The market for amateur baseball players operates as anything but a free market. Instead, the draft creates a tightly controlled and restricted market, as it only allows an amateur player to bargain with a single team. In this way, the draft squeezes the player like a lemon, and the team walks away with sweet lemonade.
The most recent CBA made changes to further squeeze this already squeezed lemon. It placed strict caps on the amount teams can spend on draft picks and instituted harsh penalties--such as the loss of subsequent draft picks--for exceeding these limits.
As I predicted in an earlier post, further restricting an already restricted market had a negative impact on spending. In fact, spending by MLB teams in this year's draft dropped 11% from the previous year.
This 11% drop resulted in teams spending $25.8 million less in 2012 than in 2011. That's an average of $860,000 less per team. Where does all this money go? Well, the CBA fails to directly answer that. But indirectly the answer is found.
The money saved will go to major league salaries, as the new CBA requires MLB minimum salaries to increase dramatically over the next few years.
I talked at length in the earlier post about the MLBPA selling out minor league players. I won't bother you again with such talk, but I will make a couple of other points.
Incredibly, the $860,000 average savings per team could nearly double most minor league salaries if it were spent on minor leaguers.
A first-year Double-A player makes around $7500 for the entire season. Those in lower levels make even less. While the number of minor leaguers within an organization varies greatly, a reasonable estimate can be made for the amount of players at Double-A and below. For this calculation, we'll say a team retains around 120 players at Double-A and below. While some of these players are at Double-A, most are at lower levels, so we'll assume an average salary of $6,000 per year for these 120 players. What does doubling every one of these 120 salaries require? $720,000.
Most of the minor leaguers would see their salaries doubled, and teams would still be left with an extra $140,000 in their pockets. While not all Triple-A salaries could be doubled with this leftover amount (since more minor league free agents and former major leaguers play in Triple-A), this money could easily be used to double the salaries for the Triple-A players playing under the terms of their original minor league agreements. After all, a first-year Triple-A player makes only a little more than $10,000.
Of course, none of this will happen. Minor league salaries have hardly budged in 35 years. Why would they increase now? Instead, many players will continue to live below the poverty line, and baseball's Robber Barons of the New Gilded Age will continue to profit.
(Thanks to Luke Erickson's post for the Robber Barons analogy.)
OTHER LINKS
A Possible NCAA/MLB Scholarship Partnership?
I recently wrote an article for Baseball America entitled "Beware MLB, NCAA Joint Venture". Here's a little snippet from it:
I fear that baseball might be taking steps towards an NFL type of model. While this might be great for college baseball and great for the owners' bottom line, it wouldn't be great for players. It would take away players' freedom of choice, and it would shave away earning years from an athletes' short earning window. And, as stated above, there are better ways to court young athletes, chiefly through the already existing model.
Again, I'm all for helping athletes get college degrees. But when two cartels start cooperating with one another, I'm immediately wary. Any resulting gift is most likely not what it seems.
Indianapolis Star Article on Minor League Unionization
James Oldham of the Indianapolis Star also wrote a very good article recently on the obstacles to unionizing the minor leagues. It's worth the read.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
More on "Emancipation of the Minors"
About two months ago, a freelance journalist contacted me. She was interested in some issues affecting minor league players. I happily answered all her preliminary questions. Since she was not the first freelance journalist to contact me about minor league issues, I assumed that, like most of the others, I would never hear from her again.
About two weeks later, the freelancer called me again. She had done some more research, and she had some more questions. And they were good questions. I again happily answered them. To my surprise, she called again a couple weeks later with more questions. I could tell a story was coming into being.
Lily Rothman's article appeared on Slate last week. It was wonderful. Titled "Emancipation of the Minors," it quickly detailed the current labor status of the minor league player, as the introductory paragraph demonstrates:
"In one of America’s most fabled industries, there’s a hidden underclass of workers that has a starting salary of $1,100 a month and gets paid for only half the year. They are subject to territorial monopolies, restrictions on labor movement, and caps on salaries that are illegal in other businesses. Though not members of a union, their lives are influenced by one of the most powerful labor associations in the country, a group whose members—people who work in the same industry for the same organizations and were once in the same position—have a vested interest in keeping them down. They are minor-league baseball players."
The article contains quotes from heavyweights such as Gene Orza and Marvin Miller, and, with one exception, it's magnificent. The one problem with it comes from an unlikely source: Jim Bouton. The author of baseball's original insider memoir offered an uneducated, callous take on minor leaguers:
“[Minor leaguers] bargain for their talent in a free market like everybody else does,” he says. If you’re a believer in laissez-faire capitalism, you can argue there’s no such thing as an unfair salary in baseball. Although Bouton admits that many young players get remarkably low wages, “they don’t have to accept the team that drafted them. They can continue playing amateur baseball; they can go back to college.”
Now, I'm as big of a supporter of the free market as anyone. But you have to be an idiot if you think this is the free market at work. In fact, this is the exact opposite of the free market. This is a monopoly at work.
Baseball strictly controls the market for minor leaguers through the draft. Instead of being able to "bargain for their talent in a free market," they can only bargain with the single team that drafted them. Bouton says "they don't have to accept the team that drafted them," but this is just ridiculous. After all, a minor leaguer is chasing a childhood dream. The only team with bargaining rights to the player might offer a $1000 signing bonus and $5500 per year, and a starry-eyed twenty-one-year-old isn't going to turn it down.
To illustrate the difference between a free market at work and monopolism at work, I'll provide two quick examples. The first is familiar. In January, 2010, Aroldis Chapman reached a deal with the Cincinnati Reds for $30 million. Yes, Chapman can probably throw a baseball through a cinder block, but there was another equally talented young pitcher who signed only six months prior to Chapman. Yet Stephen Strasburg received only $15.1 million.
What was the difference? Certainly not talent. Strasburg not only throws bullets, but he also spins a breaking ball that appears as if it's going to fall off Niagara. The only difference lies in the fact that Chapman, as a Cuban defector, was able to negotiate with all thirty teams. Strasburg, on the other hand, could only bargain with the team who drafted him.
Another example occurred almost twenty years ago. In 1996, Scott Boras and other agents found a loophole in the draft process to secure free agency for four talented amateur players. By bypassing the draft, the four players could bargain on the free market with any team. Two players netted more than $10 million. The highest previous amount secured by a player who had gone through the draft paled in comparison, as the dual sport Josh Booty received only $1.6 million. (See Allan Simpson's excellent article on this and the entire history of the draft here.)
Of course, in the end Bouton's comment is not surprising. He's certainly not alone in feeling this way. I've heard similar--if not harsher--comments from many major leaguers. To all too many of them, the minor leagues are a long forgotten, repressed memory. Better to keep them out of sight, and out of mind.
About two weeks later, the freelancer called me again. She had done some more research, and she had some more questions. And they were good questions. I again happily answered them. To my surprise, she called again a couple weeks later with more questions. I could tell a story was coming into being.
Lily Rothman's article appeared on Slate last week. It was wonderful. Titled "Emancipation of the Minors," it quickly detailed the current labor status of the minor league player, as the introductory paragraph demonstrates:
"In one of America’s most fabled industries, there’s a hidden underclass of workers that has a starting salary of $1,100 a month and gets paid for only half the year. They are subject to territorial monopolies, restrictions on labor movement, and caps on salaries that are illegal in other businesses. Though not members of a union, their lives are influenced by one of the most powerful labor associations in the country, a group whose members—people who work in the same industry for the same organizations and were once in the same position—have a vested interest in keeping them down. They are minor-league baseball players."
The article contains quotes from heavyweights such as Gene Orza and Marvin Miller, and, with one exception, it's magnificent. The one problem with it comes from an unlikely source: Jim Bouton. The author of baseball's original insider memoir offered an uneducated, callous take on minor leaguers:
“[Minor leaguers] bargain for their talent in a free market like everybody else does,” he says. If you’re a believer in laissez-faire capitalism, you can argue there’s no such thing as an unfair salary in baseball. Although Bouton admits that many young players get remarkably low wages, “they don’t have to accept the team that drafted them. They can continue playing amateur baseball; they can go back to college.”
Now, I'm as big of a supporter of the free market as anyone. But you have to be an idiot if you think this is the free market at work. In fact, this is the exact opposite of the free market. This is a monopoly at work.
Baseball strictly controls the market for minor leaguers through the draft. Instead of being able to "bargain for their talent in a free market," they can only bargain with the single team that drafted them. Bouton says "they don't have to accept the team that drafted them," but this is just ridiculous. After all, a minor leaguer is chasing a childhood dream. The only team with bargaining rights to the player might offer a $1000 signing bonus and $5500 per year, and a starry-eyed twenty-one-year-old isn't going to turn it down.
To illustrate the difference between a free market at work and monopolism at work, I'll provide two quick examples. The first is familiar. In January, 2010, Aroldis Chapman reached a deal with the Cincinnati Reds for $30 million. Yes, Chapman can probably throw a baseball through a cinder block, but there was another equally talented young pitcher who signed only six months prior to Chapman. Yet Stephen Strasburg received only $15.1 million.
What was the difference? Certainly not talent. Strasburg not only throws bullets, but he also spins a breaking ball that appears as if it's going to fall off Niagara. The only difference lies in the fact that Chapman, as a Cuban defector, was able to negotiate with all thirty teams. Strasburg, on the other hand, could only bargain with the team who drafted him.
Another example occurred almost twenty years ago. In 1996, Scott Boras and other agents found a loophole in the draft process to secure free agency for four talented amateur players. By bypassing the draft, the four players could bargain on the free market with any team. Two players netted more than $10 million. The highest previous amount secured by a player who had gone through the draft paled in comparison, as the dual sport Josh Booty received only $1.6 million. (See Allan Simpson's excellent article on this and the entire history of the draft here.)
Of course, in the end Bouton's comment is not surprising. He's certainly not alone in feeling this way. I've heard similar--if not harsher--comments from many major leaguers. To all too many of them, the minor leagues are a long forgotten, repressed memory. Better to keep them out of sight, and out of mind.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Voiceless: The CBA's negative impact on minor leaguers
Around 2 a.m. the baby began crying. Elena, already with a mind of her own, decided that the middle of the night was a perfect opportunity to play.
Eventually she went back to sleep. My mind began to drift, and I wandered from the comfy confines of my bed, my Venus at my side, to the uncomfy confines of an old friend: a shoddy bus seat.
Surrounded by other guys with the moon providing the only light, the engine whirred as Ryan Adams burst through my earbuds.
The wilderness separating two working class towns passed as I glanced outside the bus window, my heart heavy but my wallet light.
“Give me an answer!!! Give me an answer!!”
And suddenly the baby was crying again.
I awoke from my travels, the memory flickering but failing to flee, as thoughts filled the slow synapses of my brain. The memory had no doubt been prompted by two emails that I received recently from former teammates. Both were upset about the recent CBA. I couldn’t sleep as I thought of these emails and the feeling of being on the road again with no money and a dream, and McDonald’s providing the fuel for each night’s game.
So at 3:47 a.m. I got up and wrote this.
As most readers know, baseball recently announced its new five-year collective bargaining agreement. As opposed to both football and basketball, MLB reps and the MLBPA bargained behind closed doors and hammered out a deal.
Yes, we should cheer. (As did this columnist.)
Yet there was just one problem with this bargaining process. The majority of professional baseball players had no voice during these negotiations.
The Major League Baseball Player’s Association represents only major league players and players on the 40-man roster. However, the vast majority of professional players under contract with MLB teams toil in the minor leagues. The player’s union does not represent these players.
Without a union and without a voice, minor league salaries have barely budged in the last 35 years. Conversely, average major league salaries have increased by almost 7000 percent. The gains derived from three decades of great prosperity in the game—including gains made in the business of the minor leagues—have been distributed only at the very top.
Each time a bargaining agreement is reached it impacts minor leaguers’ lives. For instance, the 2006 CBA made a significant change to the Rule 5 draft. One of the only vehicles for mobility once a minor leaguer is locked into his initial seven-year contract, the 2006 CBA pushed back the Rule 5 eligibility requirements by an entire year. The result was a direct, negative impact on minor leaguers. And not a single soul represented minor league players through the negotiating process.
During this year’s negotiations, MLB owners pushed for a mandatory slotting system for the amateur draft (here are some of my old thoughts on this). If implemented, players drafted in the top rounds of the draft would have been unable to negotiate signing bonuses. Since virtually all draftees first enter the minor leagues, this too would have impacted minor league players. Minor leaguers earn only between $5000 and $10,000 for an entire season of play. This makes the negotiation of the initial signing bonus very important, as many players rely on the signing bonus as a source of income throughout their minor league career. Moreover, around ninety percent of minor leaguers never reach the major leagues, so the negotiation of the initial signing bonus often represents their only chance to negotiate with a MLB team.
Thankfully, a mandatory slotting system was not instituted, but the alternative is almost as egregious. The union and owners agreed to place a cap on the amount a team can spend on the draft. While less intrusive than mandatory slotting, the change will still negatively impact minor league players, as it will likely reduce the overall amount spent on signing bonuses.
What did the union get in return for these changes? Greater wealth for players on an MLB roster. In 2006, they gained an increase in salaries for players on the MLB 40-man roster. This year, they gained a substantial increase in the minimum salary for MLB players, who will now earn at minimum $500,000 when the agreement expires in 2016. Meanwhile, the majority of professional baseball players—the minor leaguers—will probably still be earning below $10,000 in 2016. After all, their salaries have barely budged in three decades, and without representation in the bargaining process, there will be no incentive for owners to increase their salaries.
Knowing this might occur, I wrote to both MLB and MLBPA during the negotiations. I knew my efforts would most likely be futile, but just as the author of an amicus curiae feels compelled to weigh in on a Supreme Court issue, I felt the need to give my thoughts.
So yes, we should cheer baseball for reaching a new deal, but we shouldn't cheer them for leaving minor leaguers without a voice. But, hey, at least the big leaguers are seeing their lives improve.
(See the summary of the 2011 CBA here.)
Note: I'm not blaming MLBPA for the negative effects that each CBA has on minor league players. Their duty extends only towards the players that they represent. When negotiations affect minor league players, it does so because a subject of bargaining tangentially extends into the realm of minor leaguers, such as the Rule 5 draft and the Rule 4 draft. Without MLBPA bargaining over these matters, MLB could unilaterally impose whatever changes they desired without any resistance.
The system--not MLBPA--is at fault.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tobacco and Baseball
Dip in a lip.
That’s the image that greeted me when I recently turned into a postseason thriller.
And spit.
A single close-up from the camera revealed the unmistakable tobacco bulge. A multitude of others also witnessed the brown stain on the lip. I think its time to curb these images, as MLB needs to ban the on-field usage of tobacco.
According to one study, around a third of MLB players use smokeless tobacco, and a fourth of minor leaguers use the substance. In my estimation, the true numbers are probably higher. Tobacco is legal and athletes are grown men, but a ban has nothing to do with them, even though tobacco cessation would obviously be beneficial to individuals. Instead a ban focuses on young eyes.
Research shows that teens increased their smokeless tobacco usage in recent years. Like it or not, athletes are role models (sorry, Charles Barkley), as kids emulate them. Athletes today enjoy greater exposure than ever. Consequently, their tobacco usage gains more exposure. The World Series averaged 19.4 million viewers in 2009. Though World Series ratings were lower this year, overall playoff ratings were strong. And the Internet offers seemingly endless possibilities for exposure.
Some experts think this exposure has contributed to the increase in smokeless tobacco usage by teens. Despite smoking percentages decreasing, it seems “dip in a lip” is making a strong comeback.
This is worrisome. Though less likely to cause death than cigarettes, smokeless tobacco contains 28 different carcinogens linked to numerous varieties of cancer. If you’ve ever seen a picture of a guy without a jawbone, you’ve seen its nasty capabilities.
I must admit that I am not without fault. Though never a frequent user, I tried the distasteful substance during my playing days. As a minor leaguer, my behavior broke the rules, as minor league baseball banned the usage of tobacco products in 1993.
Currently, the minor leagues impose a $500 fine for a player caught with tobacco and a $500 fine for the team’s manager. These fines, in comparison to minor league salaries, are exorbitant. One would think that they would sufficiently deter players from using. Yet they don’t.
Research shows that the likelihood of being caught is more important than the severity of punishment in deterring undesirable actions. Since very few players are ever actually caught using tobacco despite overt usage, the severe fines for minor leaguers have little deterrent effect. A system of lower fines with actual enforcement would more effectively reduce on-field tobacco usage.
Major League Baseball, as opposed to the minors, doesn’t even have a ban on tobacco usage. Players can pack an entire can of dip in their mouth and walk up to the plate with spit spilling down their chin if they so desire. No one will stop them, and millions of kids—future possible tobacco users—will witness it.
This use should be prohibited during games. MLB and the player’s union should work together on this issue and take a sensible approach: ban on-field usage of tobacco, implement a system of reasonable punishments, and actually enforce the ban with regularity.
Players will no doubt balk at such a move as an infringement upon their liberties, but if such a ban spares lives and jaws, then the policy would be worthwhile.
A couple of links for further reading:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63D4QZ20100414
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2010/04/chewing-skoal-baseball-field-ruined-life.html
Friday, November 5, 2010
New "Suitcase Chronicles" entry: When Old Friends Get a Ring
Yes, this is a rarity these days, but I took a few minutes away from summary judgment lectures to put some thoughts on paper (so to speak). It's about my former Giants' teammates winning it all.
So, without further introduction, here's an excerpt from my latest "Suitcase Chronicles" entry:
Some people told me recently I contributed to this championship moment simply by playing in the minors with these guys. Perhaps, in some distant, metaphysical way. But I downplay this. Nothing I did ever prepared Posey for catching Lincecum. Nothing I ever did helped Romo throw his signature slider. They learned these things on their own. I taught them nothing.
Yet we were friends, and we trekked a common journey together. Though my journey ended sooner than theirs, I still enjoyed the moments with them.
We seldom talk anymore. Life's present and future plans all too often stifle old friendships. Memories, however, continue to smolder. It is through these memories that I build my own World Series ring, and I'll carry this invisible ring with me until the day I die.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Latinos and those things called steroids
I'm a little slow to comment on this, but there were a couple of articles that I wanted to pass along to you from the past week. The first comes from Baseball America, and it's about top Latino prospects testing positive for steroids just before the international signing period began. It's a story that should've gotten a LOT more attention but didn't.
Here's an excerpt:
MLB required 40 of the top Dominican prospects from this year's international signing class to register with the league last month, a process that included consenting to a drug test and to investigations into their ages and identities.
Baez said he recently met with the parents of about 20 players who reportedly tested positive for anabolic steroids, which is consistent with the word going around Dominican baseball circles: that nearly half of the 40 players who registered tested positive.
(Read the rest here.)
I almost did a double take when I read this. HALF of the tests came back positive. Wow.
This is very significant. The signing bonuses that top Dominican prospects are being paid has grown considerably in the past ten years, with Michael Ynoa signing with Oakland $4.25 million in 2008. Several other top prospects now receive bonuses in the millions each year.
This places them on par with first round draft picks in MLB's Rule 4 draft. They're certainly talented individuals, but they're very young, and very raw. And as this year's testing results show, some might be using steroids.
Usage of PEDs of course would inflate their natural tools. It would mean that scouts evaluations of them would be tainted. A 16-year-old throwing 97 on steroids is very different from a 16-year-old throwing 97 without steroids.
With teams paying the equivalent of first round money to these players, they need to make every assurance that their age is correct and that they are steroid free. Otherwise they're likely to see less return on their investment.
And according to one minor leaguer (who was incensed), it's not fair to other players either. Having been given huge signing bonuses, these players automatically move above other players on teams' prospect list. They're given far more chances than players who receive less money. Perhaps these chances are not duly earned.
One Latino friend told me that he doesn't suspect widespread usage of steroids by young prospects, but one has to wonder given this report. (See my previous post on buscones and drugs here.)
It's certainly alarming.
Minor Leaguers Testing Positive
On a related note, five minor leaguers recently tested positive for steroid use. All were suspended 50 games. All were Latino.
This is very disappointing. The rate of steroid use has declined sharply in baseball--especially in the minor leagues where testing has been in place since 2001. In my six years of playing, I in fact knew of very few players using PEDs. (See my previous Sporting News post on HGH here.) Not a large percentage of minor leaguers are testing positive, but it seems too high of a percentage are Latino. (Read this excellent article on steroids and Latino peloteros.)
In talking to Latinos, it seems sometimes they're just getting bad information. An uncle or friend they trust will tell them they can take such and such product and not test positive. And it seems steroids are very easy to get in most of their home countries.
I'm not sure there's an easy solution to this problem. Testing involves numerous countries, and it involves kids of a very young age. But it is a problem, and steps need to be taken. Perhaps increased testing combined with greater education would help. Maybe a more informed body of players--combined with a fear of testing positive--would reduce the usage.
Hopefully rates will go down, but in the near future expect more positive tests from Latino ballplayers.
Note: I'm not just picking on Latino ballplayers. There are obviously still Americans using as well, though perhaps not in as high of a percentage. In certain levels of baseball in the U.S., such as at the junior college level, more testing is still needed. We need to keep cleaning this game up.
Here's an excerpt:
MLB required 40 of the top Dominican prospects from this year's international signing class to register with the league last month, a process that included consenting to a drug test and to investigations into their ages and identities.
Baez said he recently met with the parents of about 20 players who reportedly tested positive for anabolic steroids, which is consistent with the word going around Dominican baseball circles: that nearly half of the 40 players who registered tested positive.
(Read the rest here.)
I almost did a double take when I read this. HALF of the tests came back positive. Wow.
This is very significant. The signing bonuses that top Dominican prospects are being paid has grown considerably in the past ten years, with Michael Ynoa signing with Oakland $4.25 million in 2008. Several other top prospects now receive bonuses in the millions each year.
This places them on par with first round draft picks in MLB's Rule 4 draft. They're certainly talented individuals, but they're very young, and very raw. And as this year's testing results show, some might be using steroids.
Usage of PEDs of course would inflate their natural tools. It would mean that scouts evaluations of them would be tainted. A 16-year-old throwing 97 on steroids is very different from a 16-year-old throwing 97 without steroids.
With teams paying the equivalent of first round money to these players, they need to make every assurance that their age is correct and that they are steroid free. Otherwise they're likely to see less return on their investment.
And according to one minor leaguer (who was incensed), it's not fair to other players either. Having been given huge signing bonuses, these players automatically move above other players on teams' prospect list. They're given far more chances than players who receive less money. Perhaps these chances are not duly earned.
One Latino friend told me that he doesn't suspect widespread usage of steroids by young prospects, but one has to wonder given this report. (See my previous post on buscones and drugs here.)
It's certainly alarming.
Minor Leaguers Testing Positive
On a related note, five minor leaguers recently tested positive for steroid use. All were suspended 50 games. All were Latino.
This is very disappointing. The rate of steroid use has declined sharply in baseball--especially in the minor leagues where testing has been in place since 2001. In my six years of playing, I in fact knew of very few players using PEDs. (See my previous Sporting News post on HGH here.) Not a large percentage of minor leaguers are testing positive, but it seems too high of a percentage are Latino. (Read this excellent article on steroids and Latino peloteros.)
In talking to Latinos, it seems sometimes they're just getting bad information. An uncle or friend they trust will tell them they can take such and such product and not test positive. And it seems steroids are very easy to get in most of their home countries.
I'm not sure there's an easy solution to this problem. Testing involves numerous countries, and it involves kids of a very young age. But it is a problem, and steps need to be taken. Perhaps increased testing combined with greater education would help. Maybe a more informed body of players--combined with a fear of testing positive--would reduce the usage.
Hopefully rates will go down, but in the near future expect more positive tests from Latino ballplayers.
Note: I'm not just picking on Latino ballplayers. There are obviously still Americans using as well, though perhaps not in as high of a percentage. In certain levels of baseball in the U.S., such as at the junior college level, more testing is still needed. We need to keep cleaning this game up.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Trading Advisory: Time to make the draft more interesting
Things that can be traded/swapped:
Baseball Cards
Rare Coins
Candy (think Halloween when you got all that candy corn that you hated and had to trade it to the weird kid that loved it)
Spit (sorry, I had to)
Favors
Animal Furs
Carbon Allotments
Sea Shells
Wives (see "Wife Swap")
Jewelry
Humans
Almost anything else in this world
Things that can't be traded:
Baseball Cards
Rare Coins
Candy (think Halloween when you got all that candy corn that you hated and had to trade it to the weird kid that loved it)
Spit (sorry, I had to)
Favors
Animal Furs
Carbon Allotments
Sea Shells
Wives (see "Wife Swap")
Jewelry
Humans
Almost anything else in this world
Things that can't be traded:
MLB Rule 4 Draft Picks
The reason usually given for this is that the draft is built to enable the weakest teams to rebuild. Give weak teams top picks, and they'll reload with top talent.
Yet in past drafts signability issues inhibited some teams from acquiring the best available talent at their slotted pick (see Ricky Porcello, J.D. Drew, Buster Posey, etc, etc. etc.). Cash-strapped teams instead picked slightly less talented kids deemed more signable.
Instead of harming low budget teams, the ability to trade picks might actually benefit them. They could trade down slightly, still get the caliber of player they would've otherwise have drafted, and also receive some sort of compensation in return.
For example, let's say Pittsburgh has the first pick in the 2011 draft, and suddenly Superman decides to play baseball. Yet Superman is demanding a $30 million signing bonus--otherwise he'll just continue to wear his ugly, too-snug blue suit, and continue to hit criminals instead of homeruns. Well, Pittsburgh can't afford this bonus. In the current system, they might simply skip Superman and instead take Johnny HS Shortstop, who will sign for 1/10th of Superman's asking price. Superman will fall in the draft to a team that can afford his asking price.
With the ability to trade picks, Superman will still fall to a team that has more money. But in order to obtain him, they will have to trade up in the draft. Pittsburgh will be able to negotiate with other teams and take the best offer. They might still end up with Johnny HS Shortstop, but they'll also be compensated one or more already established prospects.
This is a more free-market system, and so some will fear its usage. It allows for less control, but I believe it would work very well.
The reason usually given for this is that the draft is built to enable the weakest teams to rebuild. Give weak teams top picks, and they'll reload with top talent.
Yet in past drafts signability issues inhibited some teams from acquiring the best available talent at their slotted pick (see Ricky Porcello, J.D. Drew, Buster Posey, etc, etc. etc.). Cash-strapped teams instead picked slightly less talented kids deemed more signable.
Instead of harming low budget teams, the ability to trade picks might actually benefit them. They could trade down slightly, still get the caliber of player they would've otherwise have drafted, and also receive some sort of compensation in return.
For example, let's say Pittsburgh has the first pick in the 2011 draft, and suddenly Superman decides to play baseball. Yet Superman is demanding a $30 million signing bonus--otherwise he'll just continue to wear his ugly, too-snug blue suit, and continue to hit criminals instead of homeruns. Well, Pittsburgh can't afford this bonus. In the current system, they might simply skip Superman and instead take Johnny HS Shortstop, who will sign for 1/10th of Superman's asking price. Superman will fall in the draft to a team that can afford his asking price.
With the ability to trade picks, Superman will still fall to a team that has more money. But in order to obtain him, they will have to trade up in the draft. Pittsburgh will be able to negotiate with other teams and take the best offer. They might still end up with Johnny HS Shortstop, but they'll also be compensated one or more already established prospects.
This is a more free-market system, and so some will fear its usage. It allows for less control, but I believe it would work very well.
The trading of picks would also make the draft much more interesting, and the draft needs a serious shot of RedBull right now (as does Bud Selig). More options and more possibilities equates with more speculation. The draft becomes a chess match, and drama ensues.
There's been some talk of doing this very thing. (Darren Heitner's piece, and comments from Michael Weiner of the MLBPA.) In fact it will probably be discussed in the negotiations for the next CBA, along with another suggestion: a strict slotting system.
There's been some talk of doing this very thing. (Darren Heitner's piece, and comments from Michael Weiner of the MLBPA.) In fact it will probably be discussed in the negotiations for the next CBA, along with another suggestion: a strict slotting system.
I understand the merits of a slotting system, and in the past I have brought up the idea of using it, but only if the savings were then distributed to minor league players. Any money taken away from draftees should be shifted to the pockets of starving minor leaguers.
The likelihood of this re-distribution is low though. Instead, the savings would not be passed on to minor leaguers, but would instead go to the overall budget of teams. Minor leaguers would remain poor (see my Baseball America piece on minor league salaries here.)
Lost in all of this is the fact that the MLBPA will be negotiating with owners on this and a host of other issues. Many decisions will have a direct influence on minor league players, and these players will have not a single sole representing their interests. Instead they'll just get swept to the side like Friday night garbage, gladly accepting the shillings that they're given, worrying not about collective bargaining agreements, but instead about curveballs and lifelong quests.
Lost in all of this is the fact that the MLBPA will be negotiating with owners on this and a host of other issues. Many decisions will have a direct influence on minor league players, and these players will have not a single sole representing their interests. Instead they'll just get swept to the side like Friday night garbage, gladly accepting the shillings that they're given, worrying not about collective bargaining agreements, but instead about curveballs and lifelong quests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)