<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trading Draft Picks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/</link>
	<description>A Rough Draft Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:58:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kyle Richardson</title>
		<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-63337</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Richardson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:40:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-63337</guid>
		<description>I could be wrong, but didn&#039;t the A&#039;s sometime in the &#039;90s trade away a veteran (David Justice?) to help free up money to pay for their boatload of draft picks (7 or so in the first 60 picks?)?? 

For some reason that rings a bell, and if it did happen, that should have been the point the MLBPA should have pushed for slotting draft picks... If that did happen, the current big league players just saw their average pay decline (assuming the A&#039;s brought up a minimum-salaried player) in order for the A&#039;s to pay for several unproven players... 

I&#039;m sure no one else will see this as I just got back from vacation and am reading all the Joe Pos blogs that I missed from the last week, but what the heck, eh?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I could be wrong, but didn&#8217;t the A&#8217;s sometime in the &#8217;90s trade away a veteran (David Justice?) to help free up money to pay for their boatload of draft picks (7 or so in the first 60 picks?)?? </p>
<p>For some reason that rings a bell, and if it did happen, that should have been the point the MLBPA should have pushed for slotting draft picks&#8230; If that did happen, the current big league players just saw their average pay decline (assuming the A&#8217;s brought up a minimum-salaried player) in order for the A&#8217;s to pay for several unproven players&#8230; </p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure no one else will see this as I just got back from vacation and am reading all the Joe Pos blogs that I missed from the last week, but what the heck, eh?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CJE</title>
		<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62779</link>
		<dc:creator>CJE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:52:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62779</guid>
		<description>I think Joe actually bought into a point that lines up with number 2, small market teams hire nimrods. RIght now, the system is as follows: 1)small market team want to draft player, 2)Boras says you can&#039;t afford player 3)Then a) Small market team chooses to draft another signable player, b) chooses to draft Boras&#039; player and doesn&#039;t sign him getting another pick in the following draft, or c) chooses to draft Boras&#039; player and meets the demand/negotiates a deal each side will take. How does adding option d) trade Boras&#039; player to another team for prospects, hurt the system. It assumes the small market team will not be able to decide if whatever package being offered is worth more than the draft pick the following year. If another team is willing to pay Boras&#039; player more money, then they need to offer a package to the team who drafted him. The team that drafted the player still has the same leverage they have now, except they have more options to improve the team. Let the team decide if it wants to make a trade. Agents can try all they want to control where a player goes, but if a team is willing to pay a player twice what anybody else is, then they also must be willing to part with something to get that player. Although not totally analogous, The Red Sox paid 50 millions just to negotiate  with Dice-K. If Boras really thinks the situation is the same, does he think the Nationals could sell the rights to Strasburg for 50 million dollars to some other interested team. If so, the MLB is doing a terrible disservice to the Nationals, who could invest that money in other players in the draft later on who slipped becuase of signing issues, in the Dominican and elsewhere assuming the players they sign are actual prospects and worth the bonuses they are given, to free agents to help the team, or to locking up their own players long term. The agent does not increase the power so long as teams can appropriately value their options.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Joe actually bought into a point that lines up with number 2, small market teams hire nimrods. RIght now, the system is as follows: 1)small market team want to draft player, 2)Boras says you can&#8217;t afford player 3)Then a) Small market team chooses to draft another signable player, b) chooses to draft Boras&#8217; player and doesn&#8217;t sign him getting another pick in the following draft, or c) chooses to draft Boras&#8217; player and meets the demand/negotiates a deal each side will take. How does adding option d) trade Boras&#8217; player to another team for prospects, hurt the system. It assumes the small market team will not be able to decide if whatever package being offered is worth more than the draft pick the following year. If another team is willing to pay Boras&#8217; player more money, then they need to offer a package to the team who drafted him. The team that drafted the player still has the same leverage they have now, except they have more options to improve the team. Let the team decide if it wants to make a trade. Agents can try all they want to control where a player goes, but if a team is willing to pay a player twice what anybody else is, then they also must be willing to part with something to get that player. Although not totally analogous, The Red Sox paid 50 millions just to negotiate  with Dice-K. If Boras really thinks the situation is the same, does he think the Nationals could sell the rights to Strasburg for 50 million dollars to some other interested team. If so, the MLB is doing a terrible disservice to the Nationals, who could invest that money in other players in the draft later on who slipped becuase of signing issues, in the Dominican and elsewhere assuming the players they sign are actual prospects and worth the bonuses they are given, to free agents to help the team, or to locking up their own players long term. The agent does not increase the power so long as teams can appropriately value their options.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62771</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:30:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62771</guid>
		<description>The way to fix the draft is to follow the NBA&#039;s system.  You declare for the draft, no being eligible just because you graduated high school, or because you finished your junior year of college.  You want to come out after high school, fine you give up your college eligibility.  You want to be draft eligible after your junior year of college, forfeit your remaining year of eligibility.  At that point, the player doesn&#039;t have that leverage to use against the team.  Along with that, once a player is drafted, his rights belong to that team.  Period.  If you want to go to Japan for a couple of years, play independent ball, whatever.  When you decide to play major league baseball, you come back and sign with the team that drafted you.  The final piece of the puzzle is absolute salary slotting.  You can give a range for each pick, but instead of guy like Boras demanding so much over the &quot;suggested slot amount&quot; as happens now, you sign and work hard to get to the majors.  Then if a team is sitting at #1 or #5 or whatever, and there isn&#039;t a player they want to pay that pre-determined amount they can trade the pick to a team who wants it, grab a prospect or two, and get something out of the deal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The way to fix the draft is to follow the NBA&#8217;s system.  You declare for the draft, no being eligible just because you graduated high school, or because you finished your junior year of college.  You want to come out after high school, fine you give up your college eligibility.  You want to be draft eligible after your junior year of college, forfeit your remaining year of eligibility.  At that point, the player doesn&#8217;t have that leverage to use against the team.  Along with that, once a player is drafted, his rights belong to that team.  Period.  If you want to go to Japan for a couple of years, play independent ball, whatever.  When you decide to play major league baseball, you come back and sign with the team that drafted you.  The final piece of the puzzle is absolute salary slotting.  You can give a range for each pick, but instead of guy like Boras demanding so much over the &#8220;suggested slot amount&#8221; as happens now, you sign and work hard to get to the majors.  Then if a team is sitting at #1 or #5 or whatever, and there isn&#8217;t a player they want to pay that pre-determined amount they can trade the pick to a team who wants it, grab a prospect or two, and get something out of the deal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62753</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62753</guid>
		<description>The NCAA rules say that they player&#039;s can&#039;t hire agents, but they can consult with advisors...but those advisors can&#039;t negotiate directly with teams.

Recently a court ruled that the NCAA couldn&#039;t take away a players&#039; eligibility for using an agent in negotiations.  I think I read somewhere that the NCAA is ignoring the court&#039;s ruling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NCAA rules say that they player&#8217;s can&#8217;t hire agents, but they can consult with advisors&#8230;but those advisors can&#8217;t negotiate directly with teams.</p>
<p>Recently a court ruled that the NCAA couldn&#8217;t take away a players&#8217; eligibility for using an agent in negotiations.  I think I read somewhere that the NCAA is ignoring the court&#8217;s ruling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris M</title>
		<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62746</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:18:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62746</guid>
		<description>A question I&#039;ve been pondering that I haven&#039;t seen addressed anywhere (and sorry if it was mentioned, I skipped some of the comments) - I&#039;ve been hearing about Strasburg being a Boras client for quite some time now, since well before Strasburg was finished pitching for SD State. How is that possible? Isn&#039;t that like the biggest breach of NCAA rules there is? If I had heard &quot;Drew Rosenhaus is asking whoever picks Matthew Stafford for a $___ Million signing bonus&quot; a few weeks before the Sugar Bowl, Stafford&#039;s career at UGA would have been done. Why are baseball players allowed to sign athletes while they&#039;re still students? Is it just b/c baseball isn&#039;t a big cash cow, so they don&#039;t have to play the same charade as football and basketball players? If so, the NCAA is an even bigger farce than I thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A question I&#8217;ve been pondering that I haven&#8217;t seen addressed anywhere (and sorry if it was mentioned, I skipped some of the comments) &#8211; I&#8217;ve been hearing about Strasburg being a Boras client for quite some time now, since well before Strasburg was finished pitching for SD State. How is that possible? Isn&#8217;t that like the biggest breach of NCAA rules there is? If I had heard &#8220;Drew Rosenhaus is asking whoever picks Matthew Stafford for a $___ Million signing bonus&#8221; a few weeks before the Sugar Bowl, Stafford&#8217;s career at UGA would have been done. Why are baseball players allowed to sign athletes while they&#8217;re still students? Is it just b/c baseball isn&#8217;t a big cash cow, so they don&#8217;t have to play the same charade as football and basketball players? If so, the NCAA is an even bigger farce than I thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jesse</title>
		<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62743</link>
		<dc:creator>Jesse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:08:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62743</guid>
		<description>One more correction: 

Brian Bullington is currently pitching in Las Vegas, Toronto&#039;s AAA affiliate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One more correction: </p>
<p>Brian Bullington is currently pitching in Las Vegas, Toronto&#8217;s AAA affiliate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62736</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:18:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62736</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m shocked, SHOCKED, to see Joe discuss Floyd Bannister in a column with nary a mention of his son.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m shocked, SHOCKED, to see Joe discuss Floyd Bannister in a column with nary a mention of his son.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thinking out loud 6.8.9 : ctrentrosecrans.com</title>
		<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62726</link>
		<dc:creator>Thinking out loud 6.8.9 : ctrentrosecrans.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62726</guid>
		<description>[...] Some serious Poz action &#8212; on the baseball draft, walks and on big [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Some serious Poz action &#8212; on the baseball draft, walks and on big [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Quick Post #3- The Draft</title>
		<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62723</link>
		<dc:creator>Quick Post #3- The Draft</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:03:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62723</guid>
		<description>[...] Joe Posnanski wrote a blog piece a couple of days ago about why MLB doesn&#8217;t allow teams to trade draft picks.  It gives some nice tidbits about the power of Scott Boras, and what could happen in a world where Boras is actually Big Brother. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Joe Posnanski wrote a blog piece a couple of days ago about why MLB doesn&#8217;t allow teams to trade draft picks.  It gives some nice tidbits about the power of Scott Boras, and what could happen in a world where Boras is actually Big Brother. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Aronson</title>
		<link>http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62700</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Aronson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 06:23:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/06/04/trading-draft-picks/#comment-62700</guid>
		<description>One typo, Joe: &quot;I wasn’t crazy about Jayson’s ranting about signing bonsues&quot; s/b &quot;signing bonuses.&quot;

As for the prices of baseball, here&#039;s a link to seating and pricing at Dodger Stadium: http://mlb.mlb.com/la/ballpark/la_seating_pricing.jsp .  I&#039;ve looked at this link for a long time, and I&#039;m extremely familiar with the ballpark, having sat in every level from dugout to the nosebleeds.  As you can tell, prices run from $9 for the worst seats on the top level to $500 in the dugout.  My rough estimate is that there is an average ticket price of $40.  Yes, there are a lot more $9 seats than $500 seats, but each $500 seat brings the average to $40 for a smidge over 16 $9 seats.  The $285 seats are more plentiful, and each balances out 8 of the cheap seats to an average ticket price of $40.  The $225 seats are still more plentiful.

The Dodgers sell 3,000,000 tickets every year.  They have expanded seating to make it easier.  If my $40 average is correct, that&#039;s $120,000,000.  And that&#039;s $15,000,000 more than the major league payroll.  I&#039;ll assume that the excess goes to pay all the organization&#039;s employees who don&#039;t work at other ballparks: the scouts, the coaches, the GM, the Assistant GM, the Director of Marketing.  If there are 200 such employees, that&#039;s an average salary of around $75,000/year, and I&#039;m sure there are a lot of secretaries and phone sales folks making way less than that in there.

I could not easily determine the price of parking.  For our admittedly preferred lot, we pay $10/game.  I guestimate that the Dodgers sell about 20,000 parking tickets per game.  If all are $10, that&#039;s $200,000/game times 81 games (not counting the Freeway series games which usually do well and are not discounted even though they are exhibitions) for another $16,000,000.  For purposes of this brief evaluation, lets call parking a wash.  I&#039;m sure they make money on parking, but they hire a bunch of folks.  Same with concessions.  Yes, lots of Dodger Dogs and beers get sold, but there are also lots of employees.  I&#039;m being unreasonable kind to the Dodgers now, but maybe I was harsh in my average ticket price estimate.

Then we have to look at media rights.  The Dodgers supposedly were stuck with a lousy long term television contract on FoxSports when Fox sold the Dodgers.  Okay, I&#039;ll concede it.  But it is still the second largest television audience in baseball, behind only the Yankees.  And the huge radio audience was not stuck with Fox Sports TV.  Okay, they have to pay Vin Scully, Charlie Steiner, and Rick Monday.  But what&#039;s left over has to be huge, and I&#039;m out of places for it to be spent.  Based on what I&#039;ve gleaned from some internet searching, the Dodgers undervalued television rights amount to $32M/year for the cable package, $8M/year for the local television package, and surely they get something from the national packages on Fox Saturday and ESPN.  From what I&#039;ve seen on the internet, the radio rights probably pay for the announcers on radio and television ($5M+ per year).

Okay, these numbers are not wholly fair because ticket receipts are split.  But the Dodgers are a big road draw.  Chances are that these numbers aren&#039;t too far off.  And what they say is that except for the debt the McCourts went into to buy the team and Dodger Stadium (one of the biggest assets of the Dodgers), the Dodgers are a huge cash cow.  By the way, the stadium is used for lots of other events every year.  I&#039;m sure the Dodgers get paid rent for them.

Net result is, the owners get really really rich.  Arte Moreno owns the Angels, the team that is probably most like the Dodgers demographically (size of crown, ticket prices, and so forth).  They have a higher payroll.  They have a smaller audience for television (not every Angel game in on TV), for radio, for ticket sales.  I don&#039;t believe they own Angels Stadium.  And Moreno seems to break even or better.

All of which leads me to say that the owners have no legitimate beef with Scott Boras.  A few rich teams, including the one I root for, seem to be blocking any progress on a revenue sharing deal such as exists in the other team sports.  It is *not* in the best interests of the Yankees to share revenues, and given their enormous television contracts, it is in their best interest to overpay for players in order to drive television ratings that justify that contract.  So barring a strong and effective commissioner mandating some form of revenue sharing, the few super &quot;haves&quot; will block any aid to the have nots.

Greed has ruled baseball since its inception.  Times are no different today.  By my estimates above the Dodgers are returning some 25% profit.  That&#039;s awfully good in a recession.  Dodger Stadium has been rebuilt to expand the seats, changing the very nature of baseball there: no more big foul areas, no more distant outfield fences, no more pitcher&#039;s park.  Loyal fans have been displaced from their field adjacent seats after years or decades of support because those tickets can be sold for more than most normal folks can afford.  There&#039;s a level or profit I&#039;ll tolerate, but I think that level has been exceeded.  Maybe it will take a few more $50M rookies who wash out to finally persuade baseball to change the way it does business.  So I say, go Boras.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One typo, Joe: &#8220;I wasn’t crazy about Jayson’s ranting about signing bonsues&#8221; s/b &#8220;signing bonuses.&#8221;</p>
<p>As for the prices of baseball, here&#8217;s a link to seating and pricing at Dodger Stadium: <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/la/ballpark/la_seating_pricing.jsp" rel="nofollow">http://mlb.mlb.com/la/ballpark/la_seating_pricing.jsp</a> .  I&#8217;ve looked at this link for a long time, and I&#8217;m extremely familiar with the ballpark, having sat in every level from dugout to the nosebleeds.  As you can tell, prices run from $9 for the worst seats on the top level to $500 in the dugout.  My rough estimate is that there is an average ticket price of $40.  Yes, there are a lot more $9 seats than $500 seats, but each $500 seat brings the average to $40 for a smidge over 16 $9 seats.  The $285 seats are more plentiful, and each balances out 8 of the cheap seats to an average ticket price of $40.  The $225 seats are still more plentiful.</p>
<p>The Dodgers sell 3,000,000 tickets every year.  They have expanded seating to make it easier.  If my $40 average is correct, that&#8217;s $120,000,000.  And that&#8217;s $15,000,000 more than the major league payroll.  I&#8217;ll assume that the excess goes to pay all the organization&#8217;s employees who don&#8217;t work at other ballparks: the scouts, the coaches, the GM, the Assistant GM, the Director of Marketing.  If there are 200 such employees, that&#8217;s an average salary of around $75,000/year, and I&#8217;m sure there are a lot of secretaries and phone sales folks making way less than that in there.</p>
<p>I could not easily determine the price of parking.  For our admittedly preferred lot, we pay $10/game.  I guestimate that the Dodgers sell about 20,000 parking tickets per game.  If all are $10, that&#8217;s $200,000/game times 81 games (not counting the Freeway series games which usually do well and are not discounted even though they are exhibitions) for another $16,000,000.  For purposes of this brief evaluation, lets call parking a wash.  I&#8217;m sure they make money on parking, but they hire a bunch of folks.  Same with concessions.  Yes, lots of Dodger Dogs and beers get sold, but there are also lots of employees.  I&#8217;m being unreasonable kind to the Dodgers now, but maybe I was harsh in my average ticket price estimate.</p>
<p>Then we have to look at media rights.  The Dodgers supposedly were stuck with a lousy long term television contract on FoxSports when Fox sold the Dodgers.  Okay, I&#8217;ll concede it.  But it is still the second largest television audience in baseball, behind only the Yankees.  And the huge radio audience was not stuck with Fox Sports TV.  Okay, they have to pay Vin Scully, Charlie Steiner, and Rick Monday.  But what&#8217;s left over has to be huge, and I&#8217;m out of places for it to be spent.  Based on what I&#8217;ve gleaned from some internet searching, the Dodgers undervalued television rights amount to $32M/year for the cable package, $8M/year for the local television package, and surely they get something from the national packages on Fox Saturday and ESPN.  From what I&#8217;ve seen on the internet, the radio rights probably pay for the announcers on radio and television ($5M+ per year).</p>
<p>Okay, these numbers are not wholly fair because ticket receipts are split.  But the Dodgers are a big road draw.  Chances are that these numbers aren&#8217;t too far off.  And what they say is that except for the debt the McCourts went into to buy the team and Dodger Stadium (one of the biggest assets of the Dodgers), the Dodgers are a huge cash cow.  By the way, the stadium is used for lots of other events every year.  I&#8217;m sure the Dodgers get paid rent for them.</p>
<p>Net result is, the owners get really really rich.  Arte Moreno owns the Angels, the team that is probably most like the Dodgers demographically (size of crown, ticket prices, and so forth).  They have a higher payroll.  They have a smaller audience for television (not every Angel game in on TV), for radio, for ticket sales.  I don&#8217;t believe they own Angels Stadium.  And Moreno seems to break even or better.</p>
<p>All of which leads me to say that the owners have no legitimate beef with Scott Boras.  A few rich teams, including the one I root for, seem to be blocking any progress on a revenue sharing deal such as exists in the other team sports.  It is *not* in the best interests of the Yankees to share revenues, and given their enormous television contracts, it is in their best interest to overpay for players in order to drive television ratings that justify that contract.  So barring a strong and effective commissioner mandating some form of revenue sharing, the few super &#8220;haves&#8221; will block any aid to the have nots.</p>
<p>Greed has ruled baseball since its inception.  Times are no different today.  By my estimates above the Dodgers are returning some 25% profit.  That&#8217;s awfully good in a recession.  Dodger Stadium has been rebuilt to expand the seats, changing the very nature of baseball there: no more big foul areas, no more distant outfield fences, no more pitcher&#8217;s park.  Loyal fans have been displaced from their field adjacent seats after years or decades of support because those tickets can be sold for more than most normal folks can afford.  There&#8217;s a level or profit I&#8217;ll tolerate, but I think that level has been exceeded.  Maybe it will take a few more $50M rookies who wash out to finally persuade baseball to change the way it does business.  So I say, go Boras.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->