PDA

View Full Version : Ringolsby: Momentum For Big Contracts Gone


joecrede
11-14-2003, 10:08 PM
Interesting article (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/sports_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_83_2427338,00.html)

If the following becomes reality it would change things dramatically:

Club owners have wanted to get rid of arbitration for some time, and considering what has transpired the past few off-seasons, there is a growing feeling they finally will have the courage to propose a substitution of free agency after three years of big-league service time for arbitration.

That is a potential nightmare for the Major League Baseball Players Association. On purely philosophical grounds, the proposal would be difficult for the union to refuse, given its longtime contention that players want a free-market system to determine their worth.

Daver
11-14-2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Interesting article (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/sports_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_83_2427338,00.html)

If the following becomes reality it would change things dramatically:

This will be part of the negotiations for the next CBA,but keep in mind,draft compensation was done away with in the last CBA and then reinstated due to differences of opinion.

If the owners want to do away with arbitration then why did they insist in imposing it it in 1974?

joecrede
11-14-2003, 10:52 PM
Don't know exactly why the owners insisted on arbitration maybe they figured they spend x-amount of money on player development and it would be a complete waste to lose a player before year seven.

Who would it benefit if players were granted free-agency after three year the teams or the players? What do you suppose Garland would command on the open market this year? 3/$18M?

Also, how would this impact player development? Teams might not be willing to spend as much in this area if they only have control of their players for three years.

StillMissOzzie
11-14-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Don't know exactly why the owners insisted on arbitration maybe they figured they spend x-amount of money on player development and it would be a complete waste to lose a player before year seven.

Who would it benefit if players were granted free-agency after three year the teams or the players? What do you suppose Garland would command on the open market this year? 3/$18M?

Also, how would this impact player development? Teams might not be willing to spend as much in this area if they only have control of their players for three years.

I think that they learned, much too late, is that just one or two free spending owners drives up the arbitration demands for everyone. It's hard to gauge the impact of a Jon Garland on the free market without knowing the vast supply of pitching that gets added by ALL 3+ years of service pitchers being FA's.

IMO, the super stars would still get their $$$, but the second and lower tiers of players would get squeeezed.

SMO
:gulp:

34 Inch Stick
11-15-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
Don't know exactly why the owners insisted on arbitration maybe they figured they spend x-amount of money on player development and it would be a complete waste to lose a player before year seven.

Who would it benefit if players were granted free-agency after three year the teams or the players? What do you suppose Garland would command on the open market this year? 3/$18M?

Also, how would this impact player development? Teams might not be willing to spend as much in this area if they only have control of their players for three years.

I have a feeling teams would be much more reluctant to bring prospects up from the minors until the have absolutely proven themselves/outgrown AAA. On the other end we would never see a rookie on a team after spring training. The teams would make their prospects sit in the minors for a month or two so that they get an extra year of service out of them (like the Cubs did with Prior and Wood).

gosox41
11-15-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Daver
This will be part of the negotiations for the next CBA,but keep in mind,draft compensation was done away with in the last CBA and then reinstated due to differences of opinion.

If the owners want to do away with arbitration then why did they insist in imposing it it in 1974?

I think the owners underestimatedhwo powerful arbitration would be in determining player's salaries. From what I've read, they put it in the '74 CBA deal as a throw in without really thinking about the effects. Guess they're paying for it now.

Bob