Bud Selig has asked owners of his baseball franchises to lower their expected signing bonuses to draftees.
Last week there was a report in Sports Business Daily (SBD) that just astounded me. With baseball clubs reporting losses, having difficulty, even in New York, filling seats at the parks you'd think that like most businesses they would understand that this economic downturn hasn't hit its bottom yet.
When you realize that, you pull in your horns a bit and that includes the money to be lavished on draft picks, even Stephen Strasburg, represented by agent Scott Boras. Strasburg has been called a once in a generation player and estimates of what it will take the Nationals (expected to pick him at #1) to sign him reach upwards of $30 million.
The SBD report said that Selig asked clubs to lower their offers across the board by 10% and that is where the story starts to confuse me. If owners are exchanging suggestions for cost cutting ideas and facing economic woes that exceed their previous low points, then why do they have to be asked to spend less?
This issue has made me crazy for years. Owners are independent business people who in most instances have been successful at other endeavors that enabled them to buy their MLB club in the first place. But when it comes to fiscal responsibility they let the entertainment value of their franchise rule their heads rather than just bottom line accountability and then blame it all on the players' agents.
And don't tell me that Scott Boras can't take no for an answer. He had to listen to Dodgers ownership tell him all winter that Manny Ramirez wasn't getting a long term deal nor one that exceeded $45 million. He settled for that when no other offers were forthcoming. He understands the agony of defeat after that.
So when the draft is complete and the negotiations begin we'll see if the slotting system that is suggested by MLB holds any sway over the proceedings.