This used to be a lot less of a problem before front offices learned of the potential value of top picks. They -- finally! -- realize that (a) first round picks are a very valuable commodity, and (b) older players are a gamble anyway. And a very expensive gamble, at free agent prices.

The stathead community has been pointing this out for years. So, I guess we can blame sabermetrics for the plight of the free agent class. :-)

While I am all for more flexibility, doesn't this strike anybody as unfair to other teams and free agents? Shouldn't every team and player have this option at the same time? I don't think you can change the rules (or bend them anyway) in the middle of the game. That favors some players/teams over others who have already signed contracts.

Perhaps I'm assuming the wrong thing. I just read some more about it and it seems it would not be bending or breaking the rules to allow Cruz to waive the trade clause.

I disagree.

Teams that lose a star player should get compensated for the player. Teams like the Yankees walk all over the small market teams every year as it is. If they get to keep their picks while buying up all baseball's best players it will be even worse.

What I do think needs to be addressed is what should be done when a team signs more than one Type A free agent. Millwaukee and Toronto got screwed and I'm sure Yankees fans are still laughing at their expense.

I think that a team should not be allowed to negotiate a deal with a Type A free agent if they don't have a 1st round draft pick to give up in compensation. The player's union probably wouldn't go for it, but that is the way I see it.

I also don't have any problem with the sign and trade scenario described in the article. It could be a win win scenario for everybody involved. I think they should make it a permanent rule. Allow an interested team to trade a player/prospect to the original team as an option to losing their draft pick.

MLB could apply both rules and extend the second rule to teams with no 1st round draft pick to give up. Example: the Yankees want to sign their usual truck load of type A's, but only have one 1st round pick to give up. They can approach teams and trade for compensation with however many teams are willing to do it and still keep their 1st rounder (or give it up to a team that doesn't want to trade). If they can't cut a deal with the team and have already lost their 1st round pick, they can't sign the free agent.

In this scenario, Millwaukee and Toronto would have gotten compensation they deemed acceptable from the Yankees or the Tex and A.J. would have signed with other teams.

I think the only people that might be affected by something like this would be the top free agents, but I'm inclined to think they'll get their money no matter what.

Oh, my ideas only apply to the first round compensation pick. The team losing the Type A would still get their sandwich pick.

David says "free agents like Cruz are not truly free." DUH? Why on earth do you think MLB negotiated with the players union to get that provision? OF COURSE...it just MIGHT have been intended to restrict the free agent market, at least a bit, and hopefully reduce payrolls at least slightly for free agents. Guess what? Looks like it might have worked! You really think that MLB is gonna just toss that one aside without getting something else back? Now the union is responding by trying to alter that impact by changing the part it has previously played.

sploorp, I like your thinking.