2023 MLB Draft

Home The Cardinal Nation Forums Open Forum 2023 MLB Draft

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #206279
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #206293
    Christopher Jeske
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Is there any way to know if the Cardinals have a chance of getting added back to the competitive balance pool this year? It seems like maybe STL has outgrown other TV markets. I don’t think there were any changes to this in the new CBA, but some of the changes are hard to know the details of.

    #206295
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    Hard to tell since MLB doesn’t share a lot of this detail, as they measure it.

    “Since 2017, Major League Baseball has used a formula that combines revenue, winning percentage and market score to award Draft picks to teams that fall in the bottom 10 in revenue or market size.”

    #206296
    LACardFan
    Participant

    Free

    It seems like maybe STL has outgrown other TV markets.

    No. St. Louis is still in the bottom 10 in terms of market size. Other teams (Cubs) couldn’t stand the Cardinals getting a pick, given the Cardinals are consistent.

    I mean, the Oakland A’s are in a Top 5 market, and they got their revenue sharing back.

    #206297
    blingboy
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I think the idea is to promote some balance in the competitiveness across organizations by helping the weak performers. In that case, it would not matter if poor performance were due to lack of market size/revenue potential or lack of organizational competence.

    #206300
    KylMss
    Participant

    Free

    This is an interesting discussion considering how MLB has a significant tanking issue that basically rewards organizations for losing. The lottery was a nice start to try and shift away from this, but it won’t do much. The NBA has a lottery and teams still tank and some do it in spectacular fashion just to increase their odds of winning the lottery. I argued during the last CBA the one thing that MLB needed to push into that deal was a salary floor to ensure teams were spending money. That doesn’t necessary encourage winning, but it should make the haves feel better about the have nots receiving money because it should be re-invested into the product. Now, a floor would probably just mean teams like Oakland would become repositories for bad contracts from big market teams, but at least everyone benefits from that.

    I think limiting draft picks to consistently good teams and the corresponding draft pool is a terrible structure to establish. It basically tells organizations to function like mid-tier college programs that have to build up their competitive window for a year period and then completely restart every 4-5 years.

    #206302
    stlcard25
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I suggested previously that MLB should have placed the playoff teams into the lottery, with at least one playoff team receiving a high pick (say, #5) and maybe another team receiving #10. That would be a nice way to incentivize winning.

    I also like KylMss’ idea to institute a salary floor. Teams like Oakland, Pittsburgh and Tampa regularly game the system and drive down player costs without any regard for the good of their fans. A few of those teams compete occasionally, but most flounder 3/4 of the seasons.

    #206304
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    I am not arguing with the premise, but I also need to point out that the Rays have made the playoffs four straight seasons including playing in one World Series despite being assigned to the AL East.

    #206305
    LACardFan
    Participant

    Free

    Yes. MLB needs to wake up to the fact that teams that cry poor actually hurt the overall revenue of MLB.

    In general, I am against salary floors, but MLB teams make over $100 million per year from the MLB contract before they factor in their own local TV contracts and gate revenues. They should have to spend at least what they make from MLB, yet we see teams running out there with payrolls for $40-60 million.

    “Moneyball” wasn’t genius. The Oakland A’s pioneered welfare for billionaires.

    #206307
    LACardFan
    Participant

    Free

    Yes, the Rays have made the playoffs, but they refuse to invest in their success.

    Tampa Bay was chosen because it already had a stadium built (and it is one of the largest MSA’s with plenty of retirees with money).

    Part of the reason they don’t draw fans is where the current stadium is, part of it is because they constantly churn the roster to keep payroll low. They refuse to build a stadium with their own money, and are leveraging the possiblity of moving to Canada to get taxpayers to pay the majority of their new stadium.

    Must be nice to be a billionaire and expect government handouts to increase your business value/net worth.

    #206322
    KylMss
    Participant

    Free

    Tampa is a unique case. They are more anomaly than model to me. I think many organizations make the mistake of thinking they can function like the Rays and it hurts them. I think a similar thing happens when teams try to copy the Astros and Theo’s approach of a teardown and build up. There is a certain process and organization-wide commitment to those methods for it to work and most don’t have that. In fact, if you look at all the guys who have left Tampa for other executive jobs, none of them really function like the Rays. Friedman in particular no longer operates like a Rays executive. He spends big and makes big moves because it is a model the Dodgers can support. The Rays are a top-down commitment to efficiency and cost-cutting and that does not seem to wane at any level. To make that work, you have to have a really dedicated owner with very dedicated executives following suit. Most do not have that and will only be able to succeed if they spend some money.

    #206324
    Oliver
    Participant

    Free

    It worked for the Buccaneers maybe they are hoping they can get a new stadium. I lived in Tampa the late 90’s and the football stadium was a dump. It was not a nice experience going to the Big Sombrero. Same with the Rays another dump. They raised taxes to build the Buccaneers a stadium. People actually voted for raising the taxes to get the stadium. I don’t think they will build a new stadium so I guess both the Rays and A’s will be relocating. I don’t know for sure but I don’t think many owners are willing to pay for a new stadium without some help from the city.

    #206331
    1toughdominican
    Participant

    Free

    The current Cardinal ownership asked for outside help and threatened to build a venue across the river in Illinois if help wasn’t forthcoming.

    #206332
    jj-cf-stl
    Participant

    There is already a salary floor. It is the league minimum pay, times 26 players. Each club has to spend that.

    So if you mean raise the floor, so the tankers have to spend more, that’s a hard sell. Raising the minimum pushes all the clubs payrolls up, and the owners won’t do that to themselves any more than they have to. They’d rather the money stayed within their ownership club and not in the players pockets.

    #206368
    KylMss
    Participant

    Free

    League minimums vary based on experience. The league minimum for a player outside the arbitration process is much different than the salary of a player just starting off. That is how a franchise like Oakland can function on a $40 million payroll that is nearly identical the what Max Scherzer was set to make in a single season.

    In terms of putting money into the players pockets, I don’t think that is really a concern. The owners would much rather see their shared revenues going into the product rather than into another owners pocket. In fact, I believe the owners tried to push for a salary floor during the last CBA, but that was quickly swatted away by the players. Why they didn’t want that is confusing to me outside of them just being too focused on other issues. Part of the the reason the middle class players are being squeezed out in baseball is because most teams take an all or nothing approach. They either want to pay stars to compete or they want to pay pre-arbitration salaries to keep costs down and hope they can flip the asset before he gets too expensive. If you force teams to start spending money on payroll, you will see more of a baseball middle class where proven veteran players get paid a fair rate.

    Owners are not fans of given money to other owners, which is exactly what the revenue sharing process does. Many of these small market clubs are subsidized by the big clubs. This is good for the league overall, because you don’t want a structure of 5-8 wealthy teams just smashing the rest of the league on an annual basis. That creates a boring product. Unfortunately, that is what is kind of happening because these big market teams like the Yankees are sending millions of dollars to these other clubs, who just bank it keep being terrible. I think the Yankees ownership group would much prefer covering a portion of the payroll for teams like the Pirates and Rays rather than dumping money into their profit shares.

    #207870
    Christopher Jeske
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Competitive balance picks announced for 2023. St. Louis not included.
    https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-draft-competitive-balance-rounds-set-2023

    If no extensions are signed before the end of next year, the Cardinals could potentially be in a position to make qualifying offers to Mikolas, Flaherty, and/or Montgomery. It would be tough to lose all/any of them but this looks like a more likely path to extra picks in the 2024 draft than a competitive balance pick.

    #207886
    gscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I was thinking the same thing Christopher. Even if all three accepted it wouldn’t be the end of the world because our rotation would be set and one year deals aren’t that burdensome but most likely they wouldn’t accept and we would get extra picks.

    #207893
    CariocaCardinal
    Participant

    Paid - Monthly

    I may be Wrong but pretty sure the Cards are excluded from competitive balance picks during this CBA

    #207904
    stlcard25
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I may be Wrong but pretty sure the Cards are excluded from competitive balance picks during this CBA

    Yep, they “tweaked” the formula to exclude St Louis (and San Diego I believe) because they included winning percentage in the formula, but the poor little small town Tigers snag picks every year.

    #207906
    gscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    As suggested above extending QO’s may be the avenue for the Cardinals to get extra picks.

    #207924
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    When he was in Chicago, Theo Epstein was very upset about the Cards getting competitive balance picks. Now that he is a part of MLB HQ, it would not surprise me if he was involved in the change that has excluded the Cardinals.

    #208290
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #210294
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

First-hand news and commentary on the St. Louis Cardinals™ and minor league system for over 20 years