Baseball America did a detailed article on the MLB's latest proposal that covered amateur drats. Here are my comments:
1. Rule 5 Draft -MLB's proposal does not eliminate the Rule 5 draft and, in fact, accentuates it. The MLB proposal would allow for domestic players to be R5-eligible after 2 seasons with teams being able to 'buy' a 3rd season of protection for $30,000.
My thoughts: I have published several posts on this site with data that shows that the Rule 5 ML draft does not work. While MLB's latest proposal would change the dynamic to the R5 draft based on eligible players it is still not workable and, IMO, the ML R5 draft should be eliminated. The goal of eliminating the Rule 5 draft would be to give teams LONGER periods of control for their players to develop and to reduce the money and effort spent on determining which players to roster and which to draft in the R5.
2. MLB Draft Changes - MLB proposes dropping the draft to 12 rounds, cutting the bonus pool in half, not allowing players to be drafted until they turn 20 (no HS players or JUCO freshmen), limiting the bonuses for NDFA to $10,000, draft choices are freely tradeable with some limitations, no competitive balance picks.
My thoughts:
No drafting of HS/young JUCO draftees - I am on board with that. The demographics show that the most high risk is in drafting HS players, especially RH pitchers and catchers. While some guys do make it big being drafted out of HS, a lot fail.
However, this system will only work if foreign leagues support this and refuse to sign US kids who are not draft-eligible. The system must also allow for matriculation from college to pro ball at a faster rate so that kids pushed to college find playing time at colleges that will develop them and get them ready for pro ball at a young age. This cannot be like HS where seniors and juniors play and freshmen and sophomores sit (or play JV, which doesn't currently exist in college) and wait their turn. For example, IMO there are still too many Friday night SP in college baseball who are seniors because they give the team the best chance to win and winning is a main goal for a college coach. While that may impact winning for those schools it adversely impacts kids with a lot of talent but no experience. Additionally, if the influx of players to college is not handled correctly, the already out-of-control transfer portal will get crazier as kids find that they can't get playing time early and so transfer to a place that 'guarantees' them playing time..
Dropping the draft to 12 rounds: I am totally against that. The pool of draft-worthy players will, in theory, be the same every year even if HS/JUCO kids are not eligible. Those kids will simply be in college at their draft age, MLB has already dropped the draft from 40 to 20 rounds. Dropping it further favors cheap teams not having to spend money on amateur player acquisition AND make it harder for draft-worthy players to get playing time in their freshman and sophomore years in college. I am not in favor of any rule that allows cheap teams to cheap out on amateur player acquisition.
Cutting the bonus pools in half: Again, totally against this. In fact, I want the bonus pools enhanced for the resource-limited teams. Make them spend more on amateur player acquistion.
Elimination of Competitive Balance Draft Picks - I am totally against this. Resource-liimited teams should get more draft picks, period. As I have said repeatedly, any change that allows resourc-limited teams to avoid spending money on amateur player acquisition is bad for baseball. There is a substantial difference between revenue sharing, which can be accomplished with better local media revenue sharing and a salary floor and competitive balance. The latter requires carrot-and-stick rules for small market teams. That is, give them extra bonus pool money but make them spend it.
Somewhat Free Trading of Draft Picks - I am TOTALLY against this. Trading a 1st round draft pick could save a team MILLIONS of dollars. Being a Cleveland guy I remember Ted Stepien for the Cavaliers and the DeShaun Watson/Browns trade. These trades hamstrung their teams for years. Rules should NOT be made that allows this kind of shooting in the foot. Just the opposite, actually. I am against any rule that keeps cheap teams from spending on amateur player acquisition. My rule is to not allow draft picks from being traded before the 11th round and then they can only be for the current draft cycle and only be traded by large market teams. I don't want teams to be able to mortgage the future for a brass ring push in a year.
Limiting NDFA bonuses to $10,000 - Again, this, like cutting the draft to 12 rounds, is just a mechanism for teams to save money on player acquisition while driving kids back to college. Kids need to matriculate to pro baseball from college to give younger college players the opportunity to play.
Hard Draft Slots - I am against this. Teams should be allowed to decide how to spend their money. Nowhere in this proposal does it address a college player simply saying that they don't want to be drafted in a particular year. This would be heightened if hard draft slots were adhered to. I think this spending flexibility is one of the beautiful things of the draft. Some teams might like to spread their money around. Hard slotting eliminates creativity in amateur player acquistion. However, there does need to be rules saying a team MUST spend between 95% and 105% of their draft pool budget.
3. International Draft - Players can only be drafted when they reach 18, bonus pool the same for international and domestic drafts. Skip the 2027 January 15th signing period.
My thoughts - I am on board with these proposals. That being said, this proposal has still not eliminated the difference in age between domestic and international signees that currently exists. This draft would clearly have to include elimination of the R5 draft so these kids could develop. My other thought on this is that there are huge advantages to getting kids in younger. All teams right now get these kids to finish their HS education. MLB would have to invest in academies for kids to continue to develop and get life skills until they can be drafted. That obviously exists in the US but one of the beauties of signing these kids at 16 and them having them play in the DSL is that you get them in a structured environment early. MLB would have to figure how to do that.
SUMMARY
Many of these changes could be good for baseball. However, a salary floor and salary cap should be tied to changes in revenue sharing. Changes to amateur player acquisition should NOT. Even in a cap situation the best players would leverage their talent to get to a large market where their earning power outside the game would be maximized. Talent will NEVER be split evenly in a cap/floor environment. Also we need to provide small market teams a pathway that allows them to reach the salary floor by signing their only prospects like the Athletics did and other teams are now starting to do. This comes from enhanced amateur player opportunities for small market teams that are mandated to be followed both in keeping and using draft picks and spending appropriately instead of just not using money on these drafts. The new CBA should not just make fringe players and AAAA players richer as teams try to get to the floor. Finally, in no way should ANY of these changes impact the gains that were made in the historic MiLB CBA. Those benefits should be protected. so guys can chase their dreams to their natural conclusion without giving up because they can't afford to continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment