Article: Seeing Into The Future (And Not Liking It Much)

[Steven Buhr]

Make a list of the top three things you think are wrong with professional baseball today. In fact, make it five things, if you wish.

 

A year from now, the landscape regarding those issues is likely to be quite different than it is today. Things may be better, from your point of view, or they may be worse.

 

I take that back. Unless you’re a major league ballplayer, they’re almost certainly going to be worse.Major League Baseball and the players’ union (MLBPA) are about to begin hammering out a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the result is likely to have a direct or indirect effect on just about every aspect of professional baseball that any of us care about in the least.

 

Yes, this is going to be that big.

 

http://knuckleballsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mlb-and-union600-600x412.jpg

 

The thing is, we already know which side is going to win. It will be the players. We just don’t know the final score, yet.

 

There will also be more than one loser. It won’t be just the owners, though they will certainly be losers, some of them much more than others (that would be you, Minnesota Twins).

 

Owners/operators of some minor league teams are also possible losers (some of them potentially big losers).

 

Minor league players will be losers (as they always are in these CBAs).

 

Amateur ballplayers, in the United States and elsewhere, will be losers.

 

On the other hand, I’ve looked into my crystal ball and the future looks very, very bright – if you’re Mike Trout. In fact, the future also looks pretty good if you’re swimming anywhere in the top half of the MLB player talent pool.

 

For the rest of us, though, it could be a very bumpy ride.

 

In the early 2000s, estimates placed the percentage of MLB revenues paid out in Major League salaries at about 55%. Current estimates have been reported at something close to 43%. The players are clearly going to want to see those numbers project closer to 50% in the new CBA and they have enough leverage this time to get what they want.

 

You always want to be cautious about speaking ill of the dead, but the former head of the players union, Michael Weiner, who passed away in 2013, arguably gave away the farm to Bud Selig and the owners in his first, and only, CBA negotiation back in 2011.

 

In his defense, he wasn’t exactly dealt a strong hand going into those negotiations. Players’ reputations were continuing to be tarnished by the image among fans that they had all built their careers on performance enhancing drugs, making it certain that any work stoppage resulting from a failed CBA negotiation would be blamed on the players. Regardless of the reasons, though, the final result was a contract in which the owners got most everything they wanted.

 

Current MLBPA Executive Director Tony Clark, the first former player to lead the union, should carry a much stronger bargaining position into this round of negotiations.

 

As a group, baseball’s owners are making money by the boatload, thanks to incredible increases in local television revenues in many markets. That’s a double-edged sword, however, when it comes to negotiating a new CBA.

 

It makes it impossible for baseball to contend that they can’t afford to give a bigger share of the financial pie to the players, yet those revenues are anything but evenly distributed. As a result, increasing salaries across the board would adversely affect the competitiveness of teams who have not been able to cash in on the local TV bonanza (see: Twins, Minnesota).

 

On top of that, the owners with those huge TV deals stand to lose a lot of money in the event of a strike or lockout that results in games not being played, as do owners who rely on revenue sharing from those teams. Wide public awareness of the enormous revenues also makes it likely that ownership will be viewed by fans as being primarily at fault for any such work stoppage, should it occur.

 

The result is a players’ union with a very strong negotiating position and plenty of motivation to take advantage of it.

Here’s how the union could attempt to go about increasing the share of revenues that go to players’ salaries:

 

Significantly increase the minimum salary for Major League players

 

The minimum player's salary was $507,500 in 2015. That may not immediately increase to $1 million in 2017, but it won't be surprising if it's closer to that number than where it currently sits.

 

This is important to the union because significantly increasing the minimum would potentially result in fewer players signing early team-friendly extensions that buy out arbitration years and, in some cases, free agency years. These extensions are viewed by the union as a drag on average player salaries.

 

Elimination of the Qualifying Offer/draft pick compensation system for teams that stand to lose free agents

 

Despite changes that have been made to lessen the market-dampening effect for many free agents, the players still hate this system. It’s seen as being particularly hard on the union’s “upper-middle class” of players – those who aren’t in the elite category, but for whom having to settle for merely $15 million or so on a one year contract is “unfair.”

 

Significantly reducing the number of years a player is “under team control”

 

This refers to the total number of years that a club can restrict a player’s ability to shop his services to the highest bidder on the free agent market. It consists of a three-year (usually) period of essential “serfdom,” during which the player has no alternative but to accept whatever salary (subject to the Major League minimum) the team offers and another three-year period of years during which the team must decide whether to offer the player binding arbitration or grant him unconditional release.

 

The result is a total of six years (in most cases) of team control before a player can become a free agent, meaning that currently a player who makes his MLB debut on or after turning 24 years old will be at least 30 by the time he’s eligible to file for free agency if his team exercises every year of control they have over the player.

 

In combination with the increased minimum salary, reducing the number of years of team control could make it far more likely that players would forego the additional security of an early team-friendly contract extension, in favor of playing out their arbitration years to reach free agency as soon as possible. It could also make it much more likely that young superstars hit free agency right at their peak, in terms of productivity, rather than somewhere at the beginning of the downside of that curve.

 

More time off for players

 

The MLB schedule is a gauntlet. Between the day games after night games and, perhaps worse, the night games followed by cross-country overnight travel to begin another series the next day, the 162-game schedule is more than merely grueling and players want more than the three or so days off each month they currently get. The problem is that, with the extra postseason games resulting from the Wild Card era, the season already is starting and finishing during time periods where no sane person should be trying to play meaningful baseball in many northern big league cities.

 

One idea often floated to address this problem is to cut the schedule back to the 154 game levels that existed before the leagues expanded from eight to ten teams in the early 1960s. This would result in each team losing four home dates, however, and that would cut into revenues, not only with regard to attendance, but also in programming for those local TV partners that are shelling out big bucks to show the games.

 

Another possibility would be to expand active rosters. If you have 27 players, for example, instead of 25, it would be easier to give everyone an extra day off occasionally. It probably sounds better in theory than it would work in practice, however. Still, it would increase union membership by 8%, so don’t be shocked if the union pushes the idea pretty hard. In a worst case scenario, it gives them something they can “give up” when it comes time to finding a way to allow the owners to save some face.

 

Each of these would have the net effect of increasing the share of MLB revenues that go into the pockets of the players, collectively. Since the owners really cannot afford a work stoppage, if the MLBPA is willing to play hardball, we shouldn't bet money against the players' chances of getting some version of these changes. All of them.

 

What the owners will get

 

Of course, the owners won’t just cave on those issues while getting nothing in return – and that’s where things can turn bad for the rest of us.

 

The owners might get more drug testing. After all, the union has gone down this path already, so what’s the big deal about going a bit further? On the other hand, this “give” doesn’t put even a dime in the pockets of the owners, so they aren’t likely to push too hard for it.

 

The owners want an international draft, to further dampen costs of acquiring new talent. Since giving in on this issue costs the union membership absolutely nothing, they may posture about how unfair it is, but they will capitulate to the owners.

 

If the owners want further restrictions on bonuses paid to players subject to the draft, both foreign and domestic, the union can give on that issue, too. Again, it doesn’t cost their membership anything, so why not?

 

Of course, at a time when fewer parents are allowing their sons to play football, giving MLB an ideal opportunity to come up with ways to attract kids back to baseball, this is exactly the time when MLB should be adopting a system that encourages the best athletes in this country and around the world to choose baseball as a potential career over other sports, not discourage it.

 

But that might cost money and owners, by the time this subject gets addressed at the negotiating table, are probably going to be ticked off about the extra money they’re having to shell out to players already in the big leagues, so we shouldn't expect logic to win the day.

 

Indirect side effects on the rest of us

 

Unfortunately, none of the ownership "wins" are going to even come close to making up for the money the owners are going to lose to their players in this deal, so they’re going to end up looking elsewhere to recoup some of those bucks.

 

This is where minor league players, teams and fans should start feeling nervous.

 

Minor league players, you can forget about seeing your pay go up to anything close to a living wage. Consider yourselves lucky if they don’t lower your base pay. After all, neither the union nor the owners are looking out for your interests in this negotiation.

 

You might find yourself with less competition for that low paying minor league roster spot you’ve got, though.

 

The number of minor league teams with MLB affiliations hasn’t changed significantly in decades. The current working agreement between MLB and MiLB assures owners of current affiliated minor league teams of having a MLB affiliation every year, but that agreement expires after 2020. Renegotiation of that agreement is just one of many things that is waiting for the completion of the new CBA.

 

If owners decide they have been terribly abused under the new CBA, it shouldn't be too surprising to see them propose elimination of some affiliated minor leagues.

 

That would mean fewer communities with affiliated minor league teams, fewer jobs for minor league staff, fewer spots for minor league players and fewer games for minor league fans to attend.

 

Is this a Doomsday scenario that can’t possibly happen? Maybe. But neither MLB nor the players' union has ever been shy about screwing over minor leaguers in CBA negotiations. After all, minor league teams and players are not represented in those negotiating sessions, making it easy for both sides to sacrifice minor league interests if it means getting something of even moderate value in return. It's not unlikely that minor league baseball could look a little bit different in 2021 than it does today if Major League owners determine it's in their best financial interests to impose significant changes.

 

A year from now, we’ll likely know a lot more about the changes coming for professional baseball going forward. Unless you happen to be a big league ballplayer today, you have a right to feel very uneasy about those changes.

 

(This article was originally posted at Knuckleballsblog.com)

 

Click here to view the article

[Thrylos]

I think that it will be interesting indeed.

What I would like to see happen:

 

a. TV revenue sharing: 50% of the TV revenue goes to the home team, 50% in a pool that get distributed equally in the league; so better markets indeed get more $, but the other teams that play there, get a piece of the pie

 

b. Minimum MiLB salary that is tied to the minimum MLB salary, it is in a scale and should start at something like 8% for Rookies (that's $45K) and end at about 20% (that's 100K) for players in the upper minors and on the 40-man roster.

 

c. That qualifying offer should go away.  Not good for anyone. 

 

but

 

d. Single draft with the ability to draft both North American and International players (think NBA) and bring back the high rounds.

 

and

 

e.  Salary cap and floor that will be adjusted each season:  Add all the 2016 salaries and put the cap at 125% and the floor at 75%.  And should move at some way (5%? every season; so should the minimum salary.)  So if the average is $100M, the top should be $125M and no team should be below $75M.  Luxury tax is garbage, penalties should be draft picks or draft pick $.  So no Yankees, but no Marlins either.

 

f.  (unrelated to the CBA, but)  MLB teams should own their MiLB teams, so there is accountability and investment and ties to the community and investment by the community.  The Braves do that right now, I think that the Cardinals do as well.  The Twins own Elizabethton.

 

I think that those will be fair and square for both players and clubs, other than the Yankees and Dodgers of the league. 

[Guest]

Some interesting ideas, Thrylos, though I doubt much of what you suggest will come to pass, at least through this upcoming CBA.

 

Minor leaguers won't be helped by the CBA. They simply have no influence with either party in the negotiations. They're best (maybe only) hope is through the litigation that's been filed (and I doubt that hope is very strong).

 

100% team ownership is unlikely any time soon, though depending on what that 2020 MLB/MiLB agreement ends up looking like, anything is possible, I suppose. I just don't see how MLB could essentially force current MiLB owners to sell their assets to MLB clubs. To even try would likely result in minor league owners (many of which are communities themselves) marching to DC to demand Congress revisit MLB's antitrust exemption. If there's one thing that could protect minor league teams' interests going forward, it's the knowledge that they can't afford to piss off Congress and those Representatives do listen to their local constituents.

 

I also don't follow the logic that MLB team ownership of affiliates would increase investment in, and ties to, the community. How would the communities of Elizabethton, Cedar Rapids, Fort Myers, Chattanooga and Rochester benefit more from having their teams owned by someone in Minneapolis? MLB teams can certainly offer to buy any team that is up for sale, but trying to force those sales would be very risky for MLB. imo.

 

I don't think we'll ever see a MLB salary cap/floor. The union won't accept it willingly and the owners will never unify behind it enough to even try to get it.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Given the lawsuits moving through the courts right now and a bit  scrutiny on this, I suspect that they will do something to fix the minor league situation. Whether it will be enough, who knows, but I suspect they will move on that a bit. I'd be surprised if they didn't as the Union could find themselves in a very sticky spot if they continue to negotiate salaries for people who aren't members.

 

I think the QO/compensation piece will likely go away. It may be replaced with a comp sandwich pick or a pick right above the team's first rounder that signed the guy or perhaps their first round pick gets moved to the end of the first, but I suspect that the forfeited pick will be gone.

[ashbury]

Thought provoking analysis, SD. There are a lot of moving parts, so it's tough to forecast what the outcomes will be, but I would think this covers a lot of the possibilities.

[Jham]

I agree with much of the prediction. Except i don't think we would necessarily see more free agents by moving the time or pay scale for team control because the analysis for the same would also slide accordingly. Players still risk injury, owners risk losing players or having to pay more. Buying out arb years may still make sense for both sides provided the dollars are greater and offsers are sooner. Poker strategy doesn't change just because the ante goes up. Never the less, these changes still favor the player more often than not

[NoCal]

Another issue to negotiate: the incentive for teams to "tank", by selling off all of their assets, in order to achieve the highest draft slots. Houston is the classic example. I suspect that there will be an effort to institute a disincentive, such as a lottery of the ten worst teams drawing for the highest positions. Similar to the NBA.

The local angle, of course, is that the Twins take the traditional, classic stance of selectively pruning their roster, clinging to prospects, and waiting for an organic, cyclical return to competitiveness. Reducing the incentive to strip your team of its best assets would be healthy. 

[ToddlerHarmon]

I don't know enough to disagree with any of the predictions, but just to throw more doom out there, expanding rosters will also hit fans by slowing the game down yet more. Wouldn't we all love to see the 5th guy in a 9 man bullpen putting out the fire in the 4th inning? Blech.

 

As for a draft lottery preventing tanking, the NBA is seeing that blow up in its face, as rather than one team laying down for one year, you have several teams with lame rosters for as many years as it takes to win the lottery.

[Guest]

 

I agree with much of the prediction. Except i don't think we would necessarily see more free agents by moving the time or pay scale for team control because the analysis for the same would also slide accordingly. Players still risk injury, owners risk losing players or having to pay more. Buying out arb years may still make sense for both sides provided the dollars are greater and offsers are sooner. Poker strategy doesn't change just because the ante goes up. Never the less, these changes still favor the player more often than not

That's a fair observation. There may not be fewer players being offered extensions, but wouldn't it be interesting to see who they were? I think you might see minor leaguers getting those early offers, because they would still be far enough away from reaching free agency to make it worthwhile for them to accept the security AND get significantly higher immediate pay.

 

Imagine a world where the Twins are offering 4-5 year deals, with options, right now, not only to Sano and Buxtion, but to Berrios, Kepler and others, too,

 

And the tanking is also an issue, I agree, but I also agree with ToddlerHarmon that the NBA style lottery is an example of what doesn't work, rather than something MLB would emulate.

 

Merry Christmas, all, and thank you for reading and taking the time to offer your thoughts on this topic.

[nicksaviking]

The ill-fats Twins TV really has hurt this team. The Twins thinking they could demand ESPN prices form the cable and satellite providers when 21 hours of their broadcasting per day would have been watched by no one (24 hours during non-baseball months) was pretty foolish.

 

When that failed and 90% of Twins fans were unable to watch the games, the team had to come crawling back to FSN and accept their substandard deal. Considering how much more money TV generates than the stadium does, the team probably should have put at least as much effort into getting a realistic lucrative TV deal as they did trying to get a new stadium.

[DAM DC Twins Fans]

I don't know enough to agree or disagree with your analysis.  I do know that every agreement has hurt the fans over the past 20-25 years by lengthening calls to bullpen and between inning breaks.

 

I don't want to see rosters expand and 15 men bullpens!!!

 

In Maryland we have Cal Ripken summer league (college kids wood bats).  Good games that are fun to watch with no tv timeouts.  I expect these could grow if minor leagues shrink...that would be a good thing.

[ashbury]

I don't know enough to disagree with any of the predictions, but just to throw more doom out there, expanding rosters will also hit fans by slowing the game down yet more. Wouldn't we all love to see the 5th guy in a 9 man bullpen putting out the fire in the 4th inning? Blech.

I don't know enough to agree or disagree with your analysis.  I do know that every agreement has hurt the fans over the past 20-25 years by lengthening calls to bullpen and between inning breaks.

If it's ever viewed as a real problem, it should be possible to modify the rules to fix it. The reliever's been throwing for 5 minutes in the bullpen, yet gets 5 (or whatever) pitches when he arrives at the mound. Cut that out, and a pitching change isn't that painful. Such a change also adds a slight bit of strategy - if those extra warmup pitches really are useful to the pitcher, then the manager has a dilemma whether to bring in that guy for just one lefty-lefty matchup.

[Thrylos]

 

I don't know enough to disagree with any of the predictions, but just to throw more doom out there, expanding rosters will also hit fans by slowing the game down yet more.

 

I never understood why baseball fans who love to watch baseball, would like the games to end sooner, so they can watch less of the game they love to watch.

 

Never understood that oxymoron.

[nicksaviking]

I never understood why baseball fans who love to watch baseball, would like the games to end sooner, so they can watch less of the game they love to watch.

 

Never understood that oxymoron.

Some of us have jobs to get to in the morning and some of us would like our kids to be able to enjoy a game. Games ending at 11 PM can hamper both of those fronts.

[drjim]

I'm skeptical of the tone of the article. I don't know whywe should root for Arte Moreno instead of Mike Trout going forward.

 

I understand some of the frustration against the players union for not standing up more for minor league players and aome other baseball employees but that really isn't their job. If the players union refused to do even the little that they do minor leaguers would have it even worse. Owners aren't going to suddenly treat other sources of expense better.

 

As far as the specific points you made, I'll say the following.

 

I agree the minimum salary will likely rise, there will some sort of international draft, decent chance for an expanded roster.

 

Free agent compensation will be tweaked. I wish they would do something similar as the nfl, take the net free agents lost amd give comp picks. Not sure the plan.

 

For the draft I think trading picks might be on the table. I'm also not super concerned about the draft causing a talent drain, no evidence of it now and the draft pool keeps increasing.

 

No chance there is a shortening of service time before free agency. Not sure where that comes from.

 

I actually think the bigger fight will be between big and small market, involving revenue sharing and luxury tax, then between players and owners.

 

Overall money will move around but there won't be that significant of a change that drastically changes competitive balance.

 

I understand some of the concern for minor leagues, but the current situation seems too mutually beneficial to significantly change anytime soon.

[nicksaviking]

I'm skeptical of the tone of the article. I don't know whywe should root for Arte Moreno instead of Mike Trout going forward.

All things being equal, we'd all probably cheer for the millionaires over the billionaires, but that fight isn't the end of the story. The billionaires are business men, it's not like they are going to lose money to to the millionaires and simply shrug their shoulders, they're going to make the fans and tax payers cover their losses.

 

It's not a coincidence that new stadiums, ticket prices and TV demands skyrocketed corresponding to Scott Boras and the mega contracts for players in the mid to late 90's. The MLB players can complain all they want that the owners need to share revenues better, but they're lying if they don't acknowledge who is really footing the bill.

[drjim]

All thugs being equal, we'd all probably cheer for the millionaires over the billionaires, but that fight isn't the end of the story. The billionaires are business men, it's not like they are going to lose money to to the millionaires and simply shrug their shoulders, they're going to make the fans and tax payers cover their losses.

 

It's not a coincidence that new stadiums, ticket prices and TV demands skyrocketed corresponding to Scott Boras and the mega contracts for players in the mid to late 90's. The MLB players can complain all they want that the owners need to share revenues better, but they're lying if they don't acknowledge who is really footing the bill.

So you think owners wouldn't try to maximize revenues if they didn't have to pay as high of player salaries?

 

I think they always want to maximize revenues and minimize costs.

 

The difference is that baseball has turned more into a business from what it may have been in the past. It probably took more buy in from players to get to that point. I see Boras, etc as a product of that shift, not the cause.

[Mike Sixel]

I agree, fans and minor league players and international players will get screwed. That is inevitable.

[nicksaviking]

So you think owners wouldn't try to maximize revenues if they didn't have to pay as high of player salaries?

I think they always want to maximize revenues and minimize costs.

The difference is that baseball has turned more into a business from what it may have been in the past. It probably took more buy in from players to get to that point. I see Boras, etc as a product of that shift, not the cause.

If you're asking if I think it's a coincidence that baseball became more "business" at the same time Scott Boras became a household name and mega contracts became common, no I don't, not one bit.

 

If players weren't regularly getting $100M contracts, teams wouldn't be getting $500M tax payer funded stadiums or getting hundreds of millions from TV revenue. It was only the early 1990's when the Twins and Royals were handing out the biggest contracts in baseball.

[drjim]

If you're asking if I think it's a coincidence that baseball became more "business" at the same time Scott Boras became a household name and mega contracts became common, no I don't, not one bit.

 

If players weren't regularly getting $100M contracts, teams wouldn't be getting $500M tax payer funded stadiums or getting hundreds of millions from TV revenue. It was only the early 1990's when the Twins and Royals were handing out the biggest contracts in baseball.

I wasn't asking that and I don't think it is a coincidence either. But I do think revenues were starting to rise as Boras became more well known - there was certainly a market for agents that would advocate strongly for their clients.

 

And yes the Royals and Twins were at one point handing out the biggest contracts, but that was very short lived and was in the brief window when attendance was the primary driver of revenue amd they were simultaneously the highest drawing teams (at least the Twins were). Very soon revenue started to be driven by tv contracts, luxury boxes, corporate sponsorship and other ways those franchises couldn't keep up.

 

And I would still argue that players get those contracts because of publicly funded stadiums and tv contracts, those two items don't exist because of big player contracts.

 

And let's not pretend like this is a totally bad thing either. Target Field is much more enjoyable place to watch a game than the Metrodome, and we are fortunate that we can now watch every Twins game of the season from basically anywhere in the world. These are good things.

 

And I also don't buy minor leaguers and international players and fans are getting screwed. While the relative slice is dropping, they are getting more money than they have ever gotten. This will continue, with the possible exception of Cubans). Perhaps they should be getting more, but I reject the idea they are getting screwed.

 

And fans now have more access to more games and more information and more enjoyable facilities than they ever have. And they get to watch better players from more places around the world. This all strikes me as positive developments. And it's only going to get better and better.

[nicksaviking]

I'd much rather go back to only having access to the Twins (and Cubs and Braves) if it means my team can afford top contracts, they can't now, they once did. It might have been due to some collusion but whether it's the advent of mega contracts, free agency or a players strike, it's always the fans who get the shaft when players get their way, at least small market fans.

 

And again, in an objective setting I'd side with players over owners.

[clutterheart]

You're blaming the players for the treatment of the minor leaguers and the commercial breaks?

 

Thats an odd take.

 

Owners have always and will always squeeze the revenue orange as tightly as they can. Commercial breaks, ticket prices, concessions and the like will increase no matter what CBA they agree to.

Look at the NFL, owners get it all yet continue to destroy their game to chase another million while the fringe players who get hurt and destroy their bodies for the owners get very little.

[ashbury]

Owners have always and will always squeeze the revenue orange as tightly as they can.

If Saul Pohlad of Tarsus*, accompanying the team on a road trip to Damascus, had a vision and suddenly realized, "my God, I've been pricing ordinary families out of going to ballgames," and cut ticket prices by 90%, guess what would happen? Scalpers would find ways to scoop up every ticket, and you'd pay essentially the same prices as before, only on StubHub Ticket King. The money is there, richer fans than you and me are the ones bidding up the prices, and the only question is whether you want that revenue going to the players, to the team owners, or to sketchy guys doing arbitrage on the street and slightly more reputable ones via automated websites.

 

* Or Twins president Dave St Paul, if you prefer

[Devereaux]

 

I never understood why baseball fans who love to watch baseball, would like the games to end sooner, so they can watch less of the game they love to watch.

 

Never understood that oxymoron.

It's not more game. It's the same amount of game, but slower. Like if they changed the pianist between every movement in a Mozart concerto - accompanied by a long Treasure Island commercial break while the new pianist warmed up and adjusted himself.

[old nurse]

There would be an international draft only if it saves the owners money. The draft pool seems to be working and is cheap. With the pools being between 2 and 5 million a team there is not a whole lot lower you can go to use as a bargaining chip. That chip would be used by the players to get more for themselves.

[Mike Sixel]

There would be an international draft only if it saves the owners money. The draft pool seems to be working and is cheap. With the pools being between 2 and 5 million a team there is not a whole lot lower you can go to use as a bargaining chip. That chip would be used by the players to get more for themselves.

Art the expense of international players.

[kenbuddha]

 

I'd much rather go back to only having access to the Twins (and Cubs and Braves) if it means my team can afford top contracts, they can't now, they once did.

The Twins can afford top contracts. They choose not to except for one (Mauer's). Their TV revenue is $80M/year, their overall revenue (at Target Field) has been estimated to be about $250M. Their payroll has been kept below $100M for 4 out of the last 6 seasons, maybe for competitive reasons, or lack thereof, but if they had paid for a couple of top salaries (add $40M/season say), they'd still be spending about 50% of revenues on salaries (and they'd be more competitive).

 

So, they can afford top contracts, they've made a choice to not do that.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think the international draft is going to happen for competitive balance reasons (and yes, it saves the owners money too).  But honestly, for competitive reasons, something needs to change. Otherwise, you have perennial powerhouse teams managing to stay that way b/c they consistently outspend their opponents in the international FA market.  Only way I see that changing without an international draft is if the penalties get much more severe.

[Mike Sixel]

There are lots of other ways "drafts" and FA can co-exist.....but no league wants them because the workers would be paid more.