https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/11/10/mlb-scott-boras-gm-meetings/
 

lol you would make this thread JUST AFTER I put a post about Boras in another thread cuz I wasn't sure where else to put it.

SIAP
It's worth a thread of its own.

Okay so my guess is Boras (because he is Boras) believes there is a competitive balance issue (he's right) but that the answer to that is allowing all teams to spend freely? That's not going to fix the issue - the tanking teams will just keep tanking and keep that money, like they do now

3 minutes ago, lostfan said:

Okay so my guess is Boras (because he is Boras) believes there is a competitive balance issue (he's right) but that the answer to that is allowing all teams to spend freely? That's not going to fix the issue - the tanking teams will just keep tanking and keep that money, like they do now

Spending freely implies no lux tax

Probably no luxury tax/redistribution and/or a minimum salary floor for those 5-7 teams that are raking in money but simultaneously making little effort to compete...too bad they can't do yearly relegation like the EPL for the bottom 2 teams changing places with the Top 2 AAA and maybe even a rare AA franchise on a yearly basis.

Obvious problem is those minor league records don't mean anything, it should be based on some combination of attendance/revenues/innovative marketing, etc.

Edited November 11, 20214 yr by caulfield12

I sincerely love that every year a bunch of baseball writers convince their bosses to pay for them to go to a resort to cover the GM meetings where the GMs say nothing of substance so they al end up needing to writeup Scott Boras giving long winded analogies comparing the baseball market to the spice trade

I agree with him on the draft issue. And it's not just baseball, as we see it in other sports. A couple years ago there was that slogan 'Lose for Hughes' in the NHL, which was about teams jockeying for position to potentially draft Jack Hughes with the #1 overall pick.

The solution is so simple, randomize draft order among all teams that missed the playoffs. The best team to miss the playoffs would have the same odds as the worst team in the league. And not just for the top 2 or 3 picks, do it for all of them. The worst team could pick first, or they could pick 14th.

I’ve long since used up my Washington Post free articles, but I saw what seemed really important yesterday if this is in there. The MLBPA apparently has a 6 member steering committee or whatever it is called, with some actual power in that organization. 

Now that Semien is a Boras client, 4 of the 6 members of this committee, a majority, are Boras clients.

3 hours ago, Sarava said:

I agree with him on the draft issue. And it's not just baseball, as we see it in other sports. A couple years ago there was that slogan 'Lose for Hughes' in the NHL, which was about teams jockeying for position to potentially draft Jack Hughes with the #1 overall pick.

The solution is so simple, randomize draft order among all teams that missed the playoffs. The best team to miss the playoffs would have the same odds as the worst team in the league. And not just for the top 2 or 3 picks, do it for all of them. The worst team could pick first, or they could pick 14th.

I saw a draft wheel concept somewhere (the old Grantland site, maybe?) which put all 30 teams in a shuffled order (1, 30, 16, 9… you get the idea) which was then followed to the next number in the sequence year-by-year regardless of your record; in other words, you get the #1 pick once every 30 years, and then you pick last the next year, and then you pick 16th the next year, etc., etc. Each team gets a top 5 pick every 6 years, 2 top 10 picks every 12 years, and so on.

11 minutes ago, Hamhock said:

I saw a draft wheel concept somewhere (the old Grantland site, maybe?) which put all 30 teams in a shuffled order (1, 30, 16, 9… you get the idea) which was then followed to the next number in the sequence year-by-year regardless of your record; in other words, you get the #1 pick once every 30 years, and then you pick last the next year, and then you pick 16th the next year, etc., etc. Each team gets a top 5 pick every 6 years, 2 top 10 picks every 12 years, and so on.

Reward teams who are actually putting a quality team and entertaining fans.

• End "Small Market" Subsidies / Revenue Redistribution
• Draft lottery, one ball per win.
• League-wide revenue sharing, replace 1/30 with % of league wins.

The current system rewards teams which suck, teams who do not spend, teams who merely exist as a Congressionally protected entitled welfare recipient and add nothing to MLB or society. Win 60 games, get the bottom picks, get the least amount of league revenue, do better, suck ass for eternity or fold your team like any other free market business.

You shouldn't get an advantage for sucking so bad you draw seven thousand fans a game, yet profit more than most or all other teams by cashing your welfare checks and fielding 100 loss teams with 26 AAA/AAAA types.

21 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Reward teams who are actually putting a quality team and entertaining fans.

• End "Small Market" Subsidies / Revenue Redistribution
• Draft lottery, one ball per win.
• League-wide revenue sharing, replace 1/30 with % of league wins.

The current system rewards teams which suck, teams who do not spend, teams who merely exist as a Congressionally protected entitled welfare recipient and add nothing to MLB or society. Win 60 games, get the bottom picks, get the least amount of league revenue, do better, suck ass for eternity or fold your team like any other free market business.

You shouldn't get an advantage for sucking so bad you draw seven thousand fans a game, yet profit more than most or all other teams by cashing your welfare checks and fielding 100 loss teams with 26 AAA/AAAA types.

What is to stop a bunch of teams from sitting there with low payrolls and winning 70-75 games a year if there is league wide revenue sharing?

40 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Reward teams who are actually putting a quality team and entertaining fans.

• End "Small Market" Subsidies / Revenue Redistribution
• Draft lottery, one ball per win.
• League-wide revenue sharing, replace 1/30 with % of league wins.

The current system rewards teams which suck, teams who do not spend, teams who merely exist as a Congressionally protected entitled welfare recipient and add nothing to MLB or society. Win 60 games, get the bottom picks, get the least amount of league revenue, do better, suck ass for eternity or fold your team like any other free market business.

You shouldn't get an advantage for sucking so bad you draw seven thousand fans a game, yet profit more than most or all other teams by cashing your welfare checks and fielding 100 loss teams with 26 AAA/AAAA types.

All you do here is set the Yankess and Dodgers up to win every single year.  This would be awful.

I don't really think there is an easy answer, I don't think you can completely withdraw from parity measures.

I don't think a full lottery should happen, but I think it could be fun to lottery comp picks. Meaning - still give some priority order to losing teams, but make some random adjustments to draft budget. So maybe 10 or so picks are randomly assigned at the end of round 2, giving ten random teams an additional million. It wouldn't eliminate tanking, because some team is going to still try and maximize their budget. But it may allow some of the borderline teams to be less worried about losing a draft pick (if that still happens) or going for a prayer run like the cards had at the expense of draft. They may make it back in the lotto

39 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

What is to stop a bunch of teams from sitting there with low payrolls and winning 70-75 games a year if there is league wide revenue sharing?

When I stated league wide revenue sharing, I meant the current sharing of mlb.com and national television contract revenue and other revenue currently split equally among the 30 teams.  This should be split based on a percentage of wins.

In addition to this revenue, currently 48% of local revenues (broadcast, ticket, stadium) are also subject to revenue sharing based CBA agreements. Historically, away teams split a portion of ticket revenue with home teams, and this would remain the same (with a change negotiable among the owners set for the league).

An no, the "Yankees and Dodgers" would not win every single year. The Dodgers didn't win a WS in 40 years, the Yankees the past 20. They have had, and would continue to have, significant revenue advantage over small market teams. They have failed, and would continue to fail, if they field overpriced but poor teams, as they have for decades. 

A team winning 60 of 162 would still get significant split MLB/TV revenue. The base team would be 81 wins, a 60 win team would get 3/4 of what they get now, a 100 win team close to 1/4 more. There would be a few small market teams who would, and frankly should fold. A 24-26 team league would be prudent, consisting of teams actually willing and capable of fielding a compelling product on a consistent basis. There is no reason cities which consistently draw 7-12 K fans should exist.

You wouldn't need a ridiculous 14-16 playoff team scheme "to keep fans interested". Good teams and fielding the best teams possible "keep fans interested". Tanking keeps fans (both home and when your team visits away) disinterested, and has contributed to the annual declines in attendance and tv ratings over the years.

Teams that field consistent bottom five, 60-70 win product, with well under league average payrolls, payrolls well under their league welfare check, year after year for decades, are nothing but parasites. They degrade the competition and sport. Inducements to suck, which Jerry and Bud ushered in to depress payrolls, are as Boras said, a noncompetitive cancer on the sport we love. MLB needs chemotherapy if it wants to survive and thrive. It needs to reward the teams which try to do their best, not teams which lose intentionally.

Boras gets a percentage of player contracts, so if the players collectively get a larger percentage of revenues, his take increases. I'm not saying he's wrong about anything, but being right on any issue is purely incidental to being profitable for him.

Scott Boras is a very successful, very sleazy, salesman. He will say anything to maximize his earnings, just as the owners will do for their own. There are no white knights here. There is no wisdom being expressed, only marketing.