Allez les Expos?

[Edgy MD]

d'Kong76 wrote: I'd be more than happy to go play A ball for $1,000/month... where do I sign?

I think you miss the spirit of the thing. I like to think I would too, but my skills don't allow it.

If I was the rare man who did have the skills and the small window of opportunity in my youth still remaining, I would hope it was worth more than $6,000 per year. Along with an understanding that if I tried to shop my skills to another team, the whole industry would blackball me. And the rich get richer.

As for the analogy of interns in other industries, many of those are exploitative too, and courts are starting to say so. But at least you have professional freedom of movement.

[Ceetar]

There ARE some independent leagues. And other countries.

[Edgy MD]

Yes. This is well known to the general baseball fan.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy MD wrote: I think you miss the spirit of the thing.

Nah, I get it.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Yes. This is well known to the general baseball fan.

and to many of the players as well!

[Edgy MD]

[Ceetar]

The Long Island Ducks, and the Japanese leagues, and (probably not the Australian league, since that's sort of MLB) other countries are allowed to sign Max Scherzer when his contract expires.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, like the Long Island Ducks would be a viable option for Max Scherzer.

What would benefit the players would be if we could turn back the clock to 1902 or so, when the American and National League were true rivals and there was no farm system and no draft, without, of course, restoring the reserve clause. High school and college players would have the ability to shop their talents around before signing. If, after a year in Louisville you can find a better deal in Omaha, you sign with Omaha for next year. And then if you succeed, maybe Kansas City or Cincinnati will come to you with an offer.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: The Long Island Ducks, and the Japanese leagues, and (probably not the Australian league, since that's sort of MLB) other countries are allowed to sign Max Scherzer when his contract expires.

Reductionism is a terrible way to argue. You assume the stupidity of your opponent while engaging in willful ignorance of your own.

Please stop.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: The Long Island Ducks, and the Japanese leagues, and (probably not the Australian league, since that's sort of MLB) other countries are allowed to sign Max Scherzer when his contract expires. Reductionism is a terrible way to argue. You assume the stupidity of your opponent while engaging in willful ignorance of your own. Please stop.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm merely pointing out facts that (should) contribute to the discussion. But maybe you're so set on how things should be you're just going to dismiss them as anomalies?

I mean, there's no similar rules for the other sports right? But I don't see competing leagues taking off. CFL isn't even televised here and it might even be a better game.

If they dropped the monopoly today, Where is your Boise team playing? Against who? Why would Scherzer or hell Puello, even consider playing for them? Where are they getting the money to pay competitive rates anyway?

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: I'm merely pointing out facts that (should) contribute to the discussion.

Here's two other facts: grass is green and the sky is blue.

See how infuriating that is?

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm merely pointing out facts that (should) contribute to the discussion. Here's two other facts: grass is green and the sky is blue. See how infuriating that is?

my facts were relevant to MLB's monopoly and your point that the Boise Huskers couldn't sign Max Scherzer, when in fact they can.

[Edgy MD]

Your facts were obvious to any middle schooler and already understood within the context of the conversation.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

To get back on topic any time there's been a threat of a competing league it has led almost directly to large increases in salaries, new teams (the Mets) and/or both. Shirley its only a matter of time before the right alignment of talent and agent blows up the draft.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Where is your Boise team playing? Against who? Why would Scherzer or hell Puello, even consider playing for them? Where are they getting the money to pay competitive rates anyway?

="Ceetar, 12]My facts were relevant to MLB's monopoly and your point that the Boise Huskers couldn't sign Max Scherzer, when in fact they can.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I think he meant a) they wouldn't be able to afford him (can't) they
could, meaning would be allowed to... I hope.

I'd like to hear some of the soccer heads tell us more about what's
so wonderful about the UEFA or FIFA or whoever versus MLB.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: I think he meant a) they wouldn't be able to afford him (can't) they could, meaning would be allowed to... I hope. I'd like to hear some of the soccer heads tell us more about what's so wonderful about the UEFA or FIFA or whoever versus MLB.

yeah, that. on both accounts.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not speaking on behalf of soccer, so much as against anti-competitive behavior.

But what's great that I would love is the presence of a team in every small town, with the players fighting not merely for their own advancement but for the glory of the team and the town and the fans, as it should be. That's great. And it once existed in American baseball and made baseball the quintessential American game, where every farm boy in Kansas knew the names of the starting nine of his team, and where they worked in the offseason, as much or more than he knew the big league players.

Affiliation � another anti-competiive vestige of the reserve clause ruined all that.

Promotion relegation � along with tournament play � would allow that ambitious Kansas team not merely to sell off her players to higher leagues, but potentially to resign and retain all her players, and to climb into those higher leagues and compete against the best, all for the glory of Topeka or Shawnee.

[Frayed Knot]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: To get back on topic any time there's been a threat of a competing league it has led almost directly to large increases in salaries, new teams (the Mets) and/or both. Shirley its only a matter of time before the right alignment of talent and agent blows up the draft.

The problem with killing the draft is that it's treated legally as something that's been bargained into place -- as opposed to the old reserve clause which was forced on the players in contradiction to all laws -- so the remedy, according to several court decisions, would be for the players to collectively bargain it out of existence. It's how the NFL, with even less competition to their league as compared to other sports, gets away with not just having a draft but also with dictating exactly when (with maybe a one-year window) a player can apply for it.
IOW, it's not something that's going to be over-turned merely by some highly-aggressive agent attached to a prodigious young talent.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not so sure I concur. The draft, as much as it may be treated as such with regard to professionals, was never bargained into place by the amateur talent it most affects as they seek their first professional opportunities. If two agents and 10 high-end prospects announce that they have no intention of negotiating only with one team, it'd terrify MLB lawyers, and shake them to their core.

These players might lose anyhow, of course.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yeah I'm sure there's enough legal wiggle room to make a stand anyway.

[Frayed Knot]

More than a few legal challenges have been made to the NFL's draft by players who didn't even want to circumvent the draft but just wanted to enter a year earlier than the rule says they can and even that minor point couldn't get past a court.
MLB's draft, which allows numerous points of entry: after HS, from Juco, after 3rd year of college, 4th year of college, and where independent leagues, domestic and foreign, do exist, would seem even more safe from legal challenges.