We hit all levels of baseball with this week’s roundtable. The pros (Jim Thome’s rumored waiver wire deal), the amateurs (talk of capping MLB Draft salaries), and the kids (the Little League World Series) are all on deck in the Three Strikes Roundtable as members of our editing staff sit down to chat about all of baseball’s biggest stories…
Strike 1: Jim Thome is rumored to be going back to the White Sox. Would that move be a gamechanger in the AL Central or much ado about nothing?
Garrett Wilson: I’d be hesitant to call it a game changer since he might only get 70 at-bats the rest of the way. There is only so much he can do in that time, and I certainly doubt it would be enough to help the White Sox overcome a 6.5 game deficit.
Mark Smith: Chicago’s 6.5 back. It’s much ado about nothing.
Pat Lackey: No. The White Sox are going to need a lot more than him to get back into the game.
Matt Lindner: Jim Thome is a man, not a miracle. Unfortunately the White Sox would need him to be the latter in order to make the playlets this year. It would be nice to see him retire on the South side.
Strike 2: Should MLB institute a cap or a hard slotting system for the amateur draft considering the amount of money spent signing draft picks… and while we’re at it, should MLB try something to make casual baseball fans care more about the draft…
Pat: Hard slotting would be unfair to just about everyone involved, except for the owners that don’t want to pay extra money for players in the draft. The MLB is not the NBA or NFL draft: most guys are miles away from the big leagues and every team and every scouting department sees something different. If the Nationals or Pirates or Royals think they can get a first round talent in the second or third or fifth round, why shouldn’t they be allowed to play a player like that? Think about this draft with a hard slotting system. Why in the world would Anthony Rendon sign with the Nationals after being picked sixth? He’s a consensus top talent that slid because of some injuries. Wouldn’t every single player like that end up back in college to try and automatically earn a bigger paycheck in a year or three years? There’s a lot more to this than slapping slots on each pick and having it automatically fix everything and in the end, I think it’d cause a lot of problems.
Garrett: I might be in favor of a cap, but not hard slotting. Hard slotting can really screw the small market teams who may not want to budget large amounts to the draft whereas a cap merely sets a ceiling on the big budget teams. I think it is just part of the gamesmanship of the draft though that some teams elect not to spend big every year. At the same time, it is odd to see situations like when the Padres opted to pick Matt Bush #1 overall because they didn’t think they could afford better talents like Weaver and Verlander. That obviously did not work out well for them. If the league wants to make the draft more interesting, I do think that allowing teams to trade picks could help, since it would make the value of those picks more apparent when you see a player traded for a future pick. That being said, I don’t see it ever becoming a big fan event since most of the guys being picked won’t reach the majors for multiple years.
Matt: MLB should definitely institute a cap for draft picks. First rounders are more likely to become the next Todd Van Poppel or Antone Williamson (look ’em up if you don’t know who they are) than the next Albert Pujols, so in no way shape or form do they deserve 10 mill guaranteed because they peaked at 18.
Mark: Absolutely not. Hard slotting would limit drafting bonuses, but how does that help at all? Drafts don’t affect the overall payroll (most teams spend $5-7 million on drafts, until this year anyway) much at all, and it would only put money back in the hands of the owners. Additionally, it would deter two-sport starts like Archie Bradley and Bubba Starling from entering the draft and signing if they had to accept an artificial limit. Nothing is gained from hard slotting except making Bud Selig happy. As for making the draft more of an event, television coverage of college baseball and the draft (at least the first round or so) would help, and it would be nice if the guys that were covering it were the ones who specialized in prospects and the draft. But in the end, the players don’t make a major impact immediately, and people don’t like to wait 3-5 years for these guys to arrive.
Strike 3: What are your thoughts on the extensive coverage of the LLWS? Is it too much and ruining these kids lives, a great display of Americana, or do you just not care?
Matt: I love the extended coverage of the LLWS personally. Williamsport represents one of the last bastions of innocence in American sports. Give these kids their moment in the sun because quite frankly, those of us who didn’t have it are jealous.
Pat: I can’t handle it. The wall to wall ESPN coverage basically creates an atmosphere where these 12 year olds think something they’re doing when they’re 12 is the most important thing that will ever happen to them. As a former Little League umpire, I know how ridiculous parents trying to win the 1979 State Championship through their kids in 2011 can be at a local level; it’s got to be much, much worse at this stage. I can see televising things once you get to the Williamsport stage, but all of the coverage of the regionals and such is just way too much, I think.
Mark: I don’t see the problem. What else is on? I don’t want any more NFL preseason games. These kids are in the national spotlight for a couple weeks, and it’s one time in which a bunch of people are fawning over them. If you’re worried about the emotional stress and pressure, tell the overcompetitive parents to back off a bit.
Garrett: What is there to not like about the Little League World Series? Nothing could possibly be more American, except maybe apple pie, and I always eat apple pie when I watch the LLWS, so I’m lucky I don’t OD on Americana.
