The current baseball draft's insistence on baseball talent has screwed me out of millions of dollars. It makes me sick just thinking about it.

Wow, strong words. I understand that viewpoint, but I've never heard another form of distributing talent that didn't amount to "let the Yankees and Red Sox get all the good players". Short term, sure, the draft hurts players, but the existence of a draft is good for the long term health of baseball, which helps all the players.

Paul, the non-existence of a draft doesn't hurt other professional leagues around the world, nor did it necessarily hurt all the North American leagues prior to the 1960s.

The fact of the matter is that there are pros/cons to any mechanism of getting talent into a league. And, in each mechanism, someone is always going to get scr-wed and someone is always going to get disproportiately well-compensated, all for the betterment of the whole.

There is no proof that MLB's player insertion system today is any better for the whole than the NHL's or MLB's of yesteryear or European soccer. All you can do is highlight the pros of one and the cons of the other to make your case.

The draft is an anticompetitive, anti-player mechanism designed to screw 18- and 21-year-old kids out of millions of dollars on behalf of the billionaires who own MLB teams.

The draft transfers money from the kids to the free agents, not necessarily the owners.

Baseball is the only sport it seems where writers criticize it for being anticompetitive, etc. even though they are all pretty similar in depressing salaries for first year talent. I don't know what that means, but its interesting.

Tom: have you looked at competitive balance before and after the draft? It seems like you could make a case that the Yankees and Dodgers _did_ end up with all of the good players prior to its institution.

I've never heard another form of distributing talent that didn't amount to "let the Yankees and Red Sox get all the good players".

You mean the way they do with players who aren't subject to the draft?

Kyle, if "betterment of the whole" implies competitive balance, then why not go further and force each team to only protect 10 players each year?

Like I said, you can devise any kind of mechanism of distribution of talent with pros/cons, and if you focus on the pros of one device and the cons of the other, of course the proposed one will work out "better".

Well, I'm not trying to make a normative case either way; I'm just curious about the facts.

Well, the spread in win% for 1950-59 is far wider than 1980-89. But, we also have free agency and expansion to contend with. That said, of course we expect the spread to be wider with no draft.

why not go further and force each team to only protect 10 players each year?

Because while you need to try to somewhat balance competition, it is also desirable to more or less preserve team identities.

he draft is an anticompetitive, anti-player mechanism

For the life of me I can't see how the draft is anti-competitive. Anti-player, yes, I see that.

Edit: I see how the draft is anti-competitive in a kind of libertarian sense, so perhaps that's what he means, but I have little sympathy for that line of thinking.

It's anticompetitive in the market sense, just not the onfield results sense.

Make 'em all free agents and reduce the number of "protected spots" for teams that spend the most money on acquiring amateur talent.

Quantity or quality, which will it be?

Lee MacPhail took credit for the free agent draft in his book, but I'm skimming through contemporary newspaper reports from around then and I don't see any corroborating evidence yet. The system that it replaced (which sounds similar to the Rule 5 draft only with less players protected) sounds like a real ###########. I read a few stories about it and I'm not sure I understand it.

BTW, when I say free agent draft, I mean the draft of HS, Legion, and college players; not the free agent reentry draft that started in 1977 and continued until they allowed FAs to negotiate with all teams.

Because while you need to try to somewhat balance competition, it is also desirable to more or less preserve team identities.

This is what I keep trying to say. Every system will have pros/cons, and we can spend the whole week saying, "yeah but..." for every pro that is being brought up.

The point is that until you do a complete analysis of each alternative, we're going to accomplish little to nothing, other than passing the time on Friday (which by itself may be the best accomplishment possible).

why not go further and force each team to only protect 10 players each year?

Because while you need to try to somewhat balance competition, it is also desirable to more or less preserve team identities.

Interesting idea though. Make it more than 10 players, maybe expand the eligibility requirements of the Rule 5 Draft.

I'm surprised he didn't mention making the draft international (with an exception for Japanese major leaguers who are posted). It seems asinine to have two completely different systems depending on where the player is born.

Wow, strong words. I understand that viewpoint, but I've never heard another form of distributing talent that didn't amount to "let the Yankees and Red Sox get all the good players".

Except there are already a ton of players in baseball that are not eligible for the draft and the Yankees and Red Sox don't have all the good ones of those, so why would it suddenly be different with Americans and Canadians?

If there's inequity that's a real problem with in baseball, then it's the teams that should be taking the hit and giving money to each other (on the basis of the inequity, not on the basis of success), not kids who can't even buy a beer yet.

The draft transfers money from the kids to the free agents, not necessarily the owners.

The draft transfers money from the kids to the owners. What the owners do with it after that is a separate issue.

Baseball is the only sport it seems where writers criticize it for being anticompetitive, etc. even though they are all pretty similar in depressing salaries for first year talent. I don't know what that means, but its interesting.

The NFL draft is seven rounds long, and all the players drafted either end up making NFL (rookie) money or are cut before the start of the season to become free agents. The NBA draft is only two rounds long, and I think anyone who gets drafted either ends up on the NBA roster, or is cut before the start of the season to become a free agent. Most people seem to think that players are better off not being drafted than being drafted in the second round, since you aren't stuck with one team and can bargain around, but the problem of being drafted in the second round with its lack of guaranteed contracts only affects 30 players every year, a lot of whom are playing professionally in Europe already anyway.

The NHL draft is seven rounds long, and may be as unfair to the players as the MLB draft (I don't know about how minor-league hockey players are paid or how long they are bound to the team that drafts them; it seems like the non-affiliated pro system in Canada would give them some leverage to negotiate), although only to about 1/7 as many players.

Whereas the MLB draft is FIFTY ROUNDS LONG, and the vast majority of players drafted are tied to the team that drafts them for many years, and usually never make the majors anyway and therefore never make any money beyond their signing bonus, and the team can end the relationship unilaterally, but the player can't.

I'm coming around to the idea that abolishing the draft would be good for baseball. Here are my reasons:

1) I'm not convinced the draft helps competitive balance that much. The players are very far away from the majors and even the top picks are far from sure things. Beyond the first few picks drafting early isn't really that big of an advantage and it is certainly not the case that the teams that pick early always have the best young players.

2) Even if it did help some I don't see why the Devil Rays should be rewarded for being completely horrible year after year. Teams should not be rewarded for completely sucking. Moreover there is such a lag between the draft and their arrival that you have oddities like the first place team in the AL east getting the first pick in the draft. That's an odd way to redress competive balance.

3) If there were no draft teams would have to invest more in scouting and player development. I don't see how this could be a bad thing. I'm convinced that the reason there are so many good players coming out of Latin America is because they are not subject to the draft. The Yankees and Red Sox don't get all of these players because they aren't fully honed when they are signed. It is these teams that are able to find and develop these players that are rewarded. That sounds like a meritocracy to me.

4) It would be interesting to see what happens.

It's anticompetitive in the market sense, just not the onfield results sense.

Yeah, that's what I meant by "libertarian," and frankly I don't see why anyone should care about the market sense with respect to the draft. My bias, heh.

This is what I keep trying to say. Every system will have pros/cons, and we can spend the whole week saying, "yeah but..." for every pro that is being brought up.

Doesn't that apply to most such discussions, though? Seems kind of obvious, as a point.

Sidney Crosby will be a free agent at age 25, somewhat similar to ARod. However, the most egregious will still find himself a free agent at age 27, unlike say Ryan Howard. Furthermore, the NHL has competition from Europe (Russia, especially).

The NHL also has "restricted free agents" prior to free agency (right to match or receiving lots of draft picks), which is strong enough that plenty of guys in their early 20s are signed to long-term contracts of a level that is very close to free agent money, rather than the teams preferring several draft picks.

Ovechkin for example, signed a 13yr, 124MM contract (double all NHL contracts dollars to get them in MLB dollars) at the age of 22 years and 4 months.

Whatever oppression young players entering the NHL must face is dwarfed by MLB's system.

The NFL really cut down the number of rounds over the years.

Since the 49ers joined the National Football League in 1950, there have been six changes in the number of rounds in the draft. From 1950-59 there were 30 rounds, from 1960-66 the number of rounds was 20, from 1967-76 there were 17 rounds and from 1977-92 there were 12 rounds. In 1993 the number of rounds was cut to eight, and since 1994 there have been seven rounds.

If there were no draft teams would have to invest more in scouting and player development. I don't see how this could be a bad thing. I'm convinced that the reason there are so many good players coming out of Latin America is because they are not subject to the draft.

A lot of people think the amount, and quality, of prospects from Puerto Rico has been declining steadily since Puerto Ricans were determined to be eligible for the draft.

The draft transfers money from the kids to the free agents, not necessarily the owners.


The draft transfers money from the kids to the owners. What the owners do with it after that is a separate issue.

No, it's not, and I really don't think veterans (or MLBPA) look at it this way.

One thing that I find interesting about the importance that is being applied to th draft is that while the big-time superstars get their money, the mid-level players (and particularly) fungible players, are getting the short end of the stick moneywise.

This is precisely why I doubt MLBPA will push to have the draft abolished - it's rank and file would suffer.

Tom: have you looked at competitive balance before and after the draft? It seems like you could make a case that the Yankees and Dodgers _did_ end up with all of the good players prior to its institution.

Have you? I'm being serious here, not just trying to be Primey.

Looking at the spread in team win percentages, season-to-season, the draft doesn't seem to have had a major impact. If anything, the advent of free agency seems to have made a bigger impact (although this is just a conclusion drawn from eyeballing a graph for a few minutes, not a real study of the issue).

Paul, the non-existence of a draft doesn't hurt other professional leagues around the world, nor did it necessarily hurt all the North American leagues prior to the 1960s.

There were far fewer teams in the 60s. I'm not convinced that a 30 team MLB could survive without a draft. And yes, the Yankees and Red Sox don't get all the International players, but let's expand that - are the top international players signing with the Rays, Twins, Royals, etc? (This is not snark, I'm curious. My impression is no, but that's not based on much).

nor did it necessarily hurt all the North American leagues prior to the 1960s.

Wasn't baseball pre-1960 pretty much the Yankees, Dodgers, and Cardinals snatching up most of the amateur talent? Those weren't exactly the days of competitive balance.

2) Even if it did help some I don't see why the Devil Rays should be rewarded for being completely horrible year after year. Teams should not be rewarded for completely sucking. Moreover there is such a lag between the draft and their arrival that you have oddities like the first place team in the AL east getting the first pick in the draft. That's an odd way to redress competive balance.

There's only one problem here, and all these "experts" seem to forget it. It's all well and good when you say in theory that the Pirates or the Rays shouldn't be rewarded. But, when it actually happens, it's bad. This isn't the complete "free market" that we want to think. If you have 10 teams that are absolutely terrible, that hurts baseball. The teams compete, yes, but they also need to work together to make sure there's some competition. If the result is pretty much known before hand, then people aren't going to want to watch it.

Much less do I understand why guys like KLaw, Joe Sheehan, and the like care about if the players get money. These are the same guys that say reporters shouldn't be worrying that Alex Rodriguez makes $25 million a year, and then they get concerned when a player gets $500,000 less than the "market" should. I think unions and labor have a place, but where's the line? We care about this guy getting his money and we should talk about, but we shouldn't talk about this guy getting his money. I just don't see the argument.

I don't see how no draft is any better. Does anyone really think that all of the sudden without a draft the Pirates or Nationals are going to start paying for amatuers? They don't pay for young talent with the draft, what makes anyone think they would without one? Hell, I'd be inclined to think that they'd probably sign less young talent, fill their major league roster with veteran filler (much like they are now), make the drive to 75 and profit. And again, how's that help baseball? How does the product overall improve? We've seen that. That was the KC A's.

I suspect a reduced 40 man roster would do more for balance than anything else. Shift it down by 1 player a year until it reaches 30. That way teams protect their 25 man roster plus 5 top prospects who have been around 4-5 years without making the majors or who have made the majors. Utility guys would be shuffled around a lot more, giving them more chances rather than being buried behind a single guy. Prospects who are B level would no longer be stored on the roster in hopes of improvement. If a team wants a guy to be harder to draft away then sign him to a 5 year deal in the minors, knowing that if someone drafts him they have to factor that in as well.

This also would cut down on the silliness of the Pirates calling up 10 guys on September 1st as they now would be stuck to a 30 man total roster. What in the world does a manager do with 35 guys on the team?

(double all NHL contracts dollars to get them in MLB dollars)

For the benefit of us slow kids: could you elaborate on this, please?

This also would cut down on the silliness of the Pirates calling up 10 guys on September 1st as they now would be stuck to a 30 man total roster. What in the world does a manager do with 35 guys on the team?

What's wrong with the Pirates calling up 10 guys? Everyone realizes that the minors seasons are over, right? So, if you want these guys to practice and play they need to be in a league that still has games.

What in the world does a manager do with 35 guys on the team?

Pinch runners!!

The draft transfers money from the kids to the free agents, not necessarily the owners.

The draft transfers money from the kids to the owners. What the owners do with it after that is a separate issue.

Keith, that is of course technically true. But aren't higher FA salaries the logical result of depressed compensation for younger talent? I assume that a franchise typically budgets X dollars on player compensation, and that the savings from lower pay for draftees and cost-controlled guys creates more resources to bid on free agents. If the team decides to simply pocket the savings they're going to be less competitive. But it's very possible that I'm being naive about how teams are really operated.

"For the benefit of us slow kids: could you elaborate on this, please?"

I think he's making a reference to the different number of games in the NHL season and the MLB season.

I think he's making a reference to the different number of games in the NHL season and the MLB season.

I think he's making a reference to the average salary in the NHL and MLB.

I know so little about hockey it's almost embarrassing, so take with a grain of salt here, but I think Tom is referencing the average salary of players in each sport - if the average player makes twice as much in MLB as NHL, then you double the NHL salaries to make them on the same scale.

Keith, that is of course technically true. But aren't higher FA salaries the logical result of depressed compensation for younger talent?

Depressed compensation for younger talent results in a combination of:

- higher salaries for established players
- greater investment in scouting and development
- greater investment in front office personnel
- lower ticket and concessions prices
- fewer (or lower) taxpayer subsidies sought
- lower advertising revenue sought
- more investment in stadium maintenance
- more profit for the team/owners

I'm pretty sure that, should first-year player salaries go up, the owners will make sure that last item changes as little as possible.

Depressed compensation for younger talent results in a combination of:

1) higher profits for owners.

NHL: Right to the last few guys. If you look at the team payroll, the team revenue, the team market value, the top-end salaries, they are all at roughly half of MLB.

(Except the minimum salary, which is actually higher in the NHL. At the same time, there are no signing bonuses in the NHL, but the top players do get NHL contracts right away.)

***

Colin: if you look at the spread in win% by decades, you will see a far different picture, which is why the other posters are correct in saying the competitive balance was not the same.

***

Even if competitive balance is the goal, the draft is not the only vehicule to it. Payroll caps can help there as well.

Yes, yes, I know: "yeah, but..."

The point again is that there are other alternatives that don't require the players under 25 to sacrifice all their earning power to those over 30. The NBA doesn't have this problem, and neither does the NHL. I know that in those leagues you have a better chance at immediate impact when you are very young, but that may be cultural. If a guy can be near-MVP in his rookie season in MLB, doesn't that mean that he must have been pretty good the year before in the minors or college?

In any case, everyone is bringing good ideas to the table and at this stage of the discussion, we're still in the brainstorming part and that means we can't readily dismiss any half-decent idea.

***

Keith is technically correct in terms of the money flow. And, in practice, this is true. Teams set a budget and they will spend to it. All of their savings on the pre-free agent players is wasted on the free agent players.

However, it is dangerous for MLBPA to think like MLB owners are going to continue to spend like they have a gun to their heads. At some point, and perhaps we are already in it, teams will pocket those savings, or spend it on R&D;(say more on player development). It is not a necessity that it will go to the free agents. Especially if you have more revenue sharing (i.e., taxes). Whatever marginal impact in revenue you can get for each marginal win, if that revenue slice keeps getting shared, the value of that win will decrease.

Depressed compensation for younger talent results in a combination of:

1) higher profits for owners.

Yep. I think #40 is seriously wishful thinking regarding the relationship of player salaries and, say, the price of crappy beer served in plastic bottles ot the never ending search for public subsidies.

I'm not convinced that abolishing the draft would result in higher salaries overall. Sure the top guys would make a fortune but after that the supply of players who are basically the same will be quite large. I suspect that teams probably overpay second round picks because they have no choice; they have a supply of one to deal with.

Except there are already a ton of players in baseball that are not eligible for the draft and the Yankees and Red Sox don't have all the good ones of those, so why would it suddenly be different with Americans and Canadians?

I have an idea why it would be different. I think it's safe to assume that MLB does desire to hold an international draft - as it would further work to depress salaries for those young players outside the US and Canada, right? Why then does MLB not yet have a full international draft? The reason I've always heard is the teams do not have the resources to gather information on all the players who would then be available. Please feel free to edify me if you believe the reason is different from that.

Now, teams go after these overseas FA players by setting up academies and dispersing roving scouts. Under the current system this results in significantly uneven levels of information on individual players which is why money isn't as significant an advantage as it is in the MLB veterans FA market. In the US and Canada, however, I think these differences in information are tiny in comparison because every team has sufficient resources to scout the top talent near home.

So, yes, I do believe the financial resources of the wealthiest teams would be a greater advantage domestically than internationally.

The reason I've always heard is the teams do not have the resources to gather information on all the players who would then be available. Please feel free to edify me if you believe the reason is different from that.

As I understand it, they exempted int'l players back in '65 because it would've been a headache to determine who was eligible and who wasn't; and MLB never changed the rule. Let me see if I can find a pertinent article on this...

The NBA doesn't have this problem, and neither does the NHL.

Really? The NBA has a slotting system, your rookie contract, which is either 3 or 5 years, is determined by your draft position. I'd say that depressing an under 25 player's earning potential.

Colin: no, I haven't looked at it. Tom does tons of studies so I figured he'd already examined that issue before. It sounds like he agrees that competitive balance has gotten "better" (to use a normative word where a positive one should really go) since the institution of the draft.

---

Tom: I agree wholeheartedly that there are a myriad of other ways we could "improve" (again, normative language) competitive balance even if we abolished the amateur draft. Perhaps this is/isn't the appropriate place to discuss those other ways. I do think this is an appropriate forum for discussing whether the pros of leaving the draft in place (it helps at least a little bit to redress problems of competitive balance) outweigh the cons (it transfers wealth from amateurs to owners) of doing so.

I also doubt that there would be much change in bonuses paid for the vast majority of drafted players. While someone like Justin Upton would probably get at least twice as big a bonus as a free agent, third round draft picks are mostly indistinguishable from each other. They'd still get more money, I don't disagree, but not a lot more in absolute terms.

I guess you could make a case that the draft should be eliminated and alternate measures should be enacted to encourage competitive balance (more revenue sharing, moving to 30 man rosters, etc). Right?

Of course some of their earning potential is depressed. They are not free agents. The point is that they don't have it depressed anywhere near what MLB depresses it by.

There are no Lebron James (b. Dec 30, 1984) or Alexander Ovechkin's (b. Sep 17, 1985) in MLB. Indeed, the best you can find may be Jose Reyes (b. Nov 11, 1984). Their contracts simply don't compare.

Kyle, on my blog, I asked people for their ideas, and this is what they said

Is the MLB draft really comparable to the NBA/NFL drafts? In the latter, the players chosen are those who make an instant contribution ( and if you haven't shown up after 2 years, you are hung with "bust" status" ).
MLB drafts are usually more long term investments, with higher risk. Rarely do the teams draft players who can help immediately ( maybe a chicken-egg problem here ). So the question becomes, is the MLB helping to develop raw talent better by drafting them and coaching them?
Lot of what has been said above pertains to the top end of the draft. I am not sure abolishing the draft is good for all the players though. Maybe shortening the maturity period might help. Maybe 3 yrs of team control as opposed to 6?

Much less do I understand why guys like KLaw, Joe Sheehan, and the like care about if the players get money.

The main reason I talk about it is the frequency with which I hear that an amateur player should be willing to play for nothing, or is showing that he doesn't really want to play, or some other nonsense story that makes wanting the most money in a signing bonus into a character flaw. Or just hearing that amateurs are "overpaid" or that they're getting too much money for kids who have "never done anything." They're underpaid (cf. Travis Lee, Matt White, John Patterson), not overpaid, and because the expected future earnings stream of a typical amateur player is negligible, they should be allowed to maximize that one-time windfall by selling their services on the open market. When you combine that restraint (you have to play for the team that drafts you unless you're willing to hold out a full year) with the restraint of the reserve system (six years of big league service, and as much as twelve years from the time you sign your first pro contract until you can first choose your employer) you get a system that's doubly unfair to players - they're underpaid and at the mercy of one organization, no matter how incompetent that organization might be.

Players are not greedy when they seek bigger paydays. They're human. If someone offered you more money for essentially the same work you do now, who among you wouldn't take the offer?

Kyle, on my blog, I asked people for their ideas, and this is what they said

Those are some horrid ideas there for the most part. David Cameron's idea in the 3rd post was good though. Also, are there really people who still believe that a salary cap actually contributes to competitive balance, as opposed to controlling labor costs and creating cost certainty for the owners?

Tom: I agree wholeheartedly that there are a myriad of other ways we could "improve" (again, normative language) competitive balance even if we abolished the amateur draft. Perhaps this is/isn't the appropriate place to discuss those other ways. I do think this is an appropriate forum for discussing whether the pros of leaving the draft in place (it helps at least a little bit to redress problems of competitive balance) outweigh the cons (it transfers wealth from amateurs to owners) of doing so.

I am starting to get more interested in this type of stuff; sportwide issues as opposed to team-specific issues. I don't really have much ot add duringf the workday. My notes are at home and I keep getting interrupted by the phone, but I am monitoring this thread.

Something that maybe doesn't get mentioned enough is that the draft justifies the existence of the development systems currently in place.

Teams are willing to invest in development and coaching for minor league players because of the profits created by the draft. This allows millions to enjoy high-quality minor league baseball at affordable prices (there's an argument to be made that AAA baseball today is as good a game as the majors some decades ago). Without the draft, teams wouldn't invest so much in development and players would be less skilled overall. The game would be less entertaining and league revenues wouldn't be so high. With revenues down, FA salaries would come down as well.

Yep. I think #40 is seriously wishful thinking regarding the relationship of player salaries and, say, the price of crappy beer served in plastic bottles ot the never ending search for public subsidies.

So if I'm wrong, and the draft is abolished in favor of a free market for young talent, the owners will make less money, and that's it? That's like saying the Yankees will sign Sabathia and Sheets, and as a consequence the Brewers will play 2009 with a three-man rotation. It's remarkably short-sighted, and far more of a fantasy than anything I've said.

The taxpayer one seems a bit of a stretch, but does anyone here think that, in response to higher expenses and the appearance of lower profits, a team won't cry to the local legislature that it needs a sweeter deal on their stadium if it has any chance of competing while in that market? When has that not happened?

So if I'm wrong, and the draft is abolished in favor of a free market for young talent, the owners will make less money, and that's it?

Absent unrelated changes to, say, their revenue lines, yes, that's exactly it. Draft bonuses are cost-controlled. Remove cost controls and ... costs go up. It's like rent control - when rent control is removed, owners either accept lower profits or try to pass along higher prices to consumers. (EDIT: owners there = business owners, not property owners.)

Or they can reduce the quality of their products by using substitute or substandard ingredients. This doesn't work in the case of rent control because of the anti-competitive government laws regarding building standards and such, of course.

So your either/or premise in your analogy is incorrect.

And in fact history suggests MLB owners are more likely to reduce the quality of their products than they are to accept reduced profits. After all, these teams could likely be more active in free agency, spend more money, and barring incompetence, could improve the quality of their product.

This suggests that ownership is already spending as much as they are willing to spend on player compensation right now.

All of this isn't an argument against abolishing the draft of course. But I would say the draft is more about how player compensation is allocated than you've been willing to admit.

And in fact history suggests MLB owners are more likely to reduce the quality of their products than they are to accept reduced profits.

I'm not seeing that in the game's history. MLB owners' inability to act in complete lockstep has always meant that one or more opportunistic owners would jump in and capture any low-hanging marginal revenue increases via player moves.

After all, these teams could likely be more active in free agency, spend more money, and barring incompetence, could improve the quality of their product.

Spending more money <> improving the quality of the product, even in the presence of a small amount of competence.

Absent unrelated changes to, say, their revenue lines, yes, that's exactly it. Draft bonuses are cost-controlled. Remove cost controls and ... costs go up. It's like rent control - when rent control is removed, owners either accept lower profits or try to pass along higher prices to consumers. (EDIT: owners there = business owners, not property owners.)

This might be correct (more money would go to young players), but you know what?

It'll be the league average vets who get the shaft and/or much reduced salaries....

That's why MLBPA will almost certainly never agree to this.....

It wouldn't be 100% either way. I think some of the money is going to come out of (current) free agent pockets. Some of it will come out of the profit margin. Some of it will come out of the pockets of consumers.

I just think it's patently ludicrous to suggest as Keith is doing that none of it would come out of the pockets of current free agents.

You know, if KLaw's proposals came to pass, writers who follow young prospects would become more valuable and may themselves get fatter paycheck

Now, I'm not saying that's KLaw's rationale, but surely his being close to/an expert on young prospects shapes his POV, doesn't it?

But I would say the draft is more about how player compensation is allocated than you've been willing to admit.

SteveF - Naw, I think Keith admits it; upthread he was just dealing with the direct effect and setting the other stuff aside. I think others are being less reasonable.

I'm not seeing that in the game's history.

They've made games longer to allow for more TV commercials, for one. They tacitly approved cheating because chicks dig the long ball. They've introduced the WBC, a separate product that can only detract from the quality of the existing one. I don't know your feelings on the wild card, interleague play, and the whole World-Series-home-field-advantage-this-time-it-counts thing for the All-Star game, but some see them as worsening the product for the sake of additional revenue (whether to offset a revenue decrease or just as an expansion of profit, I suppose, depends on one's perspective).

OK, the big problems with the current system that have been kinda swept under the rug in most of the posts here (though a couple have touched on it):

1. The draft is pretty much the least unfair part about the MLB labor system. Being tied to a team for up to 12 years is far more detrimental to a player's prospects (for career and money) than the draft. Faster paths to free agency for minor-leaguers would be a good thing I suspect.

1A. But there's a downside to that as well. If, say, a team keeps rights to a draftee for just 3 years then either has to put him on the 25-man (or 30-man) or make him an FA, then they won't give that player as big a signing bonus (and might focus more on college draftees ... and if more players have to go to college first, that's depressing their career earnings too).

2. The original question was about the draft obviously, but the biggest restraint on player salaries is on their first 3 years in the majors and, to a significantly lesser extent, their next 3 years. In their first 3 years in the majors, most players will earn less (in total) than what a late-first rounder will get in a signing bonus. Those guys are getting SCREWED. Arb-eligible guys are also getting screwed but only to the tune of about 50% of what they might earn otherwise. :-)

2A. There are obvious competitive balance arguments, stronger than the ones around the draft IMHO, for the mini-reserve system around young ML players. But there's little excuse other than the MLBPA's protection of FA salaries for not greatly increasing minimum salaries.

3. But this is all a tangled web. Finally #55 brought up the minor-league system. Some of that pre-draft competitive (im)balance was due to an independent minor-league system. They went out and found guys. They sometimes held onto guys for their own profit rather than sell them onto the major-leagues. The anti-competitive 50s were in large part due to Branch Rickey developing the concept of the farm system, giving the ML team the power to control and develop talent. As such, developing talent went from a highly competitive market involving hundreds of minor-league teams all out for their own profit, to a very small market involving a handful of major-league teams (and the PCL's dreams of becoming a 3rd major league). The draft was, in part, a response to try to restore balance to that oligopolistic market.

3a. And, if there is no draft, will teams continue to support the minor leagues? Shortly after WW2, there were over 400 minor-league teams operating; by the end of the 50s, there were under 100. That's when the system we know was established, essentially requiring ML teams to subsidize minor-league teams. Will teams still do that if they can't be guaranteed "equal" access to young talent? Obviously they will to some extent (they'll need to develop players somehow) but will the smaller/cheaper market ML teams be willing to support as many minor-league teams?

4. So ... if you really want to radically change the system, return to an independent minor-league system. Create 100+ "entrepreneurs" in the industry of developing baseball talent and let them profit through (1) building an attractive product by signing the best young players on an open market and (2) selling rights to those players onto ML teams. If some kid is ready for the majors, then they can sign him directly; or if an AROD comes along, a team can sign him to a longterm contract and pay a minor-league team to develop him for a couple years. I suppose this is close to the European soccer or old junior hockey scenario (or pre-WW2 baseball). Depending on how you define those "rights", this may or may not benefit players relative to the current system. If successful, I suspect it would seriously hurt college baseball ... but I have no real problem with that. If such a system were to work, I think you need strict rules keeping ML teams from owning minor-league teams ... otherwise you just recreate the original farm systems.

4a. Counter to that, one wonders why you don't see this in basketball and football. In an independent minor-league system, would you see the demise of low-minors teams with nearly all 18 year-olds having no choice but to play college baseball then get signed by a AA or AAA franchise? If that scenario played out, would an influx of talent and less competition from the minor-leagues lead to college baseball becoming profitable and greater exploitation of kids?

I don't see how no draft is any better. Does anyone really think that all of the sudden without a draft the Pirates or Nationals are going to start paying for amatuers? They don't pay for young talent with the draft, what makes anyone think they would without one?

This is a fair point. But no draft might open up other avenues for these teams to improve -- i.e. buying up lots of cheap, mid-level prospects. Obviously most of those prospects don't pay off, but the Pirates or Nationals might well profit (in terms of money and overall talent) more by getting the equivalent of 5 2nd-3rd round picks for the price of 1 first-rounder. Or they might not. This is as much an argument for greatly reducing the number of rounds as anything else. I'm honestly not sure it makes sense to have more than 3 rounds other than 50 rounds presumably simplifies the process of filling out minor-league rosters.

I think it's safe to assume that MLB does desire to hold an international draft - as it would further work to depress salaries for those young players outside the US and Canada, right? Why then does MLB not yet have a full international draft? The reason I've always heard is the teams do not have the resources to gather information on all the players who would then be available. Please feel free to edify me if you believe the reason is different from that.

I don't think that's it. They nearly had one with the last CBA but it fell apart at the last minute (if I recall, MLB thought it had been agreed to even after the agreement was announced). The reason as i understand it is that, to be legal, drafts have to be part of a CBA. Draft pick compensation for FAs allows MLB to keep the US amateur draft as part of the CBA. The MLBPA seems happy to include an international draft in the CBA but, of course, only in exchange for something from the owners. The owners haven't been willing to give the MLBPA enough in exchange. I'm sure the owners could have an international draft tomorrow if they were to shave a year off the 6-year wait to be an FA. :-)

Which reminds me of the other way I think you could radically change the system -- minor leaguers form their own union or, perhaps more realistically, shame the MLBPA into taking them in as members and representing their interests. Of course you could say the same about the pre-arb and arb players. :-)

I'm pro-union in general and certainly side with the players over the owners in baseball ... but let's not forget that the current MLB labor system is the result of negotiations between the MLBPA and owners ... and that the MLBPA "won" most of those negotiations (though I'm not impressed with their recent performances). If, like me, you think many young players (in the minors and majors) are not getting paid what they "deserve", you have no choice but to lay at least some of the blame with the MLBPA.

I think making unsigned players immediately draft eligible again the next season would have a positive impact. No team actually signs all the players they draft. There are a number of guys drafted just so another team can't wave a bunch of money at them but the drafting team has no intention of signing them. I never understood how it is fair that a team could draft a guy and keep him off limits from any other team for 3 years while not making a good faith effort to sign him. Sorry kid, if you get hurt between now and your junior year you're screwed but we're not going to try to sign you.

I've never heard another form of distributing talent that didn't amount to "let the Yankees and Red Sox get all the good players".

There is no reason that MLB owners can't decide that major league baseball is a collective economic endeavor and that all revenues should be shared equally among the teams. MLB wants everybody to think a draft is necessary for competitive balance, but complete revenue sharing with no amateur draft would be much, much more efficient at distributing talent fairly amongst the teams. But the small market teams will never have the resolve to achieve this result, so MLB compromises by having limited revenue sharing and screwing amateur players.

There is no reason that MLB owners can't decide that major league baseball is a collective economic endeavor and that all revenues should be shared equally among the teams. MLB wants everybody to think a draft is necessary for competitive balance, but complete revenue sharing with no amateur draft would be much, much more efficient at distributing talent fairly amongst the teams. But the small market teams will never have the resolve to achieve this result, so MLB compromises by having limited revenue sharing and screwing amateur players.

It's not so much the lack of resolve as that the franchises that are worth $1B are going to fight it tooth and nail, including lawsuits (whether they have much basis or not).

It's easy to revenue share in the NFL because the vast majority of the revenue is the national TV contract ... and also because it's relatively easy to draw 60,000 fans to 8 games a year in almost any market so local revenues don't vary much either.

But in baseball, the vast majority of the revenues are still local. This is less true than it used to be (internet revenues ... which was Bud's real coup getting those shared) but it's still true.

Full revenue sharing among MLB franchises makes only slightly more sense than full revenue sharing among college basketball conferences. You want to kill off the NCAA, just pass a rule requiring the ACC, Big 10, etc. to put all their conference-specific revenue into a common pool. They'll go off and form their own organization outside the NCAA in a heartbeat. That's probably doubly true for football (where there's no shared tournament revenue). MLB teams have much less leeway to break away, especially given the anti-trust exemption, but it would lead to one hell of a fight.

but complete revenue sharing with no amateur draft would be much, much more efficient at distributing talent fairly amongst the teams

Whatever would give you this idea? You'd still get some cheap owner who'd pocket all the money, sign a bunch of guys to the minimum and make a nice easy profit.

If the goal is to distribute talent, then the solution is to tighten the rules of the draft more. Make it so that there's so little difference between getting drafted by KC and Boston that it truly doesn't matter. Then, you will have the bad teams picking the best talent. This isn't necessarily the best economic plan, and for those that feel pity on 18-22 year olds that won't ever have to work a "real job" past getting drafted, it'll hurt them, but it will be a better distribution of talent.

Now, I'm not saying that's KLaw's rationale, but surely his being close to/an expert on young prospects shapes his POV, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. And I think you're out of line to even indirectly question my ethics like that.

I just think it's patently ludicrous to suggest as Keith is doing that none of it would come out of the pockets of current free agents.

That's not what I said at all, that is not it at all. What I said is that they are two entirely separate economic questions which you insist on combining.

What you are not addressing is the point that it might be entirely rational to spend less on the Adam Eatons of the world and more on ... well, I won't say the Anthony Hewitts, but you get the idea.

What you are not addressing is the point that it might be entirely rational to spend less on the Adam Eatons of the world and more on ... well, I won't say the Anthony Hewitts, but you get the idea.

Eh? It seems to me too that this is the point you weren't addressing.

If costs of obtaining amateur talent rise then either profits go down or costs get cut elsewhere (or, magically, production increases but that seems a stretch to me). We all know the owners certainly wouldn't like decreased profits so they will try to reduce costs. One obvious place to do that is to reduce FA salaries. So, in that scenario, you would be shifting money from the Eatons to the Hewitts not from the Pohlads to the Hewitts.

Now you had a small point earlier in that the current system shifts money from Hewitt to Pohlad and there's no regulation as to how Pohlad spends that money although using it to buy meth for his string of 13-year-old hookers would be frowned upon (hypothetically speaking!!). Still, it's reasonable to note that the current draft system doesn't shift money from Hewitt to Eaton. However, I'm willing to bet that any changes that make acquiring amateur talent more expensive will shift more money from Eaton to Hewitt than from Pohlad to Hewitt.

Now, I'm not saying that's KLaw's rationale, but surely his being close to/an expert on young prospects shapes his POV, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. And I think you're out of line to even indirectly question my ethics like that.

And yet you don't have a problem indirectly questioning the motives and reasons of the owners.

Whatever would give you this idea? You'd still get some cheap owner who'd pocket all the money, sign a bunch of guys to the minimum and make a nice easy profit.

This would be fairly easy to legislate against. A salary floor is a crude instrument, but in and of itself, it would get you most of the way to fixing the potential problem you raise.

It's not so much the lack of resolve as that the franchises that are worth $1B are going to fight it tooth and nail, including lawsuits (whether they have much basis or not).

I oversimplified the issue and this is certainly a major barrier. Complete revenue sharing would in a very real sense be an immediate transfer of wealth from big market owners to small market owners in terms of the effect this would have on franchise values. But if small market it owners or MLB thought it was worth it, they could compensate the big market owners for the change in rules.

As far as whether this approach would work if it could be implemented, I'm obviously more optimistic than you are. I don't think there really are enough big market teams that they could go off and form a viable league by themselves.

And yet you don't have a problem indirectly questioning the motives and reasons of the owners.

Last I checked, Keith didn't lie to Congress, pay collusion damages on 4 separate occasions, push for hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate welfare, or break federal labor law. When Keith does any of those things, then I'll find him hypocritical.

62 is a joke, right?

Now, I'm not saying that's KLaw's rationale, but surely his being close to/an expert on young prospects shapes his POV, doesn't it?


No, it doesn't. And I think you're out of line to even indirectly question my ethics like that.

I'm sorry, but I think this is a dishonest answer (and now I'm DIRECTLY questioning you).

Do you really want us to believe that your point of view is NOT influenced by being an expert on young prospects?

I'm not saying you don't believe what you wrote (I'm sure you do), but to (a) Flat-out say that your POV is not shaped/influenced by being an expert on young prospects; and,

(b) To not make an appropriate disclaimer to the effect that your particular area of expertise would become more valuable if your suggestions were ever to come to pass;

is dishonest (in case of (a)) and very conveeeeeeeeenient in case of (b) (think of that being said by the Church Lady.

Walt Davis put it much better than I did when he said that he's pro-union, but he's crystal clear that the union is partially responsible for the existing situation. That you have failed to address, and I guess you won't, since you prefer to concentrate on owners.

Do you really want us to believe that your point of view is NOT influenced by being an expert on young prospects?

I don't care what you believe. If you're dumb enough to think that that's even a small part of my motivation, go right ahead. You'd be wrong, but that is your right.

People here who've known me a long time know that I'm a fairly extreme economic libertarian - as does anyone who's friends with me on Facebook, since that's what my "political beliefs" line states. Restrictions on labor markets hurt workers. THAT is what influences my POV here.

Still, it's reasonable to note that the current draft system doesn't shift money from Hewitt to Eaton. However, I'm willing to bet that any changes that make acquiring amateur talent more expensive will shift more money from Eaton to Hewitt than from Pohlad to Hewitt.

I agree with both of those statements, and I concede that I confused my original point with the Hewitt/Eaton example. What I was saying earlier is that changing/eliminating the draft does not perforce shift money from Eaton to Hewitt. It might end up doing so, but that involves additional variables that aren't part of the "draft/no draft" equation, including the owners' relative utilities of winning vs profits, and perhaps the increasing tendency of (some) teams to think of player contracts in terms of ROI or similar metrics.

I don't see the point of questioning Law's motivation in this fashion. It's horribly disrespectful, and if it affects his arguments, address the arguments instead.

The man is in the thread. If you thought it was a real possibility, you could have simply asked him in an open-ended fashion how it affected his perspective to work in his field--pool the good and the bad. But look at your phrasing:

Now, I'm not saying that's KLaw's rationale, but surely his being close to/an expert on young prospects shapes his POV, doesn't it?

It basically gives him no way to respond. Furthermore, it somehow manages to imply that it's better and easier to make good decisions on an issue if you don't have any expertise on the issue.

I think this might be an internet medium problem. If someone said this to most people in person, I imagine they would get punched in the face.

I don't know if you've noticed it, but you did not answer my post (or I guess you did notice).

Being an extreme economic libertarian does not preclude your point of view being influenced/shaped by being a prospects expert.

You're trying to make us believe that you'd hold the same position if your gig/beat was, say, Jayson Stark's. While you may be partially right to the extent that you are an economic libertarian, would you have even given thought to the economic condition of prospects/the draft in that case?

I don't believe it, and I think you're being dishonest about it.

And you have not made, at any point, a disclaimer to the effect that your point of view to the effect that your particular area of expertise would become more valuable if your suggestions were ever to come to pass.

The real irony of all this, is that it would have been damn easy to say: "Granted, my point of view on the issue of prospects and the draft is influenced by the large number of days I spent scouting them" and "DISCLAIMER: It stands to reason that any changes to MLB's draft procedures along the lines of what I propose will increase the professional demand of draft/prospect experts".

I daresay that nobody would think the less of you if you wrote those two things above, but I suppose being arrogant is more fun.

It basically gives him no way to respond. Furthermore, it somehow manages to imply that it's better and easier to make good decisions on an issue if you don't have any expertise on the issue.

Actually, he can always respond: "Of course it influences my point of view. But I stand by my suggestions, which stand on their own".

If you answer that way, you kill the discussion point and you seem like a very reasonable, even tempered person.

THE KLAW 100

My favorite Murakami is Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World. And if you like magical realism, KLAW, check out Donoso's The Obscene Bird of Night.

Beware of The KLAW, Delta. BEWARE! He takes no prisoners.

JRVJ, I'm not sure you deserve to be answered after the way you're going after KLaw here, but this needs to be said:

Keith Law spent several years of his life furthering intelligent baseball analysis for very little financial reward. Don't think for a second that the guys at BP are rolling in cash now, or that they were at any point in the last ten years. Their work is a labour of love because they love the game.

If Keith were about money, he wouldn't have tried to do it through this avenue. You probably don't realize, but he's got a degree from Harvard and a CMU MBA. It's pretty easy to imagine he could be making a ton more money in a corporate gig than he will ever make as a sportswriter, if that's what he wanted.

So shame on you for attacking Keith. As someone who has shared the gift of his wisdom with baseball fans, he deserves our praise and admiration, not this.

Keith, keep up the great work.

Kudos to post #28. The graph that was linked is terrific.

My reading of it:

1. Win percentage variation decreases for good sometime in the 1950's, with some occasional deviations.
2. Greater variation emerges in the mid 1970's. But these effects seem to disappear by the early to mid 1980's.
3. Greater variation emerges in the late 1990's. It is hard to tell if this change has disappeared.

Now, we might all have different ideas as to how to attribute these fluctuations. Or maybe they are simply random, and within the bounds of normal statistical variance. I don't know enough about statistics to address this, but I am sure that there is some sort of test that could be performed. Has someone already looked at this?


Anyway, this is a very interesting thread. Lots of good stuff on the impacts of the draft, reserve system, etc. It would be ashame to see it degrade into attacking Keith Law, and counter attacking on his behalf.

That's one of the problems with BTF. Once you question any of the sacred cows, people get defensive.

Mr. Man, you seem to be saying that because of Mr. Law's previous services furthering intelligent baseball analysis for very little financial reward, he can never be questioned about anything.

I beg to differ - I don't buy this line of reasoning for BTF, I don't buy that line of reasoning for politics, I don't buy that line of reasoning anywhere.

Now you are calling him a cow? That's just rude...

i suppose if you're looking for 100% proof, JRVJ, I can't help you. I will say this:

1. You can tell a lot about a person based on how they've acted in the past. While Keith has often been a forceful voice in the past, I don't see money as his key motivation. In my experience, it is his overwhelming drive to be right and to be recognized.

2. While our 'sacred cows' are of course not infallible, I think it's fair to give them the benefit of the doubt when they tell you personally what their motivations are? Do you think that's unfair? Does Keith deserve this kind of treatment from you? This may be the internet, where anonymity makes it easy for you to say what you like, but on the other side of your screen is a real person who I'm sure is bewildered that you're making such an argument.

3. I think you're really stretching yourself to compare BTF users and writers to politicians.

Mr. Man,,

Let me just ask you one thing: would Mr. Law's skill set be more or less valuable in case that his suggestions were applied?

If the answer is YES, isn't that precisely why you include a disclaimer?

As to his point of view being influenced by what he does/his scouting of prospects, do you seriously believe that it is not? If you don't, that's your right, but that would fly against common sense.

As to your points:

1. You can tell a lot about a person based on how they've acted in the past. While Keith has often been a forceful voice in the past, I don't see money as his key motivation. In my experience, it is his overwhelming drive to be right and to be recognized.

Being right and being recognized is not necessarily at odds with having your point of view influenced by what you do, you know....

. While our 'sacred cows' are of course not infallible, I think it's fair to give them the benefit of the doubt when they tell you personally what their motivations are? Do you think that's unfair? Does Keith deserve this kind of treatment from you? This may be the internet, where anonymity makes it easy for you to say what you like, but on the other side of your screen is a real person who I'm sure is bewildered that you're making such an argument.

Could you please explain to me what part of my argument is unreasonable on the face of it?

The two points that I guess have ticked Law off (and you) are: - that Law's POV is shaped/influenced by what he does;

- That he should at least include a disclaimer to his proposal, because his proposals make his particular skill set more valuable.

IMO, you are confusing your admiration of the man with an argument about my points.

3. I think you're really stretching yourself to compare BTF users and writers to politicians.

Strawman.

What I'm criticizing is your argument that Mr. Law should not be criticized for his previous services furthering intelligent baseball analysis for very little financial reward.

I did this by way of an implied (but very topical) reductio ad absurdum of your position.

Let me just ask you one thing: would Mr. Law's skill set be more or less valuable in case that his suggestions were applied?

If the answer is YES, isn't that precisely why you include a disclaimer?

Regrettably, the answer to this is actually NO.

In the status quo, teams face tremendous potential gains from successfully scouting young players. Drafting well means the team can have more success at a lower price.

If drafted players were paid more, the returns to good scouting would be less. Teams without strong scouting staffs would simply use the free agent market because players there are better-known quantities.

Being right and being recognized is not necessarily at odds with having your point of view influenced by what you do, you know....

I believed this was addressed as best i could by this:

i suppose if you're looking for 100% proof, JRVJ, I can't help you.

What I'm criticizing is your argument that Mr. Law should not be criticized for his previous services furthering intelligent baseball analysis for very little financial reward.

You'd do well to read more carefully. I said this:

our 'sacred cows' are of course not infallible...I think it's fair to give them the benefit of the doubt

It's perfectly possible that Law has as many ulterior motives as the rest of us. If he says out loud that he doesn't, that really ought to be enough in this context to settle the issue.

Let me just ask you one thing: would Mr. Law's skill set be more or less valuable in case that his suggestions were applied?

If the answer is YES, isn't that precisely why you include a disclaimer?


Regrettably, the answer to this is actually NO.

In the status quo, teams face tremendous potential gains from successfully scouting young players. Drafting well means the team can have more success at a lower price.

If drafted players were paid more, the returns to good scouting would be less. Teams without strong scouting staffs would simply use the free agent market because players there are better-known quantities.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. AFAIK, Mr. Law does not work for any MLB organization. He works for the media (ESPN).

You have ONLY addressed MLB organizations, but have not addressed the value of Mr. Law's skill sets to the media, which is also part of such skill sets market.

Look at the NFL and the amount of money that the Mel Kiper Jr.'s of the world make.

Do you really think that Mr. Law (or John Sickels or many others) would not have a set of skill sets whose value would increase?

It's perfectly possible that Law has as many ulterior motives as the rest of us. If he says out loud that he doesn't, that really ought to be enough in this context to settle the issue.

That's your opinion, but I disagree, especially when I think the fact pattern shows something different.

Look at the NFL and the amount of money that the Mel Kiper Jr.'s of the world make.


Keith graduated near the top of his class in Harvard and has an MBA from Carnegie Mellon. If money was an overriding factor in his life, I think he has much easier, faster ways to make a lot of money than a one-man quest to reorganize MLB's entire relationship with amateur players.

Thank you for the reinforcement, Dan. As I said:

If Keith were about money, he wouldn't have tried to do it through this avenue. You probably don't realize, but he's got a degree from Harvard and a CMU MBA. It's pretty easy to imagine he could be making a ton more money in a corporate gig than he will ever make as a sportswriter, if that's what he wanted.

I think the fact pattern shows something different.

I'm listening.

Thank you for the reinforcement, Dan. As I said:


Heh, I should read the *entire* thread before posting something!

Mr. Szymborski,

Fair enough. But the fact that Mr. Law made certain career choices which were not driven by money does not negate the fact that his skill set would become more valuable if his suggestions came to pass. It also does not negate the fact that his point of view almost inevitably has been shaped by he does for a living....

Also, this whole thing would quickly fade away (or it would have never cropped up) if Mr. Law had produced language along the lines of my recommendations in 7:

"Granted, my point of view on the issue of prospects and the draft is influenced by the large number of days I spent scouting them"

"DISCLAIMER: It stands to reason that any changes to MLB's draft procedures along the lines of what I propose will increase the professional demand of draft/prospect experts".


Mr. Man,

Really? What are you hearing on this page?

Other than that, please respond to my post 88 if you are interested in discussing the matter.....

Fair enough. But the fact that Mr. Law made certain career choices which were not driven by money does not negate the fact that his skill set would become more valuable if his suggestions came to pass. It also does not negate the fact that his point of view almost inevitably has been shaped by he does for a living....

My skill set would become more valuable if I ran over Ron Shandler, Mickey Lichtman, and Nate Silver with my car, also, but that doesn't mean I have to publicly assert that I don't plan on killing any of the trio every time I get into my car.

That's a false analogy. The crux of THIS analogy, is that Mr. Law's suggestions would make his skill sets more valuable, FOR EVERYONE WITH HIS SKILL SET.

Your analogy is that if you decrease the number of practitioners of your skill set, your skills become more valuable.

Also - I will grant for the sake of the argument that Mr. Law chose baseball as a profession over more lucrative fields of activity which his scholastic set would have opened up to him. But you and Mr. Man seem to be implying that Mr. Law does not want to make money, period.

That may be the case (the man may be an ascete, though I did not get that impression from what I've read from him in the past), but it doesn't logically follow that Mr. Law is opposed to making money WHILE STILL INVOLVED IN BASEBALL just because he didn't go into professions where a lot of money was available but were not of interest to him (or of less interest than baseball).

Your analogy is that if you decrease the number of practitioners of your skill set, your skills become more valuable.

Wouldn't it also benefit everyone with Dan's skill set?

And shouldn't your issue with the disclaimer be directed at the editors of the website or writer of the article?

That's a false analogy. The crux of THIS analogy, is that Mr. Law's suggestions would make his skill sets more valuable, FOR EVERYONE WITH HIS SKILL SET.

OK, let's make it simpler then.

If every team and every media outlet started the worship of sabermetrics, would you agree that would result in sabermetricians being more highly sought-after and better paid than they currently are?

So, every single time I mention something that sabermetrics does well or advocate a viewpoint that favors sabermetrics over a subjective measure, am I required to include a disclaimer stating that I would personally gain from an increase in use of sabermetrics?

So, every single time I mention something that sabermetrics does well or advocate a viewpoint that favors sabermetrics over a subjective measure, am I required to include a disclaimer stating that I would personally gain from an increase in use of sabermetrics?

I vote "yes." Get to work on the script to get it done, Dan.

As for whether Keith can make more money outside of baseball, I'm able to make far more money than I made with the Red Sox in the lucrative shelf stocking and cash registering industries.

Last I checked, Keith didn't lie to Congress, pay collusion damages on 4 separate occasions, push for hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate welfare, or break federal labor law. When Keith does any of those things, then I'll find him hypocritical.

Keith is also not in a position to do any of these things. I am not taking the owners side, nor do I think them infallible. By arguing that the owners have been caught with there pants down before doesn't really play into the argument.

Writers HAVE been prone to write things that directly benefit them and not necessarily for financial reasons. So Keith isn't getting rich, well that may not be his motivator, that doesn't make him an honest person, doesn't make him dishonest either it just points to his earning potential. If Keith is worried about his integrity he should not comment on someone's integrity unless he plans on backing it up. Not just "hey once a cheat always a cheat" but with this specific situation.

Keith himself states to want more money for doing the same job is just human but I guess that is only applicable for people who are liked, not owners.

The draft is a single, specific event that can be packaged and marketed through preview content, through the broadcast of the first round, and through analysis after the fact. Eliminating the draft removes the potential for revenue from this event. I think there's a reasonable argument that in fact total free agency would hurt my career by removing this one, clear, revenue-producing event from which I derive part of my income.

JRVJ, for the last time: my point of view on amateur players and the draft is not, in any way, colored or influenced by my earnings potential. As for whether I'd be aware of it if I had Jayson Stark's job, I worked in a front office and was heavily involved in the draft. I know full well how the draft works and how it screws amateur players.

I don't believe it, and I think you're being dishonest about it.

I'm being honest about everything, and you are completely out of line in accusing me of lying without a single iota of evidence but your own cracked beliefs.

You guys at least have skills teams seek. I doubt they are interested in my expertise in Evar Swanson, Tacks Latimer and other little known players.