Jim Gindin fixes Major League Baseball

[st.cronin]

I've been thinking about this all afternoon for some reason, maybe because I don't have a real job, so I don't have anything better to do with my life. So here's my long and boring manifesto for fixing baseball:

1. Eliminate the DH. Games are too long, and there's enough offense. It adds an element of strategy. It makes the rules simpler - you're either in the lineup or you aren't.

2. No telelvision time-outs during pitching changes. The game has changed and there are more situational pitching changes. Why kill interest just when things are heating up? If a game drags out endlessly, this is usually the reason.

3. Players may not leave the batter's box during an at-bat. They may hold one foot out for ten seconds to receive the next signal. In turn, pitchers have 20 seconds to make their next pitch.

4. Lower the mid-inning (not end of inning) commercial break to one minute.

5. Increase the roster to 27 active players. The increased use of relief pitchers makes this a useful change. Increase the roster limit to 43.

6. There needs to be a hard salary cap. Screw the union. Shut down baseball for two years if necessary.

7. If you have a hard cap, you need real revenue sharing. Even the NFL is going to have some trouble soon if they don't start sharing luxury box and seat license revenue. Tell Steinbrenner he can go take ARod, Jeter, Sheffield, Godzilla, the Big Unit, Mussina and all his other All-Stars and schedule exhibition games with the Coors Silver Bullets. See how many people show up for a full slate of 81 exhibitions. Everything gets shared, especially local television contracts. Make it 55/45 if Steinbrenner produces real tears or beats up an elevator man.

8. Merge the leagues, from a schedule and statistical perspective. I don't give a damn that ARod led the AL with 52 home runs in 2001, because Barry Bonds hit 73. Inter-league play is at a weird level, like we're supposed to rejoice when Texas visits Florida, because it only happens once every three years, or six years, depending on the "unbalanced" schedule.

9. Four divisions, 7 or 8 teams per division. Keep the "league" designations only for familiarity and minor schedule differences. If you're in a 7-team division, you play teams within your division 11 or 12 times, teams in the 8-team division in your league 6 times and teams in the other league 3 times per season. If you're in an 8-team division, you play teams within your division 10 or 11 times, teams in the 7-team division 6 times and teams in the other league 3 times per season. Obviously, inter-league play goes on all season long. But it won't be a novelty and it won't be played with a different rule set.

10. Here are the divisions:

AL East - Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Toronto, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Cleveland.
AL West - Seattle, Angels, Oakland, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Texas, Kansas City, White Sox.
NL East - Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Florida, Washington, Atlanta, Cincinnati.
NL West - Cubs, St. Louis, Arizona, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco, Colorado, Houston.

These are divided by time zone. It would be fairer to have the east with the 8-team divisions because the travel distances are shorter, but there really isn't a logical candidate to move in either league. Expanding to 32 teams is a good idea, though the best sites are more western.

11. Eliminate the Wild Card round. It's a distraction. I want the regular season to mean more again. Baseball has traditionally balanced on the concept of 1 division or league winner per 7 or 8 teams. In its heydey, there were only two leagues of eight teams.

12. The team with the best overall record hosts the World Series (4 games of 7). It was a cute gimmick to have the All-Star game "mean something." But they did it by cheapening the World Series. You don't sacrifice your best milk cow for a nice Thanksgiving dinner. Okay, that analogy sucks, but you get my meaning.

13. Speaking of the All-Star game, lower rosters to 21. Eight position players, nine pitchers, an extra catcher and three extra players, one of whom will serve as the DH. Yes, the DH will exist only in the All-Star game. Of the nine pitchers, three will be only eligible to pitch if the game enters extra innings. If the All-Star game is tied after 15 innings, it ends right there. People will accept that rule if it's in place beforehand and it's reasonably long that it probably won't ever happen. Obviously, the rule that every team is represented needs to go away, though the host team should be represented and one of the extra position players should be required to go to a current legend of the game (someone like Tony Gwynn in his last season).

14. Allow instant replay. The technology is there, and in baseball close plays are going to be pretty clear to an experienced eye.

15. Automate balls and strikes calls. Quest-tec was a good idea but a bad implementation. Let's have something fast and let's get the umpires' egos out of the game as much as possible.

16. Back to television. Playoff games can not overlap. This means a return to afternoon games during the LCSes. All weekend playoff games take place during the afternoon.

17. Screen graphics should not make noise. Eliminate screen wipes entirely - they just waste time. Tell Fox to go fuck itself. No more closeups of fans throughout the game. No more extreme closeups between pitches unless something important happened. No more jump-cutting. No more replays of at-bats in past innings or past games unless it's of incredible historic value (like Reggie Jackson hitting three home runs, or Kirk Gibson gimping his way around the bases) unless you're going into commercial. Think of how annoying that would be during a football game.

I really believe all 17 points are necessary for baseball to make any sort of a comeback. If the owners are happy with steadily declining ratings simply because attendance hasn't yet dropped, they're certifiable. The population has increased quite a bit during the last 20 years, it would stand to reason that ticket sales would increase a little. But the television ratings are a serious problem. The World Series is essentially half of what it was pre-realignment. That just seems unprecedented in recent sports history. Notice I didn't mention the word "steroids" once. Until now.


#2 ... something needs to be done about the excessive pitching changes. I think eliminating the tv timeouts isn't enough. There needs to be some sort of rule change. Maybe no warm-ups for mid-inning pitching changes?

#5 ... I strongly disagree with this one. Increasing the roster size will just lead to more pitching changes. With a 27 man roster some teams would have an 11 man BULLPEN. The roster, if anything, should be scaled back to 23 or 24.

#17 ... couldn't agree more. Lots of other stuff here is a no-brainer.

[Cringer]

Now you will have people coming in here thinking Front Office Baseball has been announced. :D

[st.cronin]

Now you will have people coming in here thinking Front Office Baseball has been announced. :D

cool

[Cringer]

Anyways, what I already said before....

As for the cutting commercials, I at first thought "fat chance." But I think with the amount of in-game ads now (behind home plate) that it is not unreasonable to cut back on the normal commercials.

the division lineups would take some getting used to, but I agree that having only LCS' and then the WS is pretty attractive.

[bselig]

Of course I'd like to see some of these changes, but(according to about 10 seconds of searching) baseball cleared $4.5 billion in 05, compared to around $5 billion for the NFL, the obtensibly perfectly run sport, and they've experienced plenty of growth in the past decade. So it's not like MLB is on the verge of collapse and desperately needs revolutionary change.

[Cringer]

Of course I'd like to see some of these changes, but(according to about 10 seconds of searching) baseball cleared $4.5 billion in 05, compared to around $5 billion for the NFL, the obtensibly perfectly run sport, and they've experienced plenty of growth in the past decade. So it's not like MLB is on the verge of collapse and desperately needs revolutionary change.

So says Bud Selig. :rolleyes:

:p

[Desmond]

It's almost like 93 when Baseball was moving along with record attendance and doing big time buisness. Boy, it's a good thing there were no radical changes back then.

[Galaxy]

I never could support a salary cap. Might something like a salary cap of the NHL, but from a business standpoint, the big-market teams have worked too hard to build up the value and revenues of its business. I think too much parity is too boring.

[Solecismic]

Of course I'd like to see some of these changes, but(according to about 10 seconds of searching) baseball cleared $4.5 billion in 05, compared to around $5 billion for the NFL, the obtensibly perfectly run sport, and they've experienced plenty of growth in the past decade. So it's not like MLB is on the verge of collapse and desperately needs revolutionary change.

Here's the problem, as I said in the other item:

It's all about television ratings. That generates the multi-billion dollar national contracts. That determines a huge percentage of local revenue. It's not about attendance records.

In the 1970s, it wasn't uncommon to have ratings in the 30s, which means 30% of all television sets were tuned to the World Series. This peaked in 1980 with a 32.8 for a Phillies/Royals matchup. Regionalism didn't matter as much, it was all about the sport itself.

Ratings dropped into the 20s in the 1980s.

In 1995, the year after the strike, the World Series scored a 19.5, its third-lowest rating ever. This was the first year of the wild-card round.

You'd think popularity would recover after a strike. In 1999, they juiced the baseballs or the players or something, and we had the McGwire/Sosa home run chase. The World Series rating in 1999? 16.0 - at that time the second-lowest ever, following 1998.

In fact, 1995 is the highest rating the World Series has garnered since the strike. In 2005, the rating dropped all the way to 11.1 - now its lowest ever. The reason was a Houston/Chicago matchup that apparently didn't appeal to an increasingly regional audience.

The changes in baseball have done two things. First, they've increased the random nature and duration of the playoffs. And second, they've increased the perception that you shouldn't follow the World Series unless your team is participating.

The World Series used to be an event, like the Super Bowl. It used to get almost similar ratings - across an entire series.

Meanwhile, the Super Bowl is as popular as ever, continuing to score ratings between 40 and 45, no matter who plays.

Population is up. So the total number of people watching is fairly similar to the total number of people who used to watch. And increasing populations make it easier for teams to fill their stadiums.

However, popularity is down. An average Monday Night Football game is more popular than a World Series baseball game. Football is as popular as ever, while baseball is about a third as popular as it used to be. The total revenue for a sport that's played on a grand total of 29 days each year now exceeds the total revenue of a sport that's played on about 205 days each year.

Yes, baseball is a healthy sport. I don't believe for a second that the top teams are losing money. But will it be healthy ten years from now? Will franchises fold if there's a dip in the next television contract?

I look at Bud Selig and how the sport is run right now, and I see fear and stupidity. I see a union that's just too powerful. No change can be implemented without a ridiculous amount of angst. I see an ownership group that's so entrenched in greed that all it ever proposes are short-term solutions that don't even begin to address long-term problems. And, in fact (like the All-Star game determining home-field in the World Series), actually do more long-term harm than good.

There's only so much longer baseball can continue to support 30 franchises under this current management and structure. I would not hesitate to call the Wild Card an abject and catastrophic failure. I would not hesitate to call the DH situation (in one league but not in the other) an embarrassment and mockery of the sport. I would not hesitate to call Bud Selig a used car salesman who has never planned anything more than six months in advance.

And then there's Fox Sports, the poster child for how to cannibalize those of us patient enough to stick with the sport, hoping desperately for reform. Televising games like it's MTV televising Pro Wrestling. If they think that appeals to the young generation, just look at the ratings. Look very hard at the ratings.

[Buccaneer]

I agree with so many of these (not all, though) that it makes my head spin.

Imo, a list cannot be put together for the NBA. It is so far down a bad path that nothing can fix it now. Hockey the same, to a lesser extent. I would suspect the list for the NFL would be shorter but some of these do apply (esp. with games becoming unwatchable due to commercial breaks and the announcers).

[Buccaneer]

An average Monday Night Football game is more popular than a World Series baseball game I will take this to an extreme and say that a bad Monday Night Football matchup would trounce the 7th game of the WS (as in the case of the Ariz-NY 7th gamer), if I recall correctly.

[SirFozzie]

From a recent article about the upcoming change of MNF to espn from ABC.

The broadcast (MNF) attracted an average of 11 percent of the 109.6 million U.S. homes with television sets.

In 2003 and 2004, the last I could find average ratings for in a quick search, it got ratings of 13.9 and 15.8 (admittedly, the curse hooha with the Sox probably jacked that up a bit)

So trounce? No. Even beat? No. Competitive with? yes.

[vtbub]

Allow me to go through these point by point, sorry for the italics:


I've been thinking about this all afternoon for some reason, maybe because I don't have a real job, so I don't have anything better to do with my life. So here's my long and boring manifesto for fixing baseball:

1. Eliminate the DH. Games are too long, and there's enough offense. It adds an element of strategy. It makes the rules simpler - you're either in the lineup or you aren't.

Agree. Pitchers can hit.

2. No telelvision time-outs during pitching changes. The game has changed and there are more situational pitching changes. Why kill interest just when things are heating up? If a game drags out endlessly, this is usually the reason.

Agree. Live ad read works.

3. Players may not leave the batter's box during an at-bat. They may hold one foot out for ten seconds to receive the next signal. In turn, pitchers have 20 seconds to make their next pitch.

Yep. This needs to be enforced.

4. Lower the mid-inning (not end of inning) commercial break to one minute.

I'd do it, but you will never see it happen unless you allow commercials between at-bats. The SRC did this for Expo games. It actually worked.


5. Increase the roster to 27 active players. The increased use of relief pitchers makes this a useful change. Increase the roster limit to 43.

Yep.

6. There needs to be a hard salary cap. Screw the union. Shut down baseball for two years if necessary.

No, no,no. Shutting down the game would be suicide. Even advocating for that is suicide. I'm inclined to support a cap, provided there is a floor as well. I would much rather see the NBA soft cap as supposed to the NFL hard. It is one of the few things the NBA has right.


7. If you have a hard cap, you need real revenue sharing. Even the NFL is going to have some trouble soon if they don't start sharing luxury box and seat license revenue. Tell Steinbrenner he can go take ARod, Jeter, Sheffield, Godzilla, the Big Unit, Mussina and all his other All-Stars and schedule exhibition games with the Coors Silver Bullets. See how many people show up for a full slate of 81 exhibitions. Everything gets shared, especially local television contracts. Make it 55/45 if Steinbrenner produces real tears or beats up an elevator man.

First, you have to guarantee that the "small" market teams actually spend the money on improving their teams and not servicing their bottom lines. Second, the Yankees would draw two million playing against trained monkies. Insead of antagonizing teams with big revenue, share the gate 80/20. And have real accountants do the books and share profits.


8. Merge the leagues, from a schedule and statistical perspective. I don't give a damn that ARod led the AL with 52 home runs in 2001, because Barry Bonds hit 73. Inter-league play is at a weird level, like we're supposed to rejoice when Texas visits Florida, because it only happens once every three years, or six years, depending on the "unbalanced" schedule.

I hate interleaague, ban it. It takes the mystique out the All-Star Game and the World Series. Therefore, easier to keep seperate stats.


9. Four divisions, 7 or 8 teams per division. Keep the "league" designations only for familiarity and minor schedule differences. If you're in a 7-team division, you play teams within your division 11 or 12 times, teams in the 8-team division in your league 6 times and teams in the other league 3 times per season. If you're in an 8-team division, you play teams within your division 10 or 11 times, teams in the 7-team division 6 times and teams in the other league 3 times per season. Obviously, inter-league play goes on all season long. But it won't be a novelty and it won't be played with a different rule set.

See above. I do like the four division setup.

10. Here are the divisions:

AL East - Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Toronto, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Cleveland.
AL West - Seattle, Angels, Oakland, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Texas, Kansas City, White Sox.
NL East - Mets, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Florida, Washington, Atlanta, Cincinnati.
NL West - Cubs, St. Louis, Arizona, Dodgers, San Diego, San Francisco, Colorado, Houston.

These are divided by time zone. It would be fairer to have the east with the 8-team divisions because the travel distances are shorter, but there really isn't a logical candidate to move in either league. Expanding to 32 teams is a good idea, though the best sites are more western.

Yep. I like. Except expansion, too much and too many teams in markets that are not baseball markets. Miami comes to mind.


11. Eliminate the Wild Card round. It's a distraction. I want the regular season to mean more again. Baseball has traditionally balanced on the concept of 1 division or league winner per 7 or 8 teams. In its heydey, there were only two leagues of eight teams.

In your plan, it makes sense. The wild card has been good for baseball, however, because it keeps more teams playing meaningful games longer in the season.


12. The team with the best overall record hosts the World Series (4 games of 7). It was a cute gimmick to have the All-Star game "mean something." But they did it by cheapening the World Series. You don't sacrifice your best milk cow for a nice Thanksgiving dinner. Okay, that analogy sucks, but you get my meaning.

Alternate between leagues, like before. I'm old and grumpy...wait...only one World Series has had the home team win every game (1987). I think home field is more perception then reality.


13. Speaking of the All-Star game, lower rosters to 21. Eight position players, nine pitchers, an extra catcher and three extra players, one of whom will serve as the DH. Yes, the DH will exist only in the All-Star game. Of the nine pitchers, three will be only eligible to pitch if the game enters extra innings. If the All-Star game is tied after 15 innings, it ends right there. People will accept that rule if it's in place beforehand and it's reasonably long that it probably won't ever happen. Obviously, the rule that every team is represented needs to go away, though the host team should be represented and one of the extra position players should be required to go to a current legend of the game (someone like Tony Gwynn in his last season).

I like that each team has a representative, but the rest sounds good.


14. Allow instant replay. The technology is there, and in baseball close plays are going to be pretty clear to an experienced eye.

Yep.


15. Automate balls and strikes calls. Quest-tec was a good idea but a bad implementation. Let's have something fast and let's get the umpires' egos out of the game as much as possible.

Nope. How about actual supervision for the umpires instead. I watch 100-150 regular season games a year and 95% of the post-season. I really cannot complain about ball and strike calls.


16. Back to television. Playoff games can not overlap. This means a return to afternoon games during the LCSes. All weekend playoff games take place during the afternoon.

Mostly agree here. How about 6 PM starts for World Series games instead.


17. Screen graphics should not make noise.

Yes.

Eliminate screen wipes entirely - they just waste time.

Yes.

Tell Fox to go fuck itself.

Why do you think Jeanne Zelasko is pregnant all the time? I have a few words for that idiot McCarver too.

No more closeups of fans throughout the game.

No. Baseball is entertainment. Feeling the intensity of the crowd is part of the experience, unless you are dealing with network stars and non-existant Braves fans.


No more extreme closeups between pitches unless something important happened. No more jump-cutting. No more replays of at-bats in past innings or past games unless it's of incredible historic value (like Reggie Jackson hitting three home runs, or Kirk Gibson gimping his way around the bases) unless you're going into commercial. Think of how annoying that would be during a football game.

Fox takes it to an extreme, but some of that is needed.



I really believe all 17 points are necessary for baseball to make any sort of a comeback. If the owners are happy with steadily declining ratings simply because attendance hasn't yet dropped, they're certifiable. The population has increased quite a bit during the last 20 years, it would stand to reason that ticket sales would increase a little. But the television ratings are a serious problem. The World Series is essentially half of what it was pre-realignment. That just seems unprecedented in recent sports history. Notice I didn't mention the word "steroids" once. Until now.

End of Jim's point/Ron's "counter"point

Baseball's biggest problem is perception. It's perceived to be too slow. It's perceived to be dull, etc.

Baseball is a passive experience. They need a TV partner who understands that it is a NATIONAL game, not a regional one. Give me a reason to watch the Dodgers and Padres and do not assume I don't care because I'm not from SoCal. This years World Series contained two teams with almost no regular season exposure. Put more games on network television, and promote some way for casual viewers to make money watching baseball. The NFL doesn't show viewer attrition because more people care that Joe Schmoe got them 45 fantasy points then whether the Steelers won.

[kcchief19]

Here's the problem, as I said in the other item:

It's all about television ratings. That generates the multi-billion dollar national contracts. That determines a huge percentage of local revenue. It's not about attendance records.This is the fundamental problem. Based on their actions and words, I don't think there is any doubt that MLB cares more about revenue than ratings. As ratings continue to slip, they haven't been looking for a way to increase ratings but for ways to increase revenue regardless of ratings. That means shoving advertising into every hole possible, to the point where a major league broadcast is about five years away from looking like a brodcast of a game in the Carolina League, from longer commercial breaks to advertising on the walls, foul poles, bases and the playing surface.

I would whole heartedly support any measures that could be taken to increase ratings. But that will mean MLB will have to accept a short-term revenue hit to increase long-term value. MLB owners have traditionally been a group that has never been able to look more than six months down the road. Short-sighted decisions have done nothing but set baseball further and further back.

The pace of the game is at the heart of all of baseball's problems. But it's a double-edge sword. Longer games have certainly affected ratings and popularity, but they have also contribued to more revenue by creating more advertising opportunities.

I think it's too late to put the cork back in some bottles, and others I think are out of their control. I think going back to two divisions in each league would be a nice move, if only to reduce the likelihood of bad teams making the postseason. I don't think eliminating the wild card is impossible because the networks won't buy it. It's just a matter of time before television dictates to the NFL to add a third wild card team to generate two extra playoff games.

[DaddyTorgo]

eliminate interleague play. interleague play has totally killed the excitement of the All-Star game and to some extent the WS.

[Gallifrey]

I like your ideas Jim. If something big is done, it may bring back me...an old big time baseball fan that hasn't watched a game on TV in maybe 7 years and not a World Series game since....maybe 1993?

MLB is boring. They lost me and everyone I know but two guys years ago. Those guys are hanging on to something...I think what it is really is that they have hours to kill all the time when they can watch guys adjust their gloves ten billion times each at bat...think about something who knows what between every pitch...pitching changes for someone to throw to one guy and then another change...

And the All-Star game? They should just give it up.

[kcchief19]

See, I don't think interleague play killed the all-star game -- I think money and the attitude of today's players killed the game.

For me, the all-star game started it's trouble when you first started seeing players with digital camers and camcorders on the field before the game and in the dugouts. Ten years ago, teams actually cared about winning the all-star game and tried to win. Now everbody just tries not to get hurt. Joe Torre didn't help either. He tarnished the all-star game beyond repair with his "everybody should play" policy that led to the tied game debacle.

It's not an ideal solution, but I like the idea of the all-star game determining home field for the World Series because it actually made a few people try. The baseball all-star game used to be one of the best things about the support because unlike the other games that were just exhibitions it was an actual competition.

I suppose the best solution is to admit that millionaires have no interested in putting themselves on the line for an all-star game and that it will never be the same. Too bad.

[AENeuman]

Commercials are not the problem, just an easy scapegoat. Having three commercial breaks after a team scores a touchdown is the real crime. Eliminating commercials is a good thing because they suck and they are not the game. If one does not enjoy a 2-1 pitcher/defense battle no limit on commercials will help them. if you can't enjoy a 2 1/2 hour john miller game at the park or on the radio baseball just may not be your thing, that does not mean baseball has to change...
Also, wouldn't lowering the mid inning break always screw the road team pitcher?

[larrymcg421]

Alternate between leagues, like before. I'm old and grumpy...wait...only one World Series has had the home team win every game (1987). I think home field is more perception then reality.

It happened in 1991 as well.

I also don't agree that it's perception. Look at the Home/Road records for teams last season. I don't have time to add it all up but it clearly favors the home team. Only 6 teams had better road records than home records. The Braves were only 37-44 on the road. They needed a 53-28 record at home (2nd only to the Red Sox) to win their division. The Red Six and Yankees were barely better than .500 on the road.

[kcchief19]

If one does not enjoy a 2-1 pitcher/defense battle no limit on commercials will help them. if you can't enjoy a 2 1/2 hour john miller game at the park or on the radio baseball just may not be your thing, that does not mean baseball has to change...
That's the problem. How many 2-1, 2 1/2 hour games are there? Not enough. MLB has speed up the games a bit -- the average game was 2:46 last year, 12 minutes faster than in 2000. But this year's postseason games averaged more than 3 hours. If the typical game was 2 1/2 hours or less, I think interest would go up. Commercials are part of the problem because baseball has added at least 10 minutes of commercials to the average telecast during decade.

Also, wouldn't lowering the mid inning break always screw the road team pitcher?No more so that currently. I used to be a board operator for radio station broadcasting St. Louis Cardinals games, and 12 years ago it was basically 90-second breaks between innings and 60-second breaks during half innings except for the seventh-inning with was I believe a two-minute break. Pitching changes were sold at the local station option -- the network would do a silent cue for a 30-second local break where you break for a commercial. We only sold one pitching change per game because it was too much of a pain to schedule make goods if you had a game where there no mid-inning pitching changes.

I think the inning breaks now are either 90-seconds or two minutes between all innings. That's essentially adding one minute of commercial time every inning -- and I'll bet nationally broadcast games have even longer breaks.

The length of games and commercials has been acute in baseball, but it's going to effect other sports as well. It's ridiculous when Monday Night Football has a regulation game go past midnight in the central time zone. I believe ESPN is moving up the game time for next year. But there have been regulation college football games last more than 4 hours this year. That's just silly. Some of that is due to stoppages of play and instant replay, but a lot of it is due to the number and length of station breaks.

[Huckleberry]

4. Lower the mid-inning (not end of inning) commercial break to one minute.
That would give a competitive advantage to the home team in the NL and also in the AL if item 1 is implemented.

[flere-imsaho]

Ten years ago, teams actually cared about winning the all-star game and tried to win. Now everbody just tries not to get hurt.

I can't say I blame them. Why injure yourself in a game that will not impact your chances of winning the World Series? The NFL has this right - put the All-Star Game at the end of the season or (as the NBA's done) make it clear that it's going to be a complete farce.

The length of games and commercials has been acute in baseball, but it's going to effect other sports as well. It's ridiculous when Monday Night Football has a regulation game go past midnight in the central time zone.

I agree with this 100%, but until fans start to turn off the games, there's no incentive for the networks to not continue to expand the amount of commercials they show.

As it stands now, if it wasn't for my Tivo, there's a very good chance I'd only watch one NFL game on Sunday before giving up in frustration. In fact, what I do now is start watching the Sunday games at around 2:30 Central (about when I return from Ultimate Frisbee) and by the time I catch up with the live broadcast, I'm done watching the games.

[Young Drachma]

Playing OOTP and the end of the baseball season always makes me wonder about the stagnant nature of baseball and the so-called 'traditionalists' that really screw the game over. If traditionalists had their way in sports like hockey, we wouldn't have teams playing in the Sun Belt, if there were traditionalists in football, college football wouldn't have a playoff.

Oh wait.

Anyway, expand active rosters to 27, sure. But eliminate the DH? No way. Standardize it across both leagues. And expansion doesn't dilute talent, nor do expanded playoffs.

We're in an era of the casual fan and baseball's dying because people stop being interested after July, August or at the worst, early September. That just doesn't match up with other sports. The season should be 154 games again and the playoffs should add another round call the Wild Card Series. I don't buy this idea that there is a static amount of baseball people want to watch, that it won't grow if there is more out there for them to enjoy. I think football and baseball appeal to completely different types of people and there is a reason the game peaked after the strike as if nothing had happened and it had nothing to do with bulky dudes hitting home runs. It's because baseball is part of the culture and that there are plenty of people who would gladly take it all in, if it was accessible to them. And I think on some level, baseball is beleaguered with all of

Right now, if you're letting one crappy Wild Card team in to pick off top teams, might as well let others in and have it be a free-for-all of silliness. And on the point of expansion, if you eventually expand to say 40 teams, you'll have 3 or 4 teams in NY, 3 in LA, 2 in the Bay Area, add another team to another metropolis rich in baseball tradition (Chicago, Philly or Boston..take your pick) and then pick five other cities (Portland, San Antonio, Monterrey in Mexico, Charlotte and one other city) and that mitigates the idea that there might not be enough big city teams watching the games in the playoffs because their teams all fall bad at the same time.

But even without that fanciful idea, if you just move the Marlins to Portland and move the Devil Rays (eventually) to Orlando, you can solve the Florida problem (heck, even name the moved Devil Rays the Marlins and pull a Cleveland Browns with their history) and add a new rival to the Mariners by putting the Beavers or Green Sox or whatever in the AL West, move the new Marlins to the NL East and that'll tide things over for a while.

[Young Drachma]

And yes, I know. I brought an old thread back from the dead. But I thought it'd be interesting to see what people thought about Jim's original idea a few years later, after I read through it again or to see if people who wrote changed their thoughts a few years on.

[Warhammer]

I agree even more strongly with Jim. I watched an Angels game a few weeks back. The Angels were down a few runs, they get back to a run down with the winning run at second. Garret Anderson winds up striking out on a bad call.

Regardless of the result, it was great to watch, and even my wife was watching. But, it was so slow it was almost painful. I understand taking a minute, but it seemed like a pitch a minute. The last inning took at least 45 minutes to play out.

Baseball needs to play faster. I understand that it is not basketball or hockey, but they really need to pick up the pace of play. Taking 3 or 4 hours for a slow paced game to play out is not going to hold anyone's attention. Even for games I am interested in, I typically wait until 2 hours through, turn it on, see if it is interesting, and then tune out until the 8th or 9th.

[RendeR]

I agree wholeheartedly with jim's years old take on this. The only thing I' add is the salary cap issue needs to have spending requirements. Teams MUST make use of all the shared revenue to improve their team and their facilities. If they don't spend what they're given they get penalized somehow.

[Young Drachma]

I went to a Rockies game over a week ago and it couldn't have been more than 2 1/2 hours long. It was a 4-2 game, but it moved along briskly.

Watching baseball on TV is slow, admittedly. But the ballpark experience to me never "drags" on like say, a football game. With all of the TV timeouts, even at the college level...football can be a painful sport to watch...especially in the winter.

[Subby]

Missed this the first time around - I completely in agreement with every single point that he made...

[Atocep]

6. There needs to be a hard salary cap. Screw the union. Shut down baseball for two years if necessary.

A hard cap will not work in baseball. Teams handle their television deals and they have long-term contracts in place. The NFL handles its own television contracts and that is a big reason their revenue sharing and hard cap works.

11. Eliminate the Wild Card round. It's a distraction. I want the regular season to mean more again. Baseball has traditionally balanced on the concept of 1 division or league winner per 7 or 8 teams. In its heydey, there were only two leagues of eight teams.


The Wild Card means more revenue and still allows baseball to have the most meaningful regular season of any of the sports. It also keeps seats full toward the end of the season since more teams have a shot at the playoffs. Take the wild card away and you screw the fans that you're trying to help here.

I really believe all 17 points are necessary for baseball to make any sort of a comeback.

Baseball just enjoyed its most successful year ever last season. More revenue sharing, a minimum for team payrolls, and forcing teams to show how all shared revenue was used each season would help make baseball better. However, baseball is fine, it doesn't need an overhaul.

[Schmidty]

I love the DH. I love the Wildcard. I love interleague play. I love closeups of chicks in the stands.

I hate the idea of instant replay. I hate the idea of automated balls and strikes. I hate the idea of merging the leagues into only four divisions.

I guess I basically disagree with 75% of what Jim said, especially killing the wilcard, which to me is one of the greatest things baseball has implemented in recent history. It creates much more interest late in the season, because unless a person is a rabid baseball fan (maybe only 20% of fans), no one is going to pay attention to games once their team is out of it. And with only 4 teams out of 30 (unlike back in the day) making it, and maybe 2-3 others being in the hunt late, the game would suffer immensely.

[Crapshoot]

I don't want a salary cap
- I don't want outlandish revenue sharing scheme
- I don't want baseball turned into the NFL,
-I don't want to increase roster sizes even further to aid the Tony La-Russification of baseball
- I don't want to get rid of the wild card
- I don't want to lose the leagues.

Basically, the only thing I could agree with is automated balls and strikes (at some level), instant replay and the best record bit. The rest are either populist (less ad time means less money) or nonsensical.

[Young Drachma]

I would get rid of the anti-trust exemption and let teams move where they want.

[miked]

I love the DH. I'm a fan of good pitching beating good hitting. I hate watching some silly pitcher go up and wave his bat erratically at 3 pitches because he doesn't (and shouldn't) take BP ever. Sometimes they manage to get a bunt down, but I hardly consider this exceptional strategy. I'd rather see a pitcher earn his K's and such rather than a batter off every 2-3 innings.

A salary cap would be a bit silly given the revenue discrepancies in league. I don't want 30 equally mediocre teams. It wouldn't hurt to do a minimum salary cap, so the Pohlads and others in the league could stop pocketing revenue sharing money, or the Reds/Pirates could actually try and field a competitive team one of these days. But it's a business, so I guess they need some kind of incentive to spend money, since apparently enough fans will venture to the park.

One big step toward fixing baseball would be contraction and banning Loria from the league forever. He is like the Hell Atlantic of real baseball.

[Young Drachma]

Loria is the devil. And baseball is still corrupt for what they did to the Expos.

I don't believe in contraction, though. I don't believe in artificial limits on the "top-tier" of talent and since we don't have relegation/promotion here, I think expansion is the only way to account for the massive growth of the country since the game began.

[Cringer]

And yes, I know. I brought an old thread back from the dead. But I thought it'd be interesting to see what people thought about Jim's original idea a few years later, after I read through it again or to see if people who wrote changed their thoughts a few years on.

I was shocked to see I even had an opinion, and don't even remember it. I like my opinion though, and will stick with it. Even the one where I said people are going to think this is about a FO game.

[Sgran]

I agree with all of the points except for number 3. There is no reason to force batters into the box before they're ready, and you wouldn't save much time in the grand scheme of things. Other sports have time limits for things like free throws because they are sports of exertion. Baseball is not. It is one of concentration. The pitcher and batter should be given time to deliver quality performance. I agree wholeheartedly with Dark Cloud: when you're at the park the pace feels right.

[Bubba Wheels]

Ok, get ready to hit me, but...

Does the fact that most baseball players these days seem to be from parts other than America also drag down interest?

I mean, unlike football and basketball, Latin players especially have backgrounds that most Americans don't really indentify with. Does great talent alone really make up for this?

[Schmidty]

I just can't believe that anyone could be against the wildcard, even the traditionalists. Since the WC has been instituted, the game has come back from the dead, and has been getting more and more popular by the year.

I guess it's just a case of Buccaneer-itis.

[Buccaneer]

I just can't believe that anyone could be against the wildcard, even the traditionalists. Since the WC has been instituted, the game has come back from the dead, and has been getting more and more popular by the year.

I guess it's just a case of Buccaneer-itis.

More accurately Solec-itis since Jim was the one proposing it. I agreed with most of his points, but not all.

In the Golden Age, you had 12.5% team making the playoffs, then it went down to 10% briefly. Then for a long while, it was 16.7%. To keep it around that percentage, you would just have the division winners, which would be an odd number. I believe 4-team divisions are too small and think 6 is better. Contract some teams to get back to 24 and we'll be cool. Also, I have always advocated a small playoffs/bowls in all sports. I hate rewarding mediocracy.

[Young Drachma]

Ok, get ready to hit me, but...

Does the fact that most baseball players these days seem to be from parts other than America also drag down interest?

I mean, unlike football and basketball, Latin players especially have backgrounds that most Americans don't really indentify with. Does great talent alone really make up for this?

I think this is a valid point, actually. I think it hurts hockey, too.

[Crapshoot]

Ok, get ready to hit me, but...

Does the fact that most baseball players these days seem to be from parts other than America also drag down interest?

I mean, unlike football and basketball, Latin players especially have backgrounds that most Americans don't really indentify with. Does great talent alone really make up for this?

Uhh, I disagree. You're telling me Vlad's story is less compelling than anyone else's? El Duque is less interesting because of where he came from? I watch baseball - I want to see the best, and I could care less where they are coming from. Same thing with something like soccer - most of the soccer fans here prefer the Premier League or La Liga, because the quality of the game is so much higher.

[Young Drachma]

I think the so-called "die hard" fan wants fewer teams and more Americans. I think people who could get into baseball and who have more than a passing interest in the game, could care less.

Baseball has a nice talent pool that's not getting smaller. There are pockets of interest in lots of places and it's not shrinking by any stretch. I think the game can keep listening to traditionalists if it wants to and they'll kill of the game and cause a schism in the next 20 years or so. That's all that's driven baseball's growth in the first place to date.

And in terms of desire or attendance, I'd been looking for this number for a while, but there were over 49 million fans (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-070905minors,1,4828073.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines) who attended affiliated minor league games this year.

And last year, MLB had 75 million. (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20051003&content_id=1236174&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb) I realize that's a lot of the same people, but what league can rival that?

[SteveMax58]

I think a time limit for pitchers/batters is reasonable, but it should only be to reduce the obnoxious offenders of time wasting. If you require 45 seconds between pitches, you simply dont have the focus, skills, stamina, etc. to pitch at that level.

Something I havent seen mentioned is...how big of an effect does the "randomization" of team rosters have on fans who do not see basically the same team from a given year to (not so much next year) but over the course of a few years. Obviously, if your team stinks, you expect some changes to be made...but why shouldnt a team like the Twins be able to afford to keep their "rising" stars once they become "real" stars. I'm not sure if a hard salary cap fixes this...but maybe coupled with a minimum payroll it helps.

Thos 2 seem to be my biggest pet-peeves withe game today...not so much things like divisional alignments, etc.

[Buccaneer]

I think the so-called "die hard" fan wants fewer teams and more Americans. I think people who could get into baseball and who have more than a passing interest in the game, could care less.

Baseball has a nice talent pool that's not getting smaller. There are pockets of interest in lots of places and it's not shrinking by any stretch. I think the game can keep listening to traditionalists if it wants to and they'll kill of the game and cause a schism in the next 20 years or so. That's all that's driven baseball's growth in the first place to date.

And in terms of desire or attendance, I'd been looking for this number for a while, but there were over 49 million fans (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-070905minors,1,4828073.story?coll=cs-cubs-headlines) who attended affiliated minor league games this year.

And last year, MLB had 75 million. (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20051003&content_id=1236174&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb) I realize that's a lot of the same people, but what league can rival that?

I think you hit on a key point and that is the interest at the grassroots level. Minor leagues (all levels) used to be very prolific and held the interest of young and old alike, and the game was very accessible. I believe this is the way it is in Latin America but we had lost that here, or at least it had lost out to other sports.

[MizzouRah]

12. The team with the best overall record hosts the World Series (4 games of 7). It was a cute gimmick to have the All-Star game "mean something." But they did it by cheapening the World Series. You don't sacrifice your best milk cow for a nice Thanksgiving dinner. Okay, that analogy sucks, but you get my meaning

Amen.

[Jim G.]

A quarter-century of progress:

1981: World Series Average Rating: 30.0/49 Share.
2006: World Series Average Rating: 10.1/17 Share.

1981: Super Bowl Rating: 44.4/63 Share.
2007: Super Bowl Rating: 42.6/64 Share.


A few days ago, baseball was on center stage with a series between the Red Sox and the Yankees, potential playoff spots on the line.

A nine-inning game required 4 hours and 43 minutes. Which worked out to about 31 seconds between pitches, on average (not including about 51 minutes in commercials).

You have your best matchup, and you wind up boring people to the verge of tears. There's no way kids could have stayed up for the Yankees' late rally in that game. It was too long for anyone's attention. Even fans of cricket's five-day international test matches were yawning.

Baseball is broken, and the television ratings are proof.

I stand behind my reasoning, a couple of years ago, that the wild card is partly to blame. Wild cards work with 16-game seasons. But if you cannibalize a 162-game season to help one or two mediocre teams hang in there for an extra week, you kill your national fan base.

Just kill the wild card, go to a four-division, conference (not league) structure, and enforce the 12-second rule between pitches. It will be a much better product.

[sterlingice]

I think there's something to be said for the Yankees-Red Sox game that no one really hits on. Every single one of the hitters on those teams (pitchers, too) think they are the center of the universe and they all have a 30 second routine between pitches. You watch other teams and you'll see that maybe a big hitter or two does that but not every player and not on every pitch.

SI

[Crapshoot]

I think there's something to be said for the Yankees-Red Sox game that no one really hits on. Every single one of the hitters on those teams (pitchers, too) think they are the center of the universe and they all have a 30 second routine between pitches. You watch other teams and you'll see that maybe a big hitter or two does that but not every player and not on every pitch.

SI

SI, I'm convinced you have some sort of big-city obsession. You didn't like Seinfeld because it was about New Yorkers, you don't like that New York-Boston is the biggest series in baseball (I'm a Giants fan - we can face the truth :D ). I get it - you don't like them. But this comes across as bitterness.

[sterlingice]

SI, I'm convinced you have some sort of big-city obsession. You didn't like Seinfeld because it was about New Yorkers, you don't like that New York-Boston is the biggest series in baseball (I'm a Giants fan - we can face the truth :D ). I get it - you don't like them. But this comes across as bitterness.

Because, yes, a dislike of Seinfeld (and I think Friends was stupid, too, but liked Taxi- noodle that! ;)) and an explaination of why a 9 inning game took almost 5 hours constitutes a dislike for big cities. Tho if you wanted to level a criticism that I think pretty much everything in New York is overblown, overhyped, and overexposed, you'd have some pretty strong legs to stand on.

Seriously, tho. Watch the ESPN game tonight (looks like Cubs/Reds) and then compare it with the Red Sox/Yankees game. I haven't seen many Reds games this year but for the Cubs, it's not like their average hitters (say, DeRosa or Theroit) take 20 seconds to get set and have a routine- adjust the batting helmet, play with gloves, kick the dirt, whatever, for every single pitch. Royals fans poke fun at Mike Sweeney because he has this little ritual with his batting gloves every pitch where he has to take them off, readjust them, and put them back on that grinds the game to a halt when he's up. It's as if he has to remind people that he's the big hitter. Pretty much every hitter on both the Yankees and Red Sox have this sort of thing and it can really bog the game down. That's how a 7-6 Cubs/Reds game took 3:04 Monday while a 8-7 Red Sox/Yankees game took 4:43.

SI

[larrymcg421]

SI, I'm convinced you have some sort of big-city obsession. You didn't like Seinfeld because it was about New Yorkers, you don't like that New York-Boston is the biggest series in baseball (I'm a Giants fan - we can face the truth :D ). I get it - you don't like them. But this comes across as bitterness.

I can't stand responses like this. Why not respond to the arguments he made if you disagree with him? Instead, you have to look for some sort of motive regarding his taste in TV shows. That's kinda silly, but if we're gonna go there, i know he likes Sports Night too, and that show fellated New York frequently.

[Subby]

I would also like to see the regular season start in May and have the post season end in mid-October.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I had to look back to see if I even commented on the original (I didn't) but the question about whether anything had changed since this was first posted made me kind of curious for some reason. So I took a look, feeling pretty sure that I could recognize anything that I've had a significant shift about over the past year or two.

I'm still in agreement on these points.
1. Eliminate the DH.
11. Eliminate the Wild Card round.
12. The team with the best overall record hosts the World Series
14. Allow instant replay.
16. Back to television. Playoff games can not overlap.

I'm still opposed to these points as being absurdly unrealistic
2. No television time-outs during pitching changes.
4. Lower the mid-inning (not end of inning) commercial break to one minute.

I'm as vehemently opposed as ever to:
5. Increase the roster to 27 active players.
6. There needs to be a hard salary cap.
7. If you have a hard cap, you need real revenue sharing.
8. Merge the leagues, from a schedule and statistical perspective.
9. Four divisions, 7 or 8 teams per division.
13. Speaking of the All-Star game, lower rosters to 21.

I've shifted from against to neutral on:
3. Players may not leave the batter's box during an at-bat.

I've shifted from cautiously for to neutral on:
15. Automate balls and strikes calls.

I still couldn't give a rat's ass about:
17. Screen graphics should not make noise.

So, since the original, I can't identify any significant shifts on issues that were of the most importance to me. What I can say has shifted since then is that I watched less baseball this year than at any time in my life. There was a time that I would have watched a replay of a KC-PIT spring training B squad game. Now I'm seriously dreading having to go to see the Braves this weekend (Cub Scout Day) in a game that will almost certainly mean nothing to any team I give a damn about.

And that last bit -- the absence of many players or teams I care a whit about -- probably has influenced my overall declining interest in MLB and is as telling as anything. I find fewer likable players, only moderately more actively unlikable players, and a lot more generic unidentifiable players.

For the two teams I've backed the most, I find myself mostly hoping for the Braves (who I still haven't really forgiven for their treatment of John Rocker) to win because the postseason would be more interesting from closer perspective than from a distance, the Dodgers were a let down in a division that seemed very winnable. The Giants have replaced the Yankees as the team I despise the most and they sucked to an acceptable level this year, so there's nothing to really pull against with great passion. And most of the rest of the contenders have become generic enough to me that I'm mildly uncomfortable with the prospect of any of them winning but at the same time there's not a team in the picture that I'm enthusiastic about adopting for the post-season either.

So there's the off-field issues we started with, there's the on-field issues I just mentioned, and we haven't even touched on the steroid cloud that surrounds the game. No wonder I'm barely watching any more.

[lungs]

I'm not so sure that the Wild Card promotes mediocrity. A lot of times the Wild Card will have a better record than some mediocre division winner.

If anything, I'd make the Divisional Series a seven game affair. Of course that may necessitate cutting the schedule to 154 games. Too bad northern teams don't all have retractable roofs, and baseball could easily be played in November (not to mention all the friggin rainouts/snow outs in April).

[st.cronin]

The main problem, to me, is that major league baseball has become completely unwatchable, ESPECIALLY when you go to the park. The amount of time where the players just stand around drooling is mind-boggling. The game has been nudged into a home run derby/strike out marathon. Teams played vastly better team defense 20 years ago then they do today - its really embarrasing how bad even the best teams are with the glove today, but they don't get punished for it, because that part of the game doesn't matter anymore.

But, maybe this game is what people want. To me its barely even recognizable as baseball.

[Young Drachma]

I think baseball's biggest problem are its fans. They complain more about what's wrong with their sport than the fans of any other major sport. Hell, football gives awards to its steroid users. Baseball fans spend their days waxing poetic about how great the game "used to be".

[lungs]

I think baseball's biggest problem are its fans. They complain more about what's wrong with their sport than the fans of any other major sport. Hell, football gives awards to its steroid users. Baseball fans spend their days waxing poetic about how great the game "used to be".

No doubt. How about the people that complain about pitchers being babied these days? Yep, we should definitely go back to three man rotations and having guys throw complete games every game.

I also get perturbed at the people that complain that small market teams don't have a chance. Bullshit. I'm a Brewer fan so I should be among those that cry every year that their teams don't have a chance. But as the Brewers and other smaller market teams (A's, Twins) have shown that all it takes is a good scouting department and an intelligent front office that don't hand out overvalued contracts to guys because they are "gritty" and "clutch" or other stupid things like that.

Baseball has one of the best systems for small market teams to take advantage of when it comes to younger players. They are controlled by their team for six years of major league service time, with three of those years being absolutely dirt cheap.

The system is not the problem. Poor management is.

[Swaggs]

I really like the idea of adding to the 27-man roster (those that have played in OOTP leagues with me know that I am a big fan of it). I know everyone likes to talk about strategy and roster management and such, but these are supposed to be the best players in the world and I think more specialized players is a good thing.

I have also done a complete reversal over the past few years on the DH. I grew up a big National League fan and hated the DH, but, again, I want to see a great product if I am watching MLB and, to me, that doesn't include seeing pitchers hit. I much prefer seeing a great hitter at the plate, creating a great individual matchup between pitcher and hitter, rather than seeing a pitcher step up to the plate and weakly wave at three pitches. I also really like that it allows aging hitters to hang on and be productive for a few extra seasons.

[EagleFan]

What is the big interest in the DH? If you're on the field you should be in the lineup. Not some couch potato sitting around waiting for his turn at bat.

That would be like changing the NFL to have a DT (designated tackler). This player would run onto the field after the punter punts the ball to be available to tackle the returner since the punter is not a good tackler. Or maybe the NBA could have a DD (designated defensive player) thus allowing Iverson to wait on the offensive side of the court and the DD could play defense for him on that side of the court. (Or this could also be done in hockey but it could be called the Gretzky Rule)

[rkmsuf]

I think the DH is around because for the most part baseball is boring unless you are playing it.

[Young Drachma]

What is the big interest in the DH? If you're on the field you should be in the lineup. Not some couch potato sitting around waiting for his turn at bat.

That would be like changing the NFL to have a DT (designated tackler). This player would run onto the field after the punter punts the ball to be available to tackle the returner since the punter is not a good tackler. Or maybe the NBA could have a DD (designated defensive player) thus allowing Iverson to wait on the offensive side of the court and the DD could play defense for him on that side of the court. (Or this could also be done in hockey but it could be called the Gretzky Rule)

By your logic, that means that kickers should also play a position on the field. I mean, if they're football players, they're football players. None of this "roughing the kicker" bullshit. Man up, you're a football player! Besides, there isn't a DH in baseball who hasn't come up playing a different position. And the overwhelming majority don't WANT to play DH, they'd rather be on the field.

The DH is about specialization and it's not a creation of the 1970s, but something that was talked about in the 1930s, but just never got off the ground, because baseball is run by a bunch of staid losers who have no real concept of how to keep up with the times.

There isn't anything nostalgic about seeing a pitcher hit. And even on their best day, most managers would rather have a real hitter in the box rather than risking their pitcher in that manner.

[MikeVic]

What is the big interest in the DH? If you're on the field you should be in the lineup. Not some couch potato sitting around waiting for his turn at bat.

That would be like changing the NFL to have a DT (designated tackler). This player would run onto the field after the punter punts the ball to be available to tackle the returner since the punter is not a good tackler. Or maybe the NBA could have a DD (designated defensive player) thus allowing Iverson to wait on the offensive side of the court and the DD could play defense for him on that side of the court. (Or this could also be done in hockey but it could be called the Gretzky Rule)

IS THAT A CHEAP SHOT AGAINST THE GREAT ONE!?!?!

[Julio Riddols]

What I don't like about baseball is knowing that my team (Cincinnati) is very rarely able to hold onto good players if and when they get any, has a completely different roster from one year to the next, and will most likely never be a great team again with baseball the way it is. The last player I really liked and rooted for was Barry Larkin. Since then, I could give a shit for maybe one or two guys. However, by the time I start becoming interested in them it seems like they're gone, traded for minor leaguers I have never heard of.

The sport has changed a ton in my relatively short lifetime (26 years). I used to listen to the Reds on 700 WLW every night when I went to bed, and their wire-to-wire World Series run in 1990 was something I'll never forget. That was when players who hit 30 homers were serious power hitters. Now its almost common. That was when I had fun watching baseball, up until the strike that all but killed my interest to begin with. I even quit playing little league ball.

But now, with every passing year, the bigger market teams seem to get richer and richer, and put more and more distance (financially, if not talent-wise) between themselves and the also rans. The good players look for more and more money, leaving teams like Cincinnati to struggle for bargain basement retreads and develop minor league players who they can't hope to keep for more than a few years or so if those players get good. As the price of talent skyrockets, the value of the talent on the field seems to have decreased substantially.

[BrianD]

No doubt. How about the people that complain about pitchers being babied these days? Yep, we should definitely go back to three man rotations and having guys throw complete games every game.

I also get perturbed at the people that complain that small market teams don't have a chance. Bullshit. I'm a Brewer fan so I should be among those that cry every year that their teams don't have a chance. But as the Brewers and other smaller market teams (A's, Twins) have shown that all it takes is a good scouting department and an intelligent front office that don't hand out overvalued contracts to guys because they are "gritty" and "clutch" or other stupid things like that.

Baseball has one of the best systems for small market teams to take advantage of when it comes to younger players. They are controlled by their team for six years of major league service time, with three of those years being absolutely dirt cheap.

The system is not the problem. Poor management is.

There is a difference between good young players and quality veteran players. Every team can develop good young players, but only a few teams can combine them with quality veterans. That always gives an advantage to big market teams. It doesn't guarantee them a World Series title, but it gives them a big advantage.

[Swaggs]

Every team can develop good young players

I beg to differ.

--Signed,
the Pittsburgh Pirates

[Schmidty]

If you kill the wildcard, you will kill baseball.

--Signed,
The vast majority of baseball fans.

[lungs]

What I don't like about baseball is knowing that my team (Cincinnati) is very rarely able to hold onto good players if and when they get any, has a completely different roster from one year to the next, and will most likely never be a great team again with baseball the way it is. The last player I really liked and rooted for was Barry Larkin. Since then, I could give a shit for maybe one or two guys. However, by the time I start becoming interested in them it seems like they're gone, traded for minor leaguers I have never heard of.

The sport has changed a ton in my relatively short lifetime (26 years). I used to listen to the Reds on 700 WLW every night when I went to bed, and their wire-to-wire World Series run in 1990 was something I'll never forget. That was when players who hit 30 homers were serious power hitters. Now its almost common. That was when I had fun watching baseball, up until the strike that all but killed my interest to begin with. I even quit playing little league ball.

But now, with every passing year, the bigger market teams seem to get richer and richer, and put more and more distance (financially, if not talent-wise) between themselves and the also rans. The good players look for more and more money, leaving teams like Cincinnati to struggle for bargain basement retreads and develop minor league players who they can't hope to keep for more than a few years or so if those players get good. As the price of talent skyrockets, the value of the talent on the field seems to have decreased substantially.

I would hardly attribute the woes of the Reds to their status as a smaller market team. They have been one of the most dreadfully ran teams for years now. They managed to develop a really nice core of hitters earlier this decade. How did they complement this offensive team with pitching?

Their problem has been handing out big contracts (at the time) to guys like Eric Milton. They haven't developed any quality starting pitching from their own system. Getting Harang and Arroyo were nice pickups. Wayne Krivsky's background with the Twins tells me he should be able to develop a nice staff but at the same time he is doing his best to dismantle the decent offense the Reds have. If he chooses to decline Adam Dunn's option this offseason I am strongly convinced that the Reds will flounder in mediocrity for some time until they get some decent management.

This goes all the way back to Jim Bowden and his love for toolsy outfielders that can't hit.

[lungs]

There is a difference between good young players and quality veteran players. Every team can develop good young players, but only a few teams can combine them with quality veterans. That always gives an advantage to big market teams. It doesn't guarantee them a World Series title, but it gives them a big advantage.

That's not true at all. First, like somebody else pointed out, not every team can develop quality young players. But for those that can and do, supplementing the team with veterans needs to be done intelligently. Granted, you can't supplement your team with star veterans. Your stars need to be developed from within.

When you have a good core of pre-arbitration young players that usually make less than $1 million, that leaves a lot of flexibility payroll wise to add veterans to fill holes. Even when your young guys hit arbitration, they don't break the bank like they could if they were free agents.

Using the Brewers as an example, a few teams passed on Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun in their respective drafts. I believe Prince was drafted 8th and Braun 5th overall. I also remember some thinking that the Brewers may have reached for Braun as he was an afterthought to Ryan Zimmerman and Alex Gordon. Yovani Gallardo was a second round pick.

Good scouting and player development with youngsters along with intelligent decision making can certainly lead to success for a small market team. The success driven by the young players on the Brewers have caused them to already break the attendance record at 2.8 million. Approaching 3 million butts in the seats for a small market club like Milwaukee is pretty damn good if you ask me.

The problem is small market teams believing they are doomed to failure and playing the victim all the time. The Brewers suffered from this mentality all through the mid to late 90's (so they could get Miller Park built), but when they brought in management that refused to allow their status as a small market team bring them down, they began to make progress.

The only concession I'll make is that small market teams will have a hard problem keeping the stars that they develop. But what is stopping a team from churning out more stars from their minor league systems? Complacency.

[BrianD]

That's not true at all. First, like somebody else pointed out, not every team can develop quality young players. But for those that can and do, supplementing the team with veterans needs to be done intelligently. Granted, you can't supplement your team with star veterans. Your stars need to be developed from within.

When you have a good core of pre-arbitration young players that usually make less than $1 million, that leaves a lot of flexibility payroll wise to add veterans to fill holes. Even when your young guys hit arbitration, they don't break the bank like they could if they were free agents.

Using the Brewers as an example, a few teams passed on Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun in their respective drafts. I believe Prince was drafted 8th and Braun 5th overall. I also remember some thinking that the Brewers may have reached for Braun as he was an afterthought to Ryan Zimmerman and Alex Gordon. Yovani Gallardo was a second round pick.

Good scouting and player development with youngsters along with intelligent decision making can certainly lead to success for a small market team. The success driven by the young players on the Brewers have caused them to already break the attendance record at 2.8 million. Approaching 3 million butts in the seats for a small market club like Milwaukee is pretty damn good if you ask me.

The problem is small market teams believing they are doomed to failure and playing the victim all the time. The Brewers suffered from this mentality all through the mid to late 90's (so they could get Miller Park built), but when they brought in management that refused to allow their status as a small market team bring them down, they began to make progress.

The only concession I'll make is that small market teams will have a hard problem keeping the stars that they develop. But what is stopping a team from churning out more stars from their minor league systems? Complacency.

Every team can develop young players, but not every team does. Some teams have to emphasize the young players since they can't play in the veteran market. Other teams let the development slide since they can play in the veteran market. And naturally some teams are inept all around.

The Brewers have been doing very well with their young player development. The problem is that once the players develop, the Brewers can no longer afford them. They can develop all the future superstars they want, but the vast majority of players will leave before they become superstars. The Brewers can certainly be competitive, but they will always be at a disadvantage to teams that can afford to keep/buy stars. As it is, the Brewers are basically a Major League level farm team.

[lungs]

Every team can develop young players, but not every team does. Some teams have to emphasize the young players since they can't play in the veteran market. Other teams let the development slide since they can play in the veteran market. And naturally some teams are inept all around.

The Brewers have been doing very well with their young player development. The problem is that once the players develop, the Brewers can no longer afford them. They can develop all the future superstars they want, but the vast majority of players will leave before they become superstars. The Brewers can certainly be competitive, but they will always be at a disadvantage to teams that can afford to keep/buy stars. As it is, the Brewers are basically a Major League level farm team.

I think it is safe to say that Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun would both qualify as superstars, whether they are recognized nationally or not. Braun will be under contract for at least five more years. Fielder will be under contract for four more years. Same with Weeks. Hardy has three years of arbitration left. Gallardo has at least five more years under contract.

If it takes a superstar the six years of service time that it requires to become a free agent to become a superstar, they probably aren't a superstar in the first place.

But the problem of your homegrown guys leaving is alleviated by developing more younger players and/or acquiring young prospects when the contracts of the current superstars are about to expire.

This system isn't good for fans that want a player to stay on a team until he retires. Personally, I don't care as I'm more concerned about the team. If it requires recycling of core players every six years or so, then so be it.

[lungs]

Not to mention Corey Hart, how also has four more years under contract, I believe.

[Atocep]

I think it is safe to say that Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun would both qualify as superstars, whether they are recognized nationally or not. Braun will be under contract for at least five more years. Fielder will be under contract for four more years. Same with Weeks. Hardy has three years of arbitration left. Gallardo has at least five more years under contract.

If it takes a superstar the six years of service time that it requires to become a free agent to become a superstar, they probably aren't a superstar in the first place.

But the problem of your homegrown guys leaving is alleviated by developing more younger players and/or acquiring young prospects when the contracts of the current superstars are about to expire.

This system isn't good for fans that want a player to stay on a team until he retires. Personally, I don't care as I'm more concerned about the team. If it requires recycling of core players every six years or so, then so be it.

The problem right now is large market teams are just recently realizing the benefits of using their financial advantages in the draft and in the foreign markets. The Mets (and I'm a mets fan) have simply been thowing money at the top foreign prospects to get them to sign and the Yankees have started doing that of late as well.

The Tigers are a great example of what spending can get you in the draft. The Yankees have caught on there, also, and were prepared to draft Porcello this year and spend whatever it took to get him signed.

Yes, great scouting and actualling putting money into scouting and a team's farm system is a way for the smaller market teams to remain competitive. However, even the best scouting can have mutliple seasons where you miss because of the nature of baseball prospects.

People love to point to the Twins as a great example of what scouting can do, but if they didn't play in the AL central they would have been a mediocre team the past several years. Does anyone think there's a season they make the playoffs if they played in the AL East.

The point here is competetive advantage and the gap is widening due to the foreign market and teams using their finances to circumvent the point of having an ameteur draft.

[lungs]

The problem right now is large market teams are just recently realizing the benefits of using their financial advantages in the draft and in the foreign markets. The Mets (and I'm a mets fan) have simply been thowing money at the top foreign prospects to get them to sign and the Yankees have started doing that of late as well.

The Tigers are a great example of what spending can get you in the draft. The Yankees have caught on there, also, and were prepared to draft Porcello this year and spend whatever it took to get him signed.

Yes, great scouting and actualling putting money into scouting and a team's farm system is a way for the smaller market teams to remain competitive. However, even the best scouting can have mutliple seasons where you miss because of the nature of baseball prospects.

People love to point to the Twins as a great example of what scouting can do, but if they didn't play in the AL central they would have been a mediocre team the past several years. Does anyone think there's a season they make the playoffs if they played in the AL East.

The point here is competetive advantage and the gap is widening due to the foreign market and teams using their finances to circumvent the point of having an ameteur draft.

Any small market team that goes the cheap way in the draft is shooting itself in the foot. Plenty of talent can be had in the later rounds by offering more money to a talented player that is strongly considering college.

The same team that doesn't want to spend an extra $500,000 on a signing bonus is more than likely the same team that is paying Jeromy Burnitz $6 million a year so he can lead them to that 70th win.

[BrianD]

I think it is safe to say that Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun would both qualify as superstars, whether they are recognized nationally or not. Braun will be under contract for at least five more years. Fielder will be under contract for four more years. Same with Weeks. Hardy has three years of arbitration left. Gallardo has at least five more years under contract.

If it takes a superstar the six years of service time that it requires to become a free agent to become a superstar, they probably aren't a superstar in the first place.

But the problem of your homegrown guys leaving is alleviated by developing more younger players and/or acquiring young prospects when the contracts of the current superstars are about to expire.

This system isn't good for fans that want a player to stay on a team until he retires. Personally, I don't care as I'm more concerned about the team. If it requires recycling of core players every six years or so, then so be it.

The Brewers have some very good players on their team. They have done very well with their drafting and development lately. But the simple truth is that they won't be able to keep any good players beyond those six years. They also won't be able to pick up any really good free agents. Do you expect any of the current crop of good players to have peaked by the time they leave? Is there not an advantage to having experienced post-season players on the team? The Brewers are doing well in an uneven playing field, but they still can't compete with the big teams. Money doesn't automatically mean success, but money with good management sure beats no money with good management.

[Young Drachma]

So do folks want a salary cap or other artificial means to allow small market teams to compete? What's the "solution" to a team like the Brewers who have done stuff "the right way" only to have to start over in a half decade?

[BrianD]

I'd be in favor of a salary cap and a revenue sharing deal similar to the NFL. This isn't just to help the Brewers, but it should level the playing field all over the league. We've seen in the NFL that it helps parity while still giving an advantage to teams to can find good deals and coach properly.

[Atocep]

Any small market team that goes the cheap way in the draft is shooting itself in the foot. Plenty of talent can be had in the later rounds by offering more money to a talented player that is strongly considering college.

The same team that doesn't want to spend an extra $500,000 on a signing bonus is more than likely the same team that is paying Jeromy Burnitz $6 million a year so he can lead them to that 70th win.


So your solution is throwing money at high school kids in the lower rounds? Giving large amounts of money to the players that have the least likely chance of panning out?

Why has no one actually tried this? Brilliant!

[lungs]

So your solution is throwing money at high school kids in the lower rounds? Giving large amounts of money to the players that have the least likely chance of panning out?

Why has no one actually tried this? Brilliant!

Umm, actually plenty of teams have done this. Guys with commitments to colleges fall in the draft for obvious reasons. Those commitments can, and have been bought out by major league teams. The old draft and follow basically is this same concept except the kids have a season of junior college under their belt.

And I'm not talking about giving gigantic signing bonuses to these late round guys. Take a player with a strong college commitment in the 25th round or so and offer him 3rd round money, which doesn't really break the bank.

I forgot to add this concept could be used for college underclassmen eligible for the draft

Saying that nobody has tried this is being ignorant of how the draft actually works.

[MylesKnight]

An example of what is arguably problemo numero uno.

The New York Yankees signed Roger Clemens in May to a $28,000,022 deal to pitch the rest of the season for the team.

Per the article below, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays TEAM payroll this season sits somewhere between $24 and $25 Million.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/09/Rays/Payroll_will_rise_que.shtml

[Qwikshot]

Hey if you want to eliminate the DH, which I understand, why not just eliminate the pitcher as a hitter as well? You speed up the game. I know that some pitchers aren't easy outs, but they're really useless generally as hitters (bunt, swing away, etc). You reduce injuries that can occur to the pitcher as a hitter.

But they'll never eliminate the DH, union won't allow for jobs to be lost.

[lungs]

The Brewers have some very good players on their team. They have done very well with their drafting and development lately. But the simple truth is that they won't be able to keep any good players beyond those six years. They also won't be able to pick up any really good free agents. Do you expect any of the current crop of good players to have peaked by the time they leave? Is there not an advantage to having experienced post-season players on the team? The Brewers are doing well in an uneven playing field, but they still can't compete with the big teams. Money doesn't automatically mean success, but money with good management sure beats no money with good management.

I wouldn't say that the Brewers have no chance of resigning any of their young stars when free agency comes around. Before Ben Sheets became the injury prone enigma, he was actually one of the best pitchers in the majors for a year and the Brewers managed to sign him to an extension.


A guy like Fielder probably will walk after his service time is up. He is a DH in waiting anyway so there's no way he'll be with the Brewers his whole career.

And who is to say that having a good young core of players that win won't bring more money for the team to spend? I like to use the Cleveland Indians organization as a whole for an example. The Indians were perenially one of the worst franchises in baseball until they developed that nice young core of players in the 90's. They didn't win any World Series during that time but they really turned that franchise around as a whole.

Eventually that core of players got too expensive and instead of kidding themselves into patching holes up with veterans, they tore things down and had a few down years before coming back strong.

I'll put it this way. The current system won't allow for a small market team to be a perennial contender every single year like the Yankees and that. I do feel there isn't a whole lot teams like Tampa and Toronto can do in the AL East (Baltimore intentionally left off).

But the rest of the league goes in cycles and it's perfectly plausible for a well ran small market team to have a 5-8 year success cycle. Getting to the playoffs is most of the battle as anything can happen in a short series, as the Cardinals proved last year.

I just don't get people that act like small market teams have no chance to compete because that is blatantly untrue. Over the long haul, no they can't compete on a consistent basis but you have to play with the cards you are dealt with instead of crying because life ain't fair.

The NFL system would never work with MLB anyway. Nor would I want it to.

[BrianD]

I just don't get people that act like small market teams have no chance to compete because that is blatantly untrue. Over the long haul, no they can't compete on a consistent basis but you have to play with the cards you are dealt with instead of crying because life ain't fair.

The don't have no chance, but they are at a severe disadvantage and I don't think you can argue that. You can try, but it will just result in a lot of laughing.

I'll give you a hint, baseball ain't life. If you want to improve baseball, give teams equal opportunities. You may lose some fans in New York and Boston but you would gain a bunch in the rest of the baseball cities. Right now baseball is fairly predictable. Level the playing field and and it will become a lot more competitive and a lot more exciting. If the NFL and NBA can make it work, the MLB can too.

[Young Drachma]

I wonder what a salary cap in MLB would look like. I mean, it's just too complicated with the minor league situation, with call ups and all of that. It just seems to me that it might be weird. A salary floor would be a good start, better revenue sharing and I dunno what else. But on some level, from a media money perspective, it's very important to have big city teams dominating or at least, competitive all of the time. Especially from New York.

Ask MLS.

[Young Drachma]

Because I think part of the added lack of relevance of the game there is the fact that the Red Bulls (nee Metrostars) are awful. And the league has tried to rig it, but can't and so, I won't say that if the New York or LA Galaxy were the two dominant teams that the league would beat out hockey for #4, but...I do think you have to be able to have a base somewhere before you can branch out. For baseball, it's big cities. For hockey, it's Canada and for NASCAR, it's the south. If your base doesn't pay attention, few people anywhere else will either.

[Atocep]

Umm, actually plenty of teams have done this. Guys with commitments to colleges fall in the draft for obvious reasons. Those commitments can, and have been bought out by major league teams. The old draft and follow basically is this same concept except the kids have a season of junior college under their belt.

And I'm not talking about giving gigantic signing bonuses to these late round guys. Take a player with a strong college commitment in the 25th round or so and offer him 3rd round money, which doesn't really break the bank.

I forgot to add this concept could be used for college underclassmen eligible for the draft

Saying that nobody has tried this is being ignorant of how the draft actually works.

Unfortunately there is no more draft and follow.

If you couldn't see the sarcasm in my post, then I'm sorry, but I can say with a good amount of confidence that I have a solid understanding of how the draft works.

The point is the MLB draft does not give teams with the worst record an advantage, which is the entire reason of holding an ameteur draft. The teams with the most money have a greater chance of getting the best players. Forcing small market clubs to spend over draft position in hopes of luring a player away from college is about as big of a risk that you can take in the draft. High school players have an incredibly small chance of panning out and all it takes is a couple misses and you've wasted more money than you can afford to.

Real life is not a text sim. You can't just dump money into scouting and the draft and quick sim through 4 shitty seasons to see to see if your guys develop. Small market teams have to give fans a reason to come to the ballpark right now while working on the future of the team. Kansas City is a great example right now, they were ripped for overspending on Gil Meche but they have to show fans they are commited to improving the team right now. Seattle was questioned for putting Vidro out there instead of going with a replacement level minor leaguer that would be a cheaper option. However, fans see a name the recognize and feel the team is at least trying to win.

You can't ignore your fanbase, especially as a small market team.

[BrianD]

Baseball doesn't really need to establish a base before they can branch out. They have existed longer than anyone else. The MLS still needs to worry about staying solvent. I also believe that other baseball cities will pay more attention when the local teams have a better chance of competing. Twins fans showed up when they had a good team, and so are Brewer fans. Give teams an equal chance to compete and you will develop more than just fair-weather fans.

[Atocep]

So do folks want a salary cap or other artificial means to allow small market teams to compete? What's the "solution" to a team like the Brewers who have done stuff "the right way" only to have to start over in a half decade?


*Increased revenue sharing, although not 50/50.

*Force teams that receive revenue sharing to report how that money was spent.

*Enforce a minimum payroll.

*Foreign players have to go through the draft.

*Allow draft picks to be traded.

*Allow players to be sold for cash.

[Young Drachma]

I'm gonna try that increased revenue sharing for tickets in OOTP and see what it does for my teams. I know the foreign players through the draft would be huge, as would getting rid of the posting system for Japanese players.

[lungs]

Unfortunately there is no more draft and follow.

If you couldn't see the sarcasm in my post, then I'm sorry, but I can say with a good amount of confidence that I have a solid understanding of how the draft works.

The point is the MLB draft does not give teams with the worst record an advantage, which is the entire reason of holding an ameteur draft. The teams with the most money have a greater chance of getting the best players. Forcing small market clubs to spend over draft position in hopes of luring a player away from college is about as big of a risk that you can take in the draft. High school players have an incredibly small chance of panning out and all it takes is a couple misses and you've wasted more money than you can afford to.

Real life is not a text sim. You can't just dump money into scouting and the draft and quick sim through 4 shitty seasons to see to see if your guys develop. Small market teams have to give fans a reason to come to the ballpark right now while working on the future of the team. Kansas City is a great example right now, they were ripped for overspending on Gil Meche but they have to show fans they are commited to improving the team right now. Seattle was questioned for putting Vidro out there instead of going with a replacement level minor leaguer that would be a cheaper option. However, fans see a name the recognize and feel the team is at least trying to win.

You can't ignore your fanbase, especially as a small market team.


I think your two points tie into each other. On one hand you are applauding teams for overspending for guys that will deliver that 70th win as opposed to 65 wins to show that the team is at least trying to win. To me, spending boatloads of money to be crappy instead of shitty is a poor use of resources. Even if you go over slot in some of the later rounds on say, eight guys, and only one of them succeeds, you are still not coming close to what you paid for some veteran that will never be a part of your successful team.

Bringing guys on your team because they have a 'name' only gives fans a false sense of hope. How many years have teams like the Royals and Pirates brought in these veteran type guys and called them the savior to all their woes only to go on and win maybe 75 games at most.

Fans are a fickle bunch. They may not be happy they haven't heard of half the team but there is so much free talent out there that isn't exploited because teams have feel they have an obligation to put up a front that they are trying to win when they are really only hurting themselves in the long run.

Now I'm not saying small market teams should never bring in veteran stopgaps. On the contrary, in fact. But timing is key when an organization starts doing that. What is the sense in bringing a $6 million outfielder on the team when the team is going to lose 90 games anyway and could seemingly be taking a look at some of their own younger players? Unless the said outfielder can be spun for some prospects, it seems like a pointless cause.

[lungs]

*Increased revenue sharing, although not 50/50.

*Force teams that receive revenue sharing to report how that money was spent.

*Enforce a minimum payroll.

*Foreign players have to go through the draft.

*Allow draft picks to be traded.

*Allow players to be sold for cash.

These are all reasonable alternatives to employing a hard salary cap.

[Young Drachma]

I think your two points tie into each other. On one hand you are applauding teams for overspending for guys that will deliver that 70th win as opposed to 65 wins to show that the team is at least trying to win. To me, spending boatloads of money to be crappy instead of shitty is a poor use of resources. Even if you go over slot in some of the later rounds on say, eight guys, and only one of them succeeds, you are still not coming close to what you paid for some veteran that will never be a part of your successful team.

Bringing guys on your team because they have a 'name' only gives fans a false sense of hope. How many years have teams like the Royals and Pirates brought in these veteran type guys and called them the savior to all their woes only to go on and win maybe 75 games at most.

Fans are a fickle bunch. They may not be happy they haven't heard of half the team but there is so much free talent out there that isn't exploited because teams have feel they have an obligation to put up a front that they are trying to win when they are really only hurting themselves in the long run.

Now I'm not saying small market teams should never bring in veteran stopgaps. On the contrary, in fact. But timing is key when an organization starts doing that. What is the sense in bringing a $6 million outfielder on the team when the team is going to lose 90 games anyway and could seemingly be taking a look at some of their own younger players? Unless the said outfielder can be spun for some prospects, it seems like a pointless cause.

I think the way the Colorado Rockies developed after their whole spending spree a few years back, make me think that fans will be tolerant and that you can convince them to come to games and that you'll play and fight hard each game. And if you keep those core group of kids, the names become familiar to them and before you know it, if they produce and pan out...they become recognizable.

So it's doable. But it's got to be done right and you need someone who is willing to employ the plan from start to finish.

[sterlingice]

Any small market team that goes the cheap way in the draft is shooting itself in the foot. Plenty of talent can be had in the later rounds by offering more money to a talented player that is strongly considering college.

The same team that doesn't want to spend an extra $500,000 on a signing bonus is more than likely the same team that is paying Jeromy Burnitz $6 million a year so he can lead them to that 70th win.

I must have missed the part of the draft where Porcello went for an extra 500K this year.

SI

[sterlingice]

The only concession I'll make is that small market teams will have a hard problem keeping the stars that they develop. But what is stopping a team from churning out more stars from their minor league systems? Complacency.

Because it's just that easy. Any team out there could just start churning out star after star if it wanted. Why didn't GMs think of that sooner? Oh, that's right, they don't want to win.

SI

[sterlingice]

Hey if you want to eliminate the DH, which I understand, why not just eliminate the pitcher as a hitter as well? You speed up the game. I know that some pitchers aren't easy outs, but they're really useless generally as hitters (bunt, swing away, etc). You reduce injuries that can occur to the pitcher as a hitter.

But they'll never eliminate the DH, union won't allow for jobs to be lost.

Hm... silly as it sounds, had never thought of this. Not a half bad idea, actually. Something to ponder further.

SI

[lungs]

I must have missed the part of the draft where Porcello went for an extra 500K this year.

SI

Porcello is a pretty extreme example, but even so, the Tigers gave him $7.7 million. How much did Eric Milton make this year? Damn near $10 million.

Teams continue to spend money on crap like Eric Milton when they can get crap for the league minimum. The same teams that fail to develop anybody are the same teams that continue to spend money on useless garbage. Then they'll go out and be cheap with the draft complaining that they can't afford the lucrative signing bonuses.

While the $7.7 million investment on Porcello could very well end up as a sunk cost, it could just as well end up being three years of a cheap superstar and three decently priced years when he hits arbitration.

I really don't think the problem with teams is that they don't have money. It's how they spend it.

Because it's just that easy. Any team out there could just start churning out star after star if it wanted. Why didn't GMs think of that sooner? Oh, that's right, they don't want to win.

If a team fails to develop its own players, then perhaps the organization should look at itself and its failings. There may be some lulls and bad luck with prospects that cause some down years, but there is no reason a well run organization can't be perenially competitive regardless of market size.

[Crapshoot]

I must have missed the part of the draft where Porcello went for an extra 500K this year.

SI

You're right - the Royals are much better of for having paid Sweeney 11 mil this year (turned down an opp to trade him last year, if I recall), Jason La Rue $ 3 -5 million (unclear what Cin is paying), Emil Brown $3.5 million, and John Bale $1.8 million.

In fact, ask yourself this - would any team in baseball trade Rick Porcello away for Jason La Rue and Emil Brown? Anyone? If not, then why on earth isn't allocating the money to Porcello a better deal?

[sterlingice]

You're right - the Royals are much better of for having paid Sweeney 11 mil this year (turned down an opp to trade him last year, if I recall), Jason La Rue $ 3 -5 million (unclear what Cin is paying), Emil Brown $3.5 million, and John Bale $1.8 million.

In fact, ask yourself this - would any team in baseball trade Rick Porcello away for Jason La Rue and Emil Brown? Anyone? If not, then why on earth isn't allocating the money to Porcello a better deal?

I remember seeing this exact same debate with the exact same person last month and it went unanswered then...
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1526067&postcount=1610

No one was trading anything for Mike Sweeney unless the Royals pretty much ate the entirety of his contract. So instead, they held onto him, hoped he didn't get too hurt (a longshot to be sure), and then spin him for something at the deadline- didn't happen but a better calculated risk than "ship him for a B-grade prospect and eat $11M" would be "hope he miraculously stays healthy, eat some of his contract, and get a good prospect from a contender who is desperate".

I do love the continued cherry picking, tho. "If all of your bad moves were traded for perfect moves, then you'd have a good team." Not only that but I don't see any team lining up to trade Porcello for Jason LaRue and Emil Brown. How about Porcello for Mike Moustakas and $3M to spend in Latin America? The Royals decided on the latter.

I can play the aforementioned game, too. I'd rather have Alex Gordon + Joakim Soria + Zack Greinke + Mark Teahen + John Buck + David DeJesus + Mike Moustakas than Rick Porcello. Or how about Dan Uggla + Josh Willingham + Hanley Ramirez for Alex Cora? Jeff Francis + Brad Hawpe + Garrett Atkins + Troy Tulowitzki for Endy Chavez? Hell, an All Star team for Jason Giambi + Roger Clemens?

Again, these moves don't exist in a vacuum. You can't just win with an all young team. How's Florida doing this season? But, again, we've been down this road before.

SI

[SuperGrover]

Baseball is broken, and the television ratings are proof.

You aren't going to change it unless you fundamentally change the sport. I don't know anyone who is a casual fan and enjoys watching baseball on television. As such, baseball is driven by stadium revenue which is why complete revenue sharing will never work.

[Young Drachma]

hmm...

[EagleFan]

hmm...

Damn you, bring an old thread back to life and get my hopes up (before seeing it was an old thread)...

[BishopMVP]

The point is the MLB draft does not give teams with the worst record an advantage, which is the entire reason of holding an ameteur draft. The teams with the most money have a greater chance of getting the best players.I realize it's unfair to quote people after thread necromancy of over a year, but can we please put this canard to rest? I can think of 2 recent examples - Rick Porcello and Lars Anderson. I will cede Porcello, but Anderson signed for late-1st round money and fell more because teams perceived he would go to college than any monetary demands.

BA's current AL top 10 (with draft position added by me)
1. David Price, lhp, Rays (1.1 TB)
What he showed us in the postseason was just the beginning.
2. Matt Wieters, c, Orioles (1.5 BAL)
He could be Mark Teixeira—as a catcher.
3. Brett Anderson, lhp, Athletics (2.55 by AZ. Was ranked their 22nd best prospect after 1st season)
The best player Oakland got in the package for Dan Haren.
4. Trevor Cahill, rhp, Athletics (2.66 by OAK)
It will be fun to watch his friendly rivalry with Anderson.
5. Neftali Feliz, rhp, Rangers (IFA ATL)
Just one reason the Braves wish they could undo their Teixeira trade.
6. Tim Beckham, ss, Rays (1.1 TB)
Yet another multitalented star-in-the-making for Tampa Bay.
7. Eric Hosmer, 1b, Royals (1.4 KC)
He could be the best of all the special hitters K.C. has drafted recently.
8. Lars Anderson, 1b, Red Sox (17th round - Bos)
Even if Boston signs Teixeira, it will find room for Anderson in 2010.
9. Travis Snider, of, Blue Jays (1.14 Toronto)
Of these 10 guys, he might make the biggest 2009 impact in the majors.
10. Mike Moustakas, 3b, Royals (1.2 KC)
In a few years, he and Hosmer could combine for 70 homers annually.The 3 teams that spent over $10 million in the draft this year - Boston, KC and Pittsburgh. The Yankees didn't sign their 1st or 2nd round picks.


The Rockies made it to the WS last season led by Troy Tulowitzki who they drafted 7th overall, the Brewers made it to the playoffs led by players like Ryan Braun (1.5) and CC Sabathia (acquired with Matt LaPorta - 1.7 - who turned down Boston when they drafted him previously), the Phillies won the WS with Chase Utley (1.15) Jimmy Rollins (2nd rd) and Ryan Howard (5th rd) leading the way. The Rays meanwhile were possibly the best team in baseball (and still had a top 3 farm system) with the 2nd lowest payroll because of so many consecutive top 5 draft picks like Longoria, Price and Beckham, not to mention Josh Hamilton who unfortunately (or fortunately from a Bos/NY/Tor perspective) did not work out for them.


On the larger topic, there are basically 4 tiers in MLB when it comes to revenue, although where exactly the line is drawn between 2/3/4 is debatable. Tier 1 is the Yankees - they spend $70m more a year than any other team and make at least as much more. Tier 2 is Boston/NYM/the LA's/the Chicago teams/possibly Seattle/Philly - all teams that with competent managing should be in contention 8 years out of 10. Tier 3 is the Baltimore's/Cleveland's/San Francisco's that with better management could restore the fan base and jump up into Tier 2, lock up a core group of players and be competitive year after year (my personal example - early 1990's when I was 8 and living in Maryland I had both Orioles and Red Sox hats - both were about equally competitive, on the field and off. We moved up here, and thank god I picked the Red Sox of the two because they have zoomed past the Orioles, to the point they are hated and lumped in with NYY during these debates, almost exclusively due to good management. Which, competing against Peter Angelos, I would hope we could muster up.) Tier 4 is really 5-6 teams - Florida, Oakland, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, SI's Royals and possibly TB (we'll see how the market reacts the next couple years) that simply "don't have the resources to compete and won't." Except they do - well at least Minnesota in the generally weak AL central, Oakland in the tougher AL west or TB this past year against arguably the two behemoths people point to. Meanwhile Florida has 2 of the last 12 WS titles and the Marlins, while ridiculously cutting costs to the point they're spending less on payroll than they make in revenue sharing, have gone 490-482 since 2003 while the New York Mets have gone 494-478.


I am in favor of somewhat greater revenue sharing, especially because IIRC certain things like local TV contracts weren't included, but by no means do I want to go 50/50 or anywhere near the NFL model of basically socialism when the problem is one team at the high end (that hasn't won a WS in 8 years and was the 4th best team in its own division last season) and a few at most at the other - magnified because a couple are/were horribly mismanaged. If you want to take ideas from the NFL, look at the front office/coaching turnover after a bad year (not strictly applicable due to the comparitive lack of turnover in MLB rosters, but come on - it's as if William Clay Ford is owning some of these teams and Matt Millen is the GM) or better yet, eliminate guaranteed contracts*. That would be worth shutting down baseball for a year or two rather than doing it for a salary cap. It makes absolutely no sense to disincentive teams from doing well for themselves and attracting new fans by pooling revenues together. At the same time, owners need to stop bitching - Milwaukee's owner is crying because he didn't want to offer what, $3-4m more per year to CC Sabathia? Even John Henry whined to the media because the Yankees outbid the Red Sox by 1.25m/y on Teixiera. They're making well more than that each season - even the Carl Pohlad's who tried to shortchange MIN's FO by only letting them spend 500k a draft pick - and it really gets embarassing at a certain point.


To somewhat complete the circle of a much longer than intended post for those who are still reading, it's ludicrous at this point to say the MLB draft does not allocate the top talent toward the highest picks. Maybe a Porcello appears every year, but still 9 of the top 10 projected talents go top 10. (And if you want a bigger complaint about the draft - the Yankees sign 3 of the top 5 Type A FA's, yet they still get 1st and 2nd round picks - that system clearly does need tweaking.)



*Don't give me shit about pitchers blowing out their arms - football players in general and especially RB's are at least as, if not more injury prone.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I'd say "JG for Commish," but what would that mean for his developing games?

[molson]

I realize it's unfair to quote people after thread necromancy of over a year, but can we please put this canard to rest? I can think of 2 recent examples - Rick Porcello and Lars Anderson. I will cede Porcello, but Anderson signed for late-1st round money and fell more because teams perceived he would go to college than any monetary demands.

BA's current AL top 10 (with draft position added by me)
The 3 teams that spent over $10 million in the draft this year - Boston, KC and Pittsburgh. The Yankees didn't sign their 1st or 2nd round picks.


The Rockies made it to the WS last season led by Troy Tulowitzki who they drafted 7th overall, the Brewers made it to the playoffs led by players like Ryan Braun (1.5) and CC Sabathia (acquired with Matt LaPorta - 1.7 - who turned down Boston when they drafted him previously), the Phillies won the WS with Chase Utley (1.15) Jimmy Rollins (2nd rd) and Ryan Howard (5th rd) leading the way. The Rays meanwhile were possibly the best team in baseball (and still had a top 3 farm system) with the 2nd lowest payroll because of so many consecutive top 5 draft picks like Longoria, Price and Beckham, not to mention Josh Hamilton who unfortunately (or fortunately from a Bos/NY/Tor perspective) did not work out for them.


On the larger topic, there are basically 4 tiers in MLB when it comes to revenue, although where exactly the line is drawn between 2/3/4 is debatable. Tier 1 is the Yankees - they spend $70m more a year than any other team and make at least as much more. Tier 2 is Boston/NYM/the LA's/the Chicago teams/possibly Seattle/Philly - all teams that with competent managing should be in contention 8 years out of 10. Tier 3 is the Baltimore's/Cleveland's/San Francisco's that with better management could restore the fan base and jump up into Tier 2, lock up a core group of players and be competitive year after year (my personal example - early 1990's when I was 8 and living in Maryland I had both Orioles and Red Sox hats - both were about equally competitive, on the field and off. We moved up here, and thank god I picked the Red Sox of the two because they have zoomed past the Orioles, to the point they are hated and lumped in with NYY during these debates, almost exclusively due to good management. Which, competing against Peter Angelos, I would hope we could muster up.) Tier 4 is really 5-6 teams - Florida, Oakland, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, SI's Royals and possibly TB (we'll see how the market reacts the next couple years) that simply "don't have the resources to compete and won't." Except they do - well at least Minnesota in the generally weak AL central, Oakland in the tougher AL west or TB this past year against arguably the two behemoths people point to. Meanwhile Florida has 2 of the last 12 WS titles and the Marlins, while ridiculously cutting costs to the point they're spending less on payroll than they make in revenue sharing, have gone 490-482 since 2003 while the New York Mets have gone 494-478.


I am in favor of somewhat greater revenue sharing, especially because IIRC certain things like local TV contracts weren't included, but by no means do I want to go 50/50 or anywhere near the NFL model of basically socialism when the problem is one team at the high end (that hasn't won a WS in 8 years and was the 4th best team in its own division last season) and a few at most at the other - magnified because a couple are/were horribly mismanaged. If you want to take ideas from the NFL, look at the front office/coaching turnover after a bad year (not strictly applicable due to the comparitive lack of turnover in MLB rosters, but come on - it's as if William Clay Ford is owning some of these teams and Matt Millen is the GM) or better yet, eliminate guaranteed contracts*. That would be worth shutting down baseball for a year or two rather than doing it for a salary cap. It makes absolutely no sense to disincentive teams from doing well for themselves and attracting new fans by pooling revenues together. At the same time, owners need to stop bitching - Milwaukee's owner is crying because he didn't want to offer what, $3-4m more per year to CC Sabathia? Even John Henry whined to the media because the Yankees outbid the Red Sox by 1.25m/y on Teixiera. They're making well more than that each season - even the Carl Pohlad's who tried to shortchange MIN's FO by only letting them spend 500k a draft pick - and it really gets embarassing at a certain point.


To somewhat complete the circle of a much longer than intended post for those who are still reading, it's ludicrous at this point to say the MLB draft does not allocate the top talent toward the highest picks. Maybe a Porcello appears every year, but still 9 of the top 10 projected talents go top 10. (And if you want a bigger complaint about the draft - the Yankees sign 3 of the top 5 Type A FA's, yet they still get 1st and 2nd round picks - that system clearly does need tweaking.)

*Don't give me shit about pitchers blowing out their arms - football players in general and especially RB's are at least as, if not more injury prone.

A lot of good ideas there.

There's definitely some sentiment that fans wouldn't mind the owners locking out the players for YEARS to get some of this stuff done. But MLB is so healthy financially - record attendance and revenues every year. So it makes zero sense for the MLB owners to take all that money out of their own pockets. They'd love more player cost-control, like any professional sports owner would (nothwithstanding the conspiracy theorists here), but shutting down the game for it doesn't make fiscal sense.

Real change like that will only come when the MLB actually suffers financially, and fans turn away. But I don't think that's likely to happen, because the MLB and the players, very cleverly, are moving SLOWLY towards more and more revenue sharing/luxury tax/draft compensation/Type A Free agent caps/etc....As long as they keep moving in that direction, it will never be as "bad" as it used to be, and the fans won't turn away.

[Chief Rum]

(And if you want a bigger complaint about the draft - the Yankees sign 3 of the top 5 Type A FA's, yet they still get 1st and 2nd round picks - that system clearly does need tweaking.)

Are you talking about the one the Yanks get back in the first for not signing last year's first rounder? That's just the way that works, every team has that.

As for their regular picks, they do not have those. The Angels now have their #1, and the Brewers have their #2, and the Bluejays have their #3.

[Atocep]

I realize it's unfair to quote people after thread necromancy of over a year, but can we please put this canard to rest? I can think of 2 recent examples - Rick Porcello and Lars Anderson. I will cede Porcello, but Anderson signed for late-1st round money and fell more because teams perceived he would go to college than any monetary demands.

To somewhat complete the circle of a much longer than intended post for those who are still reading, it's ludicrous at this point to say the MLB draft does not allocate the top talent toward the highest picks. Maybe a Porcello appears every year, but still 9 of the top 10 projected talents go top 10. (And if you want a bigger complaint about the draft - the Yankees sign 3 of the top 5 Type A FA's, yet they still get 1st and 2nd round picks - that system clearly does need tweaking.)


Matt Bush was drafted because he was affordable, not the top talent in the draft. Jared Weaver fell to 12th the same year because of his contract demands. Bryan Bullington was drafted over BJ Upton because of his contract demands. Adrian Gonzalez taken '01, once again, because he was affordable. You can go all the way back to '92 when the Expos were picking 3rd and wanted Derek Jeter badly, but couldn't afford what he was asking for and instead they took a guy named B.J. Wallace and Jeter falls to 6th where the Yankees took him.

You can't just look at guys that fall to the bottom half of the draft. Every year there's a guy that drops 3-4 slots simply because he's asking for top pick overall type money. It makes zero sense to hold an amateur draft and have contract demands trumping talent.

There's a simple fix that solves the problem in most instances; allow teams to trade draft picks. The reason it isn't allowed is so archaic and outdated its a joke.

[ISiddiqui]

better yet, eliminate guaranteed contracts*. That would be worth shutting down baseball for a year or two rather than doing it for a salary cap.

Disagree entirely. In fact, I hate the fact that in the NFL, people yell at players to "honor their contracts" (and not hold out) while NFL teams are under no obligation to do so (and can cast out players whenever they want). Contracts should go both ways. I realize it is far more difficult in the NFL (due to how some positions get used out so quickly), but it should continue to be done in MLB.

Not for a salary cap either. But better revenue sharing would be high on my list. But I agree with molson, it appears MLB is moving slowly towards equality towards that. I just wish it was quicker, with international drafts (instead of sign whoever you can) and a bit smarter (everyone sharing some ticket sales and TV money instead of 'luxury taxes')

[tarcone]

Raising the mound back to the 1968 height would speed the game up. Then I would be in favor of the DH in both leagues. As is, eliminate the DH.

The big thing I agree with is not allowing batters to leave the box and giving the pitchers a time limit. There is no reason, but exposure, to leave the box. Players cant do it in HS, so they learned it later in life.

[JPhillips]

The bigger problem with the draft is that it only applies to NA players. It's like an NFL draft where the SEC was excluded. If Asian and Latin players were included in the draft it would make a huge difference.

[sterlingice]

Slotted rookie salaries, world draft, and draft pick trading would make things better. And it's not as if the union wouldn't sell out rookies in the heartbeat, given the opportunity.

SI