Highlighting the major issues that could hang over the next labor deal

[gotbeer]

Highlighting the major issues that could hang over the next labor deal

 

 

Interesting article, if you are into this type of thing.  They really cover everything that might be an issue in the next labor deal.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Stark seemed to gloss over the elephant in the room.

[Mark68]

There may be future developments in the next year regarding Cuba. If MLB can negotiate with Cuba to have their players included, then an international draft might be feasible.

 

I actually have a solution to the issues with tanking and the competitive balance pool. Stark mentioned a proposal to prevent the same team from having a top five pick in two consecutive years, that could possibly be tied in to a restriction to those teams not receiving revenue sharing funds in two consecutive seasons as well. These two ideas would, I think, provide a great disincentive to multi-year tanks/rebuilds.

 

Whether that is actually good for baseball as a whole, however, is debatable.

 

I'm not sure that shortening spring training and beginning the regular season a week earlier is feasible, given the climate in much of the nation in late March. Unless you have all of the games that week played in Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, or indoors, there's just too much risk of games being postponed due to adverse weather. I just don't think having home games in Colorado on the 20th of March (Denver's snowiest month, on average) makes much sense.

[Dave Saltzer]

I think 4 of those issues could be solved with one solution: The international draft should be implemented with slot values assigned and the order being assigned in reverse order of the total amount teams spend on free agents the previous offseason with one major caveat: teams receiving revenue sharing funds and failing to spend at least 50% of their total revenue on major league player salaries, including their received shared funds, would be barred from the international draft. This proposal would solve the problem of clubs keeping shared funds, he current problem of international players being able to negotiate much higher deals than American players who are drafted, and of course the world draft. The only major issue it doesn't resolve is a team tanking in order to improve its draft selection, but that would have addressed through other proposals, such as limiting the number of years a team could draft in the top-5 picks in a row.

[gotbeer]

Or, just get rid of the international draft all together.  And have the regular draft open to anyone that for lack of the better term registers.  Do it kind of like the NFL.  With a combine to showcase and everything.  Do it in the winter in Arizona when there is nothing better to do, and hold the draft then.  Then you'd have year round baseball interest.

[gotbeer]

I actually have a solution to the issues with tanking and the competitive balance pool. Stark mentioned a proposal to prevent the same team from having a top five pick in two consecutive years, that could possibly be tied in to a restriction to those teams not receiving revenue sharing funds in two consecutive seasons as well. These two ideas would, I think, provide a great disincentive to multi-year tanks/rebuilds.

 

 

How about this?  You pick 1, your next year lowest possible pick is 6.  You pick 2, next year lowest possible pick is 5.  You pick 3, next year your lowest possible pick is 4.

[AngelsLakersFan]

There may be future developments in the next year regarding Cuba. If MLB can negotiate with Cuba to have their players included, then an international draft might be feasible.

 

I actually have a solution to the issues with tanking and the competitive balance pool. Stark mentioned a proposal to prevent the same team from having a top five pick in two consecutive years, that could possibly be tied in to a restriction to those teams not receiving revenue sharing funds in two consecutive seasons as well. These two ideas would, I think, provide a great disincentive to multi-year tanks/rebuilds.

 

Whether that is actually good for baseball as a whole, however, is debatable.

 

They should tie revenue sharing in with team record. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

I feel like the more rules they add the worse off things are getting. Teams should be incentivized toward winning, and there should be minimal restrictions on how they go about it.

 

Does it really seem fair that the Angels are banned from the international market for a whole year because of the Baldoquin signing? 

 

Should a team really have to give up it's first round pick if they sign a player like Dexter Fowler? 

 

Should the Angels have to draft 3rd round talent at the end of the first round because their allotted 'bonus pool' is so low that they need to blow it all on a second round pick?

 

Looking at the state of the game through recent years, drafting and development has almost entirely become a factor of the number of picks a team gets and how high they are. Those things are all a result of losing games and letting your talent leave via free agency or trade. Spending money, on the other hand, negatively impacts player development, costs tons of money, and due to current trends (normal aging curves and player extensions) does not deliver the desired results very often. 

 

The trends are clear. The only way to build a winner is to lose. I don't think we should be promoting that type of behavior. I'm not saying there should be a completely free market system, but lets stop incentivizing losing strategies and punishing winning ones. There needs to be some room in the game for skill and planning to win out over losing and hoarding MLB welfare.

[Docwaukee]

Every sport suffers the curse of mediocrity.  If they can figure out how to solve that, then they have done what everyone else can't.  

 

By the sheer volume of picks, levels and players, it's still much more difficult to parlay losing into winning. relative to any other sport.  You've still got to pick the right guys.  

 

The international market remains the one area where you can buy as much talent as you want.  Fix the international market equity, and you have fixed a big part of the problem.  

 

And frankly, there really isn't much of a problem.  It's really not that broken.  It took the royals forever to build a winner.  If a team wants to tank for a few years and take their chances then so be it.  If a team wants to try and get the second wild card then so be it.  But is there that big of a difference between those two teams?  A couple of first round picks working out.  A couple of free agent signings.  

 

The line is so fine that it's almost impossible to make a rule where it would be equitable to every team.  Especially considering that not all markets are the same.  

 

My point is, leave the economics alone in so far as not having a system where a team can just spend their way to a sustainable winner.  You have to draft smartly.  You have to spend smartly.  You have to scout the international markets smartly.  You have to get a little lucky.  

 

The other thing that baseball has to be careful of is creating too narrow of a market.  I am a numbers guy, but most fans aren't.  If you maintain a system where you can calculate your way to wins, you are going to lose fans.  People won't want to watch a team where the manager has almost zero influence on the game.

 

the next big horizon is going to be creating rules that countermand data analysis.  Limiting shifts.  Making catcher framing a non-factor.  decreasing matchup advantages.  etc.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

Obviously there is no guarantee, but if you suck as bad as Houston for as long as they did, or Tampa Bay as long as they did, you will end up with a good team as long as you aren't avoiding the best players in the draft for financial reasons.

 

The international market is pretty limited since it's only players essentially from Cuba, Korea and Japan over 26 years old (or is it 28?). Younger players force teams to sit out for a year. Cuban talent is probably just about ready to dry up if it hasn't already. Pretty soon it will resemble the markets in the Dominican, and other latin countries. Scouting and player development will become more important than money eventually.

 

I do believe that spending money should allow you to create a sustainable winner. Baseball's post season is already too much of a crapshoot given that you could be the best team in the league 6 or more years straight and not necessarily win a world series. The league is better off when the Yankees are good. I don't believe that we should make it so that spending money impacts your ability to build a team through the draft. No team wants to spend money in free agency, but it becomes a necessary evil when you don't have the guys on your farm to fill the hole. The problem arises when MLB takes away your first round pick - the one guy who is expected to actually reach the big leagues for you some day. The result is a downward spiral. We've seen it with the Angels, where spending money has left us with no farm system, and now no choice but to spend or rebuild.

 

They need to drop most of these rules, and instead promote revenue sharing that is tied in to winning. Right now it feels like there is very little, aside from luck, that is leading towards winning. 

[Slegnaac]

If they want to keep the season from running into November then they should consider adding double headers back into the schedule.

[Mile High Dreams]

They should tie revenue sharing in with team record. 

 

Interesting...I've always thought Relegation would be a great motivator as well.