All that said, I’m not sure a draft is the best thing, and I think players deserve whatever they can get. But I think some “free-market” people will change their minds if their teams get screwed.

@ Greg Simons:

You must be a journalist, because you chose to cherry pick what you wanted out of my comment to make it sound differently than the point I was making, and convienently left out the last comment:

“but if they (the draft choices/agents) can work the angles, why can’t the ball clubs?”

Actually, the number of affiliates IS capped at 160. It’s something that the NAPBL came up with in the early ‘90s as a means of pitting towns against each other (under the guise of “minimum standards”) to build new stadiums—and for a while, it worked…

...until independent baseball took off and didn’t have to follow those rules. They could build stadiums on the cheap (Worcester) or construct in the territory of established affiliates (Brockton) or simply move in when the stadium was abandoned by the affiliates (Pittsfield, New Haven, Sussex).

A couple of Cons: Two quick points to make is that the MLB draft is prob. the least likely choice to be a FA system. NFL and NBA the players go straight to the team and can have an immediate impact. MLB you could have a guy like Matt White that you give $10 million to and he never plays a ML inning.

Also finally I think you can make the argument that the MLB draft actually gives more players opportunities than a FA system would. You would be hurting 100’s of players from making a living and having a chance to become an major leaguer. I think that if everyone was an FA and teams had to pay say $20-25 million for their top 5 players then you wouldn’t see signability guys like Lannan and Stammen have a shot in the majors. Way too many guys like that would get lost in the shuffle. Now teams sign between 30-40 draft picks. I would imagine that, that number would be cut in half, and teams would probably cut a minor league affiliate or two, as a way to save money.

If my son were entering the draft today and wanted to make a lot of money, there would be any number of fine agents he could choose from. If he wanted to make a lot of money AND be gratuitously saddled with a reputation as a punk and greedhead, then Scotty B. would be our man.

triton

yes, actually.  instead of allowing them to use leverage against amateur players to institute financial responsibility on themselves, which is what most of their ideas mean.

my earlier point about the fact that mlb is allowed to use their leverage to exploit under age international talent…and yet, they also have helped/insisted to create/on creating a system where it’s not possible at all for underage natural born american citizens to sell themselves to…national association affiliated professional teams…is an example of what you’d have to call either institutionalized racism, or something similar to that.  the ownership of mlb is all about what’s advantageous to the ownership of mlb…always has been, and won’t change that outlook without a fight.

these are the same guys who’ve never blinked about dummying up financial records to show congress…or having their mouthpiece stand up in front of congress and tell outrageous lies denying their culpability in the steroids mess..

when you look at things that way…the fact that they not only want the draft to remain the way it, but want to institute slotting…as a further way of controlling their costs…

makes me pretty sure that the draft is *only* for their benefit.  they’re using a draft to screw young folks out of being able to make as much money as they can, just because they (mlb) don’t trust themselves to behave as prudent businessmen and mature adults if there were no draft in place.

and, again, the original reasons for having a draft…well, the context has changed, and i don’t think those reasons really stand up to scrutiny any longer.

Let’s agree on some givens here:

1) Businesses exist to generate profit for their owners

2) The current system was COLLECTIVELY bargained

If we can agree with this:

1)  Let’s stop bashing ownership for having a profit motive.  I’ve been a baseball fan since I put a glove on, but I don’t pretend my team would exist if it stopped making money.  If all we’re really arguing about here is whether owners, or athletes, make more money, the discussion is downright boring.

2)  Sure there’s tension between management and labor over the division of the revenues of the business, but neither side is all wrong here.  Both sides want as much of the pie as they can get, and that’s why labor unions rose in influence, to help labor negotiate from a more level playing field.

So - why do all major sports leagues have drafts to distribute young talent?  Since we acknowledge that a profit motive is necessary for the existence of the league, we can move past the “it’s to screw the players” argument into the “to encourage parity among the teams” argument.

None of us has a crystal ball, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that a pure free agent system for young players would end up with a similar net result to the current system for free agents.  More talent would end up with the teams with higher revenue.  I think that’s bad for the sport as a whole, and that you’d see an acceleration of the differences between the haves and the have-nots.  So, unless you’ve been able to spin losing into a marketing tool (ala the Cubs), fans will just come out less to watch losing ballclubs.

Is the system perfect, no.  The differences between the Rule 4 draft and the international signees doesn’t make any sense.  The draft may depress some salaries for individual players (though, I suspect, not too much, as a whole, see above re: profits).  But, “we had to burn down the village in order to save it” just doesn’t feel like it makes sense here.

Another point, this time about Boras:

The guy does what he gets paid to do - negotiate the best possible contracts for his players.  But again, there’s an extra cost associated with that and that often involves having to do things unconventionally (Bryce Harper moving to the Dominican?) or risking alienation/stigma (Crow or Alvarez).  If my son were to enter professional baseball, I would want him to be as successful as possible, but not by dealing with an agent who uses ethically questionable tactics to earn a higher salary.  And I hope that by the time my son has to make the decision on who he wants to represent him in these negotiations, I’ve taught him that character is more important than money.

The international market is a big crapshoot because of time to the majors.  These guys are often 6-7 years away.  If you don’t sign them at age 16-17, then somebody else will beat you too it.  But a lot can change in 6-7 years, and the ones who become superstars are not necessarily the ones who commanded the biggest bonuses at 16-17.

So there’s not a great incentive for a big market team to try and corner the market.  Keep the best players unavailable until age 21-22 with college, and I’m pretty certain the Yankees would offer the $ to lock up Strasburg and Ackley.

Jason - obviously I took it to the umpteenth degree, but my basic point is this: Baseball is a different animal than other industries.  As Craig pointed out in his most recent post, the competitive forces that drive companies’ actions in other industries are completely different than in baseball.  Anyway, my premise is that if you want to change the fact that baseball is a closed system that has collectively bargained the way these things work, you have to open it all the way, right?  And that leads down the proverbial slippery slope.

Even if you don’t buy that argument, the fact remains: the owners have been given the right to conduct business in this manner.  We’re not talking about reserve clauses and players living below the poverty line.  We’re talking about the difference between 20 year olds making $4 million and $8 million.  I’m fine if the owners decide to do away with the draft, but I would expect them to ask for concessions in return.