Aug 20, 2009, 10:35 AM EST
Setting the whole steroids thing aside, the owners haven’t attempted to impose anything really major on the players in labor negotiations since 2002. Bud Selig indicated yesterday, however, that big changes are gonna come in 2011, and that the owners are going to be “very aggressive” in seeking (a) a hard slotting system for the amateur draft; and (b) an international draft.
Usually it’s the owners who fight amongst themselves, with the small revenue clubs warring with the big revenue clubs over how revenue is handled and shared and all of that. I’d have to assume, however, that they’ll be united here, at least with respect to the hard slotting system.
In contrast, we may see the union fighting, at least a little bit, with its members when it comes to the slot. The union has historically been opposed to any sort of capping of money going to the players, amateur or otherwise, on a philosophical basis. The players, however, seem to not much care for the big bonuses going to the Stephen Strasburgs of the world and may very well throw them under the bus if the owners seek a hard slotting system. The only ones who would lose out under such a scenario — the amateurs themselves — aren’t at the bargaining table. I think the players are fooling themselves if they think that money not spent on draftees will go to them — it’s not a huge amount of money anyway — but it will probably make them feel better all the same.
I’m opposed to the international draft for the simple reason that, right now, there is a huge incentive on the part of teams to seek out and develop raw talent in places like the Dominican Republic because they can expect to recoup their investment in these guys by being able to sign them on the open market. If there was a draft, why would any team operate an academy in the D.R.? Why would the Angels, for example, provide facilities to train a kid for several years if cheap, free-riding teams would be able to draft these guys ahead of them?
The net result of an international draft would be a big reduction in the number of players from other countries because, unlike U.S. players who can play in any number of organized leagues, there simply isn’t a sophisticated infrastructure to develop a significant amount of young talent. We saw this in Puerto Rico, where the imposition of a draft a few years ago greatly reduced the number of players coming into the majors. I’d even argue that the imposition of the domestic draft in the 60s is one of the things that led to the reduced number of U.S.-born blacks in the game. Why send scouts to an impoverished inner city neighborhood to find the lesser-known talent if all your presence there does is to alert the teams drafting ahead of you of your find? And even if that’s not a huge concern, it’s certainly something which prevents the formation of domestic urban baseball academies (which would be very, very cool).
Obviously there will be a ton of time to debate all of this between now and the next round of CBA negotiations, and there are certainly pros and cons to both of these proposals. But if this is the most the owners are shooting for, I’d say there is little chance of a work-stoppage.
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year 64
- The Yankees are treating Alex Rodriguez differently than they treated Derek Jeter. So what? 32
- Braves sign setup man Jason Grilli to two-year contract 13
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 119
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 27
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” 85
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot (119)
- Today’s specious anti-Mike Piazza-for-the-Hall-Fame argument (93)
- St. Petersburg City Council votes down deal to allow Rays to look for new stadium site (90)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)