MLB completely overhauls both June Draft & Rule V Draft in new CBA

[edabbs44]

Still doesn't solve the biggest problem...international players. It's like a separate draft for the big markets to spend big time $$$ to get trading chips. The NYY have played this to a tee over the years. How's Jackson Melian doing, btw?

[LoganBuck]

What kind of compensation may the Reds be in line for, in regards to their free agents?

[dfs]

Remember that these negotiations are not in a vacuum. If MLB teams find a way to abuse the rules and punish draftees in an effort to force down signing bonuses...you can bet that will be the focal point for the next CBA.

Right and the flip side of that is that technically the draftees (and the minor league guys being hit by the change in ruleV status) are not members of the union. The union seems to have negotiated away a good deal of things that benifited players, but not players who are members of the union.

The only thing the union seemed to get is an increase in the minimum salary for the lowest paid members of the union. That's win/win. The owners get much more control over minor league players that the union doesn't represent and the union can go back to the 10-15 guys making the minimum on each roster and say "look what we did for you."

Lowering the % of free agents that are tied to draft picks will decrease the actual cost of letting a guy go free agency. The owners are trying to flood the free agent market in order to try and drive salary down.

[D-Man]

Lowering the % of free agents that are tied to draft picks will decrease the actual cost of letting a guy go free agency. The owners are trying to flood the free agent market in order to try and drive salary down.

I think just the opposite will happen--that it will actually help the big-revenue clubs because this lowers the acquisition cost of signing free agents. The low-revenue clubs with talented players close to free agency (I'm thinking Oakland here) seem to be the losers here. They are forced to deal those players at the trading deadline or get less compensation from their departure during the following draft.

I'm skeptical that the draft compensation for lost picks will actually make a difference. Boras and Co. are a wily set of folks that seem to get what they want. Moving up the signing deadline to 15 August might actually give the amateur players more bargaining leverage. I guess we'll see.

The elimination of the draft-and-follow should only hurt those few clubs that have used it effectively (Astros and Yankees come to mind).

I'm definitely disappointed in the Rule 5 changes because that draft has been a great tool to help to make the market for talent more efficient. Good minor league players can get buried in deep systems or get stuck behind veterans on ready-to-compete-now clubs. This measure doesn't help anyone but those major league clubs with deep minor leagues. Bad news for the Reds.

Overall, these changes seem to benefit the big-revenue clubs considerably, could help or hurt the low-revenue clubs, and hurt many talented amateur and minor league players.

[As an aside: why doesn't the players union give up the farm and slot draft picks into fixed bonuses? Seems like that is a pretty big bargaining chip they could cash in on in negotiations, and it doesn't benefit the players union at all.]

[IslandRed]

I think just the opposite will happen--that it will actually help the big-revenue clubs because this lowers the acquisition cost of signing free agents.

By and large, the high-revenue teams are already signing the players they want and shrugging off the cost. It's the lower tiers that balk at signing a Type A because they don't want to lose the draft pick. And lately, the high-revenue clubs are getting just as many comp picks as they're losing, what with the rent-a-players they trade for and let go. This could work out either way.

This measure doesn't help anyone but those major league clubs with deep minor leagues. Bad news for the Reds.

Good news for the Reds when we get the deep farm system, as we must if we're ever going to have a sustained run instead of the sporadic lucky year. It gives teams that rely on player development one more year to sort through a deep system and separate keepers from expendables. And frankly, being plucked from a team via Rule 5 (at least the major league phase) often hasn't done the player a favor. It gets him out of one organization into another that theoretically values him more, but the typical Rule 5 stash plays little and the lost development year is huge. From now on, a Rule 5 guy will have a year more experience and, at least in theory, be more able to help the club that snags him. That will make teams more willing to go fishing in Rule 5 and more willing to play the Rule 5 guys, and that offsets having to wait an extra year to be eligible.

As an aside: why doesn't the players union give up the farm and slot draft picks into fixed bonuses? Seems like that is a pretty big bargaining chip they could cash in on in negotiations, and it doesn't benefit the players union at all.

I think you're right about that, but I think they held onto that chip because there wasn't anything on the table worth the swap.

[dfs]

why doesn't the players union give up the farm and slot draft picks into fixed bonuses? Seems like that is a pretty big bargaining chip they could cash in on in negotiations, and it doesn't benefit the players union at all.

I'm fairly sure the reason has to do with the fact that international players bypass the draft. Now...exactly the what or why of it...I don't remember, but that's the root cause.

[D-Man]

By and large, the high-revenue teams are already signing the players they want and shrugging off the cost. It's the lower tiers that balk at signing a Type A because they don't want to lose the draft pick. And lately, the high-revenue clubs are getting just as many comp picks as they're losing, what with the rent-a-players they trade for and let go. This could work out either way.

You're right, it could work out either way. But on balance, big-revenue clubs tend to be free agent acquirers and small-revenue clubs tend to be free-agent losers. And clubs that have used the free-agent sandwich picks effectively will be the biggest net losers from this agreement.

For what it's worth, Billy Beane is in favor of the new labor deal, and that surprises me a bit because his club stands to be one of the losers from the changes in free agency. I suppose he is in favor because labor peace with a less-than-ideal agreement is better than no labor agreement at all. Labor unrest is particularly expensive to small-revenue clubs. That's my read on his comments, anyway.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...PGO7LVH781.DTL

And frankly, being plucked from a team via Rule 5 (at least the major league phase) often hasn't done the player a favor. It gets him out of one organization into another that theoretically values him more, but the typical Rule 5 stash plays little and the lost development year is huge. From now on, a Rule 5 guy will have a year more experience and, at least in theory, be more able to help the club that snags him. That will make teams more willing to go fishing in Rule 5 and more willing to play the Rule 5 guys, and that offsets having to wait an extra year to be eligible.

I agree that fewer A-ball guys will be plucked, which is a good thing. But on the other hand, more Dan Uggla's may lose a year of opportunity. And that is most certainly a bad thing for nearly everyone involved.

If MLB really wanted to limit those A-ballers that are selected and stashed away, there are better, more precise ways to address the issue. They could have required that players have at least some AA or AAA service time, or allow only certain A-ballers to be drafted (i.e., if they met certain age and/or experience thresholds). There are much better ways to address this problem. This change certainly benefits those teams that want to stash away players to the detriment of player development.

Overall, I think many of the small-revenue clubs will regret most of the changes to this agreement.