How to fix baseball

[bigpaulie]

Tell me how you would go about fixing MLB baseball or do you even think it needs fixing? Does MLB need more year to year parody? Are you sick of the fact large market teams, don't have to feel the consequences of poor decisions like smaller market teams?

 

Would it be a hard cap, revenue sharing, rookie contract, rookie contract changes, luxury tax etc.

 

There is a bit of talk in the Trout extension thread, got me thinking

[G-Snarls]

Good questions

 

Correction: parity not parody

[bigpaulie]

Good questions

 

Correction: parity not parody

 

Was just really happy it didn't have the dreaded red line under it, I'm stupid as a fox

[G-Snarls]

Was just really happy it didn't have the dreaded red line under it, I'm stupid as a fox

 

LOL no you're not. And it's a real word so spell check will pass it. Just means a different thing.

[G-Snarls]

I like the soft salary cap system. Seems just about right.

 

I like the arbitration system.

 

Personally I'd like a slightly shorter season but that will never happen

 

I like the PED rules

 

I like the wildcard structure

 

I think the free agency draft pick compensation rules to change

 

I like the sounds ofbrhw new replay system though the limits on challenges might be too much

 

I like MLB pretty much the way it is

[NorthOf49]

My #1 fix is getting rid of the draft. It's a bonus-lowering mechanism, not a parity/'fairness' mechanism. And it rewards losing, which I don't agree with at all. The best system is one that encourages every team to win every year. So you lost 100 games last year... Oops.

 

Instead, give each team a $12M amateur bonus budget and let that have at it. You could even combine it seamlessly with the Latin American market. To prevent the same teams (the prestigous big market ones) from snapping up the top guys every year, say that each team may not allocate a $5M+ bonus in consecutive years.

[NorthOf49]

I don't think anything is really wrong with baseball.

The Astros are what's wrong about baseball.

 

The current system is un-American. A baseball team's quality should reflect the quality of that team's scouting, decision-making process and resource base. Not the number of scorched-earth years that preceded the season in question. The "blow it up and collect top picks for four years" strategy is a disgusting mark on the game and must be removed.

[Captain Adama]

My #1 fix is getting rid of the draft. It's a bonus-lowering mechanism, not a parity/'fairness' mechanism. And it rewards losing, which I don't agree with at all. The best system is one that encourages every team to win every year. So you lost 100 games last year... Oops.

 

Instead, give each team a $12M amateur bonus budget and let that have at it. You could even combine it seamlessly with the Latin American market. To prevent the same teams (the prestigous big market ones) from snapping up the top guys every year, say that each team may not allocate a $5M+ bonus in consecutive years.

 

Disagree. If a system like that was implemented, I would imagine many top amateur players would take a large pay cut to play for an organization that is simply very good. If you're the Astos, it's probably really difficult to attract top amateur players to sign with your organization. This would cause some serious problems in regards to equality, bad teams are gonna have a damn near impossible task of recovering from a bad season. Also makes it unfair if a new GM steps in, it would be that much more difficult to clean up the past management's mess (apply this to the Blue Jays as well). If anything, give the worst team a much bigger budget to sign players cause they sure as hell will need it over a team like the Red Sox.

 

I like the draft with the way it is, but I think the current budget constraints are rather restricting.

[Captain Adama]

I would disagree if I thought a team could build a consistent winner in this fashion, but I don't. It takes a lot more than 3-4 top-5 picks to put a winnings team together. I hate the NHL system because of this though.

 

I've always wondered what the attrition rates of top picks in baseball compare to other major sports, must be much higher.

[Terminator]

The compensation system is completely regressive. It benefits the rich teams because the penalties lessen with each big signing. It also isn't fair to the players. I'd change that.

 

I'd expand replay and I also like what they are doing with collisions at the plate.

 

The rules on the draft could use work too. There are 3 different systems right now. One for amateur players in the US and PR, one for international players, and one for Japanese players. I'd make changes to each although I'm not entirely sure how.

[Captain Adama]

The Astros are what's wrong about baseball.

 

The current system is un-American.

 

I just noticed this. In no way would I consider the current style of American economics in any way near "good" much less fair. It's quite disgusting really and no way do I want baseball to have a similar system of operation.

[NorthOf49]

Disagree. If a system like that was implemented, I would imagine many top amateur players would take a large pay cut to play for an organization that is simply very good. If you're the Astos, it's probably really difficult to attract top amateur players to sign with your organization. This would cause some serious problems in regards to equality, bad teams are gonna have a damn near impossible task of recovering from a bad season. Also makes it unfair if a new GM steps in, it would be that much more difficult to clean up the past management's mess (apply this to the Blue Jays as well). If anything, give the worst team a much bigger budget to sign players cause they sure as hell will need it over a team like the Red Sox.

 

I like the draft with the way it is, but I think the budget constraints are rather restricting.

I don't think an amateur is going to take more than a ~$100,000 pay cut to sign with a prestigious team. But if that is a problem, then I'd curve the budgets around market size. The bottom markets get a $14M cap and the top ones $10M.

 

I also think that you'd see fewer 100-loss teams with my system in place, and many more teams in the 75-85 win range of decency. It may be harder to become a playoff team after suffering a 100-loss season in my system since you have to work your way to the top gradually, but I doubt you'd have teams stringing together seasons of total ineptitude like you do now.

[z3r0s]

I haven't really thought about it in enough depth to come up with specific, but I think ALL sports need to develop a system where teams have a significant advantage in ability to keep players they developed (but without stupid rules like the franchise tag in football).

 

Sports need dynasty teams. Its boring when the same teams snap up all the free agents and buy their legacy. Its equally frustrating when a team of home-grown guys get torn apart due to free agency.

[Captain Adama]

I don't think an amateur is going to take more than a ~$100,000 pay cut to sign with a prestigious team. But if that is a problem, then I'd curve the budgets around market size. The bottom markets get a $14M cap and the top ones $10M.

 

I also think that you'd see fewer 100-loss teams with my system in place, and many more teams in the 75-85 win range of decency. It may be harder to become a playoff team after suffering a 100-loss season in my system since you have to work your way to the top gradually, but I doubt you'd have teams stringing together seasons of total ineptitude like you do now.

 

If I were an amateur player and one team that is coming off a string of 90+ loss seasons and offers me 1.4 M and another one that is coming off a World Series championship and is a consistent contender and offers me 1 M, I'm choosing the latter. It would definitely be an issue. Crappy teams would have to offer MUCH more money to convince good players to sign with them.

 

I see part of your argument though, it emphasizes more focus on quality scouting and finding hidden/late guys like Pujols and Piazza, but in reality how many times do players like that come around?

[z3r0s]

If I were an amateur player and one team that is coming off a string of 90+ loss seasons and offers me 1.4 M and another one that is coming off a World Series championship and is a consistent contender and offers me 1 M, I'm choosing the latter. It would definitely be an issue. Crappy teams would have to offer MUCH more money to convince good players to sign with them.

 

I see part of your argument though, it emphasizes more focus on quality scouting and finding hidden/late guys like Pujols and Piazza, but in reality how many times do players like that come around?

 

Tough to say, I think players know how unlikely it is to make it in baseball (or at least their agents should). Would you bet 400k on yourself making it when it might be your only payday?

[The Cats Ass]

The Astros are what's wrong about baseball.

 

The current system is un-American. A baseball team's quality should reflect the quality of that team's scouting, decision-making process and resource base. Not the number of scorched-earth years that preceded the season in question. The "blow it up and collect top picks for four years" strategy is a disgusting mark on the game and must be removed.

 

One way that I think would be better is to determine the draft order by drawing team names(that didn't make the playoffs) out of a hat. So each team that didn't make the playoffs have the same chance of getting the #1, #2, ..., #16 picks. So if you don't make the playoffs you'll get better picks then the teams that did, but you can't tank Astro style and get the #1 four years in a row.

[The Cats Ass]

I haven't really thought about it in enough depth to come up with specific, but I think ALL sports need to develop a system where teams have a significant advantage in ability to keep players they developed (but without stupid rules like the franchise tag in football).

 

Sports need dynasty teams. Its boring when the same teams snap up all the free agents and buy their legacy. Its equally frustrating when a team of home-grown guys get torn apart due to free agency.

 

Have a hard salary cap. But players drafted(signed for international prospects) by the Org don't count against the cap.

[eastcoastjaysfan]

Don't agree with elimating the drafting system.

 

Look at European football. The only real chance you have at getting elite talent (if you don't have an oil tycoon for an owner) is if you sign a kid when he's like 12 years old into your academy... And then the chances of that kid being sold 2-3 years into his professional career are sky high if he's any good. The end result is that the same 10 teams dominate the continent for eternity.

 

There is no Tampa Bay Rays in the EPL, Serie A, La Liga, Budesliga, etc. where a savvy GM can do the things that Friedman does.

[G-Snarls]

The Astros are what's wrong about baseball.

 

The current system is un-American. A baseball team's quality should reflect the quality of that team's scouting, decision-making process and resource base. Not the number of scorched-earth years that preceded the season in question. The "blow it up and collect top picks for four years" strategy is a disgusting mark on the game and must be removed.

 

Not only do they benefit from the draft picks but they also benefit more from the revenue sharing than anyone relative to payroll.

 

Last year they were apparently the most profitable team in the history of baseball. (WSJ article discussed it if you haven't seen)

 

I have to admit that seems a bit wrong somehow but it's a free market and they're just playing by the rules.

[The Cats Ass]

If I were an amateur player and one team that is coming off a string of 90+ loss seasons and offers me 1.4 M and another one that is coming off a World Series championship and is a consistent contender and offers me 1 M, I'm choosing the latter. It would definitely be an issue. Crappy teams would have to offer MUCH more money to convince good players to sign with them.

 

 

But another way of looking at it is that they could end up being blocked at their position and it'll be that much harder to make the team. I think you'd more likely have the top prospects look at each teams organisation and pick the team that would give them the most direct route to the majors.

[NorthOf49]

If I were an amateur player and one team that is coming off a string of 90+ loss seasons and offers me 1.4 M and another one that is coming off a World Series championship and is a consistent contender and offers me 1 M, I'm choosing the latter. It would definitely be an issue. Crappy teams would have to offer MUCH more money to convince good players to sign with them.

 

I see part of your argument though, it emphasizes more focus on quality scouting and finding hidden/late guys like Pujols and Piazza, but in reality how many times do players like that come around?

I'd probably take the $1.4M, the bust rate in baseball being what it is. But I see your point. If it was $1.3M - $1M and the top team had a history of great prospect development, I may take less money. However, the team with the string of 90+ loss seasons is likely experiencing front office turnover since there's no excuse for losing. So there's reason to believe that team won't continue to have a poor development record.

 

My argument is that it's better for the game if every team is always in a win mode and no teams are given specific advantages for reasons other than market size. I dislike that half of the teams in baseball are currently in an intentional losing phase. Parity to me doesn't mean a different team wins the World Series every year, it means half the fanbases in the league haven't given up on the season before it starts.

[NorthOf49]

Don't agree with elimating the drafting system.

 

Look at European football. The only real chance you have at getting elite talent (if you don't have an oil tycoon for an owner) is if you sign a kid when he's like 12 years old into your academy... And then the chances of that kid being sold 2-3 years into his professional career are sky high if he's any good. The end result is that the same 10 teams dominate the continent for eternity.

 

There is no Tampa Bay Rays in the EPL, Serie A, La Liga, Budesliga, etc. where a savvy GM can do the things that Friedman does.

Revenue sharing and other market-size adjustments are okay, incentivizing losing is not. It's a big difference.

 

The Tampa Bay Rays should be allocated enough funds from revenue sharing to re-sign their own players are grab the occasional decent free agent, and should be allowed to spend enough money on amateurs to make them equally as competitive in that market as any other team. That is fair and good for the game.

[Abomination]

If I were an amateur player and one team that is coming off a string of 90+ loss seasons and offers me 1.4 M and another one that is coming off a World Series championship and is a consistent contender and offers me 1 M, I'm choosing the latter. It would definitely be an issue. Crappy teams would have to offer MUCH more money to convince good players to sign with them.

 

Certainly some teams would have an advantage, but unless they were the "dream team" for a player I tend to think the player would follow the money. Heck, let's say the Yankees offered someone 1M instead of the Astros at 1.4M - chances are that the guy is traded before making it to the Bronx anyhow (possibly to the Astros). Also, a prospect may have a better chance of making it to the big leagues faster on a team where there's better chance of a vacancy existing. The problem of some teams having the advantage is certainly the counterpoint to this kind of system though.

 

Maybe give all teams a weighted draft cap bonus based on lack of playoff appearances over the last 10 years or something, along with a bonus for extending their own players into FA years or losing a prime player to FA.

[KingKat]

I don't for the life of me understand for the life of me why baseball doesn't allow teams to trade draft picks the way other sports do. That's the best way to maintain the natural flow of the draft because it's a system that self-regulates. Instead they tried to fix the draft through a cap and that only exposed new loopholes. Now instead of picks getting punted in favour of signability, it's entire rounds. Big improvement.

[JFD]

better question. how to fix the Blue Jays?

[Abomination]

I don't for the life of me understand for the life of me why baseball doesn't allow teams to trade draft picks the way other sports do. That's the best way to maintain the natural flow of the draft because it's a system that self-regulates. Instead they tried to fix the draft through a cap and that only exposed new loopholes. Now instead of picks getting punted in favour of signability, it's entire rounds. Big improvement.

 

Short of changing up the entire draft system, this should absolutely be done (make the draft more fun too).

[NorthOf49]

The MLB product is a singular one. Mechanisms by which the on-field product can be improved by promoting competitive teams and competitive games within MLB, even if those include parity-inducing examples, are not "un-American." The Yankees aren't a barnstorming team. They are not their own economic unit ... they need the Red Sox et al. to produce a game and a season.

 

But it's odd that you would argue that propping up poorly run organizations, or at least giving them a better chance at competing despite themselves, through a draft in which lesser-performing teams gain an advantage in the selection process, is un-American, yet then propose that you place monetary limitations equating all of those teams in terms of available funds for drafts. How is that not "un-American" according to your logic? Shouldn't those well run organizations who have larger resource bases be free to avail themselves of those well-earned advantages, and pay for who they want, and at the cost of however much they want?

My system makes baseball more American, but you're right, it doesn't quite go all the way. I think baseball is better with a cap on amateur talent acquisition and that's why I've included that.

 

With no cap on talent acquisition and no revenue-sharing, you'd be forced to contract many teams or live with half of your league never sniffing the playoffs. And I don't think that's in the best interest of the big-market teams. IMO, they can make more money in a legitimate league of 30 teams even if it involves paying some of the small-market teams' costs.

[Muck Bartinez]

better question. how to fix the Blue Jays?

 

Hot tub time machine.

[Atothe]

I got an idea for draft compensation. If say the Yankees sign a player from the rays for aav of 20 million per year then the Yankees forfeit 20% of their draft budget to the rays. What do you guys think?

[z3r0s]

I got an idea for draft compensation. If say the Yankees sign a player from the rays for aav of 20 million per year then the Yankees forfeit 20% of their draft budget to the rays. What do you guys think?

 

Doesn't get away from punishing the player for being good. How about the Rays get 20% more bonus (from nobody)?