Deal helps Dodgers
stocked up on young talent, in part because of lavish spending in Latin America. What the restricted spending on international amateurs does is diminish the chances of another team trying to do that.
And, when another team tries to decide whether to trade a pending free agent or let him walk, the Dodgers have the talent pipeline to take advantage of what should be a cheaper price.
No longer can a team with a quality player on the verge of free agency count on getting a top draft pick if he leaves. That team now has to wait to see whether the player signs for at least $50 million. If he does, the old team would get a pick, but after the first round.
Take the Kansas City Royals, for instance. Under the expiring system, they could get three top picks next winter if they lost outfielder Lorenzo Cain, first baseman Eric Hosmer and third baseman Mike Moustakas. If the Royals struggle next season — and if those players struggle — the team would have less incentive to retain them in the hope of extracting a trio of firstround picks next winter.
That, in turn, could lower the asking price in trade next July for a player like Moustakas, should the Royals fail to contend and the Dodgers need help at third. The Dodgers would love to retain third baseman Justin Turner, but the new compensation rules do not take effect until next winter, so they’d get a top draft pick if Turner and/or closer Kenley Jansen departs.
Also, as the new labor agreement is implemented, the Dodgers are in prime position to take advantage of unintended consequences — that is, the loopholes no one envisioned at the bargaining table.
Under the expiring labor agreement, a two-year restriction on signing international amateurs was supposed to be a deterrent to extravagant bonuses. Instead, the Dodgers and others happily blew past the intended spending limits, stocking up on enough talent to make the two-year restriction all but irrelevant.
There will be such unintended consequences in the new agreement. The Dodgers no doubt will find them, thanks not only to a smart executive group but also to a research-and-development unit that included eight staffers last season.
The new All-Star game rule should eradicate memories of the most unappealing picture of Bud Selig’s 22-year reign as commissioner. When both leagues ran out of pitchers after 11 innings of the 2002 All-Star game, Selig infamously called the game a tie.
Selig then shepherded the change, with an assist from Fox. Surely the drama would be greater, and the ratings would be higher.
Or not. Ratings were not higher. Managers were forced to keep players in reserve for extra innings of an exhibition.
And the players mocked the concept. In 2012, Detroit ace Justin Verlander gave up five runs in the first inning, and the American League lost. Verlander came out pumping fastballs, some at 100 mph, to see whether he could blow away the National League’s best.
“This game is for the fans,” Verlander said. “I know the fans don’t want to see me throw 90 and try to hit the corners.”
When Rob Manfred replaced Selig as commissioner last year, we asked if he would change the All-Star format.
“My view on the homefield advantage is that it has altered the way the game has been played in a positive way for the fans,” Manfred said then. “Anything that makes the game better for the fans, I’m going to move very slowly on, in terms of making a change.”
He moved, and, thankfully, pretty quickly at that.