The official 2008 MLB thread

[lungs]

Is it really how much money you pour into scouting or is it WHO does the scouting?

Jack Zdurenciek from the Brewers has put together from top to bottom an elite scouting team, yet you also don't see any big market teams "stealing" these scouts either.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Moneyball was all about finding and exploiting market inefficiencies (it wasn't about filling your team with slow, OBP guys). Billy Beane, said architect, just signed the highest profile IFA prospect of the past decade to the biggest contract.

We're not arguing there isn't a competitive advantage when signing major league players. We're arguing there isn't one when it comes to signing prospects.

Yes, Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiencies to gain a competitive edge. In that respect, it speaks to baseball as a whole. Teams now use sabermetrics to try and gain an advantage over each other to identify and sign players. The effect extends into minor league scouting as well. No matter the level, the desire to unearth talent and find the next star player drives the market.

I disagree that there isn't a competitive advantage when it comes to signing prospects. Every year during the draft, players drop due to signability questions. The simple truth is that some players don't want to play for the team that drafted them due to that organization's lack of stature in Major League Baseball.

After a team drafts a player or offers a free agent a contract, it's up to the player to decide what to do. Kansas City opted against drafting Matt Wieters last year because he is a Boras client and would demand big money. Instead, the Royals took a high school player who they knew they could sign. It doesn't matter if it's a domestic player or an amateur player in the draft. The more money you have and spend, the bigger the advantage for your team, hence the reason why small market teams can afford to take fewer risks. If Billy Beane wants to sign an amateur player for millions, let him. The A's are obviously aware of their financial situation and so are willing to take a calculated risk. The risk to larger clubs is greatly reduced because they can draft and sign players with little regard for signability questions.

To argue that there is no competitive advantage in signing prospects is a gross underestimation of the current financial model in Major League Baseball.

[Mike1409]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I don't see Tampa trading for Sabathia. They don't need him.

They need a righthanded bat to replace Floyd, and provide some pop that Pena isn't. If they were to get an Adam Dunn, I'd say that they're in great shape to make the playoffs.

Before this series I'd also have been worried about their bullpen, but both Howell and Balfour have looked great. However, the Sox bats have also gone to sleep and could have just made them look great.

I think the move is going to be for Jason Bay or X Nady of Pittsburgh. I expect Balfour to be the closer of the future for the Rays.

I believe the only way they get Sabbathia is to only give up 1 prospect and E Jackson.

Longoria AL-ROY!!!!

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So then why aren't the Royals willing to take that risk? Why wouldn't they sign Wieters? Have they changed their tune now (drafting Melville and Hosmer)? If so, what has changed?

Every transaction has inherent risk. Small market teams need to figure out the best way to leverage that risk, and it looks to me like doing it in the draft and with international free agents is the smartest way to do it.

What's a better use of their money and leveraging risk: Mark Grudz for 4.5m, or Matt Wieters signing for 6m?

I think you raise interesting questions. Every transaction contains inherent risk, you're right, but each small market team (and every club for that matter) is also different. Based on the results of the last few years, it would seem that the Athletics are a better managed organization than Kansas City.

I think the Royals are already changing their perception around baseball thanks to the tireless work of Dayton Moore and J.J. Piccolo. But I think they remain limited in what they can do. Could they have offered Wieters $6M at the draft last year? Sure. Would he have signed with them? No one can say for sure. I believe the Royals avoided him because they wanted to put those concerns to rest from the beginning.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Mike1409

I expect Balfour to be the closer of the future for the Rays.

So a trade of two pieces of junk has worked out splendidly for both sides so far.... Seth McClung for Grant Balfour.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by samifan24

I believe the Royals avoided him because they wanted to put those concerns to rest from the beginning.

This losing attitude is exactly how you end up being a losing team.

[Bad-example]

Thought this quote at Sportsline was pretty cool...don't really know why:

"It was everything I thought it would be, except for not throwing strike one (to my first hitter). I always imagined I'd paint it." -- Reliever Sergio Romo, who made his big-league debut in Cleveland and threw a perfect inning.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Logan

This losing attitude is exactly how you end up being a losing team.

How is this a "losing attitude?" A team has to be reasonable in its expectations. There's a reason why the Royals have to overpay to sign free agents. Look at Gil Meche. Sure, he turned out to be not so bad last year but if you'll recall the baseball world was initially shocked at the huge contract the Royals gave him. That hardly constitutes a "losing attitude." You have to expect that teams are going to do their best to compete. That means different things to different clubs but certainly the ability to compete is made easier with more money and a good reputation. The Royals have neither right now.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by samifan24

How is this a "losing attitude?" A team has to be reasonable in its expectations. There's a reason why the Royals have to overpay to sign free agents. Look at Gil Meche. Sure, he turned out to be not so bad last year but if you'll recall the baseball world was initially shocked at the huge contract the Royals gave him. That hardly constitutes a "losing attitude." You have to expect that teams are going to do their best to compete. That means different things to different clubs but certainly the ability to compete is made easier with more money and a good reputation. The Royals have neither right now.

Because you would rather save money and pass up the player you really want to get a player that isn't as good but will sign for less. What's the difference? $2 million? Tell me how important that money is when you factor in that you will be able to control the superior player for a fairly long length of time at a reasonable cost.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by samifan24

That means different things to different clubs but certainly the ability to compete is made easier with more money and a good reputation. The Royals have neither right now.

I'm not sure the Royals don't have a good reputation at this point. You're definitely right if we're talking about 2-3 years ago, but Moore's presence in the front office has greatly enhanced the perception of the franchise. Several free agents commented that the Royals were much more competitive in their offers the past two off-seasons and upper management of most of the baseball franchises believe that the Royals are finally building the franchise the way it should be done thanks to Moore's leadership.

Also, the Royals are spending a record amount of money on payroll this year and the payroll is up 30% from just a couple of years ago. Money is being spent, but it's hard to catch up when you're spending a record amount of payroll and still lag behind the top payroll by over $100M.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

A relevant point from today's Verducci:

3. The continuation of parity. Half the teams in baseball are within five games of .500. The three teams with the lowest payrolls in baseball (Marlins, Rays, Athletics) are closer to a playoff spot than the three teams with the highest payrolls (Yankees, Tigers, Mets).

Insinuating that somehow proves there's parity in MLB is silly at best. The Royals had an 8 game lead in their division at the All Star break a few years back, but that didn't prove that parity existed in baseball. Here's a measure that provides a better picture of just how much "parity" there is in baseball. Just look at all those small market teams...........

Most consecutive seasons with .500+ winning percentage:

New York Yankees (15)
Boston Red Sox (10)
Philadelphia Phillies (5)
LA Angels (4)
San Diego Padres (4)
New York Mets (3)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So maybe the point is that smaller market teams have difficulty sustaining success over a long period, not succeeding.

Absolutely. I see media members on the East Coast every year who trot out an article at mid-season detailing the latest flash-in-the-pan team or two that seemingly disrupts the arguement that there is no parity in MLB. Your point where you trotted out Florida is a perfect example. Yes, they have done a good job of winning and then promptly selling the farm to retool, but is that truly the way that MLB wants their franchises to function? Leagues tend to thrive with consistency. Having a team that sells the fan favorites every time they succeed is a brutal way to retain fans. I'd argue that the form of success that Florida fans have been forced to endure is bad for baseball long-term. Teams shouldn't have to go to that extreme level to compete. It kills fan loyalty.

[Mike1409]

Originally Posted by lungs

So a trade of two pieces of junk has worked out splendidly for both sides so far.... Seth McClung for Grant Balfour.

I agree. The problem with McClung when he was here was his work ethic he didn't prepare for games as hard as they thought he should have. I always thought he should have been a closer instead of starter because he only had 1 good pitch and struggeled with getting through the lineups a couple of times an outing.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, they have done a good job of winning and then promptly selling the farm to retool, but is that truly the way that MLB wants their franchises to function? Leagues tend to thrive with consistency. Having a team that sells the fan favorites every time they succeed is a brutal way to retain fans. I'd argue that the form of success that Florida fans have been forced to endure is bad for baseball long-term. Teams shouldn't have to go to that extreme level to compete. It kills fan loyalty.

I think the current financial model works really well for MLB for a lot of the reasons you mentioned.

They don't want all teams to be equal. They want the Yankees and Red Sox to be playing playoff baseball more than anyone else. A Yankee or Red Sox championship brings in way more revenue and interest to the game than a Royals championship would.

But it can't be JUST Red Sox/Yankees. You need fans of other teams to have a hope that they can compete. Expanded playoffs and revenue sharing has done that. Anybody can win a short series. And anybody can get to the playoffs in a period of 5 years or so. (I used to think an exception to that would be the Rays/Jays/Orioles, but any of those teams could concievably win 92 games and edge past the Sox/Yanks in a given year.)

Sure, the Royals and Pirates can't possibly win as often as the big markets over the long term, but so what? You adjust your expectations. The Marlins winning the world series is a tremendous achievement. The Rays are really fun right now and have a legit shot to make the playoffs. The Red Sox winning the world series is more of an expectation. That's the way it is. The die-hard Royals fans would probably get as much satisifaction out of a playoff run as the Red Sox fans would for another World Series. A Royals/Red Sox ALCS would have high drama because of this disparity, and such a thing IS possible under the current financial scheme.

If you start with the assumption that everyone should be equal, you'll ALWAYS be dissapointed because that's NEVER, EVER going to happen as long as there's a player's union. But there's hardly a team in baseball that doesn't have some hope of getting to the playoffs in next 2-3 years, and that's a huge step from where we were.

The Royals have 27% of the payroll of the Yankees, and in 2006, 39% of the revenue. If they spent the same % of revenue on players that the Yankees did, they'd have a payroll of $81 million.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Logan

Because you would rather save money and pass up the player you really want to get a player that isn't as good but will sign for less. What's the difference? $2 million? Tell me how important that money is when you factor in that you will be able to control the superior player for a fairly long length of time at a reasonable cost.

I believe that the Royals opted against drafting Wieters because they were concerned that he would never play for them because he wouldn't want to join the KC organization. The Royals drafted someone else (anyone else) so that they would avoid the possibility of a player not signing and the team having wasted the pick altogether.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure the Royals don't have a good reputation at this point. You're definitely right if we're talking about 2-3 years ago, but Moore's presence in the front office has greatly enhanced the perception of the franchise. Several free agents commented that the Royals were much more competitive in their offers the past two off-seasons and upper management of most of the baseball franchises believe that the Royals are finally building the franchise the way it should be done thanks to Moore's leadership.

Also, the Royals are spending a record amount of money on payroll this year and the payroll is up 30% from just a couple of years ago. Money is being spent, but it's hard to catch up when you're spending a record amount of payroll and still lag behind the top payroll by over $100M.

The Royals reputation is improving dramatically thanks to Moore and his team and the organization as a whole has made dramatic improvements in the Moore years. But the team's reputation the last few years has been poor although it is now steadily improving.

[ISiddiqui]

SWEEP!!!!!

Tampa takes 3 out of 3 from the Red Sox!! Great game too, down by 3 in the 7th and they put up 6. And then the Red Sox were knocking on the door, but Wheeler finally was able to get the outs he needed. 7-6 Rays!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Oh, I'm definitely not. It's amazing what a difference a competent GM has made in 2 years. That's why I'm so surprised SI is still advocating that more needs to be done to balance the field - it's impossible to quantify, but if anything KC is getting more than 1/30th the young talent right now.

While I probably lean more your way in the major league world thinking, I agree with SI that there needs to be an international draft and slotted salaries. IMO, that's the last true area where the big teams have just a huge advantage. Just looking at my Angels, Santana, KRod, Aybar, Kendry Morales (at AAA, but he should be playing here), and Arredondo are just a few of the top talents we have signed. I appreciate having them, and I recognize how much it must suck to be a fan of a lower end revenue team that can't compete in the international prospect market nearly as well.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

A relevant point from today's Verducci:

3. The continuation of parity. Half the teams in baseball are within five games of .500. The three teams with the lowest payrolls in baseball (Marlins, Rays, Athletics) are closer to a playoff spot than the three teams with the highest payrolls (Yankees, Tigers, Mets).

Teams to win the World Series in last 15 years without a payroll in the top half of the league. I think that's something that resonates a bit.

[Chief Rum]

BTW, personally I am fine with the major league setup as it is right now. Big teams are still big teams, but the gap is close enough that smaller market teams can compete. It's only at the minor league level that I think we should start to get a little socialistic. That's where the disparities are huge now.

[Marmel]

IP H R ER BB SO HR ERA
Madrigal (BS, 1)(L, 0-1) 0.1 5 6 6 1 0 0 162.00

Rough major league debut for the Ranger's pitcher.

[korme]

Though it's not relevant tonight, I'd just like to thank whatever franchsie we stole Jared Burton from in the '07 Rule V Draft (our less glamorous pick than Hamilton).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Tampa!! TAMPA!!

What a great performance by Garza, building on his string of impressive starts ever since his argument with Navarro. He's getting his head where it needs to be and the Rays now have a very strong starting 3 with Kazmir, Shields, and Garza. If they deal for Sabathia, as the rumors are, that'd be a frightening rotation to go against.

I greatly enjoyed watching the Rays game last night after the Royals game was over. Very cool to see those fans so excited with their brooms

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Oh, I'm definitely not. It's amazing what a difference a competent GM has made in 2 years. That's why I'm so surprised SI is still advocating that more needs to be done to balance the field - it's impossible to quantify, but if anything KC is getting more than 1/30th the young talent right now.

As well they should be. That's the idea of the draft- the worse teams should be getting more young talent. It's why the worse teams pick first. Cheap shot but easy, then again, you've been making them this whole thread so it's hard to line them all up one at a time. The next post will be a lot more fun...

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

They can't compete in the Major League market. They can in the minor league market. That's why they need to stop spending on the Mike Sweeney's, Angel Berroa's, and even the Gil Meche's and Jose Guillen's. For heaven's sake, Mark Grudzielanek is earning 4.5m this year, John Bale (who?) 2.2m, Ron Mahay 4m, Jimmy Gobble (who?) 1.3m. Replace all them with rookies/arb guys and that frees up 11 million to spend on player development. Develop 1-2 more Beltran's or Greinke's and they'd have a chance to compete. You can miss the playoffs with rookies just as easily as with replacement-level veterans, and much more cheaply. Look at what the Marlins have done cycling through veterans for rookies and actually occasionally winning.

We don't have anyone who can play 2B adequately- we have a couple of utility guys in German who cannot field and Callaspo who just picked up a DUI and has off the field issues. Hell, we don't have anyone who can play SS except for a 27yo quad A guy who everyone likes right now but is going to revert to what he is and Tony Pena Jr who is a "prospect" we have tried to develop but, last I checked, had the lowest VORP of anyone in the league by far (-20ish!).

And I don't use profanity on this board, but this type of stuff just boggles the mind. FOR FUCK'S SAKE, YOU'RE BITCHING ABOUT ANGEL BERROA BEING LOCKED UP BUT HE WAS A ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND THE ROYALS LOCKED HIM UP EARLY TO TRY AND CONTROL COSTS AS YOU HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING ALL ALONG! Just wait if Evan Longoria or Ryan Braun starts to struggle and turns into just an average major leaguer or, even worse, regresses to minor league level. Watch how crippled Milwaukee or Tampa will be by that situation because Angel Berroa's $4M that you're talking about will seem like chump change next to that.

You just aren't hearing what we are saying or rather unable to comprehend our situation. You know what, he sucked- but you large market fans think the standard for teams should be batting 1.000 on every player just to compete with the higher market teams. And the next two paragraphs outline the two huge logic flaws you just don't understand or don't want to comprehend.

There is value to winning in the development process. If we didn't have Ron Mahay, we'd have lost a couple more games this year as he's been the 7th/8th inning guy out of the bullpen. Do you know how hard it is to change a culture of losing? No, of course not. Going 100 years without a World Series is not a complete culture of a losing- try having 1 winning season in the last 10. I dare you to find when that has happened to Boston in their history. That badly stunts prospect growth- you bring a bunch of young, impressionable rookies into that environment and they just can't grow when there is no one to grow and learn from. It's no surprise that Angel Berroa's best season was the Royals only winning one. For all we know, Alex Gordon is that once in a generation talent you mentioned but coming into this environment may have stunted his growth. I can guarantee that if Albert Pujols had been drafted by the Royals, he wouldn't have been the Albert Pujols that everyone knows.

Oh, and c'mon, saying an extra $4.5M gets a once in a generation talent is more than a little facetious. It takes a lot of $4.5M prospects to get a player that comes along once every 20 years. Dozens, if not hundreds.

As an aside, Jimmy Gobble is a LOOGY that they hoped would become something more as he was a starting prospect with us- he's one of our own, those ones everyone wants us to keep developing but sometimes they flop. John Bale was someone we picked up as a reliever/starter overseas after he pitched in Japan for a few years- again, someone that was underscouted and undervalued, but it turns out that he's just not that good. But they were trying to take advantage of that market inefficiency.

As for the second point, it doesn't always work! And it really doesn't always work with prospects. You cannot just build your team with prospects. They miss. A lot. And you can either replace them with quad A guys who also miss, a lot. There's no guarantee that a quat A guy is replacement level and, in fact, they frequently are below that. We know, we see them here up close and personal all the time so let's dispense with this myth of the replacement level player- it's not like you can just take a guy off the street and he'll hit "replacement level"- the players just striving for that level of performance are even more unreliable than actual prospects.

We pay Jose Guillen or Gil Meche and we actually have a pretty good idea what we are getting. Hell, both have even exceeded expectations and in a couple of years, we'll flip them at the deadline for prospects. But in the meantime they provide stability and hole filling for positions where we have players who aren't ready. We don't have any MLB ready OFs or SPs, particularly not who can provide the impact of what they provide.

I'll get further through this thread later on but I have to get to work this morning

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Are the Rays just lucky, or is this the model for small market baseball? I know the Rays have had a shitload of early draft picks, but so have the Royals and Pirates to just name a few.

Until the last couple of years, the Royals along with other small market teams haven't been able to pick the best player available when they drafted. They were in a no-win situation. If they picked the best player available, that player would either opt-out and head to college or would refuse to sign because the Royals couldn't afford to give him what he was asking. After being burned a few times, the small market teams did the best with the situation presented and started drafting lesser talent with top picks because they at least knew they'd be able to get them into the system. Of course, this resulted in the larger market teams getting the best talent available in the middle to late first round. Another case of the rich getting richer.

And as I mentioned before in my previous point, let's not annoint a Rays dynasty just yet. They've sucked for a long time to get this one shining moment consisting of a good position halfway through a season. If they do this for 3 years in a row without having to slash payroll/talent, then we'll chat.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How have the Rays been able to sign the best available talent? Surely their tradition of winning was not what brought them along.

It generally is easier to entice draftees to play in Tampa or Miami than some other cities. Then again, for some like J.D. Drew, even that doesn't particularly matter.

And it isn't like Tampa has a lot of big name free agents flocking there. You got your players with a few years left who want to play in Florida and play fairly regularly (Percival, Floyd) and you have your players who were always role players (Hinske, Gross). Not exactly the cream of the FA market.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

... try having 1 winning season in the last 10. I dare you to find when that has happened to Boston in their history.

Closest I can come since WWII would be 8 in a row from 1959-1966, preceded by a pair of 3rd place finishes in '57 & '58.

Back a little further, the Sox were under .500 for 15 straight years from 1919-1933 before finishing 76-76 in 1934.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How have the Rays been able to sign the best available talent? Surely their tradition of winning was not what brought them along.

By fielding one of the lowest payrolls in MLB for the past few seasons and losing 100+ games. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said for it to make sense to some people. Small market teams have the option of having record payrolls and still not competing or they can suck for several seasons and have one shinning moment that MAY last one season before they have to hold a garage sale of players and start all over.

And I know you're mocking SI's points in your post, but his argument in his point was very clearly stated and makes perfect sense to everyone except the most die-hard devil's advocate.

[lungs]

Why is it always Royals fans complaining about disparity in the MLB on here?

I guess Pirates fans don't exist. As a fan of a small market team watching the Royals from the outside, they are certainly moving in the right direction. The cupboard was left completely bare for Dayton Moore as far as I can tell, when he took over. These things won't happen overnight.

A lot of the talk is about the problems small market teams have in signing amateur talent that is high priced.

What about player development? You don't just draft guys and pray they turn out. You don't just build on first round picks. You need to identify talent in the mid to late rounds and cultivate that talent.

Just a few examples of young guys picked later in the draft helping teams:
Manny Parra: 26th round pick
Corey Hart: 11th round pick
James Shields: 16th round pick
Andy Sonnanstine: 13th round pick

That is just scratching the surface. Taking a look at the Royals roster, it looks as if they don't really have much for mid round talent on their roster. I'm pretty sure Dean Taylor works in the Royals front office, and while he didn't have a damn clue how to put together a major league roster in his time as GM of the Brewers, he laid the groundwork for the player development juggernaut they have now.

Without taking a look at the Royals system, I'm betting that a good chunk of the talent is in the lower level of the minors? It's almost like a good recruiter taking over a shitty college football program. When you are handed an empty cupboard there really isn't shit anybody can do about it for a few years until you get your own guys filtering through the system.

And guess what? If you do a good job of scouting and player development, when your first group of talented player graduate to the majors, there ought to be another group right behind them that can be used for trade or to push the others that didn't necessarily pan out.

As a Brewer fan, I know what it's like to go through a decade or more of mismanagement. The same mentality I see from a lot of Royals fans was very normal here in Wisconsin for a long time. There is no way we can compete! It's amazing how the attitude of a fan base can change when a few good people are brought in with a clue on how to build a major league organization.

Now the Brewers rank 11th in attendance in the major leagues, and stand a decent chance of drawing 3 million fans this year. Not too bad for a small market team that many said should've been eliminated with the Expos when contraction came up.

[ISiddiqui]

Everyone bitches about the Marlins, but they're doing pretty well this year and look to have a bright future. Trading away Beckett and Lowell netted them possibly the most exciting player in MLB today.

They also completely destroy any potential fan base by trading away fan favorites any time they get good. Which means, yes, they are set up for the future pretty good, but there is a good chance they'll have to move to a new city in the next decade because no one will watch them.

Now maybe the Beckett and Lowell for Ramirez would have been accepted by a fanbase better if everyone else wasn't dealt away.

Maybe make a better team in the long run, but it won't work in sustaining a fanbase.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

ISiddiqui - I'm not talking about how they acted after '97 - They basically put that team together, with a lot of free agents, to win the World Series then dismantle. I'm talking more about the Santana, Cabrera, Beckett and Mulder trades as examples of rebuilding once you can no longer afford your homegrown players. You don't have to liquidate the entire team in one offseason.

I wasn't either. I was talking about how they acted after 2003. They said they were going to try to keep the team together. Couldn't. Let the stars go and the fanbase revolted against the team again.

[molson]

What do the Royals fans want? Sympathy? For someone to give their team $100 million dollars to spend on players? For the players to leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the table and cap the Yankees spending at $90 million? How about a minimum payroll floor of $90 million, and any team who can't afford to pay that gets contracted.

It's not a facetious question - we hear a lot on this board about how hard it is for you, and 99% of people seem to agree. But what do you want to have happen?

[ISiddiqui]

I think most Royals fans would like greater revenue sharing and I'm sure they wouldn't mind a payroll floor as a condition of that (but then if you are rebuilding that means you have to sign people you may not want to meet that floor).

They look at the NFL small market squads with envy.

And they'd probably like an international player draft and draft pick salary slotting.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lungs

Without taking a look at the Royals system, I'm betting that a good chunk of the talent is in the lower level of the minors? It's almost like a good recruiter taking over a shitty college football program. When you are handed an empty cupboard there really isn't shit anybody can do about it for a few years until you get your own guys filtering through the system.

That is the case. A and AA have quite a bit of talent as we've only recently started truly drafting the best player available.

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

My opinion is that, for these smaller market teams, the best route is to not waste payroll on marginal players, suck for a few years, scout well AND pay the money necessary to sign the best drafted prospects and international prospects. Once you have built a solid, young core it sets you up for future success. Everyone bitches about the Marlins, but they're doing pretty well this year and look to have a bright future. Trading away Beckett and Lowell netted them possibly the most exciting player in MLB today.

LOL. I don't know how many times this has to be said. KC DID pay for the best prospects in their organization. Everyone threw praise on KC when they signed Sweeney to a multi-year deal after his monster All-Star season. KC DID pay Rookie of the Year Angel Berroa a multi-year deal to keep him here for the long haul. All it got us was 40% of the payroll going to a player in AAA and a oft-injured DH. KC didn't do anything wrong other than be terribly unlucky. To imply that they didn't follow the exact measures that people maintain should make them successful flies in the face of the facts.

As far as Florida, I'm still not sure why they continue to be paraded out as a small market franchise. They are in one of the top 5 TV markets in the nation and have a large population area around them. That franchise really shouldn't be compared to the true small markets.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

What do the Royals fans want? Sympathy? For someone to give their team $100 million dollars to spend on players? For the players to leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the table and cap the Yankees spending at $90 million? How about a minimum payroll floor of $90 million, and any team who can't afford to pay that gets contracted.

It's not a facetious question - we hear a lot on this board about how hard it is for you, and 99% of people seem to agree. But what do you want to have happen?

An even playing field. Salary cap is the best way to do that. The only reason the Yankees and Red Sox don't want a cap is because they know just how big of a competitive advantage they have right now. Levelling the playing field would result in the Yankees front office having to be much more efficient in procuring talent, which could leave their jobs in jeopardy, much moreso than the current system. The only reason Yankees management gets fired as often as they do is because management realizes that they really should be winning a championship every other season given their distinct advantages.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Salary cap is the best way to do that.

Better that the markets that say they can't compete without a cap be contracted instead.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

An even playing field. Salary cap is the best way to do that. The only reason the Yankees and Red Sox don't want a cap is because they know just how big of a competitive advantage they have right now. Levelling the playing field would result in the Yankees front office having to be much more efficient in procuring talent, which could leave their jobs in jeopardy, much moreso than the current system. The only reason Yankees management gets fired as often as they do is because management realizes that they really should be winning a championship every other season given their distinct advantages.

Where would you set a salary cap? Do you believe at all the Royals could be spending more if they wanted to? What if the cap was $100 million and they only spent $30 million, and the big markets simply poured their economic advantages more into scouting and development?

Would you be for a salary floor?

It makes no sense to blame the Yankees and Red Sox for not having a cap, the MLB owners have tried to push one during every labor dispute of the last 15 years at least. The Player's Union won't do it.

And I'd be all over a 100% equal playing field if you could somehow promise the same for my Syracuse Orange in facilities and recruiting. MLB disparity is viewed as a tragedy where we just kind of expect it in other contexts.

Just for reference:

2008 Forbes:

Rank Team VALUE* Revenue*
1 NYY $ 1,306 $ 327
2 NYM $ 824 $ 235
3 Red Sox $ 816 $ 263
4 LAD $ 694 $ 224
5 CHC $ 642 $ 214
6 LAA $ 500 $ 200
7 ATL $ 497 $ 199
8 SFG $ 494 $ 197
9 STL $ 484 $ 194
10 PHI $ 481 $ 192
11 SEA $ 466 $ 194
12 HOU $ 463 $ 193
13 WDC $ 460 $ 153
14 CHW $ 443 $ 193
15 CLE $ 417 $ 181
16 TEX $ 412 $ 172
17 DET $ 407 $ 173
18 BAL $ 398 $ 166
19 SDP $ 385 $ 167
20 ARZ $ 379 $ 165
21 COL $ 371 $ 169
22 TOR $ 352 $ 160
23 CIN $ 337 $ 161
24 MIL $ 331 $ 158
25 MIN $ 328 $ 149
26 OAK $ 323 $ 154
27 KCR $ 301 $ 131
28 PIT $ 292 $ 139
29 TBR $ 290 $ 138
30 FLA $ 256 $ 128

[Logan]

I'm sure the Steinbrenners would cry themselves to sleep every night over having an extra $100 million profit every year instead of giving their fans what they want.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Where would you set a salary cap? Do you believe at all the Royals could be spending more if they wanted to? What if the cap was $100 million and they only spent $30 million, and the big markets simply poured their economic advantages more into scouting and development?

Would you be for a salary floor?

It makes no sense to blame the Yankees and Red Sox for not having a cap, the MLB owners have tried to push one during every labor dispute of the last 15 years at least. The Player's Union won't do it.

1. The salary cap would obviously have to be negotiated depending on revenue. Obviously, the archaic rules concerning local TV revenue would also have to be renegotiated to make a salary cap work.

2. A salary floor would be a must. Honestly, the Royals aren't even close to the worst offender in regards to spending revenue. They have upped their salary extensively over the past couple of years. They plan to expand salary even further in the coming years. It's not that they aren't spending more. The problem is that the difference has grown to such a vast level, significant changes in payroll by the lower teams don't get noticed because they still can't even come close to matching what the top teams pay.

3. You're buying into the hype if you think that the players' union is the the reason we don't have a cap. That's nothing more than an excuse by the large markets to pass the blame elsewhere while they continue to ride the financial coat tails of the current economic system. Don't kid yourself. They're not stupid.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1
That's nothing more than an excuse by the large markets to pass the blame elsewhere while they continue to ride the financial coat tails of the current economic system. Don't kid yourself.

You blame the Yankees and Red Sox for spending money and wanting to win?

Is it my fault too for supporting the Red Sox?

Are you seriously claming that the reason there's no MLB salary cap is 2 ownership groups and not the Player's Union?

These discussions usually start with me being sympathetic, and end with hoping these loser teams move or close up shop. Without the antitrust exemption, maybe a 3rd team tries to break into NYC, who's population could seemingly support it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

You blame the Yankees and Red Sox for spending money and wanting to win?

Is it my fault too for supporting the Red Sox?

Are you seriously claming that the reason there's no MLB salary cap is 2 ownership groups and not the Player's Union?

No one is blaming the Red Sox and Yankees for anything. They can't be blamed for taking advantage of the situation and wanting it to remain in their favor, but that doesn't make it any more competitive.

The large markets like the current system. They're certainly not going to go out of their way to change it up and are more than happy to dump the blame on the union. I'm not just talking about 2 franchises, though they are obviously the ring leaders. I certainly haven't seen any large market execs come out and be upset about the current lack of a salary cap. Why? Because they're raking in the money. Once again, they're not stupid.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

These discussions usually start with me being sympathetic, and end with hoping these loser teams move or close up shop. Without the antitrust exemption, maybe a 3rd team tries to break into NYC, who's population could seemingly support it.

And that's certainly the feelings of most big market fans.

An interesting anomoly is that per capita, the New York franchises are actually down the list in regards to attendance. KC actually draws more people per year per capita than the Yankees or the Mets. They only do well because of the sheer number of people in the NYC area.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

. I certainly haven't seen any large market execs come out and be upset about the current lack of a salary cap. Why? Because they're raking in the money. Once again, they're not stupid.

What you're saying is contrary to everything that's publicly known about the 1994 and 2001 MLB player's strikes, where the owners offered the players labor deals that involved salary caps. Both were rejected by the players, and both times the compromise was revenue sharing. The Yankees have spent well over $100 million in luxury tax payments since then.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And that's certainly the feelings of most big market fans.

An interesting anomoly is that per capita, the New York franchises are actually down the list in regards to attendance. KC actually draws more people per year per capita than the Yankees or the Mets. They only do well because of the sheer number of people in the NYC area.

There's only so many people you can fit into Yankee Stadium and Shea. OF COURSE that's going to be a low per capita number when the NYC metro area has 20 million people. That's why they're able to charge so much more for tickets than the Royals do.

I don't think you know the feelings of "most big market fans". They like it when their team wins, just like you.

Should the Royals be allowed to move if they can be more competitive somewhere else? Why are they entitled to an MLB team in the first place?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

What you're saying is contrary to everything that's publicly known about the 1994 and 2001 MLB player's strikes, where the owners offered the players labor deals that involved salary caps. Both were rejected by the players, and both times the compromise was revenue sharing. The Yankees have spent well over $100 million in luxury tax payments since then.

$100M is a drop in the bucket compared to what they're making off the current economic system. But you go ahead and try to make a martyr out of the big market management while they laugh all the way to the bank because of the competitive advantage that they hold. They didn't cry a single tear when the players' union put up a fight regarding a salary cap. The only reason they offered to toss in some revenue sharing was to avoid the league equivalent of a prison riot if they failed to do so. There's a reason why David Glass is beloved by the small markets and hated by the big market execs. He's the one that had the balls to call them out in the meetings in 2001 when everyone else failed to do so.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

They didn't cry a single tear when the players' union put up a fight regarding a salary cap.

When you say "they" are you just referring to the Yankees? I agree that they do great under the economic system of MLB. Good for them. But they're just one owner. Obviously the owner consenus/majority is for a cap, so I don't see what difference it makes what the Yankees "feel" about it.

I like revenue sharing and the fact that there's way more teams in play than there used to be. I wouldn't even mind a salary cap if it could be implemented in a way that doesn't muddle up trades and free agency in a way where you need an MBA to figure out what's going on (like the NBA).

But it seems silly to me to artificially prop teams up so they can exist, and then insist that they be put on an equal financial playing field as the Yankees. I don't see who that benefits except for Royals fans. Like you said, there are very few truly "small market" teams out there. I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice some Red Sox success for a better league as a whole, but only to that extent. Once the league works, I'd rather my team have an advantage, of course. When the Red Sox play the Royals, I hope the Royals lose every single time.

I used to be a Boston Bruins fans until, out of cheapness and not market size, they decided not to spend any money, and traded away superstars. So I lost interest in both them and the NHL. Even though for the Royals the issue is revenue and for the Bruins the issue was cheapness - that makes no difference to the fan following the team. It wasn't "fair" to me as a fan, just as the Royals payroll isn't "fair" to you. I didn't blame the rest of the world for this "injustice", because they don't owe me anything and I can simply ignore them.

[ISiddiqui]

Well Steinbrenner always threatens to sue the league when the cap is even thought of, so that may be a consideration.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Should the Royals be allowed to move if they can be more competitive somewhere else? Why are they entitled to an MLB team in the first place?

Mostly because MLB wants to grow the brand in all areas of the country.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think you know the feelings of "most big market fans". They like it when their team wins, just like you.

Should the Royals be allowed to move if they can be more competitive somewhere else? Why are they entitled to an MLB team in the first place?

It's only a problem when your team faces the competitive disadvantage. I totally agree that the big market fans like the current situation.

Sure, the Royals could move somewhere else where they could face the same competitive disadvantage and have the exact same problems. Your last question is obviously a non-starter.