Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays


Photo

Selig Must Be Stopped


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:07 AM

Read today that he was quoted as saying that an International Player draft was "Inevitable". He is a functional nightmare for the sport and for fans everywhere. His asinine label of "Commissioner" is so outdated, impugned by the reality that he is simply "King of the Owners"...looking to maximize profits, no matter the quality or health of the product put on the field. Consider the following "Selig ideas":

1) The extra Wild Card team. While not instituted yet, it is essentially a foregone conclusion. And what will be the format for this extra team? A one-game playoff with the other wild card team. A no-better-than-a-coin-flip playoff system. Can you imagine, as a Cub fan, if your team earned the #4 seed...let's say finishing 1 game behind the Division winning Brewers with 90 wins. And the #5 seed, the Giants finished with 83 wins. But in pre-game warmups, the Cubs ace tweaked his oblique and couldn't go. That 7 game spread in the 162 game regular season is purely fantasy...meaningless. Most real baseball fans live and die in the regular season and are already distasteful of the short Division series. Can you imagine the anger among fans whose teams lose their shot at a WS title because of a one game disaster?

2) Rule 4 draft pools. Starting with the 2012 draft, MLB has essentially instituted hard slotting. I know this has been covered in depth elsewhere, but I wanted to rant a bit. Synopsis: Each team is given a pre-determined pool of money to spend on any draft picks between the 1st and 10th rounds. Each pick is given a specific "value", even though, in supposed reality, the teams can spend the money however they want among those first 10 rounds. If they fail to sign a pick however, that pre-determined value is forfeited. This means, essentially, the agents are given a blueprint of 'how much' their players are worth based on where they are drafted. The days of a "hard to sign" 7th round pick signing for more than a 3rd rounder are over. This means that fewer "hard to sign" players will sign, even if drafted in the first 10 rounds. This means fewer players will enter the minors at 17/18 and more players will go to college on baseball scholarships. This means Mark Marquess at Stanford can destroy more amateur swings and Wayne Graham can shred more pro prospect arms at Rice. This also means that, even with MLB's supposed interest in retaining top American amateur talent by ways of the RBI Program, more players will be lost to other sports, especially football. The single biggest advantage MLB had with 17/18 American amateurs was the ability to give them a substantial paycheck at that age, instead of requiring them to play college ball for 3 years. Now the MLB has decided, on their own, to self-limit this ability, and talent pools will decrease dramatically over time. A shame and every fan in America should be livid about it.

3) International Free Agent money pools. Also starting in 2012, MLB has decided they no longer want good minor leaguers. Well, they didn't say that, but it sure seems like that is what they meant. The pool for 2012 and 2013 will be 2.9 million dollars. Total. As in...what? The Cubs just signed Gerardo Concepcion of Cuba for over 7 million dollars (he applies to the old rules). Most scouts thinks he projects as no more than a #4 starter. But with this amazingly low cap coming into reality, teams might as well overspend on any available IFA's to fill their minors. As Keith Law stated in his piece on the new CBA, the MLB is essentially telling young international players to go play soccer. Between 2004 and 2010, the average international free agent signed for $280,000. Doesn't seem like a lot and you can say to yourself, "Hey, that means my team can sign 10 IFAs!" Unfortunately, between those seasons, the 10-12 best IFAs signed for an average of 2.1 million dollars a piece. "Thanks Latin America, for producing a lot of the best MLB talent for the last 30 years. But please, don't expect us to continue to dole out money to pay your most elite talent to come to the US and excite our fanbases." I feel this comes at especially poor time, as the Lation population in the US is surging and now would be a real chance to try and connect better with that fan base. Instead, MLB has gone the other direction.

I am personally disgusted that the MLB (essentially the owners plus King Selig) have chosen a watered down product that will include less talent and a devalued regular season. The sport I love will come to include fewer dynamic athletes and, in the long view, a less dedicated fan base. The hits will keep on coming with talk of things like the international draft. Hold on to your butts, the next decade could ruin baseball forever.

#2 TWC

TWC

    Hippie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,052 posts
  • Twitter:@thomaswconroy
  • LocationHMB, CA

Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:25 AM

Crockett: I say we kill him!
BN Gang: YEAH!
Crockett: I say we hang him, then we kill him!
BN Gang: YEAH!
Crockett: I say we stomp him!
BN Gang: YEAH!
Crockett: Then we tattoo him!
BN Gang: YEAH!
Crockett: Then we hang him!
BN Gang: YEAH!!
Crockett: And then we kill him!
BN Gang: YEAH!!!
Bud Selig: [tries to throw his voice without moving his lips] I say we let him go.
BN Gang: NO!!!

#3 NormB

NormB

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Twitter:nbothwell11
  • LocationBurbs

Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:27 AM

Agree, but unfortunately, the owners want the money and they'll vote with Selig.
They should do away with the draft altogether and let them all become free agents.

#4 TWC

TWC

    Hippie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,052 posts
  • Twitter:@thomaswconroy
  • LocationHMB, CA

Posted 23 February 2012 - 11:29 AM

Just messing around, Crockett. To me, the first item, the extra Wild Card team, is the most infuriating.

#5 SirCub

SirCub

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 908 posts
  • LocationCarrboro, NC

Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:09 PM

Just messing around, Crockett. To me, the first item, the extra Wild Card team, is the most infuriating.

Agreed. Baseball is NOT a one-game play-in kind of sport. As a tie-breaker, sure. But anything else is just crazy.

#6 King Jeff

King Jeff

    King of all Cubs fans!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,478 posts
  • Twitter:@peaceknuckle
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:49 PM

I don't see Luke Skywalker walking through that door any time soon to save us from the evil one. We are stuck with this crap, he has too many supporters among the owners. You know, all the guys who he sold teams to.

#7 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:51 PM

Disagree. I think baseball is overdue for a new Commissioner, but most of the points against Selig here I don't buy into.

Second Wild Card Team

When this was first announced, I started digging back through the end of season standings over the past decade, and a clear trend emerged. In about 70% of cases, adding a second wild card would have added excitement to September by creating additional drama from an additional race. It was also surprising to see some of the teams that would have been in the playoffs under this new system and to ponder what that could have meant for those franchises. We missed out on some great baseball as a result of this change not being made five years ago.

At the end of the day, baseball is entertainment. If baseball can increase fan interest, particularly in struggling markets, by adding another WC, I say let's try it.

What I don't want is a repeat of the NHL in which nearly everyone gets in, but baseball is far from that. Earning a trip to baseball's postseason is arguably tougher than in any other professional sport; there is room to loosen that a touch without watering down the game completely. I see no slippery slopes here.

And finally, that day in which the two Wild Card games are played will be one of the best made-for-TV days of the season. That event should be a ratings bonanza and should be the perfect way to kick of the postseason. I love it when excitement like the last day of the 2011 season emerges organically, but you can count on one thumb the number of times in baseball history that has happened. I see no reason not to put in a made-for-tv event like the wild card games to jump start the playoffs.

Nor do I think that catering to ratings somehow tarnishes the purity of the game. Money made from national TV contracts is split among all the clubs. Wild card playoff day, if it does bring in the tv audience like I expect, will add extra dollars to the bottom lines of teams like Pittsburgh and Oakland and help level the financial playing field. That is good for baseball.

That article I mentioned is here: http://cubbiescrib.c...d-for-baseball/

Amateur Draft Spending Caps

Personally, I hate them. I liked that teams could decide to invest heavily on the talent acquisition side and still be competitive. I liked that overspending in the draft was a viable strategy for rebuilding franchises from the ground up. I liked that teams were not penalized for investing their dollars where they thought they could get the best results. But it was unsustainable. Too many players were dropping due to sign-ability concerns, and that was starting to concentrate the best talent in the hands of the richest teams.

While the old system was a way for small market teams to level the playing field, that has been rapidly changing over the past couple of seasons. In another few years small market teams would find themselves largely priced out of the ability to draft and sign multiple top-tier talents while the Cubs and Yankees were pouring increasingly large sums into signing bonuses. As a Cubs fan, I say bring it on. As a baseball fan, I can see that something had to change.

This is another move that (in theory) levels the playing field. Actually, it does no such thing. The teams with the best scouting and player development operations will still win the draft. The teams that are willing to pay overslot to land the best players will still draft and sign the best players (it will just be more difficult). In short, teams like Pittsburgh, the Cubs, and Toronto will still do very well in the draft. Teams like Baltimore and the White Sox will still be horrible, unless they start investing in scouting and player development. I think the 2012 draft will look remarkably like the 2011 draft in terms of who spends, who doesn't, and what the first round bonuses look like. And when it is all said and done, the best 2012 draft will belong to one of teams who had one of the ten best drafts in 2011.

I think the new system will need tweaking, but I'm not the type to avoid make changes until the new system is perfect. Let's get the new system implemented, see how it works for a season or two, and then make changes to address the concerns as they come up. For example, I think the penalties for overspending are ridiculously harsh and need to be either scaled back or put in place at a higher level of over-spending. But I'm willing to see how it plays out. As a minor league analyst, it is going to cause me no end of headaches leading up to the 2012 draft as I try to figure out how teams are reacting to the new CBA rules, but long term I think it will be good for the game.

International Draft

As I understand it, this will be a separate event from the amateur draft, and that is as it should be. The logistics of combining them would be rough to work out.

I don't mind the free market approach with regard to international free agents we have now, but I will admit it is too open to exploitation by the agents. It needed to be addressed. I'm not sure a draft is the right way to address it, but I do see a couple benefits from the draft.

First of all, baseball gets another media event. Again, national media dollars get spread around, and that is good for the game.

Second, it creates a better opportunity for fans to become familiar with the best international prospects. There is virtually no information about a lot of these players until they reach the United States. Anything that gives us a better window into this world is a good thing.

And third, I don't think it will change much. The teams that scout heavily overseas will still do the best in the draft, and those who don't will do poorly. Teams are not going to draft players they don't scout, and sending scouts all over the world is not cheap. As a result, the Cubs will continue to dominate East Asia for the time being. The Rangers and Yankees will continue to dominate Latin America (with the Cubs rapidly catching up). Teams that don't invest at all will do OK in the draft just by reading Baseball America, but drafting OK doesn't cut it. Just ask a White Sox fan. The best franchises are those that find talent outside of the first couple of rounds; those franchises will continue to be the best, draft or no draft.


In general, I'm in favor of a system in which a team's competitiveness depends on nothing but how well a team is run and how well it plays on the field. On the whole, I think the changes made by Selig get us closer to that end.

But he's been in power too long. Someone else needs to take over that job.

#8 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:53 PM

Disagree. I think baseball is overdue for a new Commissioner, but most of the points against Selig here I don't buy into.

Second Wild Card Team

When this was first announced, I started digging back through the end of season standings over the past decade, and a clear trend emerged. In about 70% of cases, adding a second wild card would have added excitement to September by creating additional drama from an additional race. It was also surprising to see some of the teams that would have been in the playoffs under this new system and to ponder what that could have meant for those franchises. We missed out on some great baseball as a result of this change not being made five years ago.

At the end of the day, baseball is entertainment. If baseball can increase fan interest, particularly in struggling markets, by adding another WC, I say let's try it.

What I don't want is a repeat of the NHL in which nearly everyone gets in, but baseball is far from that. Earning a trip to baseball's postseason is arguably tougher than in any other professional sport; there is room to loosen that a touch without watering down the game completely. I see no slippery slopes here.

And finally, that day in which the two Wild Card games are played will be one of the best made-for-TV days of the season. That event should be a ratings bonanza and should be the perfect way to kick of the postseason. I love it when excitement like the last day of the 2011 season emerges organically, but you can count on one thumb the number of times in baseball history that has happened. I see no reason not to put in a made-for-tv event like the wild card games to jump start the playoffs.

Nor do I think that catering to ratings somehow tarnishes the purity of the game. Money made from national TV contracts is split among all the clubs. Wild card playoff day, if it does bring in the tv audience like I expect, will add extra dollars to the bottom lines of teams like Pittsburgh and Oakland and help level the financial playing field. That is good for baseball.

That article I mentioned is here: http://cubbiescrib.c...d-for-baseball/

Amateur Draft Spending Caps

Personally, I hate them. I liked that teams could decide to invest heavily on the talent acquisition side and still be competitive. I liked that overspending in the draft was a viable strategy for rebuilding franchises from the ground up. I liked that teams were not penalized for investing their dollars where they thought they could get the best results. But it was unsustainable. Too many players were dropping due to sign-ability concerns, and that was starting to concentrate the best talent in the hands of the richest teams.

While the old system was a way for small market teams to level the playing field, that has been rapidly changing over the past couple of seasons. In another few years small market teams would find themselves largely priced out of the ability to draft and sign multiple top-tier talents while the Cubs and Yankees were pouring increasingly large sums into signing bonuses. As a Cubs fan, I say bring it on. As a baseball fan, I can see that something had to change.

This is another move that (in theory) levels the playing field. Actually, it does no such thing. The teams with the best scouting and player development operations will still win the draft. The teams that are willing to pay overslot to land the best players will still draft and sign the best players (it will just be more difficult). In short, teams like Pittsburgh, the Cubs, and Toronto will still do very well in the draft. Teams like Baltimore and the White Sox will still be horrible, unless they start investing in scouting and player development. I think the 2012 draft will look remarkably like the 2011 draft in terms of who spends, who doesn't, and what the first round bonuses look like. And when it is all said and done, the best 2012 draft will belong to one of teams who had one of the ten best drafts in 2011.

I think the new system will need tweaking, but I'm not the type to avoid make changes until the new system is perfect. Let's get the new system implemented, see how it works for a season or two, and then make changes to address the concerns as they come up. For example, I think the penalties for overspending are ridiculously harsh and need to be either scaled back or put in place at a higher level of over-spending. But I'm willing to see how it plays out. As a minor league analyst, it is going to cause me no end of headaches leading up to the 2012 draft as I try to figure out how teams are reacting to the new CBA rules, but long term I think it will be good for the game.

International Draft

As I understand it, this will be a separate event from the amateur draft, and that is as it should be. The logistics of combining them would be rough to work out.

I don't mind the free market approach with regard to international free agents we have now, but I will admit it is too open to exploitation by the agents. It needed to be addressed. I'm not sure a draft is the right way to address it, but I do see a couple benefits from the draft.

First of all, baseball gets another media event. Again, national media dollars get spread around, and that is good for the game.

Second, it creates a better opportunity for fans to become familiar with the best international prospects. There is virtually no information about a lot of these players until they reach the United States. Anything that gives us a better window into this world is a good thing.

And third, I don't think it will change much. The teams that scout heavily overseas will still do the best in the draft, and those who don't will do poorly. Teams are not going to draft players they don't scout, and sending scouts all over the world is not cheap. As a result, the Cubs will continue to dominate East Asia for the time being. The Rangers and Yankees will continue to dominate Latin America (with the Cubs rapidly catching up). Teams that don't invest at all will do OK in the draft just by reading Baseball America, but drafting OK doesn't cut it. Just ask a White Sox fan. The best franchises are those that find talent outside of the first couple of rounds; those franchises will continue to be the best, draft or no draft.


In general, I'm in favor of a system in which a team's competitiveness depends on nothing but how well a team is run and how well it plays on the field. On the whole, I think the changes made by Selig get us closer to that end.

But he's been in power too long. Someone else needs to take over that job.


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what these changes will do to baseball. "More fair" is fine; reducing the overall talent pool in baseball is not.

#9 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:35 PM

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what these changes will do to baseball. "More fair" is fine; reducing the overall talent pool in baseball is not.


I don't think they'll reduce the overall talent pool, or at least not significantly. There are very few players so talented in both baseball and some other sport that they could legitimately go pro in either direction. Even if they all choose against baseball (which is highly unlikely), the loss will not be significant.

The best talent will still get paid significantly enough to lure them into baseball. And keep in mind that the international cap is only $2.9 mil for this summer. After the 2012 signing period the available amount will adjust depending on the record of the team in the previous season. I think the range is $5.9 million to $1.9 million, but I may be off slightly.

Also, I don't assume that baseball is run by idiots. If Selig and his cronies see that the CBA limitations are chasing top talent away from baseball in droves, he can fix it very easily. All he has to do is raise the caps. It is not in anyone's interest to hurt the game, so I have no doubt that they'll adjust the numbers as necessary to make sure that doesn't happen.

#10 NormB

NormB

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Twitter:nbothwell11
  • LocationBurbs

Posted 23 February 2012 - 02:05 PM

Adding another wild card team might increase excitement in September, but to have a one game playoff is absurd. The best team will beat the worst team only 60% of the time. Even if you want to say 70% of the time, a one game playoff increases the chances that the best team does NOT win.

#11 Brett

Brett

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,639 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 23 February 2012 - 02:07 PM

I am very, very, very in favor of the additional Wild Cards. The level to which they increase overall excitement for a number of fan bases (more chance to be in the playoff race later, more importance in the division race) cannot be overstated.

I am, however, very opposed to it being a one-game playoff. That is just so ridiculous that it *almost* invalidates my wanting the extra Wild Cards in the first place. Almost.

#12 TWC

TWC

    Hippie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,052 posts
  • Twitter:@thomaswconroy
  • LocationHMB, CA

Posted 23 February 2012 - 02:19 PM

I am very, very, very in favor of the additional Wild Cards. The level to which they increase overall excitement for a number of fan bases (more chance to be in the playoff race later, more importance in the division race) cannot be overstated.

I am, however, very opposed to it being a one-game playoff. That is just so ridiculous that it *almost* invalidates my wanting the extra Wild Cards in the first place. Almost.

Precisely.

#13 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 23 February 2012 - 02:25 PM

A one game playoff is better than the non-wild card teams sitting for three or four extra days. I think this comes down to the lesser of two evils, and if that lesser evil carries with it a potentially huge media payday, all the better.

One good side of the one game playoff is that it should completely wreck the rotation for the wild card team. The division champ deserves an advantage against a wild card team. I think the one game playoff will provide that advantage.

That said, I'd rather see a best of three that starts with a doubleheader. Game three would be played the next day, if necessary. That would give us four games on Wild Card Day instead of two (which can't be a bad thing), and I think it could still fit into the scheduling window. Schedule would be:

Day 0: Season Ends
Day 1 Early Afternoon: NL WC Game 1
Day 1 Late Afternoon: AL WC Game 1
Day 1 Evening: NL WC Game 2
Day 1 Late Evening: AL WC Game 2

Day 2: Game 3 if needed (Early and Late afternoon slots). Travel day otherwise.

Day 3: Division Round Game 1: WC winner at _________.

If team doesn't want to start the playoffs with a double header, then tough. Win a division and it isn't a problem.

#14 Brett

Brett

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,639 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 23 February 2012 - 02:56 PM

A one game playoff is better than the non-wild card teams sitting for three or four extra days. I think this comes down to the lesser of two evils, and if that lesser evil carries with it a potentially huge media payday, all the better.

One good side of the one game playoff is that it should completely wreck the rotation for the wild card team. The division champ deserves an advantage against a wild card team. I think the one game playoff will provide that advantage.

That said, I'd rather see a best of three that starts with a doubleheader. Game three would be played the next day, if necessary. That would give us four games on Wild Card Day instead of two (which can't be a bad thing), and I think it could still fit into the scheduling window. Schedule would be:

Day 0: Season Ends
Day 1 Early Afternoon: NL WC Game 1
Day 1 Late Afternoon: AL WC Game 1
Day 1 Evening: NL WC Game 2
Day 1 Late Evening: AL WC Game 2

Day 2: Game 3 if needed (Early and Late afternoon slots). Travel day otherwise.

Day 3: Division Round Game 1: WC winner at _________.

If team doesn't want to start the playoffs with a double header, then tough. Win a division and it isn't a problem.

That's slightly better than the one-gamer. I realize that a five-game series is never going to happen, so a standard three-gamer (on three consecutive days, beginning the day after the day after the final day of the season, with one day after the series, so the max that the division winners have to sit is 5 days) is what I'd like to see.

#15 Oswego Chris

Oswego Chris

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Twitter:oswegochris23
  • LocationOswego, Illinois

Posted 23 February 2012 - 04:10 PM

here is a radical idea.....sure to get ridiculed by some....

top two division winners get byes for first series like football

#3 divion winner gets three game series with number 6...all at home
#4 and # 5 three game series with higher seed all at home

then 7 game series in next rounds with less days off....

more teams, yet the regular season means much more....I HATE the 5 game series....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).