This article is free for anyone to read, but please consider becoming a Patreon subscriber to allow me to keep writing posts like this one. Sign up to receive articles like this one in your inbox here.
MLB’s All-Star week means it’s time for the Home Run Derby and a glorified exhibition game, but more importantly for our purposes, it’s also a time of press conferences. MLB commissioner Rob Manfred fields all kinds of questions related to the health of the game, and he even manages to answer some of them without being visibly annoyed about it, too.
One question was related to the Rangers receiving the 2024 All-Star Game, despite the fact that they don’t have a Pride Night during the season. Which is a thing that’s weird in a vacuum, but when you add in the context that they’re the only MLB team that doesn’t hold a Pride Night event, well. It sticks out, you know?
The Washington Post’s Chelsea Jane put Manfred’s answer up on Twitter:
Look, there are a whole lot of factors that go into deciding who’s going to get an All-Star Game. I don’t view whether you hold a Pride Night or not as an outcome-determinant issue. It’s an issue. We look at all those issues and try to make a decision and give it to the place that we think is going to be the best. And it’s really important to remember here there’s a massive public investment in terms of creating a new facility. And honestly, that’s an important consideration in terms of awarding All-Star Games.
Where to start. We knew that Pride Night wasn’t a thing that would make or break an All-Star Game hosting opportunity, considering that the Rangers were given this in the first place. So that’s not new information. The clarifying bit, though, now that’s something to dig into. “New stadium equals All-Star Game” isn’t exactly new information, either, but in terms of saying the quiet part out loud, Manfred being pretty upfront about the fact that the All-Star Game can be a reward for cities that give into a team’s demands for public funds to build a new stadium, well. His words, and all that.
Even if an All-Star Game week does increase spending for a few days from out-of-towners and such, does it come anywhere close to making up for the loss of public funds used for stadium subsidies? You don’t need me to cite a study to know the answer, I don’t care how many Shiners some tourists throw back before the Derby. But the politicians eager to cave in to an MLB team get another excuse to do so, as they get to point to the potential for a crown jewel event, so they don’t need facts getting in the way of all of that.
Neil deMause has also covered this over at Field of Schemes, with a reminder that the only politics that MLB refuses to stay out of these days relates to their leaning on politicians to avoid spending as much of the owners’ money whenever possible.
While meeting with the Baseball Writers Association of America, Manfred also spoke up about the possibility of trading draft picks in the future. This would have to be collectively bargained with the MLBPA, as Manfred himself said, though, it’s unclear which collective bargaining agreement this would actually fall under: not every draft pick is a future major leaguer, but every draft pick that signs does become a minor leaguer.
This is one of those things I’m torn about, because it’s easy enough to make cases for why trading draft picks could be a positive thing. Teams with plenty of resources elsewhere could bundle picks together instead of minor leaguers to teams that are in need of stocking up on picks, and the ability to add in additional, future picks instead of just ones for the next year’s draft could be a way for some clubs, who are excellent at drafting, to increase their chances of hitting on future big leaguers. Plus, 40-man roster limitations means that this could create some clubs with an abundance of prospects, who can then deal those for something they need before they lose them to the Rule 5 draft, or don’t have a place to play them in their own system, etc. That’s all logical, notable, worthwhile, whatever you want to describe it with.
And yet! Part of me can’t help but think about the cheapest of clubs that’ll trade draft picks simply so they don’t have to make them and then pay the bonuses associated with them. The teams that’ll always be dealing their more expensive draft pick slots, and trying to make a go of it in the minors with later, less pricey slots later in the draft. If you think this is the height of paranoia, well, might I remind you that Jerry Reinsdorf yet lives? You know you can picture him or whichever media member he’s using as a puppet talking about how this helps free up some cash for other, very necessary things that will definitely help the team put together a winning ball club, yes sir, no you can’t look at the receipts.
Without thinking too much on it, it feels like this would be a net positive for the league, to allow for this like other sports do. Especially given that the shorter draft and fewer minor-league clubs post-disaffiliation means it’s a little tougher to find advantages on the farm these days than it used to be: maybe the team that’ll exploit this rule for positive reasons can outweigh the sins of those who will simply use it as yet another excuse for not spending or trying. But I don’t want to underestimate just how annoying and exploitative that second group can be, either.
Visit my Patreon to become a supporter and help me continue to write articles like this one.