Jim Gindin fixes Major League Baseball

[Subby]

I would also like to see the regular season start in May and have the post season end in mid-October.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I had to look back to see if I even commented on the original (I didn't) but the question about whether anything had changed since this was first posted made me kind of curious for some reason. So I took a look, feeling pretty sure that I could recognize anything that I've had a significant shift about over the past year or two.

I'm still in agreement on these points.
1. Eliminate the DH.
11. Eliminate the Wild Card round.
12. The team with the best overall record hosts the World Series
14. Allow instant replay.
16. Back to television. Playoff games can not overlap.

I'm still opposed to these points as being absurdly unrealistic
2. No television time-outs during pitching changes.
4. Lower the mid-inning (not end of inning) commercial break to one minute.

I'm as vehemently opposed as ever to:
5. Increase the roster to 27 active players.
6. There needs to be a hard salary cap.
7. If you have a hard cap, you need real revenue sharing.
8. Merge the leagues, from a schedule and statistical perspective.
9. Four divisions, 7 or 8 teams per division.
13. Speaking of the All-Star game, lower rosters to 21.

I've shifted from against to neutral on:
3. Players may not leave the batter's box during an at-bat.

I've shifted from cautiously for to neutral on:
15. Automate balls and strikes calls.

I still couldn't give a rat's ass about:
17. Screen graphics should not make noise.

So, since the original, I can't identify any significant shifts on issues that were of the most importance to me. What I can say has shifted since then is that I watched less baseball this year than at any time in my life. There was a time that I would have watched a replay of a KC-PIT spring training B squad game. Now I'm seriously dreading having to go to see the Braves this weekend (Cub Scout Day) in a game that will almost certainly mean nothing to any team I give a damn about.

And that last bit -- the absence of many players or teams I care a whit about -- probably has influenced my overall declining interest in MLB and is as telling as anything. I find fewer likable players, only moderately more actively unlikable players, and a lot more generic unidentifiable players.

For the two teams I've backed the most, I find myself mostly hoping for the Braves (who I still haven't really forgiven for their treatment of John Rocker) to win because the postseason would be more interesting from closer perspective than from a distance, the Dodgers were a let down in a division that seemed very winnable. The Giants have replaced the Yankees as the team I despise the most and they sucked to an acceptable level this year, so there's nothing to really pull against with great passion. And most of the rest of the contenders have become generic enough to me that I'm mildly uncomfortable with the prospect of any of them winning but at the same time there's not a team in the picture that I'm enthusiastic about adopting for the post-season either.

So there's the off-field issues we started with, there's the on-field issues I just mentioned, and we haven't even touched on the steroid cloud that surrounds the game. No wonder I'm barely watching any more.

[lungs]

I'm not so sure that the Wild Card promotes mediocrity. A lot of times the Wild Card will have a better record than some mediocre division winner.

If anything, I'd make the Divisional Series a seven game affair. Of course that may necessitate cutting the schedule to 154 games. Too bad northern teams don't all have retractable roofs, and baseball could easily be played in November (not to mention all the friggin rainouts/snow outs in April).

[st.cronin]

The main problem, to me, is that major league baseball has become completely unwatchable, ESPECIALLY when you go to the park. The amount of time where the players just stand around drooling is mind-boggling. The game has been nudged into a home run derby/strike out marathon. Teams played vastly better team defense 20 years ago then they do today - its really embarrasing how bad even the best teams are with the glove today, but they don't get punished for it, because that part of the game doesn't matter anymore.

But, maybe this game is what people want. To me its barely even recognizable as baseball.

[Young Drachma]

I think baseball's biggest problem are its fans. They complain more about what's wrong with their sport than the fans of any other major sport. Hell, football gives awards to its steroid users. Baseball fans spend their days waxing poetic about how great the game "used to be".

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think baseball's biggest problem are its fans. They complain more about what's wrong with their sport than the fans of any other major sport. Hell, football gives awards to its steroid users. Baseball fans spend their days waxing poetic about how great the game "used to be".

No doubt. How about the people that complain about pitchers being babied these days? Yep, we should definitely go back to three man rotations and having guys throw complete games every game.

I also get perturbed at the people that complain that small market teams don't have a chance. Bullshit. I'm a Brewer fan so I should be among those that cry every year that their teams don't have a chance. But as the Brewers and other smaller market teams (A's, Twins) have shown that all it takes is a good scouting department and an intelligent front office that don't hand out overvalued contracts to guys because they are "gritty" and "clutch" or other stupid things like that.

Baseball has one of the best systems for small market teams to take advantage of when it comes to younger players. They are controlled by their team for six years of major league service time, with three of those years being absolutely dirt cheap.

The system is not the problem. Poor management is.

[Swaggs]

I really like the idea of adding to the 27-man roster (those that have played in OOTP leagues with me know that I am a big fan of it). I know everyone likes to talk about strategy and roster management and such, but these are supposed to be the best players in the world and I think more specialized players is a good thing.

I have also done a complete reversal over the past few years on the DH. I grew up a big National League fan and hated the DH, but, again, I want to see a great product if I am watching MLB and, to me, that doesn't include seeing pitchers hit. I much prefer seeing a great hitter at the plate, creating a great individual matchup between pitcher and hitter, rather than seeing a pitcher step up to the plate and weakly wave at three pitches. I also really like that it allows aging hitters to hang on and be productive for a few extra seasons.

[EagleFan]

What is the big interest in the DH? If you're on the field you should be in the lineup. Not some couch potato sitting around waiting for his turn at bat.

That would be like changing the NFL to have a DT (designated tackler). This player would run onto the field after the punter punts the ball to be available to tackle the returner since the punter is not a good tackler. Or maybe the NBA could have a DD (designated defensive player) thus allowing Iverson to wait on the offensive side of the court and the DD could play defense for him on that side of the court. (Or this could also be done in hockey but it could be called the Gretzky Rule)

[rkmsuf]

I think the DH is around because for the most part baseball is boring unless you are playing it.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

What is the big interest in the DH? If you're on the field you should be in the lineup. Not some couch potato sitting around waiting for his turn at bat.

That would be like changing the NFL to have a DT (designated tackler). This player would run onto the field after the punter punts the ball to be available to tackle the returner since the punter is not a good tackler. Or maybe the NBA could have a DD (designated defensive player) thus allowing Iverson to wait on the offensive side of the court and the DD could play defense for him on that side of the court. (Or this could also be done in hockey but it could be called the Gretzky Rule)

By your logic, that means that kickers should also play a position on the field. I mean, if they're football players, they're football players. None of this "roughing the kicker" bullshit. Man up, you're a football player! Besides, there isn't a DH in baseball who hasn't come up playing a different position. And the overwhelming majority don't WANT to play DH, they'd rather be on the field.

The DH is about specialization and it's not a creation of the 1970s, but something that was talked about in the 1930s, but just never got off the ground, because baseball is run by a bunch of staid losers who have no real concept of how to keep up with the times.

There isn't anything nostalgic about seeing a pitcher hit. And even on their best day, most managers would rather have a real hitter in the box rather than risking their pitcher in that manner.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

What is the big interest in the DH? If you're on the field you should be in the lineup. Not some couch potato sitting around waiting for his turn at bat.

That would be like changing the NFL to have a DT (designated tackler). This player would run onto the field after the punter punts the ball to be available to tackle the returner since the punter is not a good tackler. Or maybe the NBA could have a DD (designated defensive player) thus allowing Iverson to wait on the offensive side of the court and the DD could play defense for him on that side of the court. (Or this could also be done in hockey but it could be called the Gretzky Rule)

IS THAT A CHEAP SHOT AGAINST THE GREAT ONE!?!?!

[Julio Riddols]

What I don't like about baseball is knowing that my team (Cincinnati) is very rarely able to hold onto good players if and when they get any, has a completely different roster from one year to the next, and will most likely never be a great team again with baseball the way it is. The last player I really liked and rooted for was Barry Larkin. Since then, I could give a shit for maybe one or two guys. However, by the time I start becoming interested in them it seems like they're gone, traded for minor leaguers I have never heard of.

The sport has changed a ton in my relatively short lifetime (26 years). I used to listen to the Reds on 700 WLW every night when I went to bed, and their wire-to-wire World Series run in 1990 was something I'll never forget. That was when players who hit 30 homers were serious power hitters. Now its almost common. That was when I had fun watching baseball, up until the strike that all but killed my interest to begin with. I even quit playing little league ball.

But now, with every passing year, the bigger market teams seem to get richer and richer, and put more and more distance (financially, if not talent-wise) between themselves and the also rans. The good players look for more and more money, leaving teams like Cincinnati to struggle for bargain basement retreads and develop minor league players who they can't hope to keep for more than a few years or so if those players get good. As the price of talent skyrockets, the value of the talent on the field seems to have decreased substantially.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by lungs

No doubt. How about the people that complain about pitchers being babied these days? Yep, we should definitely go back to three man rotations and having guys throw complete games every game.

I also get perturbed at the people that complain that small market teams don't have a chance. Bullshit. I'm a Brewer fan so I should be among those that cry every year that their teams don't have a chance. But as the Brewers and other smaller market teams (A's, Twins) have shown that all it takes is a good scouting department and an intelligent front office that don't hand out overvalued contracts to guys because they are "gritty" and "clutch" or other stupid things like that.

Baseball has one of the best systems for small market teams to take advantage of when it comes to younger players. They are controlled by their team for six years of major league service time, with three of those years being absolutely dirt cheap.

The system is not the problem. Poor management is.

There is a difference between good young players and quality veteran players. Every team can develop good young players, but only a few teams can combine them with quality veterans. That always gives an advantage to big market teams. It doesn't guarantee them a World Series title, but it gives them a big advantage.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Every team can develop good young players

I beg to differ.

--Signed,
the Pittsburgh Pirates

[Schmidty]

If you kill the wildcard, you will kill baseball.

--Signed,
The vast majority of baseball fans.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

What I don't like about baseball is knowing that my team (Cincinnati) is very rarely able to hold onto good players if and when they get any, has a completely different roster from one year to the next, and will most likely never be a great team again with baseball the way it is. The last player I really liked and rooted for was Barry Larkin. Since then, I could give a shit for maybe one or two guys. However, by the time I start becoming interested in them it seems like they're gone, traded for minor leaguers I have never heard of.

The sport has changed a ton in my relatively short lifetime (26 years). I used to listen to the Reds on 700 WLW every night when I went to bed, and their wire-to-wire World Series run in 1990 was something I'll never forget. That was when players who hit 30 homers were serious power hitters. Now its almost common. That was when I had fun watching baseball, up until the strike that all but killed my interest to begin with. I even quit playing little league ball.

But now, with every passing year, the bigger market teams seem to get richer and richer, and put more and more distance (financially, if not talent-wise) between themselves and the also rans. The good players look for more and more money, leaving teams like Cincinnati to struggle for bargain basement retreads and develop minor league players who they can't hope to keep for more than a few years or so if those players get good. As the price of talent skyrockets, the value of the talent on the field seems to have decreased substantially.

I would hardly attribute the woes of the Reds to their status as a smaller market team. They have been one of the most dreadfully ran teams for years now. They managed to develop a really nice core of hitters earlier this decade. How did they complement this offensive team with pitching?

Their problem has been handing out big contracts (at the time) to guys like Eric Milton. They haven't developed any quality starting pitching from their own system. Getting Harang and Arroyo were nice pickups. Wayne Krivsky's background with the Twins tells me he should be able to develop a nice staff but at the same time he is doing his best to dismantle the decent offense the Reds have. If he chooses to decline Adam Dunn's option this offseason I am strongly convinced that the Reds will flounder in mediocrity for some time until they get some decent management.

This goes all the way back to Jim Bowden and his love for toolsy outfielders that can't hit.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by BrianD

There is a difference between good young players and quality veteran players. Every team can develop good young players, but only a few teams can combine them with quality veterans. That always gives an advantage to big market teams. It doesn't guarantee them a World Series title, but it gives them a big advantage.

That's not true at all. First, like somebody else pointed out, not every team can develop quality young players. But for those that can and do, supplementing the team with veterans needs to be done intelligently. Granted, you can't supplement your team with star veterans. Your stars need to be developed from within.

When you have a good core of pre-arbitration young players that usually make less than $1 million, that leaves a lot of flexibility payroll wise to add veterans to fill holes. Even when your young guys hit arbitration, they don't break the bank like they could if they were free agents.

Using the Brewers as an example, a few teams passed on Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun in their respective drafts. I believe Prince was drafted 8th and Braun 5th overall. I also remember some thinking that the Brewers may have reached for Braun as he was an afterthought to Ryan Zimmerman and Alex Gordon. Yovani Gallardo was a second round pick.

Good scouting and player development with youngsters along with intelligent decision making can certainly lead to success for a small market team. The success driven by the young players on the Brewers have caused them to already break the attendance record at 2.8 million. Approaching 3 million butts in the seats for a small market club like Milwaukee is pretty damn good if you ask me.

The problem is small market teams believing they are doomed to failure and playing the victim all the time. The Brewers suffered from this mentality all through the mid to late 90's (so they could get Miller Park built), but when they brought in management that refused to allow their status as a small market team bring them down, they began to make progress.

The only concession I'll make is that small market teams will have a hard problem keeping the stars that they develop. But what is stopping a team from churning out more stars from their minor league systems? Complacency.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by lungs

That's not true at all. First, like somebody else pointed out, not every team can develop quality young players. But for those that can and do, supplementing the team with veterans needs to be done intelligently. Granted, you can't supplement your team with star veterans. Your stars need to be developed from within.

When you have a good core of pre-arbitration young players that usually make less than $1 million, that leaves a lot of flexibility payroll wise to add veterans to fill holes. Even when your young guys hit arbitration, they don't break the bank like they could if they were free agents.

Using the Brewers as an example, a few teams passed on Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun in their respective drafts. I believe Prince was drafted 8th and Braun 5th overall. I also remember some thinking that the Brewers may have reached for Braun as he was an afterthought to Ryan Zimmerman and Alex Gordon. Yovani Gallardo was a second round pick.

Good scouting and player development with youngsters along with intelligent decision making can certainly lead to success for a small market team. The success driven by the young players on the Brewers have caused them to already break the attendance record at 2.8 million. Approaching 3 million butts in the seats for a small market club like Milwaukee is pretty damn good if you ask me.

The problem is small market teams believing they are doomed to failure and playing the victim all the time. The Brewers suffered from this mentality all through the mid to late 90's (so they could get Miller Park built), but when they brought in management that refused to allow their status as a small market team bring them down, they began to make progress.

The only concession I'll make is that small market teams will have a hard problem keeping the stars that they develop. But what is stopping a team from churning out more stars from their minor league systems? Complacency.

Every team can develop young players, but not every team does. Some teams have to emphasize the young players since they can't play in the veteran market. Other teams let the development slide since they can play in the veteran market. And naturally some teams are inept all around.

The Brewers have been doing very well with their young player development. The problem is that once the players develop, the Brewers can no longer afford them. They can develop all the future superstars they want, but the vast majority of players will leave before they become superstars. The Brewers can certainly be competitive, but they will always be at a disadvantage to teams that can afford to keep/buy stars. As it is, the Brewers are basically a Major League level farm team.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Every team can develop young players, but not every team does. Some teams have to emphasize the young players since they can't play in the veteran market. Other teams let the development slide since they can play in the veteran market. And naturally some teams are inept all around.

The Brewers have been doing very well with their young player development. The problem is that once the players develop, the Brewers can no longer afford them. They can develop all the future superstars they want, but the vast majority of players will leave before they become superstars. The Brewers can certainly be competitive, but they will always be at a disadvantage to teams that can afford to keep/buy stars. As it is, the Brewers are basically a Major League level farm team.

I think it is safe to say that Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun would both qualify as superstars, whether they are recognized nationally or not. Braun will be under contract for at least five more years. Fielder will be under contract for four more years. Same with Weeks. Hardy has three years of arbitration left. Gallardo has at least five more years under contract.

If it takes a superstar the six years of service time that it requires to become a free agent to become a superstar, they probably aren't a superstar in the first place.

But the problem of your homegrown guys leaving is alleviated by developing more younger players and/or acquiring young prospects when the contracts of the current superstars are about to expire.

This system isn't good for fans that want a player to stay on a team until he retires. Personally, I don't care as I'm more concerned about the team. If it requires recycling of core players every six years or so, then so be it.

[lungs]

Not to mention Corey Hart, how also has four more years under contract, I believe.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lungs

I think it is safe to say that Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun would both qualify as superstars, whether they are recognized nationally or not. Braun will be under contract for at least five more years. Fielder will be under contract for four more years. Same with Weeks. Hardy has three years of arbitration left. Gallardo has at least five more years under contract.

If it takes a superstar the six years of service time that it requires to become a free agent to become a superstar, they probably aren't a superstar in the first place.

But the problem of your homegrown guys leaving is alleviated by developing more younger players and/or acquiring young prospects when the contracts of the current superstars are about to expire.

This system isn't good for fans that want a player to stay on a team until he retires. Personally, I don't care as I'm more concerned about the team. If it requires recycling of core players every six years or so, then so be it.

The problem right now is large market teams are just recently realizing the benefits of using their financial advantages in the draft and in the foreign markets. The Mets (and I'm a mets fan) have simply been thowing money at the top foreign prospects to get them to sign and the Yankees have started doing that of late as well.

The Tigers are a great example of what spending can get you in the draft. The Yankees have caught on there, also, and were prepared to draft Porcello this year and spend whatever it took to get him signed.

Yes, great scouting and actualling putting money into scouting and a team's farm system is a way for the smaller market teams to remain competitive. However, even the best scouting can have mutliple seasons where you miss because of the nature of baseball prospects.

People love to point to the Twins as a great example of what scouting can do, but if they didn't play in the AL central they would have been a mediocre team the past several years. Does anyone think there's a season they make the playoffs if they played in the AL East.

The point here is competetive advantage and the gap is widening due to the foreign market and teams using their finances to circumvent the point of having an ameteur draft.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The problem right now is large market teams are just recently realizing the benefits of using their financial advantages in the draft and in the foreign markets. The Mets (and I'm a mets fan) have simply been thowing money at the top foreign prospects to get them to sign and the Yankees have started doing that of late as well.

The Tigers are a great example of what spending can get you in the draft. The Yankees have caught on there, also, and were prepared to draft Porcello this year and spend whatever it took to get him signed.

Yes, great scouting and actualling putting money into scouting and a team's farm system is a way for the smaller market teams to remain competitive. However, even the best scouting can have mutliple seasons where you miss because of the nature of baseball prospects.

People love to point to the Twins as a great example of what scouting can do, but if they didn't play in the AL central they would have been a mediocre team the past several years. Does anyone think there's a season they make the playoffs if they played in the AL East.

The point here is competetive advantage and the gap is widening due to the foreign market and teams using their finances to circumvent the point of having an ameteur draft.

Any small market team that goes the cheap way in the draft is shooting itself in the foot. Plenty of talent can be had in the later rounds by offering more money to a talented player that is strongly considering college.

The same team that doesn't want to spend an extra $500,000 on a signing bonus is more than likely the same team that is paying Jeromy Burnitz $6 million a year so he can lead them to that 70th win.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by lungs

I think it is safe to say that Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun would both qualify as superstars, whether they are recognized nationally or not. Braun will be under contract for at least five more years. Fielder will be under contract for four more years. Same with Weeks. Hardy has three years of arbitration left. Gallardo has at least five more years under contract.

If it takes a superstar the six years of service time that it requires to become a free agent to become a superstar, they probably aren't a superstar in the first place.

But the problem of your homegrown guys leaving is alleviated by developing more younger players and/or acquiring young prospects when the contracts of the current superstars are about to expire.

This system isn't good for fans that want a player to stay on a team until he retires. Personally, I don't care as I'm more concerned about the team. If it requires recycling of core players every six years or so, then so be it.

The Brewers have some very good players on their team. They have done very well with their drafting and development lately. But the simple truth is that they won't be able to keep any good players beyond those six years. They also won't be able to pick up any really good free agents. Do you expect any of the current crop of good players to have peaked by the time they leave? Is there not an advantage to having experienced post-season players on the team? The Brewers are doing well in an uneven playing field, but they still can't compete with the big teams. Money doesn't automatically mean success, but money with good management sure beats no money with good management.

[Young Drachma]

So do folks want a salary cap or other artificial means to allow small market teams to compete? What's the "solution" to a team like the Brewers who have done stuff "the right way" only to have to start over in a half decade?

[BrianD]

I'd be in favor of a salary cap and a revenue sharing deal similar to the NFL. This isn't just to help the Brewers, but it should level the playing field all over the league. We've seen in the NFL that it helps parity while still giving an advantage to teams to can find good deals and coach properly.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lungs

Any small market team that goes the cheap way in the draft is shooting itself in the foot. Plenty of talent can be had in the later rounds by offering more money to a talented player that is strongly considering college.

The same team that doesn't want to spend an extra $500,000 on a signing bonus is more than likely the same team that is paying Jeromy Burnitz $6 million a year so he can lead them to that 70th win.

So your solution is throwing money at high school kids in the lower rounds? Giving large amounts of money to the players that have the least likely chance of panning out?

Why has no one actually tried this? Brilliant!

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Atocep

So your solution is throwing money at high school kids in the lower rounds? Giving large amounts of money to the players that have the least likely chance of panning out?

Why has no one actually tried this? Brilliant!

Umm, actually plenty of teams have done this. Guys with commitments to colleges fall in the draft for obvious reasons. Those commitments can, and have been bought out by major league teams. The old draft and follow basically is this same concept except the kids have a season of junior college under their belt.

And I'm not talking about giving gigantic signing bonuses to these late round guys. Take a player with a strong college commitment in the 25th round or so and offer him 3rd round money, which doesn't really break the bank.

I forgot to add this concept could be used for college underclassmen eligible for the draft

Saying that nobody has tried this is being ignorant of how the draft actually works.

[MylesKnight]

An example of what is arguably problemo numero uno.

The New York Yankees signed Roger Clemens in May to a $28,000,022 deal to pitch the rest of the season for the team.

Per the article below, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays TEAM payroll this season sits somewhere between $24 and $25 Million.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/09/Ra...rise_que.shtml

[Qwikshot]

Hey if you want to eliminate the DH, which I understand, why not just eliminate the pitcher as a hitter as well? You speed up the game. I know that some pitchers aren't easy outs, but they're really useless generally as hitters (bunt, swing away, etc). You reduce injuries that can occur to the pitcher as a hitter.

But they'll never eliminate the DH, union won't allow for jobs to be lost.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The Brewers have some very good players on their team. They have done very well with their drafting and development lately. But the simple truth is that they won't be able to keep any good players beyond those six years. They also won't be able to pick up any really good free agents. Do you expect any of the current crop of good players to have peaked by the time they leave? Is there not an advantage to having experienced post-season players on the team? The Brewers are doing well in an uneven playing field, but they still can't compete with the big teams. Money doesn't automatically mean success, but money with good management sure beats no money with good management.

I wouldn't say that the Brewers have no chance of resigning any of their young stars when free agency comes around. Before Ben Sheets became the injury prone enigma, he was actually one of the best pitchers in the majors for a year and the Brewers managed to sign him to an extension.


A guy like Fielder probably will walk after his service time is up. He is a DH in waiting anyway so there's no way he'll be with the Brewers his whole career.

And who is to say that having a good young core of players that win won't bring more money for the team to spend? I like to use the Cleveland Indians organization as a whole for an example. The Indians were perenially one of the worst franchises in baseball until they developed that nice young core of players in the 90's. They didn't win any World Series during that time but they really turned that franchise around as a whole.

Eventually that core of players got too expensive and instead of kidding themselves into patching holes up with veterans, they tore things down and had a few down years before coming back strong.

I'll put it this way. The current system won't allow for a small market team to be a perennial contender every single year like the Yankees and that. I do feel there isn't a whole lot teams like Tampa and Toronto can do in the AL East (Baltimore intentionally left off).

But the rest of the league goes in cycles and it's perfectly plausible for a well ran small market team to have a 5-8 year success cycle. Getting to the playoffs is most of the battle as anything can happen in a short series, as the Cardinals proved last year.

I just don't get people that act like small market teams have no chance to compete because that is blatantly untrue. Over the long haul, no they can't compete on a consistent basis but you have to play with the cards you are dealt with instead of crying because life ain't fair.

The NFL system would never work with MLB anyway. Nor would I want it to.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by lungs

I just don't get people that act like small market teams have no chance to compete because that is blatantly untrue. Over the long haul, no they can't compete on a consistent basis but you have to play with the cards you are dealt with instead of crying because life ain't fair.

The don't have no chance, but they are at a severe disadvantage and I don't think you can argue that. You can try, but it will just result in a lot of laughing.

I'll give you a hint, baseball ain't life. If you want to improve baseball, give teams equal opportunities. You may lose some fans in New York and Boston but you would gain a bunch in the rest of the baseball cities. Right now baseball is fairly predictable. Level the playing field and and it will become a lot more competitive and a lot more exciting. If the NFL and NBA can make it work, the MLB can too.

[Young Drachma]

I wonder what a salary cap in MLB would look like. I mean, it's just too complicated with the minor league situation, with call ups and all of that. It just seems to me that it might be weird. A salary floor would be a good start, better revenue sharing and I dunno what else. But on some level, from a media money perspective, it's very important to have big city teams dominating or at least, competitive all of the time. Especially from New York.

Ask MLS.

[Young Drachma]

Because I think part of the added lack of relevance of the game there is the fact that the Red Bulls (nee Metrostars) are awful. And the league has tried to rig it, but can't and so, I won't say that if the New York or LA Galaxy were the two dominant teams that the league would beat out hockey for #4, but...I do think you have to be able to have a base somewhere before you can branch out. For baseball, it's big cities. For hockey, it's Canada and for NASCAR, it's the south. If your base doesn't pay attention, few people anywhere else will either.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lungs

Umm, actually plenty of teams have done this. Guys with commitments to colleges fall in the draft for obvious reasons. Those commitments can, and have been bought out by major league teams. The old draft and follow basically is this same concept except the kids have a season of junior college under their belt.

And I'm not talking about giving gigantic signing bonuses to these late round guys. Take a player with a strong college commitment in the 25th round or so and offer him 3rd round money, which doesn't really break the bank.

I forgot to add this concept could be used for college underclassmen eligible for the draft

Saying that nobody has tried this is being ignorant of how the draft actually works.

Unfortunately there is no more draft and follow.

If you couldn't see the sarcasm in my post, then I'm sorry, but I can say with a good amount of confidence that I have a solid understanding of how the draft works.

The point is the MLB draft does not give teams with the worst record an advantage, which is the entire reason of holding an ameteur draft. The teams with the most money have a greater chance of getting the best players. Forcing small market clubs to spend over draft position in hopes of luring a player away from college is about as big of a risk that you can take in the draft. High school players have an incredibly small chance of panning out and all it takes is a couple misses and you've wasted more money than you can afford to.

Real life is not a text sim. You can't just dump money into scouting and the draft and quick sim through 4 shitty seasons to see to see if your guys develop. Small market teams have to give fans a reason to come to the ballpark right now while working on the future of the team. Kansas City is a great example right now, they were ripped for overspending on Gil Meche but they have to show fans they are commited to improving the team right now. Seattle was questioned for putting Vidro out there instead of going with a replacement level minor leaguer that would be a cheaper option. However, fans see a name the recognize and feel the team is at least trying to win.

You can't ignore your fanbase, especially as a small market team.

[BrianD]

Baseball doesn't really need to establish a base before they can branch out. They have existed longer than anyone else. The MLS still needs to worry about staying solvent. I also believe that other baseball cities will pay more attention when the local teams have a better chance of competing. Twins fans showed up when they had a good team, and so are Brewer fans. Give teams an equal chance to compete and you will develop more than just fair-weather fans.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

So do folks want a salary cap or other artificial means to allow small market teams to compete? What's the "solution" to a team like the Brewers who have done stuff "the right way" only to have to start over in a half decade?

*Increased revenue sharing, although not 50/50.

*Force teams that receive revenue sharing to report how that money was spent.

*Enforce a minimum payroll.

*Foreign players have to go through the draft.

*Allow draft picks to be traded.

*Allow players to be sold for cash.

[Young Drachma]

I'm gonna try that increased revenue sharing for tickets in OOTP and see what it does for my teams. I know the foreign players through the draft would be huge, as would getting rid of the posting system for Japanese players.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Unfortunately there is no more draft and follow.

If you couldn't see the sarcasm in my post, then I'm sorry, but I can say with a good amount of confidence that I have a solid understanding of how the draft works.

The point is the MLB draft does not give teams with the worst record an advantage, which is the entire reason of holding an ameteur draft. The teams with the most money have a greater chance of getting the best players. Forcing small market clubs to spend over draft position in hopes of luring a player away from college is about as big of a risk that you can take in the draft. High school players have an incredibly small chance of panning out and all it takes is a couple misses and you've wasted more money than you can afford to.

Real life is not a text sim. You can't just dump money into scouting and the draft and quick sim through 4 shitty seasons to see to see if your guys develop. Small market teams have to give fans a reason to come to the ballpark right now while working on the future of the team. Kansas City is a great example right now, they were ripped for overspending on Gil Meche but they have to show fans they are commited to improving the team right now. Seattle was questioned for putting Vidro out there instead of going with a replacement level minor leaguer that would be a cheaper option. However, fans see a name the recognize and feel the team is at least trying to win.

You can't ignore your fanbase, especially as a small market team.

I think your two points tie into each other. On one hand you are applauding teams for overspending for guys that will deliver that 70th win as opposed to 65 wins to show that the team is at least trying to win. To me, spending boatloads of money to be crappy instead of shitty is a poor use of resources. Even if you go over slot in some of the later rounds on say, eight guys, and only one of them succeeds, you are still not coming close to what you paid for some veteran that will never be a part of your successful team.

Bringing guys on your team because they have a 'name' only gives fans a false sense of hope. How many years have teams like the Royals and Pirates brought in these veteran type guys and called them the savior to all their woes only to go on and win maybe 75 games at most.

Fans are a fickle bunch. They may not be happy they haven't heard of half the team but there is so much free talent out there that isn't exploited because teams have feel they have an obligation to put up a front that they are trying to win when they are really only hurting themselves in the long run.

Now I'm not saying small market teams should never bring in veteran stopgaps. On the contrary, in fact. But timing is key when an organization starts doing that. What is the sense in bringing a $6 million outfielder on the team when the team is going to lose 90 games anyway and could seemingly be taking a look at some of their own younger players? Unless the said outfielder can be spun for some prospects, it seems like a pointless cause.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Atocep

*Increased revenue sharing, although not 50/50.

*Force teams that receive revenue sharing to report how that money was spent.

*Enforce a minimum payroll.

*Foreign players have to go through the draft.

*Allow draft picks to be traded.

*Allow players to be sold for cash.

These are all reasonable alternatives to employing a hard salary cap.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by lungs

I think your two points tie into each other. On one hand you are applauding teams for overspending for guys that will deliver that 70th win as opposed to 65 wins to show that the team is at least trying to win. To me, spending boatloads of money to be crappy instead of shitty is a poor use of resources. Even if you go over slot in some of the later rounds on say, eight guys, and only one of them succeeds, you are still not coming close to what you paid for some veteran that will never be a part of your successful team.

Bringing guys on your team because they have a 'name' only gives fans a false sense of hope. How many years have teams like the Royals and Pirates brought in these veteran type guys and called them the savior to all their woes only to go on and win maybe 75 games at most.

Fans are a fickle bunch. They may not be happy they haven't heard of half the team but there is so much free talent out there that isn't exploited because teams have feel they have an obligation to put up a front that they are trying to win when they are really only hurting themselves in the long run.

Now I'm not saying small market teams should never bring in veteran stopgaps. On the contrary, in fact. But timing is key when an organization starts doing that. What is the sense in bringing a $6 million outfielder on the team when the team is going to lose 90 games anyway and could seemingly be taking a look at some of their own younger players? Unless the said outfielder can be spun for some prospects, it seems like a pointless cause.

I think the way the Colorado Rockies developed after their whole spending spree a few years back, make me think that fans will be tolerant and that you can convince them to come to games and that you'll play and fight hard each game. And if you keep those core group of kids, the names become familiar to them and before you know it, if they produce and pan out...they become recognizable.

So it's doable. But it's got to be done right and you need someone who is willing to employ the plan from start to finish.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lungs

Any small market team that goes the cheap way in the draft is shooting itself in the foot. Plenty of talent can be had in the later rounds by offering more money to a talented player that is strongly considering college.

The same team that doesn't want to spend an extra $500,000 on a signing bonus is more than likely the same team that is paying Jeromy Burnitz $6 million a year so he can lead them to that 70th win.

I must have missed the part of the draft where Porcello went for an extra 500K this year.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lungs

The only concession I'll make is that small market teams will have a hard problem keeping the stars that they develop. But what is stopping a team from churning out more stars from their minor league systems? Complacency.

Because it's just that easy. Any team out there could just start churning out star after star if it wanted. Why didn't GMs think of that sooner? Oh, that's right, they don't want to win.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Hey if you want to eliminate the DH, which I understand, why not just eliminate the pitcher as a hitter as well? You speed up the game. I know that some pitchers aren't easy outs, but they're really useless generally as hitters (bunt, swing away, etc). You reduce injuries that can occur to the pitcher as a hitter.

But they'll never eliminate the DH, union won't allow for jobs to be lost.

Hm... silly as it sounds, had never thought of this. Not a half bad idea, actually. Something to ponder further.

SI

[lungs]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I must have missed the part of the draft where Porcello went for an extra 500K this year.

SI

Porcello is a pretty extreme example, but even so, the Tigers gave him $7.7 million. How much did Eric Milton make this year? Damn near $10 million.

Teams continue to spend money on crap like Eric Milton when they can get crap for the league minimum. The same teams that fail to develop anybody are the same teams that continue to spend money on useless garbage. Then they'll go out and be cheap with the draft complaining that they can't afford the lucrative signing bonuses.

While the $7.7 million investment on Porcello could very well end up as a sunk cost, it could just as well end up being three years of a cheap superstar and three decently priced years when he hits arbitration.

I really don't think the problem with teams is that they don't have money. It's how they spend it.

Because it's just that easy. Any team out there could just start churning out star after star if it wanted. Why didn't GMs think of that sooner? Oh, that's right, they don't want to win.

If a team fails to develop its own players, then perhaps the organization should look at itself and its failings. There may be some lulls and bad luck with prospects that cause some down years, but there is no reason a well run organization can't be perenially competitive regardless of market size.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I must have missed the part of the draft where Porcello went for an extra 500K this year.

SI

You're right - the Royals are much better of for having paid Sweeney 11 mil this year (turned down an opp to trade him last year, if I recall), Jason La Rue $ 3 -5 million (unclear what Cin is paying), Emil Brown $3.5 million, and John Bale $1.8 million.

In fact, ask yourself this - would any team in baseball trade Rick Porcello away for Jason La Rue and Emil Brown? Anyone? If not, then why on earth isn't allocating the money to Porcello a better deal?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

You're right - the Royals are much better of for having paid Sweeney 11 mil this year (turned down an opp to trade him last year, if I recall), Jason La Rue $ 3 -5 million (unclear what Cin is paying), Emil Brown $3.5 million, and John Bale $1.8 million.

In fact, ask yourself this - would any team in baseball trade Rick Porcello away for Jason La Rue and Emil Brown? Anyone? If not, then why on earth isn't allocating the money to Porcello a better deal?

I remember seeing this exact same debate with the exact same person last month and it went unanswered then...
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...postcount=1610

No one was trading anything for Mike Sweeney unless the Royals pretty much ate the entirety of his contract. So instead, they held onto him, hoped he didn't get too hurt (a longshot to be sure), and then spin him for something at the deadline- didn't happen but a better calculated risk than "ship him for a B-grade prospect and eat $11M" would be "hope he miraculously stays healthy, eat some of his contract, and get a good prospect from a contender who is desperate".

I do love the continued cherry picking, tho. "If all of your bad moves were traded for perfect moves, then you'd have a good team." Not only that but I don't see any team lining up to trade Porcello for Jason LaRue and Emil Brown. How about Porcello for Mike Moustakas and $3M to spend in Latin America? The Royals decided on the latter.

I can play the aforementioned game, too. I'd rather have Alex Gordon + Joakim Soria + Zack Greinke + Mark Teahen + John Buck + David DeJesus + Mike Moustakas than Rick Porcello. Or how about Dan Uggla + Josh Willingham + Hanley Ramirez for Alex Cora? Jeff Francis + Brad Hawpe + Garrett Atkins + Troy Tulowitzki for Endy Chavez? Hell, an All Star team for Jason Giambi + Roger Clemens?

Again, these moves don't exist in a vacuum. You can't just win with an all young team. How's Florida doing this season? But, again, we've been down this road before.

SI

[SuperGrover]

Baseball is broken, and the television ratings are proof.

You aren't going to change it unless you fundamentally change the sport. I don't know anyone who is a casual fan and enjoys watching baseball on television. As such, baseball is driven by stadium revenue which is why complete revenue sharing will never work.

[Young Drachma]

hmm...

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

hmm...

Damn you, bring an old thread back to life and get my hopes up (before seeing it was an old thread)...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The point is the MLB draft does not give teams with the worst record an advantage, which is the entire reason of holding an ameteur draft. The teams with the most money have a greater chance of getting the best players.

I realize it's unfair to quote people after thread necromancy of over a year, but can we please put this canard to rest? I can think of 2 recent examples - Rick Porcello and Lars Anderson. I will cede Porcello, but Anderson signed for late-1st round money and fell more because teams perceived he would go to college than any monetary demands.

BA's current AL top 10 (with draft position added by me)

1. David Price, lhp, Rays (1.1 TB)
What he showed us in the postseason was just the beginning.
2. Matt Wieters, c, Orioles (1.5 BAL)
He could be Mark Teixeira—as a catcher.
3. Brett Anderson, lhp, Athletics (2.55 by AZ. Was ranked their 22nd best prospect after 1st season)
The best player Oakland got in the package for Dan Haren.
4. Trevor Cahill, rhp, Athletics (2.66 by OAK)
It will be fun to watch his friendly rivalry with Anderson.
5. Neftali Feliz, rhp, Rangers (IFA ATL)
Just one reason the Braves wish they could undo their Teixeira trade.
6. Tim Beckham, ss, Rays (1.1 TB)
Yet another multitalented star-in-the-making for Tampa Bay.
7. Eric Hosmer, 1b, Royals (1.4 KC)
He could be the best of all the special hitters K.C. has drafted recently.
8. Lars Anderson, 1b, Red Sox (17th round - Bos)
Even if Boston signs Teixeira, it will find room for Anderson in 2010.
9. Travis Snider, of, Blue Jays (1.14 Toronto)
Of these 10 guys, he might make the biggest 2009 impact in the majors.
10. Mike Moustakas, 3b, Royals (1.2 KC)
In a few years, he and Hosmer could combine for 70 homers annually.

The 3 teams that spent over $10 million in the draft this year - Boston, KC and Pittsburgh. The Yankees didn't sign their 1st or 2nd round picks.


The Rockies made it to the WS last season led by Troy Tulowitzki who they drafted 7th overall, the Brewers made it to the playoffs led by players like Ryan Braun (1.5) and CC Sabathia (acquired with Matt LaPorta - 1.7 - who turned down Boston when they drafted him previously), the Phillies won the WS with Chase Utley (1.15) Jimmy Rollins (2nd rd) and Ryan Howard (5th rd) leading the way. The Rays meanwhile were possibly the best team in baseball (and still had a top 3 farm system) with the 2nd lowest payroll because of so many consecutive top 5 draft picks like Longoria, Price and Beckham, not to mention Josh Hamilton who unfortunately (or fortunately from a Bos/NY/Tor perspective) did not work out for them.


On the larger topic, there are basically 4 tiers in MLB when it comes to revenue, although where exactly the line is drawn between 2/3/4 is debatable. Tier 1 is the Yankees - they spend $70m more a year than any other team and make at least as much more. Tier 2 is Boston/NYM/the LA's/the Chicago teams/possibly Seattle/Philly - all teams that with competent managing should be in contention 8 years out of 10. Tier 3 is the Baltimore's/Cleveland's/San Francisco's that with better management could restore the fan base and jump up into Tier 2, lock up a core group of players and be competitive year after year (my personal example - early 1990's when I was 8 and living in Maryland I had both Orioles and Red Sox hats - both were about equally competitive, on the field and off. We moved up here, and thank god I picked the Red Sox of the two because they have zoomed past the Orioles, to the point they are hated and lumped in with NYY during these debates, almost exclusively due to good management. Which, competing against Peter Angelos, I would hope we could muster up.) Tier 4 is really 5-6 teams - Florida, Oakland, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, SI's Royals and possibly TB (we'll see how the market reacts the next couple years) that simply "don't have the resources to compete and won't." Except they do - well at least Minnesota in the generally weak AL central, Oakland in the tougher AL west or TB this past year against arguably the two behemoths people point to. Meanwhile Florida has 2 of the last 12 WS titles and the Marlins, while ridiculously cutting costs to the point they're spending less on payroll than they make in revenue sharing, have gone 490-482 since 2003 while the New York Mets have gone 494-478.


I am in favor of somewhat greater revenue sharing, especially because IIRC certain things like local TV contracts weren't included, but by no means do I want to go 50/50 or anywhere near the NFL model of basically socialism when the problem is one team at the high end (that hasn't won a WS in 8 years and was the 4th best team in its own division last season) and a few at most at the other - magnified because a couple are/were horribly mismanaged. If you want to take ideas from the NFL, look at the front office/coaching turnover after a bad year (not strictly applicable due to the comparitive lack of turnover in MLB rosters, but come on - it's as if William Clay Ford is owning some of these teams and Matt Millen is the GM) or better yet, eliminate guaranteed contracts*. That would be worth shutting down baseball for a year or two rather than doing it for a salary cap. It makes absolutely no sense to disincentive teams from doing well for themselves and attracting new fans by pooling revenues together. At the same time, owners need to stop bitching - Milwaukee's owner is crying because he didn't want to offer what, $3-4m more per year to CC Sabathia? Even John Henry whined to the media because the Yankees outbid the Red Sox by 1.25m/y on Teixiera. They're making well more than that each season - even the Carl Pohlad's who tried to shortchange MIN's FO by only letting them spend 500k a draft pick - and it really gets embarassing at a certain point.


To somewhat complete the circle of a much longer than intended post for those who are still reading, it's ludicrous at this point to say the MLB draft does not allocate the top talent toward the highest picks. Maybe a Porcello appears every year, but still 9 of the top 10 projected talents go top 10. (And if you want a bigger complaint about the draft - the Yankees sign 3 of the top 5 Type A FA's, yet they still get 1st and 2nd round picks - that system clearly does need tweaking.)



*Don't give me shit about pitchers blowing out their arms - football players in general and especially RB's are at least as, if not more injury prone.