[TonyJ]

I think it is way too early to say whether this is going to be a good thing or a bad thing or just a different thing for small or big market teams. I actually think that it will overall be a good thing for small market teams, and quite possibly be very good indeed.

Most non-contending teams, regardless of revenue, have tended to trade players in their walk years for prospects who were close to the majors with a proven (or projected by scouts to develop in to Sammy Sosa) track record of success in professional baseball. Contending teams, regardless of revenue, have tended to keep those players and let them walk after the season.

Admittedly, the A's are a strange case. Billy Beane has used draft pick compensation to great success in Oakland, but I don't think that removing it from his consideration will reduce their success much, if any. Beane has kept players like Tejada, Giambi and Zito in their walk years not to get a draft pick, but because the A's were contending. He has also traded players like Mulder and Hudson and received a good return.

In addition, the lack of the additional picks at the end of each of the first two rounds will mean that the worst team will have the 31st and 62nd overall picks rather than the 45th and 77th picks. In the most recent draft, there were eleven teams who received supplemental picks after round one. Here are nine of them: Dodgers, Orioles, Giants, Diamondbacks, Phillies, Braves, Indians, Red Sox, Yankees. These teams have varied in their success in recent seasons, but none of them could be classified as low revenue. I just do not see how the lack of draft pick compensation is bad for the worst teams, regardless of market size. I think it is to their advantage, frankly.

Salary slotting for draft picks, on the other hand, is a huge boon for low revenue teams. Let us say that in the end it does turn out that small market teams were hurt by not receiving compensation for the loss of free agents. Salary slotting more than makes up for it. This seems fairly obvious to me.

The lack of any cap on salaries and the option of the player to return to college or play in an independent league has allowed players who are highly rated to more or less set their price for signing. This has meant that teams will only select a player if they think they can sign him, regardless of his talents. Hell, the fact that the "signability pick" even exists is evidence that this is fantastic news for low revenue teams.

It is certainly true that the baseball draft is more of an inexact science than the basketball or football versions. It is also true that teams are getting much better at identifying draftees with a chance of success. It is also a given that, on balance, the level of chances of success for players taken highly in the draft are higher than those taken lower. This change allows low revenue teams to select those draftees with the highest perceived chances of success with much less consideration for whether or not they can sign him.

This also gives teams cost certainty for drafted players. Under the current system, the cost of signing draftees for each team varies entirely on how much the owner is willing to spend on them in that given season. Under the new agreement, the amount the owner absolutely has to spend on a pick is a given. High revenue teams will still be willing and able to pay their draftees more than low revenue teams in order to inflate costs, but I think "signability choices" will largely disappear, just as they have in the NFL and NBA.

It remains to be seen, in any case.