what I would do if I was commish of... Baseball

[tp49]

My short list of things I would do is eliminate inter-league play, eliminate the All Star Game as the vehicle by which home field advantage in the World Series is determined, and while not adding a salary cap (but keeping the luxury tax in place) would mandate a minimum payroll amount.

I would also rework the television contract. First, something has to be done about how games are televised on Saturday namely the blackout of all games during the FOX Game of the Week. Since the "exclusivity" window will not go away keep the window between 4-7 PM Eastern then have the network pick a Saturday game to televise and make it a pure national game. Then have the other games played around the window. The way it is right now for the most part renders the Extra Innings package useless on Saturday and it costs teams who are not one of the three games FOX is showing television revenue because they can't sell ad space for games they aren't televising at all.

When it comes to the playoffs the immediate fix is to cut out all of the unnecessary off days. There would be a one day gap between the last day of the season and the first day of the division series in case a one game playoff is necessary. In the 5 game series there would be only one off day for travel between games 2 and 3 and in the LCS there would be off days only between games 2 and 3 and 5 and 6. None of these off days between games 4 and 5 as was seen in the ALCS.

[The_Admiral]

mandate a minimum payroll amount.

I addressed the fallacy of this. Apparently you didn't think much of it. ;-[

[KevinMcD]

If I were commish i would keep the playoffs the same, there is nothing wrong with the current set-up. Why fix it? If they do expand (bad decision) I would go to 4-8 team divisions, two division winners and two wild cards make the "'offs". Have 2-2-1, and 2-3-2 in the playoffs no other off days.

To shorten the season I would have double headers on the weekends. If the owners want to have day-night fine, but start the season the first monday of April, and end the 2nd to last week of September, not like this year when they ended the season October 1st or so. 1 week for the DS, and 3 more weeks for the CS and WS, they will be over by Halloween.

I love inter league, keep it the way it is except have each team only play their "rival" once a year, not twice. Try to keep the strength of schedule as equal as possible. I like how the rules in the AL and NL are different, keep the DH in the AL.

Institute a stiffer penalty for going over the luxury tax level. Make it $100 Million, and for every dollar you go over, you have to pay a dollar in the tax. There would be no minimum salary, but the lesser teams who receive the luxury tax have to use all the money they receive plus half of that total. So if they get $40 Million in Luxury Tax they have to spend that $40M+$20M of their own. It is not a full salary cap, but there would be stiff penalties for going over the $100M limit.

[The_Admiral]

There are more--and often smarter--ways to spend money in baseball than on the major league roster so please let them spend freely

[DustDevil61]

I'd try to make a salary cap, as well as establish some kind of Equal Revenue distribution like you have in the NFL and NBA. Not sure how (or even if) it works, but it would keep teams like the Yankees and Red Sox (to a lesser extent) from buying their way to the World Series, while giving a chance for teams like Kansas City and Pittsburgh (who both haven't been relevant for years) to get good players and make the playoffs.

I'd actually expand the playoffs to fit either 6 or 8 teams from each league. You could do an NBA-esque playoff format with 8 teams, or NFL-esque playoff format with 6 teams. In either case, winning your division would only give you a playoff spot (none of this you-can't-get-lower-than-4th business). I'll illustrate the format in a later post.

Schedule-wise, I'd actually keep Interleague Play, and keep it limited (i.e., have it in only on certain weekends). Maybe you could have 4 sets (weekends) of Interleague play, one for each month between May and August.

I would likely shorten the season by about 2 weeks (and I'd probably shorten it another week, to put the World Series back in October), in order to fit the expanded playoff system.

[DustDevil61]

Ok, here's how the 8-team format would work:

AL

1-NY Yankees (Div. Champ)

2-LA Angels (Div. Champ)

3-Boston

4-Texas

5-Minnesota (Div. Champ)

6-Detroit

7-Seattle

8-Tampa Bay

NL

1-LA Dodgers (Div. Champ)

2-Philadelphia (Div. Champ)

3-Colorado

4-St. Louis (Div. Champ)

5-San Francisco

6-Florida

7-Atlanta

8-Chicago Cubs

Playoffs would be set like so:

AL:

1-NYY vs. 8-TB

2-LAA vs. 7-SEA

3-BOS vs. 6-DET

4-TEX vs. 5-MIN

NL:

1-LAD vs. 8-CHC

2-PHI vs. 7-ATL

3-COL vs. 6-FLA

4-STL vs. 5-SF

Winner advances; highest seed remaining plays lowest seed remaining.

With 6 teams per league:

AL:

1-NYY

2-LAA

3-BOS

4-TEX

5-MIN

6-DET

NL:

1-LAD

2-PHI

3-COL

4-STL

5-SF

6-FLA

In AL:

1-NYY and 2-LAA get 1st-round byes

3-BOS vs. 6-DET

4-TEX vs. 5-MIN

In NL:

1-LAD and 2-PHI GET 1st-round byes

3-COL vs. 6-FLA

4-STL vs. 5-SF

In the 6-team scenario, the 1-seed gets the lowest team remaining, while the 2-seed gets the highest seed remaining. Not 100% sure if this is how the NFL does their playoffs, but it makes sense to me. Again, in 6-team playoff, a division championship only guarantees a playoff spot. The first round could be best-of-5, while from Round 2 to World Series would remain best-of-7.

[jkrdevil]

BTW, can we stop putting Kansas City in the teams that can win because of payroll argument? Payroll has little to nothing to do with why they can't win, they can't win because of management apathy/incompetence. They play in the Central, not the AL East. They don't have to compete with Yankees and Red Sox directly for a playoff spot. Every team in that division except for Kansas City has made the playoffs this decade (all but KC and Detroit have won the division, with Detroit losing it twice on the last day). The team that has won the most division titles this decade are the big market, big spending Minnesota Twins. I know Chicago and Detroit spend some money in that division, but they haven't had a lock on it.

[NJTank]

MLB also must make all prospects subject to the draft even those in the Latin American Countries. Its not right that these players can just be signed by teams with baseball academies in those countries.

[HedleyLamarr]

I wouldn't make too many changes.

I'd keep the DH. I prefer the NL-style of baseball, but the DH is what gives the AL and NL a distinct difference. I'm fine with seeing the Braves employ a DH for a few games when playing in an AL park.

I'd also keep the All-Star Game. The ratings for the All-Star festivities are too high to drop. It may have lost it's luster due to cable television, but it's also the only time where you get to see every team's best player(s) on one field. However, I'd get rid of that "This time, it counts!" crap, tying the game to hosting Game 7 of the World Series. It's an exhibition game, and every market wants to see their best player participate. I'd make one change to the All-Star Game: Employ a DH, regardless of the venue. Folks aren't tuning in to watch Roy Halladay swing the bat.

I'd expand interleague play. Can't argue with the numbers....interleague games continue to outdraw intraleague games. The biggest argument about it is that the schedules aren't fair...so my solution is: Every team plays a 3-game series against every team from the opposite league, and interleague series can be played anywhere from April through September. I'd get rid of some divisional games to create space for these extra interleague games. Why? Simple: All the NL teams are competing for a playoff spot (the Wild Card), so they should acquire similar schedules to bring about more equality in competing for the playoffs.

I'd get rid of compensatory picks for the baseball amateur draft. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox and Mets not only are able to spend more money, they're also collecting a ton of draft picks when their free agents are signed by another team. The worst teams still get to pick first, but the better teams that are losing top-tier free agents are getting compensated with picks in the early rounds.

I'd keep the economics of the game the way they are now. As the Rays and Twins have shown, you can field competitive teams on the cheap. As the Mets and Orioles have shown, you can spend a lot of money and still not have a winning record. As the old saying goes: There's more than 25 great baseball players across the world. The Yankees, et al, can't sign everyone.

I'd make one small change to the playoffs: Seed the division winners 1-3, and the Wild Card team as the 4-seed. The top-seeded team plays the 4th-seeded team, regardless of division affiliation, and the top-seed gets to host 4 games out of the 5-game series. I'd keep the 5-7-7 format, as they are now. Also, home-field advantage is determined by overall record, just as every other league does.

[whchoclte]

I'd get rid of compensatory picks for the baseball amateur draft. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox and Mets not only are able to spend more money, they're also collecting a ton of draft picks when their free agents are signed by another team. The worst teams still get to pick first, but the better teams that are losing top-tier free agents are getting compensated with picks in the early rounds.

I'd keep the economics of the game the way they are now. As the Rays and Twins have shown, you can field competitive teams on the cheap. As the Mets and Orioles have shown, you can spend a lot of money and still not have a winning record. As the old saying goes: There's more than 25 great baseball players across the world. The Yankees, et al, can't sign everyone.

First the compensatory picks dont really work all that well, ask the Blue Jays and Brewers who lost Burnett and CC and got back less picks because they all went to one team. Teh issue is players falling down the board demanding crazy contracts and the good teams then getting better talent too.

Now on to money. Isnt it easier to have a chance to win when you have 5-7 guys making 20 mil at the tops at their positions or when you need to fill pitching holes you get the top two. Article on ESPN on how to fix the METS - Sign Holliday, Sign Lackey, trade for Halladay. Now ask your self this, how many other teams do you fix with this and then how many other teams can actually afford to pay for that fix. Whats does the fix look like for the Padres per say. Sign Marquis, Sign Beltre etc. Now which plan is more successful. Which plan has more upside. Money equates to bringing in talent, talent equates to winning, bottom line.

Cant take a small amount of success Twins, rays Marlins and equate it over the league. Cant just say well it works for them why cant it work for the Pirates. If thats is your thought you truly dont understand the game. Equate the records of the top 10 teams to the bottom 10 and its almost a complete reverse. Thats not just coincidence like most will believe.

I give myself another 1-2 years of actually caring about baseball.

[BBTV]

IF the DH rules are kept the same, I'd suggest that for interleague play, the DH should be used in the National league parks, and the pitcher should bat in the American league parks. That may add a little bit of interest, and at least give the home fans a true taste of the other league.

Also, IF the ASG is kept, I agree with using the DH regardless of location.

[Jigga]

Pitchers should never bat in the MLB All-Star Game. Ever. For any reason. Even if everyone else is gravely injured.

[Epiphanic]

Cant take a small amount of success Twins, rays Marlins and equate it over the league. Cant just say well it works for them why cant it work for the Pirates. If thats is your thought you truly dont understand the game. Equate the records of the top 10 teams to the bottom 10 and its almost a complete reverse. Thats not just coincidence like most will believe.

Same reason why it doesn't work for the Royals. Inept management. The argument that you can build a contender on the cheap does not contend that money doesn't matter. Having more money to play with is an advantage, but it's clearly not the be-all end-all of championship aspirations. Furthermore, it has been shown that instituting a salary cap won't necessarily increase parity (which is presumably the reason why you'd institute it in the first place).

Let's look at team payroll and wins for 2009.

Team - Payroll (Wins)

New York Yankees - $201,449,189 (103)

New York Mets - $149,373,987 (70)

Chicago Cubs - $134,809,000 (83)

Boston Red Sox - $121,745,999 (95)

Detroit Tigers - $115,085,145 (86)

Los Angeles Angels - $113,709,00 (97)

Philadelphia Phillies - $113,004,046 (93)

Houston Astros - $102,996,414 (74)

Los Angeles Dodgers - $100,414,592 (95)

Seattle Mariners - $98,904,166 (85)

Atlanta Braves - $96,726,166 (86)

Chicago White Sox - $96,068,500 (79)

San Francisco Giants - $82,616,450 (88)

Cleveland Indians - $81,579,166 (65)

Toronto Blue Jays - $80,538,300 (75)

Milwaukee Brewers - $80,182,502 (80)

St. Louis Cardinals - $77,605,109 (91)

Colorado Rockies - $75,201,000 (92)

Cincinnati Reds - $73,558,500 (78)

Arizona Diamondbacks - $73,516,666 (70)

Kansas City Royals - $70,519,333 (65)

Texas Rangers - $68,178,798 (87)

Baltimore Orioles - $67,101,666 (64)

Minnesota Twins - $65,299,266 (87)

Tampa Bay Rays - $63,313,034 (84)

Oakland Athletics - $62,310,000 (75)

Washington Nationals - $60,328,000 (59)

Pittsburgh Pirates - $48,693,000 (62)

San Diego Padres - $43,734,200 (75)

Florida Marlins - $36,834,000 (87)

What does this tell us?

• The R-squared of payroll and wins is .216. In other words, payroll explains only 21.6% of the variation in wins.
  
• Of the top 10 teams in payroll (NYY to SEA), 8 teams had winning records.
  
• Of the middle 10 teams in payroll (ATL to ARI), 4 teams had winning records.
  
• Of the bottom 10 teams in payroll (KCR to FLA), 4 teams had winning records.
  

Top and Bottom 10 Payrolls by Wins

New York Yankees - $201,449,189 (103)

Los Angeles Angels - $113,709,00 (97)

Boston Red Sox - $121,745,999 (95)

Los Angeles Dodgers - $100,414,592 (95)

Philadelphia Phillies - $113,004,046 (93)

Texas Rangers - $68,178,798 (87)

Minnesota Twins - $65,299,266 (87)

Florida Marlins - $36,834,000 (87)

Detroit Tigers - $115,085,145 (86)

Seattle Mariners - $98,904,166 (85)

Tampa Bay Rays - $63,313,034 (84)

Chicago Cubs - $134,809,000 (83)

Oakland Athletics - $62,310,000 (75)

San Diego Padres - $43,734,200 (75)

Houston Astros - $102,996,414 (74)

New York Mets - $149,373,987 (70)

Kansas City Royals - $70,519,333 (65)

Baltimore Orioles - $67,101,666 (64)

Pittsburgh Pirates - $48,693,000 (62)

Washington Nationals - $60,328,000 (59)

To recap, money does help, but it does not guarantee success.

[OnWis97]

I'd keep the economics of the game the way they are now. As the Rays and Twins have shown, you can field competitive teams on the cheap. As the Mets and Orioles have shown, you can spend a lot of money and still not have a winning record. As the old saying goes: There's more than 25 great baseball players across the world. The Yankees, et al, can't sign everyone.

Now on to money. Isnt it easier to have a chance to win when you have 5-7 guys making 20 mil at the tops at their positions or when you need to fill pitching holes you get the top two. Article on ESPN on how to fix the METS - Sign Holliday, Sign Lackey, trade for Halladay. Now ask your self this, how many other teams do you fix with this and then how many other teams can actually afford to pay for that fix. Whats does the fix look like for the Padres per say. Sign Marquis, Sign Beltre etc. Now which plan is more successful. Which plan has more upside. Money equates to bringing in talent, talent equates to winning, bottom line.

Cant take a small amount of success Twins, rays Marlins and equate it over the league. Cant just say well it works for them why cant it work for the Pirates. If thats is your thought you truly dont understand the game. Equate the records of the top 10 teams to the bottom 10 and its almost a complete reverse. Thats not just coincidence like most will believe.

I give myself another 1-2 years of actually caring about baseball.

The more I think about it, the more I think that if I was commissioner (and part of my charge was to help bring in profit, I'd do exactly what Hedley says...not because it's fair, but because it's profitable. Look at how little of attention the income gap recieves vs., say, steroids. Some people care, but most do not. In fact, I think sports fans like to have teams they can count on...including the Yankees. While a Royals/Pirates series is as interesting to me as Yankees/Atlanta, the numbers prove that that's not the case for alot. Some tune in to root for the Yankees. Probably at least as many tune in to root against 'em. And some just know more about 'em. The only gripe I ever hear about the NFL is that you don't have the 49ers or Cowboys to count on being in the hunt every year. Some people miss that.

As a fan, though, I agree wholeheartedly with whchoclte (I suppose it should not be a huge surprise that Hedley (Atlanta) and I (Twins) don't agree. We both may have some bias (plus I am a liberal and he's a libertarian, so that may even matter))

Anyway, the key word in Hedley's post is "can". Sure it can happen. And it's gotten better. After five years of the current playoff format (which dates back to the strike, a time I consider to be the start of the huge gap), 38 of the 40 teams to make the playoffs were in the top half of payroll. Since then, we've had or Oaklands and Minnesotas "figure it out" to an extent. But can anyone suggest that a huge payroll it's not hugely advantageous? Let's look at the teams mentioned:

Yankees: They've missed the playoffs once since the strike. Does that make them the best run team in baseball? Just smarter than everyone else? Actually some analysts argue that they have not been that smart...spending too much money on established stars with fat contracts. Imagine if they'd been totally smart...

Mets: Since the Strike, the Mets have been in the hunt as much as the Twins (and have gone deeper into the playoffs). They are up and down and not always smart with their money, but stupid moves are much more easilly overcome when you have a $180 million payroll. They can afford to do things that the Royals cannot.

Orioles: Tough division, but the Orioles are definitely the best example/argument for the "payroll is of minor importance" argument. You can't just throw money with no plan. I am not certain, but I've always had the impression that Peter Angelos is a buffoon. This team is definitely proof of Hedley's "can". There are no guarantees.

Rays: A decade of futility. Then it all comes together. I like this team, but let's just see whether they can keep it together.

Twins: The Twins have been in the AL Central hunt since 2001, winning 5 titles. They are 1-5 in postseason series. Three losses to the Yanks, one to the Angels and one to Oakland. In fact in all this "look at the Twins and A's" era, they each have won one series, vs. each other. You could retort to me that I have reason to be interested all year AND anything can happen in a short series...that's right and it keeps me interested. But let's examine the Twins a bit more (since it's the only team I know well).

Over the past two years, the Twins have played in "Game 163". Prior to that, they lost Torii Hunter due to the ability of a larger market team to overpay him. They also lost Johan Santana due to their inability to pay for the kind of roster he wanted. He made it clear he would not sign there, so they traded him. Admittedly, this was not one of those smart Twins "Pyrzinski for Nathan and Liriano" trades, as Gomez is a complete bust. However, under equal economic footing, it seems reasonable to think that the Santana's needs could have just as easily been met in Minnesota as in a big market. So imagine Johan Santana in that rotation. Imagine Torii Hunter in center field the last two years. That alone is enough to make me pretty firm in my belief that they don't have to bother with 163 either year. Then with a Span-Hunter-Cuddyer OF, they may not feel the need to trade Garza for Delmon Young. The pitching staff would be a bit stronger? Would they have a WS title? Maybe not, but I'd like to watch that team try. The big market teams would not have to give up Hunter and Santana. And all the people the other small market teams have given up.

And there is nothing wrong with superstars playing in small markets. Brett Favre in Green Bay, KG in Minnesota, Crosby in Pittsburgh. That cannot happen in baseball. And when it does, you just wait until their contract runs out and guess...Mets? Yankees? Boston? The two latter teams have aging catchers. When Joe Mauer ends up playing for one, don't talk to me about fairness.

[OnWis97]

[*]The R-squared of payroll and wins is .216. In other words, payroll explains only 21.6% of the variation in wins.

Whoa! R-square. Bad flashback to school!

21.6% is quite a bit. It certainly can make a difference between winning the division and hovering around .500.

It never ceases to amaze me when fans say "sure it's an advantage, but not that big". We do like advantages for big markets and stars. We don't mind the special treatment certain players get from refs in the NBA and we are generally comfortable with the big market MLB teams being at an advantage.

[Saintsfan]

The All Star game as the method for deciding home field advantage was one of those things that originally seemed like a good idea, but hasn't proved to be as great as it sounded. I like the idea of the all star break, so I wouldn't be at all in favor of getting rid of the game altogether, but have it as just a bit of fun to mark the half way point in the season not as anything meaningful. I like the idea of every team getting representation.

Actually for Baseball, I would get rid of the draft. I think that the culture of baseball allows for better ways of signing and developing players.

[BBTV]

The All Star game as the method for deciding home field advantage was one of those things that originally seemed like a good idea,

It never seemed like a good idea.

I like the idea of every teamgetting representation.

With cable television, the internet, and interleague play, every team / player is accessible to every fan, so there's nothing special about forcing some crappy Pirate or Royal on to the field just so people can see the uniform. Actually, there's no point to the game at all, but I won't turn into a broken record.

Actually for Baseball, I would get ridof the draft. I think that the culture of baseball allows for betterways of signing and developing players.

Interesting.

On one hand, it's not fair that American players have to register for the draft, while foreign players can be scouted / trained / signed by the highest bidder. The teams that spend the big money to have the full scouting staffs and operate training academies really have the advantage here.

I want to say that they should force all incoming players to register for the draft, but then I worry that the international scouting and development will really decline.

Either way, don't get rid of the draft - just allow for trades of pics, so crappy teams aren't just wasting their top pick because they have to pass on a high-dollar prospect, but can't trade the pick for more later pics or players.

[Saintsfan]

Actually for Baseball, I would get ridof the draft. I think that the culture of baseball allows for betterways of signing and developing players.

Interesting.

On one hand, it's not fair that American players have to register for the draft, while foreign players can be scouted / trained / signed by the highest bidder. The teams that spend the big money to have the full scouting staffs and operate training academies really have the advantage here.

I want to say that they should force all incoming players to register for the draft, but then I worry that the international scouting and development will really decline.

Either way, don't get rid of the draft - just allow for trades of pics, so crappy teams aren't just wasting their top pick because they have to pass on a high-dollar prospect, but can't trade the pick for more later pics or players.

I don't know what would happen entirely, but I would hope that getting rid of the draft would force clubs to pay more attention to scouting and there minor league affiliates. My sense is that that was how good clubs got good back in the day. I am personally not sure there is any great NEED for baseball players to go to college, at least for there sporting developemnt. Let the clubs go out and look for future stars and sign them up.

Just quickly on the All Star Game, I always thought it seemed like an interesting way to build relevance into the game to tie it to the World Series, but now I say just make the All Star game a fan fest, a fun couple of days in the middle of the season, and thats it.

[whchoclte]

Actually for Baseball, I would get ridof the draft. I think that the culture of baseball allows for betterways of signing and developing players.

Interesting.

On one hand, it's not fair that American players have to register for the draft, while foreign players can be scouted / trained / signed by the highest bidder. The teams that spend the big money to have the full scouting staffs and operate training academies really have the advantage here.

I want to say that they should force all incoming players to register for the draft, but then I worry that the international scouting and development will really decline.

Either way, don't get rid of the draft - just allow for trades of pics, so crappy teams aren't just wasting their top pick because they have to pass on a high-dollar prospect, but can't trade the pick for more later pics or players.

I don't know what would happen entirely, but I would hope that getting rid of the draft would force clubs to pay more attention to scouting and there minor league affiliates. My sense is that that was how good clubs got good back in the day. I am personally not sure there is any great NEED for baseball players to go to college, at least for there sporting developemnt. Let the clubs go out and look for future stars and sign them up.

Just quickly on the All Star Game, I always thought it seemed like an interesting way to build relevance into the game to tie it to the World Series, but now I say just make the All Star game a fan fest, a fun couple of days in the middle of the season, and thats it.

Getting rid of teh draft will just be like throwing all the young talent into free agency and you know who wins there. Teh Nats would never have a chance at Staruburg. Imagine how it would have went. Yank - Strausburg, Sox - Ackley etc. If you have the most money you can sign teh best players. Would actually hurt baseball even further.

[Saintsfan]

Actually for Baseball, I would get ridof the draft. I think that the culture of baseball allows for betterways of signing and developing players.

Interesting.

On one hand, it's not fair that American players have to register for the draft, while foreign players can be scouted / trained / signed by the highest bidder. The teams that spend the big money to have the full scouting staffs and operate training academies really have the advantage here.

I want to say that they should force all incoming players to register for the draft, but then I worry that the international scouting and development will really decline.

Either way, don't get rid of the draft - just allow for trades of pics, so crappy teams aren't just wasting their top pick because they have to pass on a high-dollar prospect, but can't trade the pick for more later pics or players.

I don't know what would happen entirely, but I would hope that getting rid of the draft would force clubs to pay more attention to scouting and there minor league affiliates. My sense is that that was how good clubs got good back in the day. I am personally not sure there is any great NEED for baseball players to go to college, at least for there sporting developemnt. Let the clubs go out and look for future stars and sign them up.

Just quickly on the All Star Game, I always thought it seemed like an interesting way to build relevance into the game to tie it to the World Series, but now I say just make the All Star game a fan fest, a fun couple of days in the middle of the season, and thats it.

Getting rid of teh draft will just be like throwing all the young talent into free agency and you know who wins there. Teh Nats would never have a chance at Staruburg. Imagine how it would have went. Yank - Strausburg, Sox - Ackley etc. If you have the most money you can sign teh best players. Would actually hurt baseball even further.

Baseball used to make it work pre draft. Perhaps of you were going to do away with a draft you might have to introduce some form of cap, possibly a cap spent on free agents or something. I guess some would say that the draft was brought in to end the domination of teams like the Yankees, but my point is that the Yankees of the 50s say were good, not through free agency signings, but through a good scouting network, and quality well run minor league teams. My own opinion is that at the moment you almost have a minor league within the major leagues, with teams like the Yankees, Red Sox etc. able to sop up the talent that smaller, less rich teams have been able to develop. The draft has virtually no long term impact on a franchise. Add to that the importance in the modern game of talented foreign imports from the carribean and Japan, and to me you are left with a corrupted system. To me, either everyone enters the MLB through the draft, or noone does.