Abolish the MLB draft

Hmmm, as the mom of more than one child who cares about "lifestyle" and "climate" I'm intrigued.  I think when spots became sold and little girls started getting drafted it started to become rediculous and something new would be a nice change.

Can someone summarize this 

 

CanyonsMom- I'm really sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

I hope this thread takes off. I want to reserve judgment for now until gathering a few other people's thoughts. Rany Jazayerli is an outstanding writer and this is a very well done article.

 

RJM- If you aren't already at FanGraphs and Baseball Prospectus, I think you should be. It's right up your alley.

JH, as for climate & lifestyle, I was referring to the fact that my boys have definite preferences as to where they live (something he referenced in the article.) Although most adults would take a job where it existed in a difficult market, many would take less to live where they could enjoy the surroundings.  Big city, warm weather, mountains, beach town, 4 seasons, etc.

As for drafting little girls, it began when Shueler drafted his own daughter and has continued every year.  Spots are taken by people who clearly will never play (i.e. Arizona drafting Hahn). I understand the sentimentality attached to these non-prospect draftees, but the article was discussing the need for a new system and I believe they are examples of problems with the system.

In any job market/recruitment field there are issues, but few are so regulated and slanted as the draft system.

Great piece.  The guy definitely knows his subject matter.  I couldn't begin to wrap my arms around the full effects of his concept but my gut tells me the result would be bad in two ways...

 

I can't help but think the free market concept would result in a move back toward more inequality with little competitive balance, even with the cap.  In the free market business world, the stronger companies typically grow bigger and bigger and force the others out.

 

Also, I'm old school.  I miss the days when a team had an identity linked to it's favorite long-time players.  Now, with so much free agency movement, you don't get that as much.  I believe this would just be compounded with his proposed free market system.

 

The writer's concept is one that treats baseball more like a true business.  But professional baseball is also a form of entertainment.  Actors and actresses have to take any role they can get and it is usually several years, great performance and some lucky breaks before they can start choosing their roles.

LA (if you're serious)...

 

1. Assign every team a spending cap. (This limits costs, which will please owners.)

 

2. Allot the spending cap for each team based on where they finished in the standings the year before, allowing the worst teams to spend more in the draft than the best teams. (This helps maintain competitive balance.)

 

3. Let the free market reign.

 

Also, he points out that this is basically how international players are currently handled. 

 

This summary doesn't come close to doing justice to his piece.  He provides an impressive array of history and substantiating background and info.  Worth the read when you have the time.

Thanks CD !

I guess I have to print it out and read it. 

That is a very good article.  Personally I liked it the way it was before the last CBA was put into effect.  Clubs could take a flyer on a two sport athlete in the later rounds and give him a ton of money.  Now that same two sport guy has to be selected early or not at all. The old system allowed for getting more great athletes into baseball.  Take a star basketball player like Austin Jackson and draft him late, pay him what it takes, and baseball has a star center fielder. The new rules don't give that flexibility, therefore it's simply not good for the game of baseball.

 

I believe there has to be a some structure to securing players.  Giving the first pick $7 million seems fine to me.  Let's face it, he will make many millions if he is what they think he is.  If he is not what they thought, he just wasn't worth the $7million to begin with. Truth is they are trying to establish an International draft in order to address many of the problems in the present system. There's a lot of dirt surrounding international signings.  

 

So while I totally understand the logic behind a free market system, it too, comes with faults.  I definitely think the present system is far from perfect.

 

The draft under the old system seemed fair to me.  Everyone wondered why a team like the Nationals would draft so many high profile guys and pay out so much money To sign them... Like they did a few years ago.  Well, they picked up three or four guys with the potential to be All Star caliber players. If just one of them pans out (it has already happened) the total they spent to sign all four is a big bargain over what a veteran free agent costs. They spent much more on signing one FA, Jason Werth, than they spent signing Strasburg, Harper, and all the rest combined. That is how a franchise can build a winner without selling out the farm on free agents.  The new rules make it harder to build/spend through the draft.  

 

Maybe a free market would be better than the present system.  But IMO the old system was closer to that free market than what we have now. There is a reason that all the big team sports have a draft.  It is in the best interest of the game. No individual is bigger than the game. To me, no player is worth $7million until they prove it in the Big Leagues. If they prove it there, they will get a $100million or more.  What is the problem with that again?  How many free market opportunities are there out there for someone to get a $7million bonus to start a career? Let alone a career playing a game?

 

Not sure how any type of a cap has anything to do with free market.  Obviously they didn't put a cap on what the Dodgers were worth. Then again with an elimination of the draft, what stops a club like the Yankees from outbidding everyone for the best 10 prospects every year.  Would that be good for the other 29 clubs? Would that be good for our game?

Then again with an elimination of the draft, what stops a club like the Yankees from outbidding everyone for the best 10 prospects every year.

They would be limited by the amount of money available to sign prospects. If they only had 3M how many top prospects could they sign? A losing team with 10M would only be able to sign three top stars and no one else. I doubt they would do that. I think the writer's idea gives more power to the players on what organization they may want to start their careers over allowing any one organization to accumulate top prospects.

The whole point of the draft is that MLB wants to operate as a cartel.  Given that the legal authorities have ceded them this power, I am constantly amazed that they haven't effectively moved to extend this power to the market for foreign players.

 

I did have to laugh at the comment about how, in a free market, the big guys always run the little guys out of business.  Someone has been reading too much dogma and not actual case studies.  In real life, large organizations may have many advantages, but they also often become necrotic and lose to the up-and-comers.

 

Which makes me think of the current Yankees roster ....

Yeah, that was me

Let's see, Wal-mart, Nike, GM, Exxon, Apple, AT&T, CVS, Verizon, JPMorgan, BofA, IBM, Costco, Kroger, Wells Fargo, Procter & Gamble...

 

...these are all current Fortune 500 top 30 companies (except Nike), all have been leaders in their respective playing fields for many years.  Believe me, I wish the little guy and up-and-comer would win more often but that ain't the way this country rolls these days.

 

In fact, I have been a part of several up-and-coming small companies who experienced considerable short term success, all of which were ultimately bought out by the bigger companies.

 

That said, Midlo, if you have insight to up-and-comers who are winning and are likely to survive the aquisition guantlet, I'm all ears (sorry, a bit off topic).

Abolishing the draft, then openly colluding to limit the amount of money teams spend on prospects, seems more likely to cause anti-trust problems than the current system, which itself seems ripe for future court challenges, given that the amateur and MiLB players are effectively excluded from negotiations about their value.

 

A world with no draft and no cap on amateur salaries would transfer all the negotiating power to the players and the richest franchises, and could easily lead to the destruction of MLB as we know it. On the plus side, it might also lead to independent minor-leagues taking off, which could end up being a net plus in the long run.

jacjacatk- Yep. However, the issue of a lack of representation for amateur and MiLB players is, in my opinion, an entirely different situation than that of the current draft system. The only way to change such a circumstance is to challenge the anti-trust exemption ruling- which both MLB owners and the MLBPA are firmly against. 

 

Collusion in the form of spending caps and salary limitations such as those currently in place are a necessity to foster competitive balance in the game.

 

Personally, I feel as though amateurs and MiLB players deserve representation and negotiating power, just like the author of the Grantland piece does. However, as the game continues to grow in popularity and in revenue, and both the league and the union continue to gain strength internationally, I see virtually no alternative at this point. When looking at the game as a business and taking into account the limitations provided to the league with the Sherman exemption in 1922, many of the alternatives suggested- including that by Rany Jazayerli- are not economically optimum for the league, the union or the owners. 

 

A monopolized corporation with anti-trust exemption that profits off of entertainment value is a double-edged sword. As I mentioned before, the piece is extremely interesting and well-done and deserves some serious thought. At present moment, however, I don't see much action taking place due to the point at which we stand with respect to Major League Baseball.

I believe the players should have more power in where they sign. I believe a plan with signing budget caps based on previous year finish could work. But baseball is so old fashioned it's more likely to create a world draft than open up all players to free agency. Baseball is very status quo oriented.

it would be a WILD couple of weeks/months until every player signed...

 

 

FUN & WILD ride!

 

i'm in agreement with most of the artcle.

There used to be some horror stories out of the minor leagues concerning lack of food, basic necessities, etc. I would like to see a little more attention in that area, since they appear to be cutting back on bonuses. At one time, wasn't bonus money considered up front money for 2 to 3 years. 

 

I agree that players should have a bigger say so in where they might play. Seems to me, that if a kid is happy, confidence and performance would be positively influenced. Plus, clubs might be more rounded in their overall approach to developing players.

I seem to be in the minority here; I don't think the article was well written.  cabbagedad's summary is good, but notice that it doesn't summarize the first half of the article. That's appropriate, because the first half consists of a strained analogy to high tech jobs and an irrelevant look into the reasons why the draft was instituted a half century ago.

 

On the other hand, the author hasn't described some very basic aspects of any reasonable proposal.  For example, what would have stopped a team from negotiating with Bryce Harper when he was a sophomore in high school?  Sure they can't sign him then, but an understanding could well have been reached.  Or would there be a way to control that?  When could above board negotiations start, and how long would the process of dealing with 1200 players take?  In the present setup, each team only negotiates with the 40 players it drafted, but in a free agent approach, they may have to negotiate with hundreds.  

 

What would stop a team with a $3 million cap from signing a player with an under the table promise to renegotiate a year later?  If this sort of behavior isn't controlled, the wealthy teams will get most of the top players, whereas a draft assures that a weak team gets priority.

 

The NCAA rules concerning amateurism and advisers versus agents need revision, but setting up a situation in which players are in negotiations with all 30 teams may prove to be unworkable.

 

 

The above is how I feel and thank you for expressing it so well.

Free agency would destroy the smaller market team. The draft has been able to even up the field and baseball is a much better game for it.

The NCAA needs to lighten up. Many people say the salaries should raised, but when you actually see how much money it takes to run one team, you get an understanding why it is what it is.

The spending cap seems stupid because some teams will be left with lots of money. I also think that the draft is better because a team might go after 2 people right away who were top 5 prospects.

I'm all in favor of considering new ideas but I'm not sure the authors proposal is the answer.

 

The author is applying free market economics to a limited supply and limited demand economic model.   I don't see how that proposal would work efficiently or to the benefit of BOTH parties.  There has to be some give and take between ownership and employees to make this model work more efficiently.  

 

Historically, baseball has gone guardrail to guardrail over who has the upper hand in the economics.  Under the authors' proposal, I don't see anyway ownership would agree to give draftable players additional freedom beyond the current free agency.....unless they were getting something in return or they were coerced by gov't.

Lots of work goes into becoming a free agent, something you have  to earn. I would like to see the MLB time clock changed, earlier arbitration and ea

rlier free agency.

Cabbage,

 

I'm in Richmond, VA so this story is one I'm more familiar with than some, but it's a great read:

 

http://www.circuitcitythebook.com/

 

Some years ago, there was a book called From Good to Great, that profiled a handful of successful companies and chronicled how they got to the top.  That book was (and still is, in some circles) considered a must-read in business circles.  This newer book is written as a follow-up to detail how, even as the first book was being widely read, the seeds of the demise of Circuit City (one of the companies spotlighted in the earlier book) were already taking root.  They screwed up some, and Best Buy ate their lunch. 

 

Today, Best Buy is in trouble.

 

As for WalMart:  Once upon a time, KMart owned that segment of the market.  Hard as it may be to imagine, WalMart will not last forever, either. 

 

The Wurtzel book concludes by noting that in the end, every company runs its course.  Some are absorbed into more vibrant (at the time) entities, others turn to dust.  But none of them last forever.

 

Much as in baseball, someone is always trying to beat you out, and eventually, someone will. 

 

There are 750 players on MLB active rosters at any given time.  They drafted roughly 1,250 new players earlier this month, and that doesn't include the ongoing influx of new foreign talent.  It's been said that as hard as it is to get to MLB, staying is even harder.

Thanks Midlo,

I think I recall that you are involved in the business world in an interesting manner but don't recall exactly how.  I'd be interested in continuing that discussion perhaps via pm.

 

As it relates to baseball, I totally agree from a player standpoint.  My concern is from an organizational competitive balance standpoint.  I think it would take a very long time for the Yankees of the world to run their course.  The big-money markets would find even more ways to use their $$ to maintain the upper hand and the average fan of the little guys or poorly-run franchises would bail.  It's not like the regular business world where a consumer can choose to go down the street to the competitor until his first choice gets their act together.  The fan lives where he lives and is stuck with his hometown team for better or for worse.  And, IMO, it would be a bad thing for baseball if, for example, several of the bottom-dwelling teams got absorbed by the bigger market/better run organizations.  I admit that I'm a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to baseball, so I may be wrong.  I also suffer from being a Cleveland fan and they would certainly qualify as an organization in jeopardy

There's a general rule that where ever you have a ban on price competition, non-price competition will rise.

 

What I think you would get out of a budget/free agency system is a lot of teams vying for players using incentives other than bonus pay.  Teams would test the limits of what they could offer in terms of better housing, per diems, etc.  Also there would be more and more emphasis on the reputation the MLB teams have for player development.  Right now the Red Sox are considered one of the top teams in that department, the Cubs might be at the bottom.  If doing away with the draft would give a player the leverage to choose his employer and thereby influence his chances of actually making it in the end, that would be nice.  And it might even force teams to stop relying on the draft to save them from themselves, and clean up their acts.

 

But remember, the folks making the rules couldn't care less about who makes it.  They know some will, some won't, and beyond that it's not their concern.  Their concern is about keeping operating costs down.  So, don't bet on any of this happening.