The article takes the same position so many political or economic analyses do, such as we saw in the year or so before the Global Financial Crisis broke over all our heads in 2008: 'If things stay the same, then X.' But things won't stay the same, and we don't necessarily know how they will be different.

new CBA’s draft and international spending restrictions ... the effects of market and payroll size will account for an even greater percentage of the difference between teams.

How does restricting spending for all teams in certain areas--which would seem to hinder the richest teams the most--help to increase the competitive impact of spending, ie "the effects of market and payroll size"?

How does restricting spending for all teams in certain areas--which would seem to hinder the richest teams the most--help to increase the competitive impact of spending, ie "the effects of market and payroll size"?

It doesn't, but that doesn't fit the narrative, so shhhhhh!

No, of course not—as nice as it is to get ahead, there’s plenty of value in not falling behind. But as the information at teams’ disposal becomes more complete and hiring practices become more competitive, the days of GMs standing out from the pack enough to be played by Brad Pitt might seem as remote as those of the last .400 hitter.

The Death of the GM! So pomo.

Perfect information = perfectly predictable outcomes.
God does not play dice, and all that.

How does restricting spending for all teams in certain areas--which would seem to hinder the richest teams the most--help to increase the competitive impact of spending, ie "the effects of market and payroll size"?

I think the issue here is that a good portion of the richest teams had not yet realized the great advantage that could be realized by dumping cash into these areas. Boston had, sure, and the Yankees had some big splashes in Japan, but off the top of my head I'd name the Royals, Pirates, and Rays as the teams that have opened their wallets in the last few drafts, and the A's and Twins as the teams with the biggest non-Japan int'l signing scores.

So the cap doesn't allow the small market to gain on the big boys in this area so much ... the smaller markets with smart operations were the ones who were currently making the most of it. (Though I still think it was important for MLB to cut off this area from the big boys in the future.)

So the cap doesn't allow the small market to gain on the big boys in this area so much ... the smaller markets with smart operations were the ones who were currently making the most of it.

Right, but this advantage wasn't sustainable.

It's much more important that now, when the small market teams have top draft picks, they can select the very best player available, and expect to sign him.

The ability to sign top-10 picks at a reasonable cost is a huge benefit to the small markets. It helps the Yankees and Red Sox not at all, b/c they never have those picks.

The new system basically abolishes signability picks, and later round overpays. That hinders the big teams much more than the small.

The larger point is that a splashy GM hire doesn't necessarily mean success (remember this Cubs fans!), and its even harder for small market teams in the short-term since a new GM can't overcome their obstacles by splurging on the draft as Dayton Moore and Neal Huntington did.

The ability to sign top-10 picks at a reasonable cost is a huge benefit to the small markets.

Except they had the ability to sign those guys before. Draft spending was a drop in the bucket for even the smallest revenue teams. All the draft changes in the latest CBA were for a single, simple purpose, to increase profits for the owners and take money away from the players. All the garbage about competitive balance is just propaganda.

All the garbage about competitive balance is just propaganda.

It gives small market teams bonus picks and extra international cap room.

Except they had the ability to sign those guys before.

No they didn't.

Tons of top-10 talents fell the later 1st round or 2nd round, while small market teams took "signability" picks, because they could get top-10 money at #22, or 1st rd money in the 2nd.

Now that can't happen. When Hou. is drafting in the top-5 for the next six years, they can take the absolute best talent available. There is no more "signability" concern, b/c you can never get more money by falling in the draft to a rich team.

Draft spending was a drop in the bucket for even the smallest revenue teams.

Doesn't matter if the individual player thinks he can get more money being drafted by the Red Sox at #24. Now that can't happen.

It gives small market teams bonus picks and extra international cap room.

No, it doesn't.

Except they had the ability to sign those guys before.

No they didn't.

Choosing not to do something is not the same as lacking the ability to do so. Average draft spending was like ~$5m, any team could afford to go over slot on a top-10 pick, they chose not to.

Except they had the ability to sign those guys before.

No they didn't.

From BA's recap of 2011 draft bonuses:

The biggest surprise of the night came when the Pirates signed [second rounder Josh] Bell for $5 million. Bell had written a letter to the Major League Scouting Bureau before the draft to announce that he was dead-set on attending Texas. His bonus set a record for a player drafted outside the first round, eclipsing the previous mark by $2.25 million (Jason Young in 2000). The $13 million for Cole and Bell by themselves broke the record for bonus spending by one team in a single draft ($11,927,200 by the 2010 Nationals).

Washington also blew past its old mark by giving $11 million in bonuses to its first three picks (Rendon, Alex Meyer, Brian Goodwin) and a $4.15 million major league contract to third-rounder Matt Purke, who hadn't been expected to sign. Other huge deals outside of the first round included the Nationals inking sandwich pick Goodwin and the Padres signing second-rounder Austin Hedges for $3 million each, the Cubs giving 14th-rounder Dillon Maples $2.5 million and the Blue Jays snagging second-rounder Daniel Norris for $2 million.

And here are the million dollar bonuses from 2010 outside of the 1st and supplemental rounds:
11 Stetson Allie, rhp, Pit (2nd round) $2,250,000
13 A.J. Cole, rhp, Was (4th round) $2,000,000
23 Dickie Thon, ss, Tor (5th round) $1,500,000
24 Mason Williams, of, NYY (4th round) $1,450,000
27 John Barbato, rhp, SD (6th round) $1,400,000
29 Tony Wolters, ss, Cle (3rd round) $1,350,000
31 Garin Cecchini, ss, Bos (4th round) $1,310,000
34 Sean Coyle, ss, Bos (3rd round) $1,300,000
35 Brett Eibner, of/rhp, KC (2nd round) $1,250,000
36 Yordy Cabrera, of, Oak (2nd round) $1,250,000
37 Ty Linton, of, Ari (14th round) $1,250,000
38 LeVon Washington, of, Cle (2nd round) $1,200,000
42 Drew Smyly, lhp, Det (2nd round) $1,100,000
47 Sammy Solis, lhp, Was (2nd round) $1,000,000
48 Alex Lavisky, c, Cle (8th round) $1,000,000

EDIT: Now, will the cap help the Houstons of the world? Sure, but they weren't getting killed because they were a small market, they were getting killed because ... well, they didn't have a Friedman, and they didn't appreciate the potential outsized ROI that draft spending could yield. They fell into the common fan lament of "Why should some guy who's never proven anything get millions of dollars?" rather than realizing how undervalued these picks were.

Ned Colletti still exists.

Choosing not to do something is not the same as lacking the ability to do so. Average draft spending was like ~$5m, any team could afford to go over slot on a top-10 pick, they chose not to.

If everybody goes over slot, then nobody is going over slot. You've just increased slot.

As a collective, "small market" teams are better off under the new system. They can draft purely for talent, and get extra supplemental picks.

A couple of small market teams at a certain point in their success cycle are hurt, yes.

As a collective, "small market" teams are better off under the new system. They can draft purely for talent, and get extra supplemental picks.

A couple of small market teams at a certain point in their success cycle are hurt, yes.

Well, how many small market teams are there?

Well, how many small market teams are there?

The way those who complain about the unfair system talk? About 15.

The key is, this avenue was not sustainable. If the Pirates and Royals start getting good returns on spending $3-5M on 2nd rounders, the Yankees and Red Sox can pay those guys $6-8M. Or other teams can stop going cheap on the draft, and pick those guys in the earlt 1st rd.

Small market is an ever changing term. Prior to this year, you could have said the Marlins were a small market team, but they spent the 2nd most on Free agents after the Angels. The 'small market' Rays just spent $70 million on payroll. St. Louis has been running post $100 million payrolls for years. The Houston Astros, who reside in the 4th biggest city in America are currently a 'small' market team.

Small market is whatever you want it to mean.

Also, looking at the list of who spent the least on the draft the last five years, the Dodgers and the White Sox would be one and two. Are they small market teams?

I think that low budget teams that do a good job of scouting the internationals will gain an advantage over the old rules.