RE: the broadcaster...  Who is that guy ?  Bush the Donald Cherry Limbaugh ... I don't believe I've ever seen any broadcaster as abnoxious or as repugnant as that . He makes Harrelson look professional. I think I'd rather watch synchronized swimming than him .  Thank you Jays for Jerry and Ashby.

Also, was Valbuena the Cleveland shortstop that let that grounder go right through the 5 hole that led to a Jay come back ?     Actually, I thought he looked pretty good with the exception of that play . 

Callis has some more draft detail from the CBA.

An approximate $185m cap is close to what the teams spent in the first 10 rounds this year ($192m).  If you include competitive balance picks in 2013 and the fact that there will likely never be as many comp picks as there were last year, it's a fair cap number.

If I am Alex and my team has:

1) 3 first round picks (which is rare);

2) 4 supplemental first round picks (the last time this happens);

3) With a chance at 1 in 6 additional supplemental first round picks (due to being one of the 10 lowest revenue teams - won't happen again), or;

4) With a chance at 1 in 6 additional supplemental second round picks (if you don't get one in 3) - a few more teams are added);

I would draft as many high upside / hard sign picks as I could.  I would go all out to sign as many draft picks as possible, without concern for the cost.   Because being 5.01% over and losing a 1st round pick and being 40.0% over and losing two 1st round picks is not that much more serious, basically more money.

Not sure who this is responding to, but how is it the case that the players are getting the same amount of money?

The Cap is reportedly $185m, which doesn`t include the money for the competitive balance picks in 2013.  This is comparable to the $192m the top 10 rounds of draftees received this year (as reported by Jim Callis on twitter) - a year that saw a record number of comp picks.

 Overall spending on the first 10 rounds will be signficantly lower in 2012 as compared with 2011, which is exactly what the owners want.

unspent cap due to unsigned players in the first three rounds would presumably roll forward.  Define significantly.

The Cap is reportedly $185m, which doesn`t include the money for the competitive balance picks in 2013.  This is comparable to the $192m the top 10 rounds of draftees received this year (as reported by Jim Callis on twitter) - a year that saw a record number of comp picks.

Got it.  Thanks.  Of course, $192m was the total acheived by a combination of teams spending over and under the slot recommendations.  The latter practice will not be an option going forward.  Teams wishing to underspend or adhere to the slot reccs. will not have their strategies affected by the cap, while teams that wished to overspend will be handcuffed.  The likely result of the $185 m dollar cap will be less money for the players -- more for the owners.  

Characterizing it as `rooting` for them is rather cheeky.

If the MLBPA is unsuccessful at attracting that supposed excess draft money to their clientele, that`s their problem.  If the draftees want to be paid for their amateur work, they should discuss it with the NCAA or their high school.  I`m not a trying to be a proponent of caps, but I think a draft cap is in the financial interests of the Owners and the MLBPA, so is certainly defensible.

Actually, most teams do operate at profitable levels.

They do now.  This is a pendulum that swung the other way in the  not too distant past.

Ownership is finally getting to a level of profitability where they can fund significant parts of their capital assets (stadium) instead of leaning on the backs of municipalities like they did in the eighties and nineties.

Aren't we just guessing guys?  Sports franchises in North America don't release audited financial statements (or normally any financial statements).  When they do realease information it is normally in the context of collective bargaining, which makes the information suspect.

It is certainly not true that if the teams ran losses, they would not exist.  Most teams in the big 3 are worth holding as assets unless their yearly losses are massive.   They would exist so long as the losses did not consistently outstrip the team's increase in value.

Well I don`t root for owners.  But I can see their interests.  And if you have a draft to assign talent to the various clubs in lieu of free agency, I`m not sure why they also wouldn`t want those draft rights protected.   I`ll admit I haven`t thought it through.

Baseball players have it pretty good, too.

Got it. Thanks. Of course, $192m was the total acheived by a combination of teams spending over and under the slot recommendations. The latter practice will not be an option going forward. Teams wishing to underspend or adhere to the slot reccs. will not have their strategies affected by the cap, while teams that wished to overspend will be handcuffed. The likely result of the $185 m dollar cap will be less money for the players -- more for the owners.

Can you source this, Beyonder? Or is it like your perceived market value of Yonder Alonso? I haven't read anything that suggests this to be the case.

Overall spending on the first 10 rounds will be signficantly lower in 2012 as compared with 2011

I need this one explained to me too. You were just told that teams spent 192m on rounds 1-10 in 2011, and that the pool for said rounds in 2012 will be around 185m, depending on the amount of compensation picks. Where's the significant decrease in overall spending, which you then qualified to mean 10%?

I keep seeing a tremendous amount of misinformation on the new CBA. People rushed to judgement on its awfulness and now seemingly can't be swayed from the idea that this new CBA will destroy baseball.

I need this one explained to me too.

I think the suggestion is that some teams currently spend under the aggregate of slot for the first 10 rounds.  So if this continues, and the rest of the teams are bound by the cap, spending league wide would actually be less than the cap.  I`ve asked Jim Callis for clarification as to whether this is true, but so far I have no response.

I can't figure out why fewer draftees would sign.  The cap diminishes the finanicial incentive for draftees to hold out, because they are unlikely to ever recoup their losses incurred by failing to sign. 

"Don't bother drafting me in the first ten rounds; I won't sign. Wait until the eleventh round and prepare your chequebooks."

Any bonus over $100k after the tenth round counts against the team's cap.  Any undrafted FA signed for more than $100k counts against the cap.

Two-sport athletes have a choice, and presumably the reduced bonuses available in baseball will incline them to choose football or basketball instead.

Let's be clear here...are we talking about HS draftees or college draftees?  Because the choice for HS draftees is still a million dollars and a college education OR a college education and continuing the two-sport career a little longer.  In this case, I think the possible decrease in dollars may not be the deciding factor.  I think it is and will continue to be whether they want to continue the two sport career.  There are only a couple of players per draft that need that $3m bonus (instead of the slot of $1m) to "buy out" that career.  And we can't be sure whether it could have been bought out at a lesser amount.

For the college player who is still highly rated in two sports (ie Jeff Sarmadizia [sp] from the Cubs), it may be somewhat more relevant, but I believe the deciding factor may still be the sport they like more or the sport they're better at.

Either way, I think we're talking about less than five players per draft who might be lost, which probably means 2 players per year at the mlb level and maybe a star every few years.

Big incentive for teams to go cheap early so they have room later.

This is the dynamic I'm really curious about.  Will there be more transparency from the draftee prospective on their true number in hopes that they get drafted in a position where they can get it?  ie  Will a guy like Daniel Norris say he wants $3.0m to sign if that will drop him to a spot where a team might not be able to offer it?  If you know your first round talent and you know you want to play ball, this negotiating play (at least before the draft) might disappear.  (You might drive the price up a bit after being selected.)

Jonathan Mayo  at mlb.com covers the proposed competitive balance draft, due to start in 2013.   Here are the teams that will go in the draw for the lottery:

D-backs, Orioles, Indians, Royals, A's, Pirates, Padres, Rays, Reds, Rockies, Marlins, Brewers and Cardinals

I am really surprised that the Cardinals are in there, and somewhat surprised that the Brewers are there too.  Both of those clubs have drawn well and I would have thought their revenue was above average.  St louis had the 6th highest attendance in 2011 and the Brewers were seventh.

Among the bottom ten teams in attendance the Blue Jays (25th), Mariners (23rd) and White Sox (21st) don't qualify for the draft. 

92-93: I am lazy, but I don't want you to think I am dodging your question.  Wasn't sure it was directed at me specifically.  Tigers actually spent 97% of slot.  The big cheapies were: White Sox (84%), Dodgers (85%), and Rangers (87%).  So you are right, the Tigers weren't very much under slot, and I shouldn't have cited them as one the examples of a team spending below average and under slot (althought hey did spend below average).  This doesn 't change the point of my post though.  Last year we had some teams spending twice the slot amount.  It doesn't look like we will next year.  Combine that with the likelihood that other teams will spend under slot, and this is a recipe for a total amount of bonuses well below the 185G cap.

Separate and apart from the size of the GTA, the fact that the Jays get the benefit of the entire Canadian market for media/internet purposes puts Toronto into one of the top 5 positions among MLB teams. 

Not being an ass. I've never asked or understood, how does this help financially and increase revenue for the MLB roster payroll?

The Blue Jays have a replacement already.

The Blue Jays have replaced Paddy with Ismael Cruz, who had been with the Mets as their supervisor of Latin American operations and now will be Toronto's special assistant to the GM in charge of Latin American operations. During Cruz's time with New York, the Mets' notable Latin American signings included Jenrry Mejia, Ruben Tejada, Jeurys Famillia, Wilmer Flores, Cesar Puello, Jordany Valdespin and Juan Urbina.

@ Mikey Green

Ok. When those comments are historically made I always wondered to myself, "It's great you have a whole country to yourself as a fanbase, but you're not exactly getting people from outside Ontario into the Dome very often, so what's it matter". Thinking if it didn't impact attendence, then really how much could it really help the Toronto Blue Jays on the field. Competitive ballance draft pick stuff I could care less about. It's moronic, and I know I can't change it.