BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
But why is it a "fundamentally unfair system" ? This was bargained by the union .. Just because it has a detrimental affect on maybe 3 or 4 guys every year doesn't mean it's an unfair system. Unfair to whom? Far few players are subject to compensation effects than under the old system.
It seems to me that the major difference to years past, that is pre Qualifying Offer - is the affect the loss of a pick has on the draft signing pool. Teams have been losing picks for decades and it was never much of a big deal. But losing 3 or 4 million out of your pool IS a big deal.
This will shake out over time. Players will start accepting QOs who's only purpose was to insure a pick - resulting in fewer QOs
The system is fundamentally unfair because it attaches a cost to signing some players that does not exist for the signing of others. The fact that it was collectively bargained does not impact that analysis. Collective bargaining represents the interests of the class of players as a whole, not each individual. A collectively bargained deal will almost always be unfair to some employees it covers. That isn't a criticism of unions or collective bargaining since the benefits to the whole can outweigh, sometimes dramatically, the unfairness. But, it is a reason why collective bargaining can't be looked to as a basis for judging a system fair.
Similarly, the fact that the old system hurt more players is not a valid justification of the fairness of the current system. It may be more fair and it may be better, but that does not make it fair or optimal. One could argue that it is optimal, but there really is no argument that it is fair to those who are offered QOs.
Lastly, the more limited impact, on total players, of the current system may be exacerbating its impact on those it does affect. More likely, it has just shifted the class of players by changing the margin line at which the decision to sacrifice a draft pick is relevant. This is basically an opportunity cost issue. If all FA starting caliber SS are subject to compensation, none will have difficulty signing. If only one is, they very well might.
None of this is to say that players are not better off under the new system. Part of the inflation of the last couple years may be reflective of this improved position in FA. But, Drew remains a clear loser in the current system and it strikes me as reasonable, although possibly not prudent, that he would voice his frustration with the process.