No need to fret: 2012 All-Star game still headed our way

You may have seen a mention in Peter Gammons' blog the other day about MLB threatening to pull the 2012 All-Star game from Kansas City if the Royals sign a few draft picks for significantly more than the commissioner's slot recommendations.

It was almost an off-hand line trying to make a bigger point, but because Gammons is Gammons, the sentence has caused a bit of an underground scare around Royals fans.

Here's the relevent sentence:

If you are the Royals, not only are your revenues light, but the commissioner's office has threatened to take away your 2012 All-Star Game if you go ahead with the agreements you have in place with two high picks.

It's probably worth it to point out that while we've reported the 2012 All-Star game being in Kansas City as fact earlier this month, and that the next day Bud Selig all but confirmed it, the announcement has not been made, so the game is not officially official quite yet.

So anything remains possible. But everything I can gather says Gammons' scenario just won't happen, and there are a few reasons.

First, if this happened, the commissioner would have to acknowledge that there is a slotting system, the scope of which goes way beyond mere "recommendations."

Second, the commissioner knows the Royals aren't the problem here, that markets like Kansas City are not the reason that the money going to amateur draft picks has skyrocketed*.

* There are two sides to this, each with a compelling case. Neither will likely change the other side's mind. On the one hand, you have a growing group of people (including many established big leaguers) who think it's ridiculous for kids who haven't done anything to be paid like superstars.

On the other hand, you have multiple studies that say the money teams spend signing draft picks often ends up being worth twice what a team could get in the free agent market, making it the most cost-effective way for any team to acquire talent.

Anyway, back to the point, the Royals would LOVE for there to be a strict slotting system that predetermines how much draft picks get paid, sort of like in the NBA.

That way, they could draft Rick Porcello or Matt Wieters or whoever else without regard to signability.

The Royals did, in a strange turn of events, benefit from the highly touted Tim Melville falling in last year's draft because of signability concerns. And they're poised to benefit again this year if they sign No. 12 overall pick Aaron Crow and third-rounder Wil Myers to what are expected to be above-slot deals.

But coming down on the Royals for spending too much on draft picks would be a bit like coming down on a struggling actress for getting herself surgically enhanced. You don't have to like it, but you do have to understand they're just trying to keep up.

For years, under owner David Glass' direction, the Royals tried to do the draft the commissioner's way. The results were terrible.

The results were passing up guys who had a 75 percent chance of turning out for guys who had a 25 percent chance simply because of money.

The results were after the fourth or fifth round drafting only mediocre prospects who would sign for $1,000 each.

There is a growing feeling among many in baseball that the new collective bargaining agreement (the current one is set to expire after the 2011 season) will include some sort of control on payments to draft picks.

Enough big league players want this anyway that it's bound to happen, so long as the owners give back something in return.

But in the meantime, there's nothing I'm hearing that makes it seem possible that MLB would pull the 2012 All-Star game just because the Royals paid a few draft picks extra money in an effort to keep up.