Quote:
Originally Posted by dallaschiefsfan
Giving lower payroll teams higher picks for winning is an interesting attempt to stop the tanking trend. I kinda' like it because it can only be helpful to the Royals when they're winning - they never really tried to tank like other teams, so I don't see it changing the way they operate - only a potential benefit.
But I'm not sure how it helps the current issues being experienced with FA contracts. Teams like the Royals MIGHT change some behaviors, like signing a lower to mid tier FA here or there instead of going with a rook. However, the top tier FA's continue to stay on the market so late into the off-season because high revenue teams have simply changed their business approach to FA and aren't paying/bidding like they used to.
Since top tier FA's tend to set the market for everyone else, I'm not sure how this will change much, since the high revenue teams are usually signing the big names. I'm curious as to whether the corresponding penalty for tanking applies to high revenue teams as well - I would think it would have to...otherwise, they could tank without repercussions. Maybe they think the penalty will cause them to go spend crazy for the Harpers and Machado's of the world? I'm not so sure. You don't need those guys to simply avoid tanking.
|
It wouldn't change anything, if you suck and are going to lose 90 games because of past bad contracts, you are still going to suck. Why go spend a shit ton to still lose 90?
They want competition? Salary floor and ceiling. 8 teams make postseason per conference.
If they institute the clock they also need to bar batter timeouts. Maybe also push the batters box away from the plate a inch or more on each side.