Free agency after 4 years?

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 19, 2009 2:04 PM CST

Bruce Miles mentioned an interesting idea at the end of his blog today.

"LINK":http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1267

He suggested doing away with the arbitration process and have players become free agents after 4 years. I haven't heard this suggestion before and I am intrigued.

What's in it for the owners? The free agent pool would be larger, thus the possibility of driving down the price (supply and demand theory, I imagine).

What's in it for the players? They would get to cash in on a long term contract 2 years earlier.

I was wondering everyone's thoughts on Bruce's suggestion.

Also, does anyone else have any creative suggestions? Remember to have any chance of being implemented; both sides (players and owners) would have to benefit from the change.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

When free agency first came into being...

… Charlie Finley, the A’s owner, suggested making everyone a free agent every year. Players Assn. head Marvin Miller fought that, because he knew the huge supply of players would drive prices down. In any case, the owners thought it was a terrible idea (remember, they were used to nearly 100 years of the reserve clause) and did Miller’s work for him.

Miles’ idea is a good one. It would have the effect of driving prices down by increasing the supply of players; you’d also have teams locking up good young players to longterm deals earlier, probably also at lower prices.

For example, if this were in effect now, you can bet the Cubs would probably want to lock up Geovany Soto before the end of 2009.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Jan 19, 2009 2:06 PM CST reply actions

And what would it do for the players?

Because if the goal is to lower salaries, this thing is dead on arrival.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Jan 19, 2009 4:26 PM CST up reply actions

It would raise the median salary

in theory without lowering the average, though it might keep the average from raising over time.

It would be terrible for team branding though. Too much musical chairs.

by Wreckard on Jan 19, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions

I'm not entirely sure the union cares about median salary

If the top 20 percent of the membership is hurt, that bothers them more than if the entire collective median salary goes up.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Jan 19, 2009 5:36 PM CST up reply actions

There is no solution in which the player's union...

would ever give up a players ability to sign long term contracts…..EVER.

There is also never going to be a day when the player’s union will knowingly give the owners back anything….EVER.

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Jan 19, 2009 2:07 PM CST reply actions

I don't think this idea would stop any long term deals.

In fact, players would have the opportunity to sign long term deals on the open market after 4 years.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 19, 2009 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

From the players perspective this is a good idea

The money would be more evenly distributed among all players (right now you have a few rich players, and a lot of young cost-controlled players).

From a fans point of view though, you would lose those “homegrown” guys. Think of how guys like Maddux, Zambrano, etc came up with the team and were with it for those important years of blossoming into a star. They feel more like “your” guys than the guys that came to your team via free agency. You would lose that since just as players would get established they would be gone.

Not saying I’m against it – it bothers me that baseball revenues are so unevenly distributed among players – but just pointing out that you’d lose a certain quality that’s unique to baseball.

by Wreckard on Jan 19, 2009 2:25 PM CST reply actions

I wonder what the owner’s

adjustment would be to the process so they would hang onto their homegrown players?

As I recall, the Cleveland Indians were innovators by signing their young players in the ’90s to long term deals soon after they reached the major leagues.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 19, 2009 2:42 PM CST up reply actions

Players would be less willing to sign those kinds of deals

…since the risk of not signing would be lower (they’d only have to wait 4 years instead of 7 so the risk of injury is lower).

I imagine what you’d see is more minor league players getting deals before they’ve even reached the bigs.

You’ll probably also see guys getting deliberately held in the minors more often to avoid the clock ticking too early.

Just my guesses.

by Wreckard on Jan 19, 2009 3:05 PM CST up reply actions

Off the top of my head...

I love it. Start at the league minimum, with 10-30 percent raises.

Only problem is, small market teams at that point unofficially officially become the farm system for a few select large market teams. You might find that it’s just the thing to knock baseball’s great measure of parity out of balance.

In the end, I only see owners going for it if there is a hard salary cap installed with it.

by Damen Jackson on Jan 19, 2009 3:25 PM CST reply actions

Me

I’ve always suggested a compromise making year 4 and 5 right of first refusal free agency.

Let’s take Soto in that year for example.

Reds offer him 10 × 5 Cubs could match that or let him go and get draft picks.

Barbara V. October 14, 1941 - December 19, 2008. A great lady who was a friend to all and like a second mom to her children's friends (she was my best friend's mom)

by puckishcubsfan on Jan 19, 2009 3:30 PM CST reply actions

This wouldn't be a bad idea.

It could also lead to sign-and-trade deals as there are in the NBA.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Jan 19, 2009 3:54 PM CST up reply actions

Yes it would...

large market teams could effectively cripple the low budget ones with deals to all their FA and almost force them to pay an inflated price to keep them.

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Jan 19, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions

Nearly happened

I’m told that this actually had a chance of flying a few collective-bargaining agreements back, but it lost support among an owner on a key committee. The ship has probably sailed on this idea. If you read “The Lords of the Realm” (a wildly entertaining book about the owner-player struggles), you’ll see that the players association held its breath that the owners wouldn’t wake up and propose unlimited free agency from the very beginning. Instead, the owners stupidly went with six-year free agency, creating a short supply. Back then, the players might have had to go along with unlimited free agency because they had fought so hard at that point for free agency. But the owners are learning. By nontendering a bunch of guys in December, they’ve effectively flooded the market that way. We’ll see what happens when economic times turn around.

by Bruce Miles on Jan 19, 2009 7:40 PM CST reply actions 1 recs