I like the idea you have proposed.
Ethics will play no part in their new strategies.
I think that I would avoid talking too much about about ethics in any of this. We have very wealthy organizations throwing what is chump change for them, (but is incredible amounts of money for these kids that might set up their families as for at least a generation) at 16 year kids with the intention of tieing them up for at the next ten years IF they prove to be good. All of the advantages are for the organizations.
I would prefer that the various teams would follow the "rules" that they all agreed to and negotiated on. Clearly, that won't happen. The wealthier organizations will look for loopholes in the rules that will give them advantages over their competitors. I expect that when we are talking about 16 year kids here, the ones that look much, much better at 16, might not look so much better at 18 or 21. Lets face it, Arcia, Polanco, and several pitchers who are looking very promising right now for the Twins, were signed to relatively modest contracts. It is almost impossible to make any predictions on how good signings of 16 year kids are going to look in 3/5/10 years from now.
At this point, I am not going to worry very much if various teams bend the rules to sign 16 year old kids to huge contracts. The chances are much better that those signings will prove to be poor investments for those teams than they will come away with incredible talents.
You make sound points, Jim. I guess I still feel strongly that, when we witness cheating in our society, we should feel some measure of outrage about it. The message we're sending to our younger fans, in this instance, is that agreements don't have to be kept and cheating has its benefits, so don't be a chump, get in there and get yours. The international market has been notoriously filled with shady dealings, and MLB has been complicit. I don't know what the solution is, but would appreciate seeing much of the unsavoriness eliminated from the process. I won't hold my breath though.
When I made the simple and true statement that a handful of teams have (Cubs) or would be (Yanks) cheating the system, you disagreed. You said that if this was true, there would be a slew of lawsuits. I have no clue where you wandered off to after that, but there were some terrific contributions from others in the thread, and the overwhelming consensus is that the league, in the face of this cheating, will certainly address the problem. So the majority concurs.
Again, you haven't clarified why the analogy is bogus. I'm more than happy the stadium was built and I didn't argue it shouldn't have been. I said with the new stadium an implied payroll was expected to be sustained. In fact it was promised. Things changed, we'll get over it. But how is that any less unethical than going over an International signing slot?
Bottom line is it isn't. All teams have the prerogative to go over the bonus allotment, just as all teams have the prerogative to set their payroll.
You were not promised, by the Twins or anyone else, that they would spend "X" amount on payroll in "Y" timeframe. More importantly, you are not entitled to be a party to some agreement. Most importantly, there has been no unethical conduct that you can legitimately cite, unlike with the Cubs, who breached a formal agreement that they participated in formulating. Yes, Jim Pohlad said they'd spend more on payroll. Yes, Jim Pohlad and others have said they have a guideline (not a promise or agreement) to spend an average of about 52% of revenue. Apparently, many of you believe, because this hasn't happened (yet), that you have been betrayed. There is no agreement, nick. There is only an expectation, a false one, that the Twins should spend 52% on payroll, each and every year I guess, and some of you have convinced youeselves that not doing so is unethical, or some sort of violation against you.
So, your analogy is bogus, nick. Bottom line? The Cubs were unethical. They have the prerogative to be unethical. The Twins, who by the way HAVE at least increased their spending in fits and starts, have not been unethical.
If we think the Twins are not spending enough, we can vote with our pocketbook and whine about it on TD, but those are our only choices. And we are not entiltled to anything more.
I can certainly agree about the spirit of the rules, and I doubt anyone would complain if a team spent a 100k more to get that one last guy, but the Cubs and Rangers destroyed their allotments last year and the Yanks and Sox appear to be doing it this season. The penalties that were agreed on were not strict enough to do it. Had these teams been forced to surrender their first rounder in the US draft, I don't think this would have happened unless they really really really liked someone.
As I said prior, I'm pretty sure this was by design. Most teams want an international draft, and to get around it, they need to show how the system is broken. Putting a good system together won't get them that.
We will see come July what actually happens...
You are the one who keeps bringing up the payroll, I simply used it as another example of what many would consider questionable ethics. So enough of trying to misdirect the discussion. AGAIN I'm not arguing that the Twins need to stick to the statement that they'd spend 52% of revenue. AGAIN I am arguing against your claim that breaking a non-existent rule that you (and many of us) wish were in place is unethical. It isn't.
I agree with you, diehard, that they didn't break the rules. I simply am holding them to a modest standard of ethics. I believe the prevalent view among people who study and teach ethics would be that the Cubs and Rangers intentionally bycheated and caused harm to other parties to the same agreement by circumventing the spirit and intent of the agreement.
I think we covered the topic, nick. You brought up spending, I didn't, and you pressed me twice to clarify why I beleive, unlike you, that your analogy doesn't fit. We don't agree, and I fully understand your point of view. Thanks for being civil, I appreciate and respect your opinions.
Diehardtwinsfan comments make me think about one comment and one question.
The Comment: I don't think this system was created to fail, I think it's failing because there were too many compromises in the negotiations for a new system. The spending limits was set up to accomplish two things. 1, To keep spending down on amateur players and 2) to divide the young talent up more equally; essentially to change it from a 'who spends the most' system to a 'who scouts the best' system. When a low budget team like the Rays takes on the penalties, some could argue that team is just taking a calculated risk on talent they like this year vs the talent that is available next year. On the other hand, When The highest revenue team plans to spend more money than they ever have to grab the most high end talent they can; Then the new system failed to accomplish it's goals.
The Question: If only the owners and the players union are in the negotiations, what does the union have against an international draft of players, they don't, and in most cases will never, represent?