Overcompensating? Undercompensating?

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Not Compensating

According to these reports, the new Collective Bargaining Agreement would eliminate the draft pick compensation for team losing players to free agency, a rule that brought you such Sandwich Picks as David Wright.

I think it's a bit unfair. Maybe a compromise is better, like, when the Yankees throw a truck full of money and a solid gold yacht at Jason Bay in a few years, the Pirates get the sandwich pick but the Yankees retain their first round pick.

[Guest Edgy DC]

What the union wants is fairness for the players, and anything that discourages teams from signing somebody, they don't see as fair.

[Frayed Knot]

They had actually agreed to eliminate the compensation arrangement during the negotiations that produced the current CBA -- but then when it came to making the tentative agreement final they realized that the two sides couldn't agree to what they thought they had agreed to and wound up dropping the whole thing.

It always seemed to me that the compensation arrangement was working well enough, but it's not like dropping it is going to come as a surprise to the clubs.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

]Ken Davidoff of Newsday reported just over a week ago that teams may no longer receive draft picks as compensation for free agents who leave as part of the upcoming CBA. Now comes word through sources that all the clubs have been notified that this indeed will be the case as both the Players Association and MLB have come to terms on the matter. This would explain, in part, why Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Lee have been on the trading block. Both the Nationals and Rangers have been hot to try and get something for these two players before free agency forces both clubs to possibly walk away without anything for these two top players that were not dealt at the trading deadline. Stay tuned.

That last paragraph doesn't quite make sense to me. Would the new CBA be in effect in time for the June 2007 draft? I wouldn't think so.

But any news that includes the words "both the Players Association and MLB have come to terms on the matter" is good news. I care less about compensation than I do in once again avoiding a strike or lockout.

[Frayed Knot]

The current CBA expires this winter (I believe) so, yes, the June 2007 drat would be affected by whatever they decide.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I guess my thought was that, based on past history, they'd still be negotiating until well into July or August of 2007.

If they can wrap things up before then, all the better.

[Frayed Knot]

Just the fact that we're NOT hearing a bunch of things at this point in the negotiation process is a good sign IMO.
If nothing else it means that the owners' side isn't running around threatening; 'we'll accept nothing less than a hard salary cap and are prepared to break the union if we don't get it!!!!' ... or something along those lines.

The rev-sharing / lux-tax agreements from the last CBA seem to be working well while not putting the anchor on salaries that players always fear. I suspect that the owners will try to extend and probably even strengthen those this time around - which will certainly meet with some resistance but avoids the whole philosophical stand-off that's marred these things since the early '70s.

[Frayed Knot]

A piece in 'The Hardball Times' suggested that the reason the league wants to do away with FA compensation picks for lost FAs is to de-link the draft with the CBA.
The way things stand now, because drafts picks are a factor in the rules governing the movement of ML players, the player's union gets to have a say in how the draft is conducted. By de-linking the draft with anything that goes on with existing unionized players, MLB would be free to do what they want w/the draft w/o getting approval from the MLBPA.

Most likely it means that things like capped bonuses and slotted money can be codified instead of the much looser "suggested" guidelines that exist now. IOW, they're trying to 'Boras-proof' it.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Tricky.