Baseball should have a promotion/relegation system

In round 1, my opponent first argues that promotion and relegation is superior because it would abolish the draft. He argues that adding promotion and relegation would encourage bad teams to try and win. However, my opponent severely overstates the importance of the MLB draft. Draftees are not forced into a starting lineup, instead being assigned to the minor leagues. and many drafted players never play a single MLB game.[1] Further, the draft doesn't apply to players from outside the US or Canada,[2] which immediately decreases its value due to the increasing number of foreign baseball players. While promotion and relegation may indeed give bottom-feeders a bit more to play for, it has a similar problem - a team can effectively clinch a championship early, devaluing the entire rest of the season.My opponent's second argument relates to steroids, saying teams that have players doping could be relegated. This argument is interesting, but it hardly seems fair to force a team down because a player did something stupid. My opponent's third argument is that minor league teams that do well often have players recalled to their affiliate team. With all due respect, the only reason the players are on a minor league team in the first place is because they were sent there. That's the entire point of the minor leagues - to develop players while having them play in real baseball games. Minor league baseball would not exist if it weren't for this. I highly doubt that, even in a promotion and relegation system, players would want to play for a minor league team instead of one of the 30 established and far more wealthy MLB teams. And even if a minor league team somehow did make it to the top level, I've already established they'd have a difficult time adjusting.In round 3, my opponent attempts to rebut my arguments: stagnation, differences between levels, costs, and travel. Rather than directly rebut my argument, he attempts to justify the unexciting Premier League by arguing the best team wins all the time and playoffs are bad. Unfortunately, he neglects an important point: what defines the best team? If Manchester United, the 2012 Premier League champions, were the best team in English soccer, why weren't they able to beat third-place Chelsea over two attempts in the FA Cup knockout tournament?[3] If an MLB team is indeed the best, why shouldn't they be able to beat a supposedly inferior team over a five or seven-game series?[4] The MLB has the right idea here, and reverting to the inferior promotion and relegation model would bring the boring situation of having the same team win every year because they have more money.My opponent also argues that minor league farm teams could easily convert to full-fledged teams. I do not agree with this - presently, their entire rosters and staff are paid for by an MLB team. Could these minor-league teams, many of whom play in small cities and small stadiums, be able to afford to pay for all of these on their own? I doubt it. Without the support of a major-league team, willing to take a possible financial loss in return for giving their young players experience, many of these minor league teams would fold. Even more confusingly, my opponent argues each MLB team could replace these minor-league teams by fielding one or two reserve teams. In this, my opponent inherently recognizes the value of the farm league model, but still suggests that we should abolish the current minor league system. That seems like a whole lot of money to waste to bring in a system that simply wouldn't work. Thirdly, my opponent ignores almost all of my arguments relating to cost and instead tries to argue based on one example (Hull City) that a newer team can compete. Unfortunately, the EPL has only 20 teams - 10 less than the MLB. Adjusting and MLB playoff model for EPL size would mean there would be six playoff teams, and Hull City would be pretty far (18 points) out of contention. Further, Hull City has lost more games then they have won and are 33 points from the lead, as compared to only 6 points from relegation.[5] To say they are doing well is a bit of an exaggeration. Finally, my opponent argues that travel wouldn't be an issue, but Venezuela would not be allowed to compete. That seems a bit picky given you want to convert the minors, but having a league (either MLB or lower level) potentially stretch from Seattle to Columbia to the Dominican Republic simply would not work over a 162 game season - or any season length, really. Although my opponent argues the lowest-valued MLB team is worth a lot, what's to say a newly-promoted team would be worth that? That simply doesn't make sense.References:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://mlb.mlb.com...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. https://en.wikipedia.org....5. http://www.premierleague.com...