As I alluded to in a previous post, I have some pretty big ideas for fixing the Major League Baseball draft. Before I get into the details (of which there will be plenty), just a few disclosures. I’ve never worked inside baseball, I have very few contacts inside the game, my college degree isn’t in Economics (its Political Science), and I’ve never played pro baseball. These ideas are largely mine, with some influence from other articles I’ve read about the shortcomings of the draft. I’m in no position to change things, but as you regular readers know, the draft is one of my favorite aspects of baseball, and I’m a bit of a baseball nut (obviously), so I figured it wouldn’t hurt for me to lay out my ideas for fixing something that I have a great deal of interest in. Of course, if you don’t think the draft needs fixing, then you can probably just skip this piece. If not, enter below the fold…
Before I dig into specifics, I guess I should cover some broad points. The entire labor contract is available online. The document is 241 pages long (real fun reading), but all of the basics on the draft are outlined there. You can find the whole document here, but warning, its a huge PDF file, it may crash your browser. You’ve been warned. Kevin Goldstein over at BP produced a great two part series (one here, two here) on the problems facing the draft, and he sampled comments from various baseball officials. Its a must read. And really, there are so many more articles out there addressing the draft, the signing deadline, and everything else. Here are the basics you have to understand, under the current labor agreement;
1. The draft is in June.
2. Teams have one pick in each round, the order is based on the previous year’s standings, worst to first
3. Free agents are ranked into 3 groups; A, B and everyone else
a. A team that signs an A ranked free agent loses its first round pick, unless that pick falls in the first 15 picks. If that is the case, the team loses its 2nd round pick
b. A team that signs a B ranked free agent does not lose a draft pick
c. A team that loses a type A free agent receives the signing team’s first round pick (or second) plus a compensation pick in a special round of picks between the first and second round
d. A team that loses a type B free agent receives a compensation pick in the same round of picks, but after all the compensation picks for type A free agents have been made
4. If a team fails to sign one of its picks in the first 3 rounds, it receives the same pick the following year, but one spot lower. Example, if you fail to sign the 10th overall pick in 2009, you receive the 11th pick in 2010. This compensation pick is unprotected, meaning you do not receive a compensation pick in 2011 if you fail to sign the compensation pick in 2010.
5. All players must be signed by 11:59 on deadline day, August 15th. For 2009, MLB pushed that date back to August 17th, because the 15th fell on a weekend.
6. College seniors (or draftees with no more eligibility) are not subject to the deadline and can sign up to one week prior to the following year’s draft
Those are the hard written rules. And now the biggest unwritten rule, signing bonus slot recommendations. The Commissioner’s Office assigns a “slot recommendation” for every pick in the first 5 rounds. This number is, by and large, arbitrary. After the first 5 rounds, teams are urged to not give a bonus of more than $150,000 to any player. Again, this is an unwritten rule. If a team wishes to give a prospect any amount of money over that amount, they only have to officially file the paperwork with the Commissioner, he must approve the deal. Of course this is the written rule. As many of you know by now, the Commissioner’s Office leans heavily on teams to follow these arbitrary unwritten guidelines, and in some cases (if you believe the rumors passed along by Peter Gammons and others) threatens to withhold perks like future All Star Games, if a team disobeys these recommendations. And this, my friends, is the heart of the issue.
Under the current system, you have two main groups of teams…well three really. Group 1 blatantly disobeys the recommendations and spends freely on the draft. In this group you have the Red Sox, Yankees, and of late, the Pirates, among others. Group 2 blatantly obeys the recommendations, spending exactly the prescribed amount of bonus money set forth. In this group you have the Mets, the Blue Jays, and until very recently, the Astros. Group 3, the largest group, is a mix of the previously discussed philosophies. These teams generally play by the (fake) rules, they stick to the recommendations for the most part, but they’ll still go over slot on occasion. Teams like the Phillies and Braves fit here.
The big issue in all of this is the dispersion of talent. The goal of the MLB draft is to give the worst teams the best talent. It makes sense, right? The Nationals were absolutely awful in 2008, hence, they received the #1 overall pick, and they should draft the best player. Which they did. The Mariners and Padres drafted arguably the 2nd and 3rd best talents in the country (Dustin Ackley and Donovan Tate, respectively), but then things kind of went off the rails, as they’ve done in previous years. The Pirates took catcher Tony Sanchez 4th overall and signed him for less than the recommended slot bonus ($2.5M compared to the $2.7M recommendation) and the Orioles followed by taking Matt Hobgood and signing him for less than the recommended slot. This allowed players ranked ahead of Sanchez and Hobgood by most every talent evaluator (Shelby Miller, Matt Purke, Tyler Matzek, and Aaron Crow) to slide down the draft. If players were drafted based purely on talent, the Top 5, Top 10, and Top 20 would have most likely looked very different. But in 2009, just like in recent years, teams passed on players ranked higher on raw talent because they were worried about the price tag. This allows the teams willing to spend big money on bonuses (Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers) to snatch up talent that they should not have really been able to grab. The Tigers basically stole Rick Porcello in the 2007 draft, grabbing him with the 27th pick. Sure, they had to pay him handsomely (his total package could be worth over 10M), but at the end of 2009, they’ll have likely already gotten their money’s worth, and they’ll have him under contract in 2010-2012 for a grand total of $3.91M and then have him under arbitration control for two more years before he hits free agency. 26 teams passed on Rick Porcello because they were afraid to pay him the huge bonus he’d command (the bonus was $3.58M plus his 4 year contract + 2 club options) and they are poorer for it, talent wise.
So you can essentially sum up the draft problem in one sentence; the worst teams are (by and large) not getting the best talent in the draft. Some teams (Pirates and Royals) are starting to come around. Despite taking a cheap sign at #4 overall, the Pirates have spent a ton of money on later round picks. The Royals broke the Boras Barrier in 2006 when they took Luke Hochevar #1 overall, and they’ve taken Boras clients in 2007 (Mike Moustakas) and 2008 (Eric Hosmer) and they’re a better team for it. Look, its not all about giving huge bonuses to every prospect under the sun. Some teams (the Twins, notably) are able to stick to the slots and still find quality talent across the board. But even teams that once strictly adhered are now jumping ship. The A’s, notorious for drafting college guys and paying them slot money or less, went bonkers in the draft last year, giving 7th rounder Brett Hunter $1.1M, 10th rounder Rashun Dixon $600,000 and 28th rounder Dusty Coleman $675,000. Did the A’s exploit some kind of inefficiency no one else noticed? No, they simply decided to follow the lead of the big spenders like Boston and the Yankees in plucking the elite talent off the board and paying them what it took.
Before I get into the specific fixes, the standard disclaimers with regard to the draft should be given their due. Prospects, by nature, are going to fail. There are 50 rounds in the draft, and if just 2 of the guys you pick each year turn into above average MLB regulars, you’ve done a good job. Most prospects don’t turn into stars, lots of them never even become average big leaguers, and a lot of them never make it out of the minors. Lots of guys get big 6 figure salaries and then either flame out, lose interest, or lose the ability to throw 95 mph. Baseball is a weird game. Some guys are drafted as pitchers and emerge as outfielders, some guys get drafted as shortstops, hit .180 for 4 years, and then head to the mound and emerge as pitchers. There’s a plan A, plan B, and plan M for some players. Some guys get a $20,000 bonus and end up turning into All Stars. Some guys don’t get drafted out of high school and turn into #1 overall picks. Some guys turn down huge signing bonuses out of high school, struggle in college, and never play in the majors. There is no sure fire plan. There is no can’t miss prospect. Baseball is a game of attrition. Most every player, even a Hall of Famer, gets hurt at some point and misses a substantial chunk of playing time. The teams that “win” in the draft are the ones that do the most homework, put the most time in, and do the most thorough job of evaluating talent. But even the best drafting teams make mistakes, and most make mistakes every year in the draft. Its the nature of the draft, and more broadly, the nature of baseball. You can spend a lot of money and not get anything back, you can spend a small amount of money and get a great return. The key is doing your homework and then spending the appropriate amount of money on the appropriate players. Its just like any other business.
Now that we’ve gotten the generalities out of the way (1,700 words in), we can focus on the specific changes to be made. I’m not saying that my ideas are necessarily the best ideas, that they would automatically fix everything, or that anyone would even take them seriously, but they’re my ideas, and I’m putting them in print. That way, if any of these ideas ever do come to fruition, I can pat myself on the back. So, here you go.
1. Move the draft to the first week of July. The current timing of the draft stinks for a number of reasons. The United States is a pretty damn big country, covering lots of different geographic areas, and most importantly, lots of different climates. Kids in New Jersey, New York, and Massachussets get to deal with much different schedules than kids in California and Florida. During really bad springs in the Northeast or Midwest, a top pitching prospect might get half as many starts as a kid in Florida, maybe even less, and it gives teams fewer looks at guys to see what they are capable of. Moving the draft back gives these kids, many of whom pitch on Legion or other summer league teams, a chance to log more innings before the final verdict is handed in on them. Also, a lot of guys from top college programs don’t even get to enjoy draft day because they are still with their teams playing in or qualifying for the College World Series. For most of the guys drafted, Draft Day is one of the biggest days of their life, and a lot of them don’t even get to enjoy it. Having the draft in June really doesn’t make sense at all. The short-season leagues get filled with prospects who are drafted, but you can start these leagues later and end them later. Minor league baseball basically ends at the end of August, and the guys who are signing now on deadline day make a brief cameo, if they make an appearance at all, and then there’s nothing until the Arizona Fall League starts up in the second week of October. If you have the draft on, say, July 10th, you start the shortseason leagues on July 12th, have them run through the end of September. Guys who played a full season will still get their rest, and they are the guys who will end up going to the Arizona Fall League, they’ll still be able to do that.
2. Move the signing deadline to exactly 2 weeks after the last day of the draft. To me, this one is a no brainer. Right now, there’s a 2+ month gap between draft day and deadline day. Why? The officials surveyed in Goldstein’s piece above seemed to indicate that they’d be in favor of moving the deadline up. What is really accomplished in the 2 months between dates? A big chunk of guys sign a few days after the draft because they know what they’re getting. Another chunk of guys will sign on deadline day because they are trying to extract the most money possible. You know its going to happen. Why not have it happen 2 weeks after the draft instead of 2 months after the draft? It seems really obvious to me.
These two are fairly straightforward, no? Now for the tougher changes
3. Eliminate lost draft picks for free agent signings. Again, this one seems like an easy fix. This past winter, this issue was really magnified. Teams were afraid to sign Type A free agents because they didn’t want to forfeit their first round picks on non-superstars. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can afford to give up their first round pick because they’ll just take first round level talents in the 10th round and give them high six figure/low 7 figure bonuses and compensate for not having a first rounder. You can still “reward” teams for letting their Type A and B free agents leave. Instead of losing your first round pick, the team that loses its free agent would just receive two compensation picks in the sandwich round between the first and second rounds, you’d just have a round within the round, like its currently designated for A and B. Lets say there are 15 Type A free agents and 25 Type B free agents. Picks 1-30 would proceed normally. Picks 31-45 would be the first set of compensation picks for the Type A free agents. Picks 46-60 would be the second set of compensation picks for the lost Type A free agents. Then you would proceed with the 2nd round, picks 61-90. After the second round, you’d have a compensation round for Type B free agents, which would be picks 91-105 in the above example. After this round, you’d proceed with Round 3 through Round 50 in normal fashion. No one loses a pick, but teams that lost their free agents would still be compensated. This solution works in two important ways. Teams are still gaining “extra” picks, but existing Union members (ie, the free agents themselves) aren’t being limited in where they can sign or for how much they can sign for. Its a win-win scenario.
4. Raise the the minimum salary for minor leaguers and change the rules regarding free agency. Minor leaguers make less than minimum wage (see Michael Schwimer) and this has to be a deterrent to the guys who aren’t receiving big 6 figure bonuses. Even for a guy who gets, say, $250,000 as a signing bonus, you’re still basically living on like $1500 a month. That’s not exactly living the high life. And sure, you can say “you’re getting paid to play a game”, but you read stories all the time about guys who had to give up the game because they had a family to provide for, and they couldn’t do it with baseball. I’m not suggesting all minor leaguers make $300,000 a year. But I’d have to think that at least boosting all salaries by 50% would help convince more guys to sign, knowing they won’t have to live in relative poverty until they make it to the big leagues. Also, as it currently stands, players who are 18 and younger when drafted must be placed on the 40 man after 5 seasons, while guys who are 19 and older when drafted have to be placed on the 40 man after 4 seasons. Once on the 40 man roster, you have 3 option years, and only after that point are you required to stick on the 25 man. Once you’re on the 25 man roster your pay rate jumps drastically. But for minor leaguers, this could take you as long as 8 years, and at that point, you’re probably already in your peak or maybe even past it. Instead of then giving a team 6 years of salary control, why not shorten that to 5 years, and instead of 2 years at the major league minimum, make it 1 year, then 4 years of arbitration. This allows players to potentially reach free agency one year earlier, which puts more money in the players pockets.
But if you’re going to give the players a huge sweetener there, you’ve gotta give something to the owners. And that is…
5. Institute a hard slotting system, but make the slotting fair. As it stands now, the Commish basically just churns out recommendations, and in any given year, can freeze the recommendations from year to year, decrease them, or increase them. That’s kind of nonsensical, isn’t it? So here’s my plan. The first round, which would be unchanged due to any kind of free agent signings, would be
#1 overall = $5M bonus
#2-30 = 98% of previous pick. So #2 = $4.9, #3 = $4.8, etc etc.
Continue to take the 98% formula down the line. This formula may need to be tweaked depending on the number of compensation picks. After the 5th round, a bonus could not exceed $150,000. If teams are drafting the best talents available, because the bonus for every pick is set, then you won’t have tons of first round picks falling out of the first round. There may be guys who feel they should have been taken higher who want more money, but if they are serious about going to college and not just bluffing, that is their option.
6. Allow teams to trade draft picks. If you don’t want to pay the #2 overall pick $4.9M, you should be allowed to trade out of that pick, maybe grab a prospect plus a later first round pick, and go about your business. Free spending teams like the Yankees and Red Sox would now have to trade players or prospects plus their later pick to trade up and grab that stud prospect who might have otherwise fallen to them in the 19th round. They can no longer rely on teams bailing on the top prospects and getting them for free, it will now cost them in the way of players or already established prospects. This also opens up opportunities for teams to trade established major league players for extra draft picks, making it easier for teams to re-build via the draft, and to do so quicker than is currently possible.
7. If a player is drafted by a team and chooses not to sign for the slot bonus, he is ineligible for the draft for 2 years. This prevents players from going to Indy Ball or Junior College for a year and then re-entering the draft. Not happy with where you were drafted out of high school? Then take your baseball scholarship at a big D-1 school.
8. Allow college players to enter the draft after their sophomore year. This rule dovetails nicely with #7. If you’re drafted out of high school and you don’t like where you were picked and the bonus that goes with that pick, then you can head to school. You’re not locked into 3 years of college at a major program, you are eligible to come out after your sophomore year no matter where your birthday falls (ie, draft eligible sophomores now). This gives guys a chance to take up that scholarship offer, but also allows them to be drafted one year earlier than the current agreement stipulates.
The big issue here is the conflicting interest of owners and players with regard to compensation. Owners want to control players cheaply for more years and give out less money in signing bonuses. Players want to reach free agency sooner, especially those players in organizations that typically move players through the system at a slower pace. The owners would be gaining leverage in the signing bonus aspect. When a guy is picked, he knows exactly what he’s entitled to. He doesn’t need 2 months to haggle, he has 2 weeks to decide whether to take the bonus or go to school/return to his college. Teams know exactly how much to budget for their draft selections. Players lose money up front in the way of their signing bonus and they lose the leverage to just hold out for a year and re-enter the draft, but they also gain a bit more money on their minor league salaries, and they reach free agency one year sooner, which means a lot more money in the long run. Obviously the Players Union is responsible for not only their current members, but also their future members. Enacting a hard slotting system will be a tough sell, but getting to free agency one year sooner is a huge sweetener. Having the ability to trade picks enables a team to manage its draft costs while also adding a layer of strategy to the draft.
What do you think?
Phuture Phillies 
Well, for point one , starting the Short Season Leagues on July something, MLB spring training starts the middle of February and the minor leaguers start around the 1st of March. So the Extended Spring Training Guys (many of whom were last year’s hot shot draft choices) will work out 4 months Till Short Seasons start. Maybe they could add more of an early spring league To modify that.
The one year earlier Free Agency thing with no restraints on movement might be something alot of owners might take exception to. Overall this plan may be overly favorable to current players who are members of the MLB Players Association.
But, all in all, this might be something the Union might agree to. Somebody should E-Mail this to Bud Selig and the Screech Lookin’ guy and see if anybody salutes it.
LikeLike
I like a lot of your ideas. I always felt, though, that the sandwich picks were unfair. Team who signed or lost no free agents had to wait longer for thier 2nd picks b/c other teams actions. I like when the team losing a free agent gets the singing teams pick and that’s all. When a sandwich pick is involved, it seems the whole league is compensating that team.
LikeLike
I also believe there should be a salary cap and a salary minimum in MLB. The NFL does this and no teams are burried for eons like teams in MLB. This would stop the ridiculous A-Rod contracts. Players would still make a ton of cash but not so much that the Pirates and Royals couldn’t compete.
LikeLike
Awesome job! Your structure makes so much sense…
Have you had the opportunity to run the numbers on several teams (1 from each group) such that you can compare the actual spend versus to what it would be using your formula?
LikeLike
I like most of these ideas…maybe a few tweaks but overall it makes a ton of sense.
LikeLike
I’m not in favor of moving the short season schedule. The season runs late June to Labor Day because those are the top drawing dates in baseball. Attendance dips after Labor Day, which is why the Phillies (for example) lower their ticket prices down the stretch. It would be a blow to those franchises in the NY-Penn League.
LikeLike
PP for commisioner.
I think it’s a great from top to bottom.
LikeLike
Can someone explain to me why College baseball is different that College football or basketball? I love your ideas on this, but the only thing I take issue with is the Sophomore draft eligibility. I don’t understand why these kids can hold teams and colleges hostage and play them against each other.
In the NBA if you enter the draft out of high school and don’t get picked or aren’t happy with where you were picked, tough luck. If you’re in the NFL and you enter the draft and don’t like where you get picked, tough luck. Obviously the number of players that are drafted every year and the number of roster spots that have to be filled in baseball make that type of system nearly impossible, but I think if you don’t like where you get picked coming out of high school, you shouldn’t be eligible for three more years.
LikeLike
This is a nice piece. I am also very interested in the MLB, NFL and NBA drafts. I have several thoughts.
To me the real question is: why do we have a draft? I believe that the main reasons are: 1) to allow the worst teams first chance at the premier talent in order to restore/maintain competive balance at the major league level and 2) to provide the owners with an opportunity to expropriate value from players by limiting their options and thus enabling the owners to pay players less than their fair market value for as long as possible.
Personally, as an American I can’t see how anyone can support #2 without admitting to elements of selfishness. As fans we love the game of baseball as it is (for the most part). We identify with the players on our teams, we like to follow the draft, we want players to stay true to their organizations (even though they didn’t choose their teams) and we want some element of competitive balance (both so that when our favorite team is down we have hope that it will improve and because no fan wants to see the same teams win every year). But as human beings, how can we justify the following scenario: you have talent and want to go in to a profession to make the most of that talent (baseball), their is only one viable employer in that profession (MLB), in order to join your profession you have to agree to live wherever you are told for at least six years and receive whatever you are given as compensation. How is this fair? In what other profession other than the military do these conditions exist? What right do we have to take 18 year olds and give them this choice – move across the country away from your family and work for nothing or find another profession?
I believe that this is allowed to perpetuate for several reasons: 1) jealousy – fans do not feel any sypmathy for people who are fortunate enough to have a gift to be able to make a living out of playing a game and who make a siginificant amount of money (in many cases) doing so; 2) status quo – people are afraid of what potential changes to the labor structure would do to the game that they love so they turn a blind eye and cringe when faced with the fact of the situation; and 3) absent a change in labor laws, the decision makers (owners and MLBPA) are not incentivized to make any changes.
As to the first objective, that of restoring competitive balance, why can’t this be achieved without a draft? Why is it fair that Stephen Strasburg has to play for the Nationals for only $20MM while Ardolis Chapman has the right to sign with whomever he wants for as much money as he wants? A significant amount of MLB players now come from Latin America and increasingly from Asia. These players are not drafted. Do the Yankees and Red Sox have a monopoly on Latin American players? No, they don’t. Why not treat baseball players like people in every other profession? The solution is to allow for 32 independent employers. Players should be free agents from the day that they are born and teams should compete for their services. If some players choose to sign a long-term contract, that would be their right. But if they want to be a free agent every year, they should be allowed to do so. Why should a top prospect be stuck in the minor leagues losing service time (which effects his pension and earnings) because his current team doesn’t require his services? If the player is one of the best 800 players, he should be in the major leagues. The current system does not allow this. Why does Jamie Moyer make 2x what Cole Hamels makes? Do the Jonas Brothers or Miley Cyrus receive less than the Dave Matthews Band? No of course not, right now they make more. That’s basic fairness. To suggest otherwise is to expropriate value from someone because you are able to take advantage of them because of the rules or systems in place. As a society we should be working to eliminate these rules & systems not perpetuate them. And not just because doing so is “fair”, but because doing so is more economically efficient.
The fears of the “status quo” crowd are that all competitive balance will be lost. But ask yourself this question – does a fans desire for “competitive balance” or for “a team that I can identify with” overweigh an individuals right to live and work where they choose? And who is to say that it wouldn’t make baseball more competitive? Teams would have to compete to attrack talent. The Nationals would have to step up their game (e.g. facilities, management, etc) to attact talent; it wouldn’t just be given to them as a gift. How is a gift economically efficient? Look at what the draft has done to the NBA – you need to suck for a few years to get back to the lottery in order to get the high end talent that you need to become an elite team. Talk about a screwed up incentive structure. Teams tank it EVERY YEAR in order to get talent so that they can make more money down the road and people just shrug and move on. And let’s not forget that players want to play and they want to make money. For these reasons, they players will self regulate and they will (through the free market) choose to disperse their talent evenly throughout the league. Maybe Strasburg would choose to go to the Nats on his own because he wants to be in the majors as soon as possible. Maybe he would be afraid of the Yankees staff and potentially having to pitch out of the bullpen. Maybe he has developed ties to San Diego and he would take much less in order to sign a 10 year deal with a no trade clause. These are decisions that he should be able to make as an individual in a free country. How many of us would have been pleased if the day after graduation we were told that we had to move to Utah to start our careers for the next six to ten years?
Drafts are most effective in situations where there is a slotting system and a hard salary cap. But economits have shown that a slotting system and the salary cap are nothing more than owners limiting their own willingness to pay at the expense of the players. It does not translate in to lower ticket prices, just bigger profits for owners. It is a way for them to police each other in order to increase the total pie of their profits. How can people support this? If your son was a potential player, wouldn’t you feel that he was being exploited even if he was willing to go along with it?
I will now accept any and all attacks.
LikeLike
I would make one big addition and some tweaks. The big addition is to require international players to register for and go through the draft. No registration, no eligibility to sign with any team or join any teams camp complex. There could be a major league run complex for guys to tool up and get noticed in the year before they are into the draft. This solves the big Cuban problem and also keeps teams from overwhelming the draft by spending many $millions internationally to leap past poorer teams with better draft position. This is easier to accomplish today than when it was first objected to, because the upgraded major league investigation of players for proper identity and age (and PED?) means the best players are known. Registration with standard documentation and a drug test provides easier investigation and avoids missing cheaters.
Now, the tweaks:
1. You are treating this as a tradeoff between MLB and the draftees. It is really a tradeoff between MLB and the major league players, whose association must approve it. That means the tradeoff will have to benefit existing major leaguers. Increasing the major league minimum, along with your additional year of arb gets that done. No need to reduce the number of years that a team controls a major league rookie, and to do so reduces the value of draft, reduces team stability, and favors rich teams by increasing the relative importance of FA signings. No need to increase minor league salary to get the deal done, but it is a good idea.
2. I don’t think the first pick needs to start at a slot of $5 mill. Something like $3.5 – 4 mill should be fine. Either that or a far steeper $ falloff than you have for the first 15 picks.
3. I like your change of dates, but agree that the short-seasons start too late for guys who have been with the team a year. A good resolution is for teams like Williamsport to start a lot earlier than teams in GCL. Williamsport could start before the draft.
LikeLike
I’ll tell you why , because the law has stated that a matter agreed to in collective bargaining overrides any kind of specious “I know my rights” nonsense.. A union has rights to set requirements for membership, it is what they do,as the recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice, Sotomayor, confirmed in the decision against the Football reprobate , Maurice Clarett. If the Union is better served by a limit on the earnings of new prospect trainees in return for increased rights and benefits for established Union members it is perfectly within their rights to do so, as it should be.
LikeLike
Very nice idea, PP. This would be a vast improvement over the status quo.
LikeLike
And to what end does this right of unions extend? Can unions limit membership based on race if the membership is “better served”? Sex? How about sexual orientation? Clearly age is OK, right?
Just out of curiousity, are all rights specious or just some? And who decides?
Since you used the collective bargaining defense to defend the draft, how do you defend MLB’s anti-trust exemption? Or do you feel that the courts and legislators are infallable and that whatever is currently allowed is the best that we can do?
LikeLike
I agree all international players should be subject to the draft process.
Also, MLB is an entity unto itself. There are not 30 individual franchises. If that were the case, it would be a 6 team league b/c small market teams would never be able to keep pace.
LikeLike
By your argument – would it be OK for the MLBPA to say that Strasburg (and all draftees) have to work for $25K a year for five years? Would you be supportive of this? On what grounds would your logic differ?
LikeLike
It it is an entity all to itself, that sounds a lot like monopoly, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
It is a monopoly, but a monopoly that has been granted partial monopoly status by Congress. Is this morally correct? Likely not. Still, MLB is basically one organization. There are problems with the monopoly status, but the size of bonuses to draftees doesn’t appear to me to be more than a blip on the radar screen. This is not NFL or NBA, both of which limit bonuses quite severely, where the typical draftee will either be cut or become a member of the the major league team and covered by the collective bargaining agreement and major league minimum salaries. Baseball draftees are guys who have not yet learned their trade. They are basically signing on to a period of paid training. The vast majority will never graduate out of that training period to the major leagues. Those that do, often spend 4 – 5 years in training before they are good enough to be major leaguers. In this sense, draftees are treated more fairly by the major league team that drafted them than they are by the3 colleges they may attend. The major league teams lose money on the minors and have a strong interest to protect the health of and provide maximum development opportunity to the draftee. And they are paid a salary and given a bonus. I agree the minor league salaries could be higher, but again, this should be looked at more as a graduate student stipend than a wage in the workforce. These are not guys skilled enough at their craft to turn a profit for their employer at this stage in their development. And if they do graduate to the majors with a lot of ability, they will earn far more than your average PhD or even MD. So, I don’t find their treatment immoral and see a lot of advantage to a system that tries to maintain the competitive balance of the major leagues to which they aspire. Anything done to reduce the competitiveness and success of the major leagues also has the effect of reducing the draftee’s prospective earnings. It doesn’t really matter how good Strasburg is. Unless he is ready to step into the major leagues immediately, as a minor leaguer he is just an expense to his employer. A signing bonus of $3.5 to 5 million seems emminently fair to me.
LikeLike
Don’t confuse yourself… MLB has always has been a monopoly.
I think that #7 is something MLB would never do. The purpose of the draft is to bring talent into the league… and prevent it from going to another place.
I would put in a non negotiable slot system for salary and bonus, eliminate the signing period, say draft picks are the rights of teams for 8 years, and allow trading of player’s rights. I would also structure in to the player’s entry level contract performance bonuses based upon promotion and demotions. That way good play and advancement is rewarded.
That way the worst teams theoretically would get the best talent, could afford it, and could even trade it for other pieces.
Also, you’re then shifting funds away from unproven talent.
LikeLike
I agree with the idea of an International draft. It should be something players register for along with submitting birth certificates, etc. Working the international players into the regular draft but keeping it at 50 rounds (or even shortening it to 40 rounds) would eliminate flier picks for the most part.
I also would not mind having players with eligibility declare for the draft like International players. They could still be allowed to go back to school. But their draft rights would revert to the team that drafted them till one year after they graduate. That will eliminate some of the players testing the market and colleges would like it if they retained more players.
Now as for the big issue – dollars. I don’t like a slotting system. I think baseball needs to compete with other sports for athletes. Domonic Brown is a classic example of a guy that might have played football if there were a slotting system. Hudson as well. Teams need the flexibility to compete for players.
Without a slotting system you still need to help the poor teams however. What I propose is a fixed signing budget that would be paid for by MLB out of shared funds like the national TV money. Here is how it might work. Say the fund is $300 million total, an average of $10 million per team (the size of the fund would be set based on what teams currently spend and then adjusted in collective bargaining). The team with the worst record, say the Nats, might get $12-$15 million from the pool. The team with the best record would get $5-$8 million. I am not sure how steep the scale would be, but it basically should be steep enough to allow teams to draft and sign their top picks. Maybe Strasburg gets $10 million of the Nats $15 million. Maybe the Nats pass on him to draft 3 or 4 flier type picks. Maybe the Nats go heavy on International players. Maybe the Nats trade the pick.
This would solve the talent distribution problem while still allowing teams to take their own player development strategies and also give them the flexibility to pay a Jake Stewart extra to buy him out of college if that is their priority.
Lots of other good ideas in James’ article. The later draft is a good idea. I would then start the complex seasons 3 or 4 weeks later. The Short season leagues like the NY-Penn I might even think of extending the season. Start in mid-May and go through the 3rd or 4th week in September. The first 6 weeks you have lots of extended Spring players, some of who get kicked down to the complex leagues when they start. Maybe the schedule ends up being around 110-120 games. That would solve the problem of getting players better competition than extended Spring along with a later draft.
LikeLike
Fair response, but “$3.5 to $5 million seems emminently fair to me”? In what other industry are comments like that relevant? What’s fair is what someone is willing to pay. There are no restrictions on what I pay my plumber. If he does a good job, I can pay him $250 an hour if I want. He can also try to charge me that amount if he values his time and skill in such a manner. He is free to earn what is truly fair, not what someone else thinks is fair. And would you still think that $3.5 to 5 million is fair if next week Chapman signs for $10MM? Strasburg is considered much further along in terms of development (if that is your criteria).
But you make good comments on the rationale for the system in place. It all comes back to the monopoly issue, though (and this has direct implications on the draft). What other monopoly is not regulated in this country? As a country we acknowledge that some industries are natural monopolies (think the power company; it wouldn’t be efficient to have ten companies build their own power lines in every communiy). There is a compelling argument that baseball is a natural monopoly; there can only be one premier league. But all other natural monopolies are regulated and entitled to earn “a fair rate of return”. And their regulators take in to account the effect on other stakeholders in determining that fair rate of return. The owners in MLB own significantly outsized returns, consistently over time. This is indisputable. The only ones who have failed to achieve consistent profitability are the ones that choose to spend resources foolishly. Why should those decisions be protected?
Baseball gets the benefit of natural monopoly protection without the regulation. The losers are citizens who have to pay higher costs for cable and subsidized stadiums, and players who have to take what they are given (in most cases).
The problem is that the union consists of MLB players, but their decisions effect minor league players. What gives one class of employees the right to expropriate from another class? This is not the NFLPA, which only negotiates on its own behalf. The MLBPA negotiates on its own behalf and on behalf of minor leagues who are not full members. Why should the MLBPA have the right to restrict draft compensation when players aren’t full members? Should they have the right to restrict Chapman’s compensation? Why don’t they then?
And I again go back to why is this system considered efficient? Name another system in this country that rewards failure and is effective? That is exactly what drafts do. You want Strasburg? Finish in last place. Want a shot at Bryce next year? Finish in last place. I firmly believe that a more efficient draft (if you are going to have on) would work like this: finish in first, draft first. That would force the mediocre teams to do EVERYTHING they could to win. They would pay for free agents, they would force more pulled revenues, the would hire better people, etc.
LikeLike
PP
Overall I really like and agree with your article, especially the sophmore idea, fixed money in the draft idea, and 2 weeks after idea.
The idea that I cant see working is moving short season. If you have short season ending on October 2nd, that means 25 players are playing a month longer then others. If 5 of those players gets injured during that extra month time, the organization has no one to call up, because everyone has been at home or on vacation for a couple weeks.
You also cannot add to the roster size because it is unfair to the “extra” players. If you went from 25 to 32 for that part of the season and no one gets hurt then 7 or so players are playing in maybe 3 games in the final month, and no one wants that.
LikeLike
I still think the most ridiculous part of the process is the ‘slottng recommendations’. MLB seems to have now way to punish the Yankees, Red Sox or Tigers but seem interested in pressuring the Royals and Pirates. It’s probably because they can, but it makes this system even more backwards then it is.
LikeLike
Montyburns —
I think you miss my point, or maybe just strongly disagree with it. I’ll restate it this way, without the partial monopoly, the draftee’s bonus would be zero. It is only because of the partial monopoly and the 6 years of major league control that it gives to a team that drafts and signs a player that these players have any current value at all. I’ll take your example of the plumber. Yes, a plumber can charge what he wants and negotiate his rate with a business or homeowner. But he can do this only because he already possesses the skills of a working plumber and can immediately procede to complete the desired task. Not so the draftee. He is not able to play in the bigs the day after he signs, or at least no more than a handful of guys per decade are able to do that. So he is not able to do anything useful for his employer when he signs and collects his bonus. He is still a student and it will be years, if ever, before he is able to join the professional workforce. Up until that point, he is just a cost with no offsetting income to his employer. The analogy to the plumber is a kid who just entered Vo-Tech and has no license to work as a plumber and lacks the skills. What business is going to pay this student a bonus to come and do a job for him, at the prevailing rate, 3 years down the road? Without the partial monopoly that this future plumber will work for your company for X years after he graduates, what plumbing company in its right mind gives him a bonus as he enters Vo-Tech. And, especially, what plumbing company would do that if the ground rules were that the student kept his bonus even if he flunked out or decided in his junior year that he would rather go back to his home high school and enter the business ed program to prepare for a career as a used car salesman? The analogy to your plumber scenario is that HS kids wanting to play baseball go to college or the semi-pro leagues to learn their trade, leave college and do further study in the semi-pro leagues, and when they are good enough, go to spring training for an audition, and if they are good enough to make the 25 man, or perhaps a 40 man, roster, then they get to negotiate a contract. This spares MLB the expense of running the minor leagues and paying bonuses and maintains the free enterprise approach you want.
At the present time, the draftee has a good deal. He gets his bonus. He gets to play and learn baseball at MLBs expense. Other than grad students, no other profession I know of where this opportunity exists.
LikeLike
I liked most of your points. However limiting the service yrs to 5 is pretty rough for GMs, owners, and fans to take. I mean thta’s one less yr a fan favorite would be around. I would like to do 7 yrs of service but eliminate super 2s and make everyone arbitration eligible for 5 yrs.
I LOVE the idea of trading picks and hard slotting. I would bump up the $150k bunus after the 5th round to $200K but limit the numbers of large bonuses a team can make.
I believe now that the COmmish advocates no more than 2 $200K signnings in later rounds. How about 5-7 after round 5 for no more than $200K but that figure 5,6, or 7 is a hard fixed number and NOT a reccomendation.
I believe this will really help pull down the top spenders on the draft.
LikeLike
I would like time to give a more measured response. I think that there is, however, a deeper and more basic difficulty with your restructuring of the draft. The problem is that the draft serves “major league baseball” as a whole AND each major league baseball team and each has different interests in the draft. An easy example is the idea of competetiveness. The league has a strong interest in promoting equitable competition between the teams. Not all individual teams, however, have the same interest. Indeed, most teams would like the league not to be competitive in their own favor. It is why teams will go to great lengths to find the loop holes in the system (signing over slot, building international schools, signing free agents for unrealistic salaries, etc.) . The question which must be answered in any serious overhaul of the drafting system is whether the draft exists for the sake of the league as a whole or for each individual team. I believe that it exists for both, and as such, it must have a certain amount of tension within it. That tension will, actually, make it a messy system, and is why it is the way it is. I’m not sure that trying to eliminate the messiness (the tension between the motivations of individual teams and the league as a whole) is really worth the effort. I’m not even sure if it’s possible. I wonder if, even in your changed system, the wealthier teams would not continue to find ways to subvert the goal of equitable competition. (Having players under the control of small market teams for a shorter time, for instance, would hasten the departure of the best to the richest.)
I just think it’s necessary to decide the philosophical question first. It may just be that the current system doesn’t look as broken in the end.
LikeLike
It will probably be fairly easy to get both sides to agree to trading draft picks and including international players in the draft. Both would most likely improve the draft as a whole. The advantage of trading picks is obvious. If international players are included (with no additional rounds) that would leave more eligible players undrafted; thus becoming free agents to sign with whomever they desire. That seems to be a plus for the players.
The draft slotting, the years of mandated service, super 2 status, and arbitration years are much trickier items to deal with. Add in that some people would love to see guaranteed contracts disappear, and you can see how a work stoppage would occur if these items were pushed hard.
LikeLike
Allentown – I do get what you are saying. And I do undersand your position much better after you last post.
I disagree that the draftees bonus would be zero. We don’t have a draft in Latin America. Latin American players at age 16 receive $500,000 signing bonuses. The draft has nothing to do with owners willingness to invest in player development. Player development in synonomous with research and development expenditures for corporations. Take away the draft and teams will still pay for talented players, even if they can’t contribute right away. The NBA has proven that, when given the opportunity, they will draft 17 year olds who cannot contribute for years. MLB will also continue to pay for “filler” players so that they can field teams where the talented players can compete to learn their craft. The NBA does this w/ its NBADL. The NFL and the NBA have college sports and increasingly (in the NBA’s case) int’l leagues to serve as their major development source. Using colleges for this purpose has other externalities beyond the scope of this discussion, but we all know that they exist.
I go back to the plumber (or any other craft or trade). He chooses to either join a union or work for an independant plumber (non-union). He chooses whether to learn on the job or invest in trade school. These are decisions that the individual makes that have an impact on his future earnings stream. The baseball player does not have the same choices because baseball is an unregulated monopoly. He must either agree to move far away to toil in obscurity for peanuts or find another profession. The plumbers union does not have to pay to attrack talent – they have an abundance of qualified applicants and their craft does not require beyond commodity skill (within a band). Baseball is different. It requires the “elite”. It requires talent. In such an industry teams will choose to invest to find a scarce resource (i.e. players who can play in the major leagues).
Grad school is not analgous. The grad student can go wherever he or she is accepted and can negotiate his or her own deal (i.e. how much to teach, how many credits they can take, how long they have to complete their field of study). And make no mistake about it, universities are not funding loses with grad students as your post seems to imply. They are essential to maintaining the tenure structure of haves and have nots that perpetuates acadamia. In that way they are, I suppose, a little similar to minor leaguers.
LikeLike
The draft should be eliminated. Players should be able to seek employment with any existing entity.
LikeLike
Sports entertainment will continue to exist as long as society values the show. The Draft is not essential for the viability of any of these productions. The Leagues can determine what mechanisms are necessary to run their businesses competitively and profitably, but to say to the top 1500 that you will only be allowed inclusion via a draft is wrong.
LikeLike
And to make it even worse, it isn’t even the top 1500…it’s the top 1500 who are citizens. We allow different treatment to players based upon where they were born, with the most restrictions applying to people born in this country.
Unfortunately, most fans “like the draft”. It’s “fun to talk about who my team is going to take” and to “rate players”. What people don’t realize is that their enjoyment is coming at the expense of another individual’s right to choose.
LikeLike
Free market guys only think about the players side. In a free market system anyone could also start a baseball team at any point in the year and represent anything from penis enlargement drugs to local sandwich shops. MLB would have to allow any team in or else they would face legal action.
In a free market I could start a team tomorrow, call it the Creotine booblovers, sign all my high school buddies and play the new york yankees at our local VFW.
Congress has given special permission to baseball to act as a monopoly and against anti trust laws because they view it as a national treasure that lifts the spirit of U.S. citizens.
Regardless of what your economic principles are, MLB and other professional sports leagues have been exempted from our nations economy and couldn’t operate if they were subject to the same rules that govern other industries.
LikeLike
Pretty good ideas, but I really dislike limiting the service time to 5 years. I also like the idea of an import draft for international players as some have suggested.
LikeLike
phil,
Sure they could. The draft is not what makes them viable.
LikeLike
Phil – If you read what I wrote, you would see that I also talked about the fans. The MLB monopoly expropriates from the citizens of this country as well. Some people like sports as a form of entertainment. Great. Others like different diversions. It is not for government to favor one form of diversion over another and to provide benefits to the favored at the expense of its citizens. Do you disagree with this? On what grounds?
Not everyone is a baseball fan or thinks of baseball as a “national treasure”. Was the Arena football league a “national treasure”? If not, then why was it afforded, de facto, the same exemptions as MLB?
Exempted from our nations economy? Take a look at the tax revenue from baseball. And all you need to do to be convinced that they are part of their local economies is to attend a city council meeting where a team is asking for stadium financing subsidies.
By your argument, the owners are entitled to outsided profits (the value that they extract from the players and fans) because they serve a national interest. If this is the case, shouldn’t baseball be privitized so that this surplus ends up benefiting all stakeholders and not just the 32 owners?
Your hypothetical example of starting your own team is laughable, unrealistic and irrelevant. What is it exactly about professional sports that entitles that industry to different rules? What is the basis for your statement that the industry couldn’t operate under normal rules?
LikeLike
actually it is one of the main reasons MLB viable.
it keeps a competitive balance in the game. How would the Brewers begin to compete with the Yankees? The difference in the markets they have is completely prohibitive to competitive balance. A free market would make a Yankees vs. Brewers game pointless. Not only would there be no reason for a brewers fan to go see that game but also what reason would there be for Yankees fans if they knew they were going to win? But since the Brewers have done a good job with the draft they were able to reach the playoffs last year. Do you think Prince Fielder would be in Milwaukee right now if his rights weren’t controled by the team for 6 years after being drafted? Hell no, he’d be Mark Texiera’s back up on the Yankees earning 17 million a year.
The compitition is the value that baseball has. Without a competitive game, it would be like watching paint dry or grass grow. You know what’s going to happen in the end so why bother.
LikeLike
Montyburns,
Yes, baseball has different rules because of its partial anti-trust exemption. However, you are wrong if you think forcing baseball to play by the same rules would help HS and college kids. In today’s dollars, baseball bonuses are much higher than they were prior to the draft. I remember when baseball did not have the draft, but had the rule that anyone getting a bonus above $X had to move very quickly to the 25-man roster, I think it was immediately. Guys like Danny Briggs and I think Larry Hisle fell under this rule as well as a young Phillies pitcher, whose name I forget. So, if baseball lost the draft, it likely would revert to something like that. Baseball teams would only control the guys on the 40-man roster and could only keep a bonus baby off the 25-an roster for perhaps a season. All the other baseball hopefuls could sign for whatever the independent leagues would pay them until their skills had advanced to the level that they were worth adding to a 40-man roster. They could sign with whomever they wished, but probably only about 100 rookie FA a year could get a contract of any sort from MLB and if they didn’t quickly catch onto the 25-man roster, it would be back to the independent leagues as a FA. Under this system, there might be only a handful of HS kids a year with skills advanced enough to get any sort of contract from MLB. And then they would have only a year or two to make it to the majors. The rest, including the international players, could go to Mexican League, independent DSL, college, independent leagues. Other than probably the AAA teams, minor league baseball would be on its own to pay its own players’ and coaches salaries. This system would work better financially for MLB than what is in place today.
LikeLike
Your example again is not consistent with reality. Human nature doesn’t work like that. Highly talented people want to achieve success and are driven to do so. Why do players take less money to sign with contenders? Because they want to win.
Prince Fielder is driven to pursue his own economic interests, but there are other concerns. I suspect that he would take less money to be a starter and to pursue his dream of making the Hall of Fame than he would getting paid to sit behind Tex.
Let’s take your example a little further in light of your views on the importance of competition. Would it be OK for Lebron, Wade, Duncan and CP3 to realize that they have made plenty of money and to decide they all want to sign with the Knicks for the minimum in order to be champions every year? As free agents under the current rules they would be free to do so. How is this in keeping with competition? Is it OK for Andy Pettite to take less money from the Yankees than Tampa Bay would have been willing to pay him? That doesn’t sound very competitive.
Markets self correct. You are worried that the Yankees will go out an sign the top player at every position. These players will require long-term contracts. Most of them will stop being the top players at their respective positions within a year or two of signing their contracts. The Yankees will be stuck with those financial obligations.
If Milwaulkee wants Prince Fielder to play for them, then Milwaukee should have to pay what it takes to get him to do so. If the people of Milwaulkee value Prince Fielder and want him there, they should have no problem paying more in ticket prices to support his contract. If they aren’t willing to pay for his services, but they want the benefit of his services, they are expropriating value from him for their own benefit.
You value competition? So do I. How about we have teams compete for draft picks? You win 100 games, you get an extra first round pick (again assuming you decide to have a draft). You win the World Series, you get the first pick. That is what will drive competition. Yes some teams will fail. But then new owners with deeper pockets will emerge to replace them. They will run the teams better and they will become competitive. Instead we are left with the current situation where small market owners are able to take revenue sharing $, distribute them as dividends to themselves, come in last place more often than not, get rewarded for their failure with the right to draft the best players and then fail to pay these players what they are worth. There are many losers under the current system, but the undisputed winners are the owners.
LikeLike
Allentown, if that system would work out better financially for the owners, why isn’t it still in place?
I’m not in favor of getting rid of the draft and instead reverting to the old system. I’m in favor of getting rid of the draft and letting peopld sign for whatever they are worth. Period. It seems to work fine for players from the rest of the world.
LikeLike
montyburns130,
Do you represent a minor league player? It seems to me that an overwhelming majority would like to have the freedom to choose the option of open tryout.
LikeLike
No, I don’t. I have a buddy who is an agent, but I’m just a fan of the game. I love baseball, but not at the expense of another’s freedome to live and work where they choose. I saw Schwimmer post earlier in this tread. I would be curious on his views on this topic.
I’m also one who thinks that their is a lot of value in most situations in questioning the status quo. Most people just accept things as they are and assume that the current system is the most efficient. In this case (as in many others), the status quo exists for the benefit of a few (owners) at the expense of many (players and citizens).
LikeLike
the only reason a list of players who took less money for any reason would be big is because the list uses a ridiculously large font.
hmm. what should I do? Take less money to play on a crappy team so I might make The Hall of fame by hitting against superior pitchers or make more money to play on a great team and win championship after championship.
In your world The MLB would consist of 6 or 8 teams. The Yankees and Red Sox and 4 or 6 teams full of players that are angry they aren’t on the Yankees or Red Sox. Everybody else would find a league that controls the competitive balance through a draft process.
And my example of the Creotine booblovers is laughable but not for the reasons you stated. A free market doesn’t prevent people from starting bad business’, it just helps to make sure that a bad business doesn’t last long. Without the anti trust exemptions how could MLB legally prevent anyone from competing in there league? I assure you the moment the anti trust exemption is removed and baseball loses it’s ability to deny membership into it’s organization, every corporation in the country will start a team for the publicity of it alone.
And while not everyone’s spirit is lifted by viewing baseball as a national treasure, it certainly gives a lot to a great many people.
If the free market would be so good for baseball why aren’t there leagues started and bypassing the MLB. There are no laws preventing anyone from doing it. You can’t tell me with all the corporate sponsorship in baseball that a league of corporate sponsored baseball teams could’t pay players more than what they already earn even if they have to compete against a govt. aided league. The advertising from having the corporate team name said on espn everyday alone would be worth the expense.
The draft is the only way to keep the league competitive and popular. which is the reason of this thread in the first place. The draft as it currently stands is weighted toward the big market teams. Again I say that I think James’ ideas on improving the draft are well thought out and go a long way in equalling the playing field for all teams… Good thing McCarthyism is dead or James’ site would be blacklisted for his communist thinking.
LikeLike
Phil – this isn’t personal and certainly isn’t meant to be some sort of political statement. Mccarthyism?
If I could make $1MM and live in Philadelphia I would prefer that to making $2MM but having to live in NYC. I think many people feel the same way. Professional athletes are no different.
The NCAA does not have an anti-trust exemption. It is able to limit participants by establishing standards which are required for entry. Anyone who is able to meet those standards can gain membership. What’s wrong with more teams if there is significant fan interest and willing investors exist to fund teams that meet MLB’s standards?
As for players taking less money, sorry but it happens all the time. Players take less to stay with the same team. Players take less to be able to live where they want to live. Players take less to be able to be on a team they feel has a high probability of winning a championship. Players take less to play with other players they like being around. And there would be many more than 6-8 teams. Would there be 32? I’m not sure, but why is 32 the optimal number? Maybe something closer to 16-20 is a more optimal number. What’s wrong with that? With modern technology people can watch any game, any where. The reason we have so many teams has nothing to do with providing increased access to fans, nor with providing more income to players. It is about more money for owners. Pure and simple.
The reasons leagues are not started by bypassing MLB is because professional baseball is a natural monopoly. The reason it is so loved is because it has THE BEST players. Competing leagues would dilute talent. Overtime both leagues would suffer, though some more than others. Eventually they would merge in order to maximize profits. This is simple, basic economics. To suggest otherwise is uninformed. The history of professional and even college sports has born this out. Once we acknowledge that MLB is in fact a natural monopoly, as so many here have, the question becomes, “Why isn’t MLB regulated like any other monopoly in this country?” I’m still waiting for even an attempt at an answer to that question.
LikeLike
Any draft should be an international one.
LikeLike
Fascinating reading all the comments…well played by all.
LikeLike
I’ve only read through the first 4 points and will comment on them now then (if necessary) comment again.
Does moving the signing deadline up to 2 weeks after the draft give a team enough time to sign 50 players? Seems like a month would make more sense.
I can see giving slightly higher salaries to these players. but a player that is drafted out of HS or college for that matter that get s $250k signing bonus, is not someone who I feel we need to go to bat for. How many high school kids with no college degree make $250k over the first few years of their career? More over that money, if managed properly should be plenty to provide for a family or in most cases a single guy living like a college kid…heck I wish I had $250k to spend during my college years…I would have been swimming in it!!
Additionally why are you advocating players, that make it to the major league level, making more money…makes no sense…These guys are making a minimum of what 400k per year during arb yrs? Come on…be realistic…changing rules to better the game, to make the draft more fair to small market teams, sure, that is all well and good, but getting a player a multi-million dollar payday sooner then they already do, is simply ludicrous.
I am all for paying every player at least 100k or 150k signing bonus and keeping their salaries as is so that they can at least have enough to live, but I do not feel bad for a player that has 250k in the bank and only makes 1500 a month.
LikeLike
PP – love the ideas you put forth. To me it comes down to the two most basic ones:
1. Have a hard slotting system. Take a look at the NBA. Now the agents don’t love it but it’s the “cleanest” system out there – and that’s only two rounds. And I have very little doubt this is going to happen. There was an article by Jayson Stark on ESPN talking about the Strasburg signing (or not) and he said the same thing. And the interesting thing he pointed out, that I always felt, was that the MLBPA will advocate it as well. All the dollars put towards these kids that haven’t accomplished anything on the major league level has to eat at those guys.
2. Make the draft international. You just can’t have two different systems. You live in North America, you are in the draft. You don’t – hey go to the highest bidder and have fun! Just not fair.
To me it’s all about competitiveness, end of story. The way it works now is silly. Even in the NFL, where there is no hard slotting, there is, in essence, slotting. The only difference there is that all the teams basically fall in line with the higher end picks and the bonuses work out accordingly. You never hear the “this team passed on player X because they couldn’t afford him”. Just that fact alone, to me, tells me this draft system just isn’t working.
We can all spin the union/fair market thing all we want. But without a draft system and a total free market the major leagues would be even worse than they are now. This is such an amazing have/have not system that it hurts the game (in my humble opinion). You may not feel that way – but take yourself out of Philadelphia (or at least a fan of Philadelphia) and put yourself into the mindset of a fan of a small market team. Already the Kansas City’s, Pittsburgh’s, etc. of the world have no shot. Take away the draft and you’ll see teams folding left and right (as now they would have NO hope of EVER competing – and yes, prospects, as we see on this site, equal HOPE). So debate all you want – the draft isn’t going anywhere – like PP let’s just focus on fixing it.
One word folks – competitiveness. The other three leagues all have it (hockey last on board) and the MLB needs it in the worst way – in my humble opinion…
LikeLike
I stated on your draft day post that baseball needs to allow teams to trade picks. That is #1 on my list of changes MLB needs to make. If they can combine that with a rookie salary cap/slotting system, then teams can assess the value of each pick knowing the financial costs before they choose.
Scott Boras won’t be happy, which is reason enough to do it.
If you can achieve those first two changes then you can eliminate the compensation system that currently awards draft picks for players drafted in the previous year’s first 3 rounds that go unsigned.
I can take or leave the compensation system for lost FA’s, but if I keep it I would change the system to mirror the NFL’s.
All lost FA’s are offset by signed FA’s with compensation based on the difference as determined by the league.
In other words, if team A loses 3 top players (determined by salary) and only signs 1 then they are awarded additional picks by the league but not taken from the signing team.
International players should also be included in the draft pool.
I’m OK with the current draft calendar.
LikeLike
monty. I wish I wouldn’t have written the McCarthy statement. I apologize if it offended you, James, or anyone who read it. We are argueing a topic and I referenced something that certainly doesn’t apply.
While I could continue the argument of free markets in relation to major sports, I don’t think I could do it without moving it to a more political and economic area and this thread and website isn’t the time or place for that.
Monty, this discussion has made me want to create a powerpoint presentation to give to all the major MLB sponsors regarding stopping all advertising in MLB and starting a corporate league.
my apologies again to all for my mistake and I hope you can accept that I may go too far sometimes but I also willing to admit when I’m wrong.
LikeLike
Notice- MLB is not a monopoly. During the time period one might spend attending a game or watching one on TV,, one could spend in countless other activities. There is no such thing as a monopoly. Other organizations do not have the wherewithal to start such a league (notice the crash and burn fiasco spawned by that blowhard Trump). If such entities would try to arise, they would likely be el cheapo farces which, at best, would jeopardize a nationwide enterprise which gives benefits throughout the entire country through high paying employment, media opportunities , and economic benefits from minor league towns to big cities. That is why it is of compelling governmental interest (which can also override individual rights) to regulate such a business to the benefit of ownership, unions, and the general public. And that Anti-Trust ezemption means absolutely nothing. It is only a whining point for mealy-mouthed , speak with forked tongue liberals who will sound like a drop to the knees before Limbaugh lovers when advocating that some unproven trainee will steal the money of the rich, but sound like some passin’ out Commie pamphlets on the street agitator when giving their “I hate the rich, soak the rich, eat the rich” screed. If the truth be known these ideas are used by, or are actually held by , the Player Agent/ Representative Class, who , if the truth be known, are but Money Grubbers pursuing thier Craven Self Interest.
LikeLike
The Draft is not anything other than the tool utilized to gain ownership of someones opportunity to work and then control their ability to work within the industry for a given number of years.
The Draft does not create competitive balance across the league, especially in a system that stockpiles players in the minors.
If the Draft did not exist the League would continue to operate as long as people were willing to pay to watch baseball played, period! The League supports the poor teams now through multiple streams of revenue and would continue to do the same so that their product would carry on.
People fill many of the minor league parks yearly and they are not watching top talent across the lineup as there are only a few at each level that are considered potential entertainers. Baseball relies on fan support, not the draft.
The revenues generated by the Pro Baseball Product are enormous and it is not due to the Draft. This country has a long history embracing baseball because of the sport and how the game is played not how players are aquired. The ability of the League to operate under normal recruitment type procedures rather than an enslavement policy would be different but managable and fair.
The elimination of the Draft would not bring about parity across the board, but it also would not dismantle this entertainment offering either.
In America a person should be able to seek employment freely. If through the process of employment you agree to terms limiting your movement within the industry then it was a choice between the two parties. In todays game if you are a good amatuer you are told you can only participate by the team that selects and then OWNS YOU! No Choice within the league otherwise.
LikeLike
Phil – no problem. We are just expressing two different points of view, no big deal. We’re all Phillies fans, after all.
Marfis – forked tounged Liberals? Rush Limbaugh? Commie pamplets? Dude, I’m not sure what you are talking about, but you seem pretty angry. This was just meant to be a discussion on the pros and cons of having a draft and not some bigger political discussion.
You are wrong on your justification that baseball is not a monopoly. You site the fact that there are other forms of entertainment as proof that a monopoly does not exist. This is uninformed at best. By your logic, the mere fact that there re other operating systems in existence would make Microsoft exempt from anti-trust scurtiny. Isolation is not a prerequisite for monopoy.
You state that other organizations lake the resources to compete with MLB. For the most part I agree with you. But then you go on to state your opinion that el cheapo farces could jeapordize a national enterprise. GM, Ford and Chrysler are or at one time were a national enterprise. Did the importing of cheaper cars hurt this country?
You point out that players are pursuing their own craven self interest…of course they are. But so is every other constituency that you mention in your post. Fans want stability in the game, owners want profits, unions want high wages and guaranteed employment.
Your basic argument seems to be that the draft is OK because it supports the league which provides a public good. Let’s put asside the topic of whether or not baseball is a public good and just focus on this question – Is the draft essential to maintaining the competitive balance of the game of baseball? I contend that it is not. For many reasons: 1) it rewards failure, 2) it is easily subverted (by over slot signings and the fact that int’l players are excluded) and 3) there are better methods of allocating players.
You also haven’t addressed the fact that it is collectively bargained by the MLBPA, yet minor leaguers are not members of the MLBPA. How is this acceptable in your world? Can you give me an example of a class of people who have there careers in many cases (think the career minor leaguer) collectively bargained without either representation or a seat at the table?
LikeLike
Interesting read.
LikeLike
Great article. The experiences of players like Joe Magrane and Marcus Giles are telling and pertinent to the discusion – they were clearly exploited for the hope of a bigger pay day down the road, which unfortunately never came. The concept of “paying your dues” has been around for centuries. I can’t believe that any rational thinker would be able to make a compelling case for the concept on any logical grounds.
LikeLike
The NYT article is interesting, but it makes a fairly obvious point, namely, that the structurally underpaid players subsidize the overpaid players. Welcome to sports economics 101.
The key for any team (other than the Sox and Yankees) to succeed long-term is to use the system to your greatest advantage to obtain cost stability and certainty. The minor league system is always the key.
LikeLike