Players really want to get rid of the QO. Owners are using that to secure something they want. They gave the option to not have the draft and not get rid of the QO (ie, stick with the status quo).
How so? The Astros seem to be good scouting internationally, but get locked out by money on the top prospects. Draft would prevent Astros from being outbid on top guys while still being able to pick well among the depth prospects.
Why do the players oppose the international draft? If the players are trying to push towards a more balanced, competitive league, seems like an international draft would be good for that, with no downside to the players. I guess the top international players can avoid team control over the players for six years, and thereby collect bigger paychecks earlier in their careers? Is that what this is about?
The players are not pushing for a more balanced, competitive league. If anything, players worry a balanced league will make decrease the motivation to spend as a balanced league decreases the value of spending. International draft makes under the board deals more difficult. Also, it limits choice which can be a big deal asthe way teams handle international players differs from team to team.
In addtion to what JoeJoe said, it feels like its like US politics. If one side supports it, the other opposes it out of principle. The one I don't get is the # of lottery teams. Who really cares that much if 4 teams or 8 teams are in the lottery? And yet they struggled to get anywhere on that one.
I agree that's what they think but I think it's ridiculously misguided. It seems like in a league with balance, every team would be motivated to compete and try to keep their stars. Right now, the teams that don't spend know that it's pointless because the big market teams will just spend more.
This isn't a fair assessment. The latin american countries do not have the baseball infrastructure that the US has. The fear among Latin players is that a draft will remove the financial incentives for people who who coach up young Latin players and help develop them. It's dirty, but the only reason a lot of those guys ever make it is because a coach dedicates himself to them for a cut of a huge bonus.
A league where half the teams make the playoffs and cap that all but two teams (Mets and Dodgers) will honor is not one where small markets will splurge. They'll be more focused on getting in on the back end of the playoffs.
Right - but that's how the NBA and NFL are. Warriors are way over the cap. But everyone else spends to the cap to make the 8 seed. No one spends several years way under the cap while rebuilding because you can't justify it to your fans. The Mets and Dodgers will spend their crazy amount for the top seeds and everyone else will keep spending more to compete and make the playoffs until they run up near the "cap" (luxury tax). Overall spending should go up. There would be no justification for Pitt or TB or KC or Oakland to cry poverty all the time if they can spend a decent amount to compete for the playoffs. Playoff expansion should encourage more spending. The fact that MLB playoffs has so much luck involved once you get there means some of these teams could actually win in the playoffs too.
Right, but it's not fair to say it's about fair competition or not. This is one where it's genuinely a concern that it will ruin baseball in Caribbean and destroy the possible future of Latin players.
If you can spend $50M to have a 40% chance of making the playoffs or $250M for a 60% chance of making the playoffs, spending $10M increases a teams odds of making the playoffs by 1%. If you can spend $50M to have a 20% chance of making the playoffs or $250M for a 90% chance of making the playoffs, spending $10M increases a teams odds of making the playoffs by 0.35%.
But this is not purely an analytical thing. You also have to answer to fans. If half the teams make the playoffs and even your team makes the playoffs here and there, it's much harder to justify burning things to the ground all the time argue the endless poverty/rebuild cycle to your fans. There is a peer pressure element and you see it in the other sports where there's a salary cap. Your $50MM might make the playoffs here and there, but it will never win a WS. But every time a $125MM payroll team wins it, and you made the playoffs and lost to them, it's going to put more pressure to go to $70MM and then when everyone is there, there will be pressure to go to $90MM. etc etc.
There's no reason to believe that baseball owners in medium and small markets feel any pressure from fans on spending or that they will in the future. Owners of these teams are happy to make their tv revenue regardless of whether fans show up. Now they might even get some playoff revenue for minimal additional spending? Sounds good, but the Pirates and the Marlins aren't going to suddenly double payroll because the bigger markets are slowing their spending.
That analytical thing is how balance* works. The worse teams are better without having to spend much and the better teams are worse while still spending a lot. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be balanced. Atlanta won the World Series last year with the worst record among playoff teams. Other sports do not need 162 games to separate the great from the weak, and the best team has a much better chance of advancing in the postseason in other sports. Edit: *Balance in the context of how MLB operates is between small markets and large markets. Balance could also be achieved in other ways, but would necessitate huge changes such as revenue sharing such that teams were balanced in revenue.
You double your spending, allegedly, when you are in the success portion of your cycle and that doubled spending makes you a real contender.
