2024 MLB Draft

[imref]

Via Joe Doyle @joedoylemilb:

Update: Spoke to a league source. The Washington Nationals are ineligible to land a Top-10 pick in the 2024 MLB Draft Lottery due to MLB's revenue sharing plan and their market size.

[Five Banners]

Via Joe Doyle @joedoylemilb:

Update: Spoke to a league source. The Washington Nationals are ineligible to land a Top-10 pick in the 2024 MLB Draft Lottery due to MLB's revenue sharing plan and their market size.

So now even thinking 10th is off the table, it’s 11th? Meanwhile, they’re not able to actually get monies that are due them market-share wise because of litigation, something which baseball could act upon unilaterally without messing with the MASN agreement but still providing a measure of relief? How’s that for equitable…

[Natsinpwc]

No one can even figure out the rules. Great system Manfred.

[welch]

I think the source means that the Nats cannot pick above 10th in the first round. In second and other rounds, might they pick second or first? I'm guessing that the A's will have the worst record in baseball this year, and the Nats will have the second worst. We have that second round picks can be valuable.

[Natsinpwc]

I think the source means that the Nats cannot pick above 10th in the first round. In second and other rounds, might they pick second or first? I'm guessing that the A's will have the worst record in baseball this year, and the Nats will have the second worst. We have that second round picks can be valuable.

It still makes no sense because the lottery is officially picks 1-6. So of out of the lottery due to new rules being able to pick 7th is what makes sense. But no. This is MLB.

[Kevrock]

Nats should throw a fit over this nonsense. We don't own our own market.

[Natsinpwc]

Nats should throw a fit over this nonsense. We don't own our own market.

No one really cares. Not the revenue sharing teams.   And not the top spending teams. The Nats voted on this like everyone else. Lerners didn’t care because they thought the team would be sold by now.

The solution as you are starting to build is to sign guys to one year contracts. Other than Candy and Dickerson Nats failed to do that this year even though they had no chance at a top pick. Then you can trade guys if not contending and go into tank mode the following season. Really makes sense for the Nats to have one more bottom year even if it is painful to watch.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Nats should throw a fit over this nonsense. We don't own our own market.

Some of the local pols on the Hill should threaten a hearing on the anti-trust exemption, pointing the to MASN arrangement.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

bump

[DCsOwn]

No one really cares. Not the revenue sharing teams.   And not the top spending teams. The Nats voted on this like everyone else. Lerners didn’t care because they thought the team would be sold by now.

This is very much the reality of the situation honestly. No one cares that we have these problems, in fact, they're glad we got em (to borrow a Mike Tomlin saying). You think the Phillies aren't delighted by the fact that the Nats have such a terrible tv arrangement that at a minimum, it hindered their ability to retain a Harper or a Soto (and obviously the Harper situation redounded to their benefit massively). You think the Mets and Braves aren't happy that there's a franchise in a major market that inhabits their division that's punching well below it's weight atm? It's ultimately harmful to MLB that there's an arrangement that benefits a minor market like Baltimore (a metro area essentially the size of Tampa's) to the detriment of a market fully capable of being a pillar franchise in the sport with quality ownership and a fully realized revenue stream (neither of which they have atm), but that's a 60,000 foot view that these essentially independent operators don't generally concern themselves with.