Nationals Baseball: Someone help me out

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Someone help me out

It seems like the whole "this collective bargaining agreement hurts the competitive balance" is based on a very tenuous assumption that the spending that the Royal, Nationals, Pirates were doing would continue to only be done by a small number of small-market teams.  It seems to me as this method proved itself to be more and more successful (and fiscally responsible in comparison to FA signings) that more and more teams would do it and thus negate the advantage gained by these teams (as well as the large market teams doing similar things - like the Red Sox and Yankees).  


Gusto said...

The way I see it, the stakeholders are 1: Team ownership/management, 2: Current members of the players association, 3: Agents, 4: Future members of the players association.

The agreement (between stakeholders #1 and #2) benefits ( no surprise ) stakeholders #1 and #2 at the expense of #3 and #4, since the money that would have been spent on young talent can be spent on #1 and #2.

Gusto said...

On the other hand, this agreement does tend to water down the advantage of a high draft position, by not letting a team maximize that advantage as the Nationals have in recent years. Since high draft position usually goes to smaller market teams, that seems to benefit the larger market teams.

michael K said...

I think the new compensation system favors big market teams (who can throw $12M like it ain't no thang), but I'm not seeing how the new draft restrictions help large market teams.

On average, large market teams are going to be able to afford large signing bonuses over small market teams. Just because the Nats, Jays, and Pirates (all largish-market teams, btw) are signing high bonus guys now doesn't change that on average, if you drive up the price of anything anywhere, wealthy people will be able to afford it but not poor people.

Not allowing teams to throw buckets of money at draft picks should also decrease the amount draft picks ask for - no one is going to ask for more money than the team is allowed to give. Sure, players picked lower (mostly by large market, winning teams) may choose to re-enter the draft to try and get more money next year. Players picked higher (mostly be small market, losing teams) will not be able to do that because there's no more money left to gain.

Harper I completely agree with you on the 2nd wildcard being a horrible idea. I have my reasons but I got lazy last weekend and who wants someone who sucks at brevity already rehashing 5 day old discussions (seriously that's like 2 years in non-internet time).

Harper said...

Gusto - totally I don't think this extend to other unions but sports unions really sacrifice the talented youth for the marginal veteran. As for draft position - yes and no. I think the bad teams have had an advantage over the good ones recently since they do get to take a stab at the better hard-to-sign players first but in my scenario - where everyone is paying a ton of money for picks - that advantage disappears. at least in theory.

MK - I'm waiting for the first marginal player offered 12 million for 1 year because they think he'll bolt anyway, that takes the deal. It's made draft pick compensation into a game of chicken.

Anonymous said...

I do think this will hurt the competitive balance because it gives small market teams one less way to try and get bigger. True the big teams can throw money around at draft picks, but it is quicker for big money teams to sign FAs and not take take the chances which draft picks. What the new system will do is prevent teams from getting two or three big names in a draft because they won't be able to entice high school players to forgo college because 2nd round slot money isn't worth hit.

Anonymous said...

Totally unrelated--Harper, any other Nats blogs you read on a regular basis? FJB is dormant and the promise of both Chris and Basil doubling the postings at Capitol Punishment is clearly over. Who else do you read?

Harper said...

Anon #1 - the talent drain will happen, but I'd wait a draft or two to see what the real effects are. I still think $$$ will beat out college more often than you think.

I suppose the little guy does lose a venue he can compete in, I just didn't see that venue staying worthwhile a few years down the road. If everyone spends money there (and they would - it's the best bang for your buck) then the little team no longer can get ahead here.