FG on Fox: Who Needs a Draft?

Yesterday, Major League Baseball officially declared Yoan Moncada — perhaps the most coveted player to defect from Cuba in the last few years — free to sign with any Major League club. The bidding is expected to be intense, with the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers tabbed as the early favorites. Given the tax that will be levied on on the team that signs Moncada, the high-revenue clubs are at a significant advantage, and Moncada’s signing will likely be used as evidence of the need for an international draft.

In his conversation with Ken Rosenthal last week, Commissioner Manfred publicly supported such an idea, stating that his “long haul goal” would be “to get to an international draft.” With the big money clubs blowing up the league’s system for signing young international free agents, an overhaul of the process is inevitable. But while the draft has become the de facto method for sports leagues to distribute incoming young talent — under the guise of competitive balance, but with the primary goal of holding down acquisition costs — I’d like to suggest that Major League Baseball go the other direction instead.

The logistics of incorporating international players into a draft are problematic, which is why baseball settled on its current recommended bonus system instead. And there is merit to the structure that the league created; if you have various spending allocations in place, you don’t actually need to go through the process of draft positions. The best players want the most money, so by simply creating a system where some teams have more money to spend than others, you can funnel incoming talent to certain types of teams even without handing out specific draft positions.

The problem lies in the execution of MLB’s international system, as the bonus pools are akin to speed limits instead of actual barriers. Because teams have calculated that Moncada’s talent is worthy of paying the penalties associated with blowing their budgets out of the water, the limits are functionally useless. But if the limits were firm caps, and teams were unable to exceed their pool allocations, then we wouldn’t be facing a situation where the richest teams in baseball were flexing their financial muscles to add an elite talent while the have-nots sit on the sidelines wishing for a more level playing field.

So what if there was no draft? Instead, what if we just lumped all new players — foreign or domestic — into a single acquisition system where each player was free to sigh with the team of their choice, only with firm spending caps in place to ensure that young talent flows more freely to clubs who can’t compete on Major League payroll alone? In other words, a team’s talent acquisition budget would be inversely tied to their Major League payroll; the more you spend on big leaguers, the less you get to spend on prospects, and vice versa.

Read the rest on Just a Bit Outside.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

47 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MLBPA
9 years ago

While this idea would benefit US players who would normally be drafted, and would benefit the teams that can’t afford guys like Moncada, there is no way that we would ever approve this. Our union is not going to give teams incentive to spend less on members in order to save for amateurs.

Omar
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

you mentioned an inverse relationship between MLB payroll and cap space. Why not have the amateur cap space take a few years to react. So if an MLB team wants to deliberately lower its MLB salary to increase its amateur cap, it won’t actually receive the higher cap for 3-4 years. This prevents teams from tanking their payroll, but will reward those teams that legitimately can’t raise payroll to certain levels.

vivalajeter
9 years ago
Reply to  Omar

Why shouldn’t an MLB team be able to deliberately – or strategically – lower its MLB salary to increase its amateur cap? If you’re a team like Houston, they had a legitimate rebuilding effort and they decreased payroll for a few years as part of the process. I don’t think they should have to wait 3-4 years before getting the additional draft funds.

HappyFunBall
9 years ago
Reply to  Omar

Forget “if you’re a team like Houston”. How about you’re ANY team that decides the amateur talent in a given year is better than the available crop of free agents?

…and this, of course, is what would give the MLBPA heartburn. The notion that C+ veterans get good money when they’re the best of bad lot is bread and butter for the union.

jpg
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

Maybe I’m missing something here, but your answer doesn’t really get to the root of the issue. In a perfect world for the Union, everybody would be spending like the Dodgers because that means more money in the pocket of union members. You proposal is essentially penalizing teams for carrying a massive payroll. while rewarding the teams that can’t/won’t spend. I don’t see how switching from a soft cap to hard one on amateur spending offsets that loss to the Union. MLB is going to have to make other serious concessions (like say reducing service time to five years for free agency) to get this through because this will undoubtedly create an artificial spending cap for big league payrolls as the original poster eluded to.

Timbooya
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

The problem with this proposal is with the international players: if they can’t get the years and millions upon millions of dollars they’re seeing and are looking for, why come at all? If al they can get is a small, cheap contract… Is it worth leaving one’s family and everything they’ve known growing up to move to America for? Plus, in some cases, the amount of danger involved wouldn’t be worth the small reward. Puig wouldn’t be in the MLB if this style of int’l FA signing was in place a few years ago: he is rumored to have spent almost as much as what would-be one year’s contract under this system just to get to America and out of Cuba. And then, for those players who think they deserve crazy money, what’s to stop them from signing a one-year deal with whichever team pays them the most (i.e. a team that needs the talent) only to become a FA the following offseason and THEN signing the big money deal they were expecting? I agree drafts aren’t the most efficient way to sign players, but putting caps on international spending would end up hurting the international players and MLB itself.