Leaving the Nest

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

Edgy MD wrote: There's certainly nothing combatative about inquiring. The draft is un-American. It isn't about the fairness in distribution of talent, but all about cost control. Young athletes have an ability that's in great demand for a short period of time, and the industry gets together and agrees only one team can recruit that athlete. It's wrong and incredibly ironic, as America projects free commerce through the world, and the world's sports leagues scratch their heads when they hear this nonsense about the Americans distributing talent through a draft. If the league is the employer, then the league is a cartel, and in virtually all other industries in the US, an industry conducting themselves as a cartel subjects themselves to criminal penalties under antitrust laws, or civil penalties when engaging in monopolization or resale price maintenance. Sports leagues, to different extents, do these things as a matter of course on every day that ends in a Y and it's just considered business. We protect baseball from the system we purport to believe in and it's unjust through and through. We accept this model because we see it as the way it has always been and assume it's kind of the same elsewhere. But it isn't and it's not. It hurts young athletes, it hurts baseball, it hurts small towns, it hurts big cities, it hurts the economy, it hurts America, and it hurts other baseball-playing nations.

Thank you for explaining! This is interesting. Curious what kind of impact it might have on the minors, especially the low minors, and whether it would force the league to improve conditions and compensation for the players at those levels.



Again, didn't mean the hijack, was just curious how you thought it would work.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=114081 time=1670348650 user_id=68]
Salary cap? Sure. Why not? Right after Congress limits the number of ice cream flavors Haagen Dqzs would be allowed to sell.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=114083 time=1670348888 user_id=68]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=114081 time=1670348650 user_id=68]
Salary cap? Sure. Why not? Right after Congress limits the number of ice cream flavors Haagen Dqzs would be allowed to sell.

[Edgy MD]

Would you have a salary cap ...

God, no. I object to industries acting as cartels, so why would I be OK with them fixing salaries?

... or other controls (minor league roster sizes, the number of minor league teams a major league team could own) ...

Minor league affiliation should be tossed along with the draft. This is also how cartels control costs. It's one of the worst things to ever happen to baseball.

to make sure a few rich reams wouldn't sign all the good players?

Go teams! Sign whoever will agree to sign with you. I'm not sure why a "rich team" should be a thing. Teams who manage resources and business well should get richer while teams who don't do that should get poorer.

What about a salary floor and revenue sharing to keep teams alive (and employ more players)?

If two teams play, there will certainly be revenue sharing, because both teams are contributing to the product. I disagree that one company has an obligation to keep its alleged competitors alive. Again, other industries aren't asked to operate this way.

I realize there are only so many roster slots on a team, but eventually, those slots are filled.

I'm not sure how this is relevant.

What about a limit on contract length, or do you retain a player indefinitely?

None of this is revolutionary, but if a team wants to offer a player a lifetime contract, with a lifetime salary, and the player agrees, good for both of them.

I'll revisit that list as I have time. Maybe the concept deserves its own thread?

Really, I hope it's not too much of a concept. I just ask that baseball operate as virtually all other industries are asked to operate.

[MFS62]

Thank you for filling in the blanks.

I have a concern that if minor league teams are no longer owned (and subsidized) by major league teams, many minor league teams, leagues and jobs would be lost.

To me, that would be like saying everyone has the opportunity to attend college, but we're getting rid of many high schools.



Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

Pitcher or hitter? It depends. This discussion reminds me of the comment "Good pitching will always stop good hitting" Intuitively, I'd say that that comment's true. I know that watching the prime of Tom Seaver, I felt that the Mets could beat any team on the days that Seaver started. And they usually did. I know that the odds-makers recognize this notion that good pitching beats good hitting because baseball is the only sport that I can think of where the worst team in the league can be favored to beat the best team in the league, depending on the pitching match-ups. The 1988 Mets were the best team in baseball but came up short in their quest for the NL pennant because they couldn't get past an Orel Hershiser who was historically great in 1988. And if the Astros could've won just one playoff game that wasn't started by Mike Scott, there very likely wouldn't have been a Mets-Red Sox WS because at the end of the '86 season, Scott was unhittable. The Mets prevailed over the Astros probably because Scott pitched only two playoff games. The Mets were the better team but Scott was Koufaxian. And I thought of another great thesis while I wrote that post above: my thesis is to trade all of my crappy players for superstars. Isn't that brilliant? James Mccann for Mike Trout! Yoan Lopez for Mookie Betts! I'm gonna have a moratorium to polish up my thesis, now. Then, I'll see if I could sell my thesis idea to Steve Cohen. Don't nobody here try and steal my thesis idea. Youse know I thought of it first.

Will Sammon writing for The Athletic on the Mets' Verlander signing:



For as much as baseball has changed and will continue to evolve, this much has remained the same: There is no player in the sport who controls the tempo, tenor and outcome of a game as thoroughly as an elite starting pitcher.

[Edgy MD]

=MFS62 post_id=114089 time=1670349766 user_id=60]
Thank you for filling in the blanks.

I have a concern that if minor league teams are no longer owned (and subsidized) by major league teams, many minor league teams, leagues and jobs would be lost.

To me, that would be like saying everyone has the opportunity to attend college, but we're getting rid of many high schools.



Later

[MFS62]

Edgy MD wrote: History suggests that it would be the exact opposite. The minor leagues flourished before affiliation.

That was when there were 16 major league teams, all East of the Mississippi, and before you could see major league baseball on tv. So if a dad wanted to take his kids to see a ball game, it was a local minor league game. Times change.

I feel that in today's America, full free agency would have a negative effect on the minors. And the leagues, where major league teams could evaluate and develop players before they signed them, would contract.

We can never know for sure.

Later

[Edgy MD]

Yes, we can know for sure.

[MFS62]

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, we can know for sure.

How do we test your idea without full implementation?

Later

[Edgy MD]

It's not really an idea. For every other industry, it's just life. It doesn't need a test, any more than breaking up any monopoly or cartel needs a test. Either we believe in our laws and values or we don't.

[vtmet7]

=whippoorwill post_id=114066 time=1670342639 user_id=79]
=vtmet7 post_id=114063 time=1670340275 user_id=80]
don't see any Nimmo FA threads, so don't know where to comment on Nimmo's path...



Now that Trea Turner signed that long term deal; there is a post in one of the Mets groups on Facebook, whereas it's suggested that the Mets should offer Nimmo a 6 year, $150 Mil contract...I realize that contracts are escalating and that Nimmo is a Boras guy; but IMO that is crazy high for Nimmo...