![]() The most important point of discussion during this lockout needs to be protecting the profitability and popularity of the game. Equipping a men’s softball league with a contract-only pay structure would be trivial. A “perfect” pay structure in a league with low annual revenue would make the differences between player salaries pretty negligible. The game is certainly younger than ever.īut simply stripping team owners of the ability to limit the compensation of young players should not be the main point of contention in the lockout. The motivation to loosen the restrictions on a player’s service time requirements at the Major League level lies, at least in part, in the rise of young players in years past. The MLB Players Association seeks a major overhaul of baseball’s free agency, service time, and arbitration structure. With no back-to-back World Series champion in 20 years and 17 teams earning World Series bids in the last 14 years, large-market teams still hold an advantage, but the landscape is far from irreparably lopsided. Far more than its popular professional sports counterparts, the ebb and flow of MLB franchise successes are wildly turbulent. Lastly, there need to be incentives for players to stay loyal to small-market teams that struggle in the short run due to the expanded opportunities of a championship in the long run.īased on World Series wins, the era of true baseball “dynasties” is assuredly over. ![]() Thirdly, incentives for teams to protect their current assets instead of investing in future ones. Then, incentives for more teams to fill the designated hitter position with electrifying talent at the plate. First, they need incentives for more teams to feel that they have a dog in the fight when the trade deadline approaches. The primary focus of the MLB lockout should be these added incentives. In the recent discussions between MLB players and team owners, this reality becomes painfully clear: Both parties love the idea of expanded playoffs and a universal designated hitter, but imposing restrictions on revenue-sharing for “tanking” teams feels difficult to evaluate and counterproductive for spending on players. In most cases, offering incentives is more attractive than enforcing punishments. Made evident by the unusually huge stir of excitement surrounding the latest insurgence of pre-lockout trades, free-agent signings and contract extensions, fans crave a change. The former “hot stove” of the trade deadline is growing drier, often attributable to the small number of heavy-hitting buyers stimulating the market. Top teams face the two worst rosters in their division 38 times in a season. Given the scheduling structure of Major League Baseball, the level of ease and lack of retribution involved in tanking causes a cascade effect between contenders and their divisional punching bags. No matter the sport, this phenomenon comes into play far more often in small-market franchises. So-called “tanking” and “trusting the process” create an ever-increasing chasm between playoff contenders and their divisional opponents. Struggling small market organizations drowning in the collective swim for financial leverage in a saturated pool of free agents or trade candidates at the deadline will release top assets on a whim if front office algorithms prove that their season is in jeopardy. Here, the operational strategy of small-market teams takes center stage. For the first time in nearly 30 years, the MLBPA-owner dynamic holds the fate of baseball in the balance. Of course, concerns over the resumption of baseball activity this season are legitimate, but the proposals of the lockout hold much greater bearing on how baseball will modernize itself. With the enforcement of the MLB, lockout comes haunting questions about the future of the game.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |