Competitive balance lottery

[Cedric]

What a joke...

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/07/2 ... sults.html


Competitive Balance Round A

Marlins
Rockies
Cardinals
Brewers
Padres
Indians

Competitive Balance Round B

Reds
Athletics
Mariners
Twins
Orioles
Diamondbacks

[757690]

The fact that the Cardinals and Orioles are part of this is beyond absurd. It's downright insulting to all sense of logic and reason.

Has the league given any reason why they even have a lottery? Why not just give every team that deserves one, am extra pick?

[dougdirt]

What makes it difficult to understand how teams get a chance to get a pick? The rules are laid out pretty well at the link.

[757690]

What makes it difficult to understand how teams get a chance to get a pick? The rules are laid out pretty well at the link.

I understand the rules, I just think they are poorly written, if they consider the the Orioles, Cardinals and Rockies to be at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the league.

I also don't understand why there needs to be a lottery. Pick teams that truly are at a competitive disadvantage, however many there are, and give them all picks. Why must some teams with a disadvantage risk not getting a pick?

[RedTeamGo!]

I understand the rules, I just think they are poorly written, if they consider the the Orioles, Cardinals and Rockies to be at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the league.

I also don't understand why there needs to be a lottery. Pick teams that truly are at a competitive disadvantage, however many there are, and give them all picks. Why must some teams with a disadvantage risk not getting a pick?

How would you determine which teams are at a disadvantage in your scenario?

[757690]

How would you determine which teams are at a disadvantage in your scenario?

First, stop using an arbitrary round number like 10 to determine how many teams are at a disadvantage. Second, don't use payrolls at all as a guide, simply use TV market size, since that is the main source of income for teams. Figure out what the average TV market size is for MLB, then give a pick to the tams that are a certain percentage below that.

[dougdirt]

First, stop using an arbitrary round number like 10 to determine how many teams are at a disadvantage. Second, don't use payrolls at all as a guide, simply use TV market size, since that is the main source of income for teams. Figure out what the average TV market size is for MLB, then give a pick to the tams that are a certain percentage below that.

Even in your scenario, your outrage would still exist given that the Cardinals and Orioles are in the bottom seven tv markets in baseball.

[757690]

Even in your scenario, your outrage would still exist given that the Cardinals and Orioles are in the bottom seven tv markets in baseball.

First, why would it be 7? I said base who gets a pick on how far below the league average a team is in terms of TV market size.

Second, I would tie it into attendance instead of payroll. If your are above average, or even a certain amount above average in attendance, you don't get a pick.

Seriously, do you think the Cardinals, Orioles, and Rockies are at a competitive disadvantage? It's a joke.

[dougdirt]

First, why would it be 7? I said base who gets a pick on how far below the league average a team is in terms of TV market size.

Second, I would tie it into attendance instead of payroll. If your are above average, or even a certain amount above average in attendance, you don't get a pick.

Seriously, do you think the Cardinals, Orioles, and Rockies are at a competitive disadvantage? It's a joke.

Yes, I do think they are at a competitive disadvantage. They, like the Reds, are in a small tv market and have the money they can bring in through advertising and TV deals much more limited than teams in much larger markets. It's not a joke. It's actually very simple.

[757690]

Yes, I do think they are at a competitive disadvantage. They, like the Reds, are in a small tv market and have the money they can bring in through advertising and TV deals much more limited than teams in much larger markets. It's not a joke. It's actually very simple.

I trust the metrics that determines that the Rockies, Cards and Orioles are in a "small" TV market as much as I trust the new defensive metrics.

[dougdirt]

I trust the metrics that determines that the Rockies, Cards and Orioles are in a "small" TV market as much as I trust the new defensive metrics.

So you want to use their tv markets, but don't trust the actual research numbers that everyone on the planet uses to determine their market size? Do tell what information you have that they don't and how you got it?

[757690]

So you want to use their tv markets, but don't trust the actual research numbers that everyone on the planet uses to determine their market size? Do tell what information you have that they don't and how you got it?

I would include in my proposal a new way to calculate TV market size. The current one isn't very reliable.

The Cardinals are the Yankees of the NL. They have no problem generating revenue. They have a huge market and fan base. They are not at a competitive disadvantage. The actually city is small, but the suburbs and surrounding area are huge. The county commissioner is actually far more powerful than the mayor.

The Rockies market is the whole state. The Orioles probably have their market cut down because of the emergence of the Nationals, which isn't fair. They still have a huge fan base.

I'd put the Brewers and Marlins in that group as well. The Brewers have the whole state, and a large surrounding area, and Miami ain't a small market by any measure. The fact that no one watches them is management's fault, not the size of the market.

I'd give these team an extra pick:

A's
Rays
Twins
Reds
Indians
Mariners

Six picks. No need for a lottery.

[dougdirt]

The Cardinals are not the Yankees of the National League. Simply winning a lot doesn't make you the Yankees. The Yankees are on an entirely different playing field.

The St. Louis Metro area is 2.9M people. The New York City metro area is 20M people. But yeah, they are somehow close to each other in terms of market size. Yankees tickets behind the Yankees dugout cost 2.5-3 times what it costs to sit right behind the Cardinals dugout. In terms of generating revenue, the two couldn't be much further apart.

If St. Louis had the same record as the Cubs over the last 20 years, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

[757690]

The Cardinals are not the Yankees of the National League. Simply winning a lot doesn't make you the Yankees. The Yankees are on an entirely different playing field.

The St. Louis Metro area is 2.9M people. The New York City metro area is 20M people. But yeah, they are somehow close to each other in terms of market size. Yankees tickets behind the Yankees dugout cost 2.5-3 times what it costs to sit right behind the Cardinals dugout. In terms of generating revenue, the two couldn't be much further apart.

If St. Louis had the same record as the Cubs over the last 20 years, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

Let's be clear abiit what this is: It is MLB welfare. A way give those less fortunate a better chance to be competitive.

So this should go to teams who need it the most, those who are having trouble being competive, through no fault of their own. This should be deterimined the same way welfare eligibility is determined, by means testing.

The question that should be asked is: "Does this team have the means to compete?" If you're in a big market, and not drawing big crowds, or TV ratings, you don't get a pick, because you have the means to compete, you're just not using it. If you're in a small market, but are drawing big crowds and TV ratings, you don't get a pick, because you also have the means to compete,,even if you don't have a big market.

The teams that should get a pick are teams that both are in small markets and that don't draw well. Just like welfare. You have to both not have an high income, and not be wealthy from savings or family money. You can live in a poor neighborhood, have poor parents, but if you still end up making good money, you don't get welfare. Same with these picks. If you're generating good revenue, you don't get a pick.

[dougdirt]

Let's be clear abiit what this is: It is MLB welfare. A way give those less fortunate a better chance to be competitive.

So this should go to teams who need it the most, those who are having trouble being competive, through no fault of their own. This should be deterimined the same way welfare eligibility is determined, by means testing.

The question that should be asked is: "Does this team have the means to compete?" If you're in a big market, and not drawing big crowds, or TV ratings, you don't get a pick, because you have the means to compete, you're just not using it. If you're in a small market, but are drawing big crowds and TV ratings, you don't get a pick, because you also have the means to compete,,even if you don't have a big market.

The teams that should get a pick are teams that both are in small markets and that don't draw well. Just like welfare. You have to both not have an high income, and not be wealthy from savings or family money. You can live in a poor neighborhood, have poor parents, but if you still end up making good money, you don't get welfare. Same with these picks. If you're generating good revenue, you don't get a pick.

Using your welfare example - If two families are both making $25,000 a year, but one handles their money much better than the other, should one be eligible for welfare and not the other? That is basically what you are saying here. The Cardinals do not have all kinds of more money than a bunch of teams do, nor do they have the means to climb up and make a whole bunch more, but they use the money that they do have incredibly well. You seem to want to punish them for simply using their money better than other teams with the same streams of money who use it not nearly as well.