...............
In an elimination game, which ace would the M's use? Maybe Danny Hultzen or James Paxton? I'd love to have an ace-heavy team if I were coming down the September stretch in this format.
.
For the last 10 years, here are the average wins for the three divisions, plus the next four teams [Div1, is the division winner with the best record, not a particular division]:
Div1 99.4 wins
Div2 94.6
Div3 89.9
WC1 93.7
WC2 89.4
WC3 86.9
WC4 84.2So, the WC is generally just slightly worse than the second best divisional team and the second WC team is just slightly worse than the third divisional team. Sounds fair to me– if you’re going to let in that ‘lousy’ division winner, you might as well include a second wild card team that would be pretty comparable.
Another (possible) con: this will give extra chances to the Yankees, BoSox, Rangers and other big money teams. The chances of them ever missing the playoffs just went *way* down (which is probably why they supported it). So now there are going to be perennial playoff locks. Even in a down year, or with injuries, the Yankees will be there.
Makes sense from their point of view.
Remember, though, you're only talking about the Yankees being guaranteed an elimination game, right? The effect of the elim game is to make August-September meaningful for teams in a down year. Do the Yankees always have meaningful stretch runs already?
Or no?
But I generally don't get how other proviesions of the new CBA benefit the Big Market Teams (R). The spending limits on International Signings and the Harder Slotting on the drafts specifically have been sighted as the Big Market teams being able to dominate because small Market Teams cannot spend as much as they would have on international prospects and the drafts.
So in essence, the small Market Teams will lose their ability to overspend against Big Market Teams? The players will know the cap when they get drafted, and that getting more than that will hurt their club. The same goes for the International signings except it's a hard cap for them and the Yankees or Red Sox can't swoop in and offer 6 million vs. the Royals 2.5
It seems to me that the result will be that --- > teams acquire talent correlating to their draft position.
MLB is about to start doing what the NFL does -- ensure (at least to an increased extent) that teams take the best talent available at each draft pick. What's wrong with that?
Signability slides down the ladder are going to have much less impact. Matt Tuiasosopo won't slide to the 3rd round and then get 1st-round money; he'll simply be taken where he should be taken, #15 overall, or he'll go (essentially) undrafted and go play football. No bluffing or guessing involved. That's a good thing from where I sit.
...........
The idea that small-market teams "over-slot" more than big-market teams is dubious.
Naturally, losing teams spend more for drafted players because Dustin Ackley costs more than the #22 overall pick. But I haven't seen anything that demonstrates that the Royals "over-slot" more than the Yankees do.
............
The international cap is a different thing. It's not clear to me that (in addition to controlling costs) the Yankees aren't simply trying to hamstring the Mariners' advantage here.
I definitely see the advantages, and that it is a one game playoff. Still, this will effectively allow the big money teams to purchase a "bye" for the regular season. OTOH, it does devalue the WC substantially too since they also face a one game elimination.
I think overall it will be a great plus.
Significant contributors to this year's Yankees club included Robinson Cano (amateur free agent 2001), Eduardo Nunez (2004), Francisco Cervelli (2003), Jesus Montero (2006), Ivan Nova (2004), Mariano Rivera (1990), and Hector Noesi (2004).
The Mariners got contributions from Carlos Peguero(2005), Felix Hernandez(2002), and Michael Pineda (2005).
That's 7-3 by my count, and it's not like we wiped the floor on talent as Robinson Cano and Mariano Rivera are pretty good counters to Felix and Pineda. So how is it the Mariners are losing their competitive advantage on the international free agent market?
Alex Liddi (2005), (Greg Halman was signed by the Twins originally apparently) but I don't think that our European Scouting was about to catch us up.
Cesar Jimenez(2001), although I would count that contribution well below any other on this list.
Young players are already way underpaid as it is. It takes 8 to 10 years from when a player is drafted until he can reach free agency and negotiate with other teams and all that time he isn't getting paid anywhere near what he is worth. So you can have guys who are amongst the best in the game like Mark Prior and Grady Sizemore but never able to cash in on thier performance and get a huge deal. If they hadn't been able to negotiate for money up front they would have been even more underpaid. It seems grossly unfair to strip away a players ability to seriously negotiate for an entire decade. That pushes things way too far in favor of owners.
Why not simply tie all amateur bonuses into the luxury tax? If what you paid out to draftees and IFA's counted as part of the payroll subject to the luxury tax then the big market teams would be hamstrung and costs would fall for the other teams but teams would still have the flexibililty to put their resources where they think it is most cost effect and young players would maintain the ability to negotiate for fair value. This seems like a much better system all around.
Isn't about players that eventually make it to the Major Leagues, the minimum Major League salary is 414,000 dollars, US, more than many people will make in a lifetime, and it's going up. The signing bonuses aren't exactly restrictive, I believe I read the top is going to be 11 mil and it goes down slowly from there. I'm not worried about the top 15 guys being able to negotiate for their 12th or 13th million, or guys who raise their demands and go in the 3rd Round to the Yankees because they have the money to spend on the guy and use the fact that other teams aren't going to touch him for affordability reasons to essentially get extra 1st round picks.
The only players to whom the Minor League salaries matter are the guys who don't get draft bonuses, and will continue to not get draft bonuses. Only occasionally do the guys who are drafted after say, the 3rd round, go to the majors. Those guys don't get bonuses, or if they do, they're pretty meager, and those guys spend their careers in the minors making less than 30,000 a year.
Not that I'm in favor of owners getting tons of extra money, and just don't think that the harder slotting will significantly hamper player bonuses.
From the standpoint of the young player, I agree. Y'might remember that I argued that Stephen Strasburg could be paid $50M or more and there would be no breach of logic whatever.
Across the internet so far, we'd been talking strictly from the perspective of the MLB game -- whether hard slotting increases the Boston-New York hammerlock or whether it doesn't.
Broadening the perspective to include the interests of the young players, I'll sign off on your argument in a heartbeat.
............
Charles O. Finley once growled, "Make 'em all free agents." Every player in the organized game, one year at a time, no exceptions. :- ) ... that's the way my job works, anyway.
Are we projecting that Super 2's will increase in Pittsburgh and KC whether they wish it or not?
If that were the case, then you could assume that the small-market teams are indeed going to be trading their arb stars earlier. Whether that's in their favor or not, I dunno.