The owners did not even respond to their counteroffer before they canceled games
I'm not going to go through chapter and verse but will say that if you came away with the conclusion that baseball's antitrust exemption means so much to owners that they would end the lockout just if there was a plausible threat to remove it, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry. We're having another Marathon without a Red Sox game that's ending.
If there's a draft, how does order get decided? If it's reverse order of finish, won't teams just double (or worse, if you think int'l talent is more of a sure thing than US HS kids) their incentive to tank?
If you read the owners initial offer, it calls for draft groups of 6 and a rotating draft order completely unrelated to a team's record.
Not sure what you mean by the second part, that is what happens now and it is more about infrastructure down there and which clubs put in the time and money than bigger markets, I think. As for the first part, it's a kind of random order (crow beat me, specifics linked below).
At least one reported proposal for an international draft I saw had hard-slotted bonuses. If I were guessing, it's the draft slotting (and the precedent for applying that to 'traditional' MLB draft) that the union really is opposed to moreso than international draft in concept. But that's only a guess
This is the question I have too. The players in question are not part of the players association. Why wouldn't the players union want to bring them into the fold? Is it the players from Central and South America that are dead set against it because they prefer to be bought up by the big market teams? I would like an expert answer to this. I would also like Harold Reynolds to STFU.
Not totally sure what you mean, the players will be in the union fold when they make 40 man rosters, no matter how they got there (regular draft, international signings/draft, etc). The MLBPA right now is (seems to be) standing up for the rights of future union members, or at the least they aren't ready to agree to this system being rammed down their throats on short notice with so many other topics under discussion.
The US draft already has pretty rigid draft slotting, and the current international system has tight caps on the amount a team can spend, so I don't think it's so clear what the MLBPA's objection is, except possibly including it at the last minute without a real attempt to study all the potential ramifications.
This is a fair assessment. Maybe there will be more discussion around this.
This is really not the way to look at things, but if the QO cost those 14 players $30M apiece (I have no idea, nor does anyone, as it's a hypothetical timeline), that is $420M total.
yes, see this NYT piece regarding the decline in (popularity) of baseball after PR prospects were forced to be in the draft
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/sports/baseball/puerto-rico-traces-decline-in-prospects-to-inclusion-in-the-baseball-draft.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=baseball
They said by 2024, how is that not enough time to study potential ramifications?
The players will just say no except later. The owners at that point have lost a year of draft pick compensation. CBA already locked up.
I believe the idea was they agree on the specifics now and it doesn't go into effect until 2024, as opposed to discussing it until 2024 and putting in an agreed upon system then. That is a huge difference.
There are reports that this was discussed as far back as January and also that MLB has said it was part of every proposal this cycle (whatever that may actually mean). So, it seems fairly unlikely the above is MLBPA's concern especially since the parties have known this is a potential issue for literally years. But none of us really knows.
As I've said, and you perhaps see, the issue has been discussed for a while. How each party value it is, again as I've said all along, just a negotiation calculation. Your assertion has been that it wasn't discussed at all---that's the opposite of what Scherzer is saying.
Haha sure, if that's your takeaway. I hope John Henry gives you good seats after all this.
That may be true, from your perspective, but also doesn't help explain to anyone how you think Scherzer's quote is consistent with your position.
Heyman has been a mouthpiece for the league this entire time. And this makes that even more clear. I mean Fernando Tatis Jr spoke out against the international draft as well… guess players should not be influenced by players like him…
The "screw these overpaid athletes" and the "anti-union crowd" Venn diagram are pretty much a circle. The politics would play out exactly as they would with any other effort to rein in the uber-wealthy.
Yup I'd take anything that Heyman or Nightengale say with a grain of salt. Heyman is a mouthpiece and I don't know if Nightengale has an agenda, but he just tweets faster than he thinks.
Heyman can carry water for more than one master at a time. He contains multitudes.
Eh. This may actually spook the owners a bit. As the chair of the judiciary committee he is the one that oversees MLB’s anti trust exemption
