years with the O's were worth about 21 wins over replacement. At $4.5M per win his Oriole career was worth just shy of $100M, in today's win values. Stark is bitterly complaining that the Nats had to pay $15M for that.