The: "Can we not do this anymore?" 2024 MLB Draft

[Edman85]

3 hours ago, Longgone said:

None of this very trite, tired, jaded rant about greedy owners changes the historical fact that deep unrest within owners of mid to smaller market franchises, who were not granted a level playing field and could not compete with the big market clubs for talent, led them to pursue a draft. This disparity and rift amongst owners has been addressed in various ways yet still remains today, and will remain until revenues are shared as per other major sports. 
 

Do owners want to control costs? Of course! Are they greedy? Some, probably. Does a draft inhibit amateur bonuses? Absolutely. Still, the prime purpose of a draft is to equitably distribute talent. Sometimes face value is face value.

What do you know about systems that predated the draft and how amateurs were signed then?

[Longgone]

50 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

What do you know about systems that predated the draft and how amateurs were signed then?

They went to the highest bidder, for the top talent that was almost always to the few biggest markets who hoarded them on a plethora of farm clubs. There was a definite class structure, much resented, that was greatly improved with the draft.

[Edman85]

3 minutes ago, Longgone said:

They went to the highest bidder, for the top talent that was almost always to the few biggest markets who hoarded them on a plethora of farm clubs. There was a definite class structure, much resented, that was greatly improved with the draft.

Bonuses were skyrocketing after WWII, and owners implemented various bonus rules to reign them in. Bonus babies were a result of that, e.g. Al Kaline. So yes, the Yankees and Cardinals were hoarding but it was mostly money because this limited the amount those rich teams could spend. Once the Bonus Baby system fell apart, the draft came in, again completely stripping leverage from the players. Its main goal was to suppress bonuses.

[Longgone]

18 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Bonuses were skyrocketing after WWII, and owners implemented various bonus rules to reign them in. Bonus babies were a result of that, e.g. Al Kaline. So yes, the Yankees and Cardinals were hoarding but it was mostly money because this limited the amount those rich teams could spend. Once the Bonus Baby system fell apart, the draft came in, again completely stripping leverage from the players. Its main goal was to suppress bonuses.

I agree they, probably unanimously, wanted to suppress bonuses, but you are completely ignoring the motivating factor for the majority of the owners and the actual function of a draft, it distributes talent in an equitable manner. 

[Tiger337]

14 minutes ago, Longgone said:

They went to the highest bidder, for the top talent that was almost always to the few biggest markets who hoarded them on a plethora of farm clubs. There was a definite class structure, much resented, that was greatly improved with the draft.

That was the situation in the 50s when the Cardinals and Brooklyn Dodgers had more teams than anyone else.  It worked out so well for the Dodgers that they had to move to Los Angeles.   By 1964, the last year prior to the first draft, it was less extreme:    

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/affiliate.cgi?year=1964

The teams with the most clubs were: Minnesota, Los Angeles, New York Yankees and San Francisco with 9, Baltimore, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh with 8.  So, it was a mix of small markets and large markets.  

[Longgone]

40 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That was the situation in the 50s when the Cardinals and Brooklyn Dodgers had more teams than anyone else.  It worked out so well for the Dodgers that they had to move to Los Angeles.   By 1964, the last year prior to the first draft, it was less extreme:    

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/affiliate.cgi?year=1964

The teams with the most clubs were: Minnesota, Los Angeles, New York Yankees and San Francisco with 9, Baltimore, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh with 8.  So, it was a mix of small markets and large markets.  

There were thousands of easier, simpler ways they could have suppressed bonuses, from caps on. They wanted a draft for what a draft logically provides. They didn't need subterfuge.

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, Longgone said:

There were thousands of easier, simpler ways they could have suppressed bonuses, from caps on. They wanted a draft for what a draft logically provides. They didn't need subterfuge.

In 1964, they had already used up all the other ways.  It's not subterfuge.  They clearly eliminated competition for players with a draft.  That is a really big deal and it's the first thing I think about when I think of sports drafts.  I don't deny that this suppression of payment has the additional benefit (for some teams) of more competitive balance. 

 

[Longgone]

6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

In 1964, they had already used up all the other ways.  It's not subterfuge.  They clearly eliminated competition for players with a draft.  That is a really big deal and it's the first thing I think about when I think of sports drafts.  I don't deny that this suppression of payment has the additional benefit (for some teams) of more competitive balance. 

 

They had not used up all the other ways, that's ludicrous and you're assuming what they had wasn't working. They wanted a draft for obvious reasons. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one, you don't have to conjure up any conspiracies. 

Every major and most minor sports leagues successfully have drafts, and if you believe it's for bonus suppression and not competitive balance, then there's no point for any further discussion.

[1984Echoes]

28 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

...  I don't deny that this suppression of payment has the additional benefit (for some teams) of more competitive balance. 

The addition of competitive balance by using a draft, specifically for, and as demanded by, small market teams, had the additional benefit of suppression of payments (bonuses).

Win-win for owners.

[Tiger337]

6 minutes ago, Longgone said:

They had not used up all the other ways, that's ludicrous and you're assuming what they had wasn't working. They wanted a draft for obvious reasons. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one, you don't have to conjure up any conspiracies. 

Every major and most minor sports leagues successfully have drafts, and if you believe it's for bonus suppression and not competitive balance, then there's no point for any further discussion.

It's not a conspiracy.  To me, the obvious reason for drafts (which are unque to the sports business) is to eliminate competition for player services.  Again, I don't deny that they also promote competitive balance, something I probably care less about than most sports fans.  I am sure I would have enjoyed baseball in the 50s and 60s just fine.    

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

That was the situation in the 50s when the Cardinals and Brooklyn Dodgers had more teams than anyone else.  It worked out so well for the Dodgers that they had to move to Los Angeles. 

Did the Dodgers move to LA because of their farm system situation?

[Tiger337]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Did the Dodgers move to LA because of their farm system situation?

That was sarcasm on my part.  They moved because they were getting poor attendance.  They were a "small market" team with an exceptional farm system.  

Edited September 1, 2023 by Tiger337

[Toddwert]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Did the Dodgers move to LA because of their farm system situation?

I always thought they saw easy dollar signs in LA instead of having to fight with the Yankees and Giants for New Yorkers

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That was sarcasm on my part.  They moved because they were getting poor attendance.  They were a "small market" team with an exceptional farm system.  

Ah, OK, very good. Dem Bums were second in the league in attendance all the way up to 1956 and then dropped to fifth in '57 when rumors of their impending move became more real. TBF, they did have an old stadium that needed updating at the very least, or else they should have gotten the new ballpark up Atlantic Ave, but they were famously shot down by Robert Moses, whose uttered name is followed by loogies to this very day.

[casimir]

20 hours ago, Longgone said:

Oh stop it. Drafts distribute incoming amateur talent in a most rational manner, and have been doing so successfully in most sports for many years. Lotteries, in any sport, have done absolutely nothing to affect or change team behavior even one iota, and only serve to dilute the true function of a draft. Lotteries address a perception, not a reality.

Easy on the haymakers.  Lee is family.

[CMRivdogs]

A fairly concise explanation of post war-pre draft MLB...

Quote

The bonus rule was a instituted by Major League Baseball in 1947 to prevent teams from assigning certain players to farm teams.^[1] The rule stipulated that when a major league team signed a player to a contract with a signing bonus in excess of $4,000 ($52,400 today), the team was required to keep that player on their 25-man active roster for two full seasons.^[2] Any team that failed to comply with the rule lost the rights to that player's contract, and the player was then exposed to the waiver wire.^[1]Once a player remained with the team for two full seasons, he could be assigned to a farm team without repercussions. The rule went through several variations until it was finally abolished in 1965, when the Major League Baseball draft was initiated.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_rule

[Tiger337]

23 minutes ago, casimir said:

Easy on the haymakers.  Lee is family.

It's OK.  I do not have may controversial opinions, but when I do have one I can be stubborn about it.  

[casimir]

16 hours ago, Longgone said:

The motivating issue was competitive balance. Of course they want to contain costs, what business owner doesn’t? But do you think these rich, egotistical creatures bought a team to control costs? No! They all want to win  and they want a fair playing field where they can compete, for their egos and for their communities. Cost control is just their nature.

I’m not so sure about the winning part, at least on the field.  Winning off of the field in terms of profit, sure.  Winning on the field for most owners, whether it be the short game or long game (which might be harder to see), ok.  But was Jeffrey Loria interested in winning on the field?

I suppose for a small subset of owners, winning on the field (again, even long term) isn’t a primary objective.  Or maybe their organizations are just not successful at accomplishing that goal.

[casimir]

3 hours ago, Toddwert said:

I always thought they saw easy dollar signs in LA instead of having to fight with the Yankees and Giants for New Yorkers

Several factors went into the Dodgers’ move.  A stadium squabble, improving transportation, and as you alluded to, an untapped MLB market on the west coast were several minor league teams had been very successful.

LA officials had also discussed with the Senators.  The Giants had also considered flipping to Minneapolis which was where their AAA team was based.

Although I think it was the Dodgers that technically announced their move first, it might have actually been the Giants that did much of the wheel greasing to bringing MLB to the west coast.

[Dave Christian]

1 hour ago, casimir said:

Several factors went into the Dodgers’ move.  A stadium squabble, improving transportation, and as you alluded to, an untapped MLB market on the west coast were several minor league teams had been very successful.

LA officials had also discussed with the Senators.  The Giants had also considered flipping to Minneapolis which was where their AAA team was based.

Although I think it was the Dodgers that technically announced their move first, it might have actually been the Giants that did much of the wheel greasing to bringing MLB to the west coast.

My aunt and uncle had gone to a Brooklyn Dodgers game around the time I was in fifth grade.

They brought me an Brooklyn Dodgers autographed baseball.

What did I do with it?

I went out and played catch with it with my buddies.

DUMBASS!

[casimir]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

It's OK.  I do not have may controversial opinions, but when I do have one I can be stubborn about it.  

We’re Tiger fans.  That probably makes us stubborn by nature.

[chasfh]

16 hours ago, casimir said:

Several factors went into the Dodgers’ move.  A stadium squabble, improving transportation, and as you alluded to, an untapped MLB market on the west coast were several minor league teams had been very successful.

LA officials had also discussed with the Senators.  The Giants had also considered flipping to Minneapolis which was where their AAA team was based.

Although I think it was the Dodgers that technically announced their move first, it might have actually been the Giants that did much of the wheel greasing to bringing MLB to the west coast.

The St Louis Browns were getting set to move to Los Angeles for the 1942 season, and a league vote for it was scheduled for December 8, 1941. It was tabled. I’m not sure how they would have managed the travel without jets, but moving there was the plan. Throughout the fifties and sixties, ten different teams were rumored to be moving to the west coast at various points. There were seven separate rumors involving just the Kansas City A’s.

Edited September 2, 2023 by chasfh

[gehringer_2]

40 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The St Louis Browns were getting set to move to Los Angeles for the 1942 season, and a league vote for it was scheduled for December 8, 1941. It was tabled. I’m not sure how they would have managed the travel without jets, but moving there was the plan. Throughout the fifties and sixties, ten different teams were rumored to be moving to the west coast at various points. There were seven separate rumors involving just the Kansas City A’s.

The Dodgers 1st season in LA was 58? The 707 didn't enter commercial service until that October. Don't know if any jets were flying commercial in the US before that or not.  I suppose travel-wise, a Lockheed Constellation from KC to LA would have been no worse a trip than a train from NYC to Missouri used to be.

Edited September 2, 2023 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

24 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The Dodgers 1st season in LA was 58? The 707 didn't enter commercial service until that October. Don't know if any jets were flying commercial in the US before that or not.  I suppose travel-wise, a Lockheed Constellation from KC to LA would have been no worse a trip than a train from NYC to Missouri used to be.

They never got to the logistics stage that I saw, but I believe the general idea was that teams would fly STL to LA and back, and take the train otherwise. The flight would take ten or so hours and there would have been multiple stops along the way, and any team going to LA would have to play in STL on the way there and/or back. It would have been a complete mess to both figure out and execute.

[CMRivdogs]

The Dodgers bought the LA Pacific Coast league franchise the year before the move, giving them first dibs on the LA market at the time. The Browns had done that perviously.

The Giants had originally planned a move to Minneapolis, where they had a minor league team and first refusal rights before the Dodgers convinced them to move to California.

Possibly the idea of having two franchises on the west coast may have been more convincing to MLB at the time.