https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/mlb-draft-lottery-2024-could-certain-teams-win-by-losing/

Another day, another team talking about how they hope not to do well in the lottery so they can hopefully do better next lottery and not get shut out of a far better class.

If we want to help these poor big market teams compete faster, we should let teams trade lottery numbers. White Sox trade 100% of their lottery numbers to the Boston Red Sox for Chris Murphy.

And would the As be upset they are now 2nd best? Well no they'd be thrilled! THey don't want to land top 6 either this year. 

Anyway we could see how much value teams truly put on these spots. Because I think the tanking, in mlb, is overblown. People aren't doing it specifically for draft picks. They are re-aligning their org to collect more young talent and that will come at the cost of wins now.

I don't know why I put top six in the title and edited it out. 

Tanking for most owners means bottoming out payroll for max profits, not prioritizing higher draft slots. Would like to see more financial rewards for competing and doing the right thing such as the latest player fought for CBA measure awarding player bonuses for Top 100 prospects finishing Top 3 in ROY, MVP or Cy Young, and teams they play for getting added draft incentives for doing the right thing and not parking them in AAA to gain an extra contract year.

Other improvements including making player payroll and adding a team win component for the numerator of the revenue sharing pie. Competitive lower market teams such as Tampa should get greater financial and player incentive over teams content with a guaranteed annual high profit via annual limited player payroll spend. Have the opposite of the luxury tax by taxing teams which do not spend at least the amount of shared revenue on player payroll, and close the loophole on underreported income from team owned RSNs and also Real Estate profits not captured under the current revenue sharing system.

2 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Tanking for most owners means bottoming out payroll for max profits, not prioritizing higher draft slots. Would like to see more financial rewards for competing and doing the right thing such as the latest player fought for CBA measure awarding player bonuses for Top 100 prospects finishing Top 3 in ROY, MVP or Cy Young, and teams they play for getting added draft incentives for doing the right thing and not parking them in AAA to gain an extra contract year.

Other improvements including making player payroll and adding a team win component for the numerator of the revenue sharing pie. Competitive lower market teams such as Tampa should get greater financial and player incentive over teams content with a guaranteed annual high profit via annual limited player payroll spend. Have the opposite of the luxury tax by taxing teams which do not spend at least the amount of shared revenue on player payroll, and close the loophole on underreported income from team owned RSNs and also Real Estate profits not captured under the current revenue sharing system.

Right - instead of rewarding higher spending in a year with more cheap talent, it is punished. Teams like STL/San Diego get such a huge advantage from spending a good amount + getting small market rewards. Reward that again with giving explicit benefits to teams that spend above their "Expected" salary tier.

But regardless, it would be more fun if you allowed teams to trade more in the mlb draft. This isn't the 1960s, we aren't worried about teams trading out of this because they don't want to pay a young player. Let them decide which type of asset is more important.

I am not convinced that a decliner coming off injury like Gonzales is market value $12 million, but even if he is you can get that on the free agent market so it really shouldn’t be any part of the return. 
reminds me of trading for Nova. 

Edited December 4, 20232 yr by GreenSox