Jim Gindin fixes Major League Baseball

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I'd say "JG for Commish," but what would that mean for his developing games?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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)
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.

A lot of good ideas there.

There's definitely some sentiment that fans wouldn't mind the owners locking out the players for YEARS to get some of this stuff done. But MLB is so healthy financially - record attendance and revenues every year. So it makes zero sense for the MLB owners to take all that money out of their own pockets. They'd love more player cost-control, like any professional sports owner would (nothwithstanding the conspiracy theorists here), but shutting down the game for it doesn't make fiscal sense.

Real change like that will only come when the MLB actually suffers financially, and fans turn away. But I don't think that's likely to happen, because the MLB and the players, very cleverly, are moving SLOWLY towards more and more revenue sharing/luxury tax/draft compensation/Type A Free agent caps/etc....As long as they keep moving in that direction, it will never be as "bad" as it used to be, and the fans won't turn away.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

(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.)

Are you talking about the one the Yanks get back in the first for not signing last year's first rounder? That's just the way that works, every team has that.

As for their regular picks, they do not have those. The Angels now have their #1, and the Brewers have their #2, and the Bluejays have their #3.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

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.)

Matt Bush was drafted because he was affordable, not the top talent in the draft. Jared Weaver fell to 12th the same year because of his contract demands. Bryan Bullington was drafted over BJ Upton because of his contract demands. Adrian Gonzalez taken '01, once again, because he was affordable. You can go all the way back to '92 when the Expos were picking 3rd and wanted Derek Jeter badly, but couldn't afford what he was asking for and instead they took a guy named B.J. Wallace and Jeter falls to 6th where the Yankees took him.

You can't just look at guys that fall to the bottom half of the draft. Every year there's a guy that drops 3-4 slots simply because he's asking for top pick overall type money. It makes zero sense to hold an amateur draft and have contract demands trumping talent.

There's a simple fix that solves the problem in most instances; allow teams to trade draft picks. The reason it isn't allowed is so archaic and outdated its a joke.

[ISiddiqui]

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.

Disagree entirely. In fact, I hate the fact that in the NFL, people yell at players to "honor their contracts" (and not hold out) while NFL teams are under no obligation to do so (and can cast out players whenever they want). Contracts should go both ways. I realize it is far more difficult in the NFL (due to how some positions get used out so quickly), but it should continue to be done in MLB.

Not for a salary cap either. But better revenue sharing would be high on my list. But I agree with molson, it appears MLB is moving slowly towards equality towards that. I just wish it was quicker, with international drafts (instead of sign whoever you can) and a bit smarter (everyone sharing some ticket sales and TV money instead of 'luxury taxes')

[tarcone]

Raising the mound back to the 1968 height would speed the game up. Then I would be in favor of the DH in both leagues. As is, eliminate the DH.

The big thing I agree with is not allowing batters to leave the box and giving the pitchers a time limit. There is no reason, but exposure, to leave the box. Players cant do it in HS, so they learned it later in life.

[JPhillips]

The bigger problem with the draft is that it only applies to NA players. It's like an NFL draft where the SEC was excluded. If Asian and Latin players were included in the draft it would make a huge difference.

[sterlingice]

Slotted rookie salaries, world draft, and draft pick trading would make things better. And it's not as if the union wouldn't sell out rookies in the heartbeat, given the opportunity.

SI