Why is there a Baseball draft?

Sheesh, doofus me on the 35 vs. 45 ... end of a long day.

But just to be clear, there's no way you could be convinced that the MLB draft is neutral with respect to competitive balance? As in, you're not even open to argument, it's not worth even considering, those studies I mention were foolish from the get-go?

 

There is no data to support the argument. All you have done is argue the intent.

 

I tend to think that the only baseball fans who don't think the draft is a fair way to pass out talent are Yankees fans who just want to outspend everyone for the players they want.

A free market is an absurd way to approach a professional sports league that thrives on being competitive. If the Yankees win 120 games and roll through the playoffs every year, why would anyone other than Yankee fans give a shit about baseball?

Of course, we're heading down that path with as badly as the economics are screwed up.

 

Um, Lindros was a Hart Trophy winner and until he ran into a series of concussions was arguably the most dominant player in the game. Doesn't even belong in a discussion of NHL draft busts

 

Um, he was traded for Forsberg and several others. Forsberg was better than Lindros. The Nordiques also got Ricci and Duchesne, who were solid players, and drafted Deadmarsh and Thibault the next year. they also won 2 Cups, but I guess that trade was even and Lindros did everything people who called him the next Gretzky said he would.

 

My one concern about the MLB draft as it exists now? That MLB will adopt a mandated slotting system for the draft beginning in 2012, which has become one of the few competitive advantages a small-revenue team can have, if they commit to a willingness to sign over-slot players. Kansas City's done that, and it now boasts the best farm system in the majors, giving fans some reason for optimism.

A switch to a mandated slotting system would wipe that out.

 

Wouldn't a mandatory slotting system also eliminate teams intentionally passing on elite prospects so they can take somebody cheaper? I'm looking at you, Pirates.

 

Abolishing the draft would allow players to negotiate deals that in their views would best position them to optimize their Major League performance and earning power during a decidedly finite career. Keep in mind that even the Yankees can have only nine players on the field at any given time and that earning power can only be realized with opportunity.

 

You assume, of course, that MLB teams are better off financially the more competitively balanced the competition is. That's a pretty big assumption; lots of heavy thought has been devoted to this and to say a consensus has yet to emerge would be understating it. Not that you're wrong, mind you. It's just that it's not axiomatic that MLB as a business is better off when there's not a single (few) dominant team(s) over time.

 

who said it was an even trade? But he was far from a bust, and in the mid 90's was the most dominant power forward in the game. His career was derailed by concussions, he was well on his way to being as good as Forsberg.

 

While it would benefit cheap teams like the Bucs, yes, it would hurt aggressive teams like the Royals, who have spent the fifth-most amount of money signing picks during the past decade -- mostly under GM Dayton Moore, who's run the team since 2006.

 

The Nordiques were forced to trade Lindros since he didn't want to play there(more so his parents), but both had great careers, and could of been better if it wasn't for injuries.

There numbers are pretty close to:

Forsberg:

GP: 706
Goals: 249
Assists: 636
Points: 885

Lindros:

GP: 760
Goals: 372
Assists: 493
Points: 865

PS: Lindros can't control if scouts called him the next Gretzky. Both had great careers.