The lottery, scheduled to take place Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. ET in New York, is a mechanism designed to help teams perceived to need the most assistance by awarding extra Draft picks to some of them. The 10 smallest-market teams and 10 lowest-revenue teams will have the chance to win one of six extra selections in the 2013 First-Year Player Draft.
Those half-dozen picks will be made at the conclusion of the first round, following the compensation selections. Because there is obvious crossover between those two groups, there are 13 teams entered into the first-round lottery: the D-backs, Orioles, Indians, Royals, A’s, Pirates, Padres, Rays, Reds, Rockies, Marlins, Brewers and Cardinals. The odds of winning a Draft pick will be based on each team’s winning percentage in the previous season.
There will be a second group of six picks, to be made after the conclusion of the second round. The teams from the first group that did not get one of the early picks will be re-entered, along with any other Major League team that receives revenue sharing. This year, only one team—the Tigers—will be added to the second lottery. The Competitive Balance Lottery winners and the order of their picks will be unveiled on MLB Network’s “The Rundown” at 2:45 p.m. ET.
If the first pick goes to the Knicks, we know David Stern rigged it.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Der_K Posted: July 18, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4186070)EDIT: D-oh. I forgot they can trade these picks.
It's like they want to cater to super baseball nerds, but it seems even we aren't interested. I'm just glad the A's are in it, I guess, though I'm sure the Cardinals will win, whatever it is worth winning here.
They're valuable - look at how teams treated opportunities to get compensation picks in the past.
There's also Ferni's point.
So the Brewers got this one in the bag?
Really. Why the hell would you penalize a tiny market team for doing a good job? The real question is why the A's who play in a large rich market but have crappy revenues because they have no clue how to run a business.
Just because the Cardinals know how to maximize their revenue, doesn't mean they aren't a low revenue team. Should they be punished for actually doing a good job in a less than ideal market?
edit: or what Ivan said.
Doesn't it mean exactly that? The Cardinals are a high-revenue team that doesn't appear to need any favoritism to be successful on the field and at the gate.
Just in case you weren't kidding, you do realize that Chicago is a massively bigger and richer city than Detroit, right -- even adjusted for its two team status?
No kidding? The Tigers have the 5th highest payroll. I just read the MLB.com article on how the Tigers got into the 2nd pool, and now I'm even more confused:
I don't have time right now to parse out the finer details of revenue sharing in the CBA, but it seems unfair to me that Detroit gets to enter into this pool. I'd have to problem with it if the picks weren't tradable. Giving Detroit, a high spending team, an extra trade chip in a lock-step division battle doesn't sit right with me.
I guess I should have said market instead of revenue.
A part of that large area is due to aggressive marketing on the Cardinals part. (through KMOX and one of the largest farm systems ever) to create a fanbase. That was stuff done in the past that is helping them now. Not really sure that being lucky/smart in the early goings should penalize you now.
Again, why should a smart team be denied benefits given to other teams in the same circumstances?
I don't get the beef. Being a high spending team, doesn't mean they are making a lot of money, it means that their owners are willing to spend a larger percentage and not pocket as much of the profits. That is a good thing.
Years ago, revenue sharing was set up based upon how teams spend. DUMBEST IDEA EVER. The Phillies(the largest single team city) got 11mil in revenue sharing while the Cardinals (the bottom five market size in baseball) paid in 11mil, all because their owners were cheapskates/generous depending on who you were looking at.
Heck, I think the rule should be, you aren't eligible for a draft pick or revenue sharing, unless you spend a certain percentage on your payroll and development system.
Are you saying there's not a huge audience for a 1:45 show about a confusing lottery even diehard baseball fans weren't even aware of?
Again, why does a high-revenue team that is successful on the field need or deserve special benefits? And the Cardinals are not the only team for which this could be asked.
They don't want teams deliberately losing games so they can get the 38th pick in the draft instead of the 40th. It's a matter of integrity.
They don't want an entire city tanking its economy just to cinch a sandwich pick.
Edit: Half a Coke going out to Hong Kong.
Because the revenue is a result of smart business decisions. Not a result of circumstances. Other teams could have done what the Cardinals did, the Royals used to do it and got greedy and stopped, the Astros used to do it, and stopped. To be successful you can't ever alienate your fanbase to the point that they stop going, even if you have to lose money for a few years, you at least need to make it look like you are trying. That is why it's important to avoid 100 loss seasons at any cost. Cardinals got close after Busch died and his loria wannabe son took over, but fortunately he was forced to sell the team(he seriously consider trying to move the Cardinals to Florida)
If you are going to have a draft for the most neediest teams based upon competitive balance, the criteria for the neediest teams should be revenue and market size. Not standings, not success, but upon their circumstances that hurt them relative to other teams. (note I'm not saying this draft is a good or bad idea. Just saying if you are doing it, you do it the right and fair way, not the way to reward owners like Loria for being skinflint ########) A teams success shouldn't determine if they are eligible for a competitive balance draft.
There are real competitive issues involved among the teams, certain teams have an inherent financial advantage, the purpose of these type of things is to level the playing field.
Round One (picks after the first round)
1. Royals
2. Pirates
3. Diamondbacks
4. Orioles
5. Reds
6. Marlins
7. Padres
8. Indians
9. Rockies
10.Athletics
11.Brewers
12.Tigers
Is this a well-known fact? Where are you getting this?
Wow the Royals won the lottery! Cardinals came up empty.
And they should be complaining. The Twins and Rays should have been on that list. I don't think any way you measure it, that you shouldn't include those teams. Replace the Rockies with the Twins, replace the A's with the Rays and it's probably a more accurate list. Not sure how the Orioles or Diamondbacks are on the list either.
I'd say IC is 50% Cubs/35% Cards/3% WSox/2% Twins/other. Its 4 or 5 hours from STL.
Again, why should a smart team be denied benefits given to other teams in the same circumstances?
The Cardinals' revenue maximization is due to smart behavior, no doubt, but would have been impossible without the structural advantages that they enjoy.
-Original franchise
-potential for massive super-regional market penetration
-consistent ownership
How many MLB franchises have had these advantages?
In baseball it is everywhere, NY is a bigger city than Pittsburgh and the Yankee's/Mets and Pirates have nothing to do with that, Mike Piazza was drafted in the 4,000,000th round, more than 400 players taken before Pujols, what about all the teams that gave up/passed on Josh Hamilton, or for that matter the team that drafted Josh Hamilton did they make a good business decision?
The best way to see this is to read as many predictions by the experts as possible and keep a score card, you will see that the majority of the smartest business people made all their best decisions in their past and have very little predicting power going forward. Which to me say their great decisions coincided with the right circumstances.
I agree. But those were things done in the past, this is about the future and the current state. Heck isn't it sending a messages to the Marlins of the world that smart sound business decisions may eventually be reaped a long ways down the road?
People are arguing that the Cardinals should be treated as a big market club, but they don't get the one big market advantage, and that is a massive revenue stream. It ultimately boils down to how much potential money can be had. It shouldn't matter whether the team is able to get 80% of that revenue like the Cardinals or Yankees do, or if they get 40% of that revenue like the Mess or A's do. It should be how much is actually available to them.
Yes the Cardinals are a relatively unique franchise in the revenue scheme of things. They reside in one of the smallest markets in baseball(no matter how you cut it) and have the built in advantage of being the only team in the west for 50 plus years to develop a network fanbase, factor in good owners most of the time(with notable exceptions of course) and they generate about as much revenue as is possible for their market size. But they are still limited by their market size and of course their advantages of age are being encroached on (not that I'm complaining about the encroachment, I'm a huge fan of expansion) by new franchises(such as the Royals, Astros, Diamondbacks, Rangers and Rockies) they have been fortunate enough in the past that inept management of all of those franchise has hurt their ability to sway Cardinals faithful to the dark side, but as franchises get smarter, the Cardinals developed advantages are going to disappear.
So the Cards potentially getting a pick is much ado about nothing. I agree that the Tigers getting a pick is a joke though.
Not after they sign Zack Greinke.
Its first round picks, comp picks from free agents, then comp picks from comp round A, then 2nd round, then comp picks from Comp Round B.
Really? Detroit's TV market has (as of 2012) 1.84M homes, ranking 11th. (My Big Damn Spreadsheet [tm] -- available on request -- actually ranks them 12th, behind Toronto.)
Interestingly, Detroit's 1.84M TV homes is very close to the MLB mean of 1.89M: the 56.75M TV homes in the 26 TV markets where they play, divided by 30. What if you wanted to redistribute the teams, based on market size? Well, New York would get four teams, LA three, and Chicago and Philadelphia two each. (Philly actually gets "credit" for only 1.58 teams, but close enough.)
That's 11 teams. The other next-largest 19 markets get one team each: DAL, SF (but not OAK), BOS, WAS, ATL, HOU, TOR, DET, SEA, PHX, TB, MIN, MIA, DEN, CLE, Orlando, Montreal, Sacramento, STL. (Substitute PIT, BAL and SD for the three current non-MLB cities if you like. Either way, KC, MIL and CIN [and OAK] are out.)
For now, but the Royals will select after all the FA compensation picks (which I believe there are no more than ten).
Very cool concept,
Would NY and Philly added together be closer to 5 or 6?
With 13 eligible teams and 12 picks, it would have been hard for both to whiff.
EDIT: Apologies, 14 eligible teams, so it would have been possible. Looks like Rays were the other eligible team not picked.
That said, I agree that they should be included if they're one of the 10 smallest markets regardless of their revenues/success. I just don't agree that their potential fan base ("market") = their TV market.
Cleveland is a great example of this. Even though they're a bigger TV market than STL, they have Detroit, Pittsburgh (135) and Cinci (250) on 3 sides and Lake Erie/Canada on the 4th.
Speaking as a Cub fan ... yes, yes they should.
Detroit, for instance, has Cleveland (170), Cinci (265), 2XChicago (285), and Pittsburgh (286).
Did we nuke Canada? About damn time.
Was this article posted twice? I swear I was the second person to comment on it last night.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main