No Draft Pick Compensation In New CBA

by mdickson on Oct 21, 2006 3:29 PM CDT Comment 32 comments

News has broken, bad for the Rangers.

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Comments

crap

I did read a report from one hour ago saying that there are no major changes. I think this would qualify as a major change, though.

Do you have links to what you're reading?

Nobody cares about your fantasy or video game teams.

by Dustin on Oct 21, 2006 3:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Tracy Ringolsby of the Rocky Mountain News reports that the Players
Association and MLB will finalize an agreement on a new deal before the
World Series ends, two months before the current CBA is set to expire, and
that, as part of the new deal, draft pick compensation for teams losing free
agents will be eliminated.

by mdickson on Oct 21, 2006 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Que?

When did the news break?

I'm not seeing anything about ESPN on it.

by Adam J. Morris on Oct 21, 2006 3:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Dammit

I think it's the right move, but from a Rangers POV this is the worst possible time.

"No one obsesses over the Rangers." -Jean-Jacques Taylor, who apparently lives in a world where I don't exist.

by thedirkatron on Oct 21, 2006 3:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

link

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=MLB&id=2727&line=1 95816&spln=1

"I'm sick of hearing about the DVD and how they are untouchable." - Dan McDowell

by Agreen07 on Oct 21, 2006 4:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why would they do this?

Other to ensure the yankees win the next 900 world series.

by TexGoesYard on Oct 21, 2006 4:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

On some level,

this is probably something to compensate George for having to cough up millions in revenue sharing, which he hates.

by mjh on Oct 22, 2006 6:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can you blame him?

Nothing like having to subsidize your competition, and making your property less valuable in the process.

by BurntOrange on Oct 22, 2006 7:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jerry Jones does it

and doesn't complain about it.

by mjh on Oct 22, 2006 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jerry complains about it

IIRC, that was one of the biggest issues amongst the owners in the latest revenue sharing deal. That's been one of his big issues with the league since he got here.

On the other hand, Jerry also bought into the team, knowing that that was the deal.

by Adam J. Morris on Oct 22, 2006 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's complete bull

The big market owners have been pushing back on revenue sharing for years, especially in the last collective bargaining agreement. Jones has been a leader amongst that group. He was also the first owner to cut his own sponsorship deals and has continually pushed the rules as to what is in and what is out of the revenue sharing pool.

Also, going back over a decade, he was also one of the owners who pushed the hardest for the salary cap, which effectively locked in his profits. In addition, the NFL salary cap also includes a salary floor, also pushed by the big market teams, that at least ensures the revenue that Jones is sharing is going to pay players and not into the pockets of teams like the Brewers (which is really what pisses George off).

Finally, the 60/40 revenue sharing was in place when Jones bought the team in 1989, and thus he could (and should) have factored that into his valuation. The rules got changed on George, with no compensation, after he had bought it.

by BurntOrange on Oct 22, 2006 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

From a business standpoint

I'm not sure the other teams are the competition. If all the other teams are the Royals or the Pirates, I think it actually hurts George's bottom line. The real competition is movies, and other entertainment. Better onfield competition is actually probably good for George's bottom line.

My guess is that he cleans up when series like Boston and New York are hyper competitive like in years past.

Baseball wives are leeches. ... They're just hookers on retainer. -- Rangerchick

by DJCahill on Oct 22, 2006 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

this is unfortunate. For the Rangers anyway. But could anyone give a summation of the debate? From my ignorant perspective it seems like a very minor sort of luxury tax, helps the poorer teams, etc. Who besides the richer teams would doing away with it?

by a bebop a rebop on Oct 21, 2006 4:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

would support*

by a bebop a rebop on Oct 21, 2006 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Best Quote

from the Rotoworld squib:

"Too bad expending effort on something that doesn't involve steroids or an immediate finanical gain is simply beyond the commissioner's office these days."

by Ed Coffin on Oct 21, 2006 4:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

We still don't know for sure.

It's only one report. Maybe the compensation picks will remain for this winter's crop of free agents (that would be fair), or maybe they're not even doing away with them.

Nobody cares about your fantasy or video game teams.

by Dustin on Oct 21, 2006 5:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That was my thought

(after I screamed at God to ask him why he hates us so much).

That would be the only fair way to do it. Otherwise, you are effectively changing the rules in mid-inning...

"Despite being post Revolution, do you have any idea of the writings of Tocqueville? Read the bible and get back to me with tacit consent." Booyahcaveman

by Brian Thomas on Oct 21, 2006 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe

they publicly warned teams that this would probably happen, and to prepare accordingly.

But still, you're right, teams should have this sort of knowledge in July when they're making decisions about who to keep among they're impending FA's.

"No one obsesses over the Rangers." -Jean-Jacques Taylor, who apparently lives in a world where I don't exist.

by thedirkatron on Oct 21, 2006 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or before the season

When they may sign a guy for a one-year term or trade for somebody with one year left.

Nobody cares about your fantasy or video game teams.

by Dustin on Oct 21, 2006 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I bet Ringolsby is wrong

and for once I hope the public & media hold a reporter accountable for an innacurate report.

The union would never agree to slotting bonuses - they take too much pride in being the only major sports union that has never given in to capping any type of salaries.

Just an educated guess, but sounds like Ringolsby is taking a blind stab at the details. The fact that a deal is close seems reasonable by itself.

by AZranger on Oct 21, 2006 5:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Slotting bonuses

Well, if I recall correctly, they were the only reason that the owners were considering eliminating draft pick compensation.

Eliminating draft pick compensation removes the link between free agency and the draft, and thus also removes the draft from the collective bargaining process as draftees aren't in the union. So, once draft pick compensation is gone, the owners can do whatever they want with the draft.

by BurntOrange on Oct 21, 2006 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ringolsby

He probably had a source and the source was wrong. The press won't come down on him for that.

Nobody cares about your fantasy or video game teams.

by Dustin on Oct 21, 2006 9:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Kinda knew this was coming all along. Sucks for the rangers indeed.

by Longhorn on Oct 21, 2006 6:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

nobody else

seems to be reporting this, just checked Yahoo, ESPN, Sportsline, SI...I'll wait to see it confirmed.

by t ball on Oct 21, 2006 7:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Here's

Rosenthal's report

In short:

The deal will not eliminate draft-pick compensation for departed free agents, but the current plan will be modified, the source told FOXSports.com.

by rooster on Oct 21, 2006 9:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

initial reports

...are almost always shaky, aren't they?

Nobody cares about your fantasy or video game teams.

by Dustin on Oct 21, 2006 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay, i just read the source

is Ringolsby. This guy is a moron. I'll wait a little longer...and, why would anyone use him as a source?

by Longhorn on Oct 21, 2006 9:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Hypothetically

If it is modified, what would you do?

My guesses:

Eliminate supplemental picks - 16 supp picks devalues all following rounds substantially.
change rankings for relievers - no Bob Howry type A's.

by JBImaknee on Oct 22, 2006 12:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Seems like they'd modify it.......

like has also been reported or phase it out a bit more gradually, but since it f#cks the Ranger's this year (potentially) it'll surely be eliminated........I told ya'll TBIA was built over an Indian Burial Ground !

by tklawless on Oct 22, 2006 2:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Does this mean

that the Rangers do NOT offer arbitration to Rod Barajas?

Please say yes.

by willamos2 on Oct 23, 2006 10:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Any update on the definitive language of the CBA?

Draft picks in or out?

by mattrpav on Oct 23, 2006 2:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

My Unsubstantiated Rumor/Opinion

In a move that'll make the players happy, they get rid of lost draft picks, but instead make everything a sandwich pick. That way, more players get drafted, teams like the Yankees will overpay draft picks, and teams that lose free agents to the Yankees still get some kind of compensation.

by jtts on Oct 23, 2006 4:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs