The Comp draft pick is hurting free agency.

[srock]

Freedom always sounds good. Always sounds better than other alternatives.

If the owners can't figure out ways to keep getting richer while granting players true free agency, they are a sorry lot indeed.

The players have the freedom to unionize in order to collectively bargain with ownership. Each player sacrifices some freedom (they agree to do whats best for the union as opposed to themselves) in favor of more power at the bargaining table.

They also have the freedom to NOT unionize and bargain with ownership directly. Given how MLB is setup, this is wildly bad for the players. They have freedom but no power.

[weams]

The players have the freedom to unionize in order to collectively bargain with ownership. Each player sacrifices some freedom (they agree to do whats best for the union as opposed to themselves) in favor of more power at the bargaining table.

They also have the freedom to NOT unionize and bargain with ownership directly. Given how MLB is setup, this is wildly bad for the players. They have freedom but no power.

Freedom is always good.

[OFFNY]

Freedom is always good.

Freedom's just another word foooooor nothing left to lose ........

[srock]

Freedom is always good.

Freedom like a shopping cart.

But it isn't always usable in and of itself.

Freedom is good for players, but without power it is useless vis-a-vis compensation and workplace conditions.

[weams]

Freedom's just another word foooooor nothing left to lose ........

Well. If have no money, you might be busted flat in Baton Rouge, waiting for a train. Which you can't barter for. So unless you want to be King of the Hobo's you gotta serve somebody.

[srock]

Well. If have no money, you might be busted flat in Baton Rouge, waiting for a train. Which you can't barter for. So unless you want to be King of the Hobo's you gotta serve somebody.

Freedom like a shopping cart.

Freedom's just another word foooooor nothing left to lose ........

Blues vs. Punk but the sentiment is equivalent.

[weams]

Blues vs. Punk but the sentiment is equivalent.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ukC4qmaNwYw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But what if...

[weams]

What does the rival league concept have to do with the anti-trust or free agency? When Fred Lynn and Carlton Fisk became free agents because the Red Sox sent their contracts late, there was no compensation. When Dave McNally and Andy Messersmith sued in the courts to end the reserve system and establish free agency, there was no compensation. Compensation has been negotiated into free agency. For whatever reason that was done, it is wrong. Nothing else needs to be changed to eliminate compensation. Just get rid of it.

It was negotiated in because baseball has a limited anti trust exemption. This prevents the Federal league from taking the American Federation's players by paying them more. There is one American Major League. There was never real free agency in that anti trust exempt league. Only the negotiated version of it that we have had and will have. The examples that you made were exceptions, not the ongoing market setting negotiated format. In individual cases, with voided contracts, there is still your type of free agency. It will never be for the masses. As long as baseball owns the exemption. Why do you think there was a Mitchell report?

[tntoriole]

When the arbitrator originally ruled against the owners and set up free agency, Charlie Finley, the owner of the Athletics at the time, famously said "Make them ALL free agents." I read where Marvin Miller said that this was the one thing that he and the union leadership feared most at the time. Miller said, "We couldn't very well argue against freedom." He recognized that the reason salaries are at the point they are now is BECAUSE of the market being set by the collective bargaining agreement that allows only a small percentage of players to come on to the free agent market at a time rather than the market being flooded every year by every player in baseball. And the arbitration process was the clincher...it allowed all the other players in the union to have their collective values driven up by an automatic process that increased salaries relentlessly because it was a pick one or the other alternative. The absolute worst financial disaster for the players would be complete freedom every year because the market each year would be flooded with ALL players rather than captive with a small number trickling out each year and limited as it has been for the last 30 years.

[DrungoHazewood]

When the arbitrator originally ruled against the owners and set up free agency, Charlie Finley, the owner of the Athletics at the time, famously said "Make them ALL free agents." I read where Marvin Miller said that this was the one thing that he and the union leadership feared most at the time. Miller said, "We couldn't very well argue against freedom." He recognized that the reason salaries are at the point they are now is BECAUSE of the market being set by the collective bargaining agreement that allows only a small percentage of players to come on to the free agent market at a time rather than the market being flooded every year by every player in baseball. And the arbitration process was the clincher...it allowed all the other players in the union to have their collective values driven up by an automatic process that increased salaries relentlessly because it was a pick one or the other alternative. The absolute worst financial disaster for the players would be complete freedom every year because the market each year would be flooded with ALL players rather than captive with a small number trickling out each year and limited as it has been for the last 30 years.

It wouldn't be as apocalyptic as Miller and the union feared. Maybe it would be a mess at the beginning, but very quickly the system would reach an equilibrium where many, many players negotiated multi-year deals for themselves. It would be in both the team's and player's interest to avoid everyone changing organizations every year. If it was so spectacular for the owners, why do they never propose anything remotely like that?

[Can_of_corn]

It wouldn't be as apocalyptic as Miller and the union feared. Maybe it would be a mess at the beginning, but very quickly the system would reach an equilibrium where many, many players negotiated multi-year deals for themselves. It would be in both the team's and player's interest to avoid everyone changing organizations every year. If it was so spectacular for the owners, why do they never propose anything remotely like that?

Fear.

And you are right, players would soon be tying themselves to teams for multiple years. However a lot of non-elite players would lose money the first few years if every contract was suddenly voided.

[weams]

Fear.

And you are right, players would soon be tying themselves to teams for multiple years. However a lot of non-elite players would lose money the first few years if every contract was suddenly voided.

And without arbitration escalators, it would be a Peter Angelos dream in the middle.

[Can_of_corn]

And without arbitration escalators, it would be a Peter Angelos dream in the middle.

I wonder when the unsigned guys start getting twitchy? Jan 15th? Feb 1st?

[tntoriole]

It wouldn't be as apocalyptic as Miller and the union feared. Maybe it would be a mess at the beginning, but very quickly the system would reach an equilibrium where many, many players negotiated multi-year deals for themselves. It would be in both the team's and player's interest to avoid everyone changing organizations every year. If it was so spectacular for the owners, why do they never propose anything remotely like that?

I believe Finley's proposal was NO multi year deals. One year contracts only, everybody becomes a free agent every year. And the owners back then never went along because they all thought Finley was crazy and most of the owners felt that they could break or control the nascent union. Little did they know. I suspect the union would never agree to anything remotely like that now.

[DrungoHazewood]

I believe Finley's proposal was NO multi year deals. One year contracts only, everybody becomes a free agent every year. And the owners back then never went along because they all thought Finley was crazy and most of the owners felt that they could break or control the nascent union. Little did they know. I suspect the union would never agree to anything remotely like that now.

Of course not. Well.. they might. But you'd see a lot of 1/40 deals.