Why isn't this simply a form of illegal price fixing?

How can teams openly conspire to hold down the wages of future employees? I understand teams have a monopoly of sorts, but how can that reasonably be held to include a monopoly position over next year's drafted college players who for the time being are not part of the monopoly?

Why isn't this simply a form of illegal price fixing?

How can teams openly conspire to hold down the wages of future employees? I understand teams have a monopoly of sorts, but how can that reasonably be held to include a monopoly position over next year's drafted college players who for the time being are not part of the monopoly?

Quick answer is that it was collectively bargained.

Deeper issue is whether amateurs players would have any kind of a case against both MLB and MLBPA.

Quick answer is that it was collectively bargained.

Deeper issue is whether amateurs players would have any kind of a case against both MLB and MLBPA.

I'm about as pro-union as they come, but how can the rights of someone not in the union be bargained away? This isn't like a factory where you're a part of the union after a specific probationary period - most of these guys will never make it to the pros, so they'll never be part of the union.

If the UAW tried something like this (say Ford negotiated something with them where pay for all employees (even those who may not be in the union eventually) was dictated) the conservatives would be screaming so loudly the noise might bring down entire cities. And they'd be right.

Wow, looks like Uncle Bud won.

only players who've been with the offering team all season will create an opportunity for compensatory picks. if a trade occurs, nobody will get a pick. on the other hand, if a team knows it lacks the money or interest to make an offer to the player giving rise to compensatory picks, the team will be better off getting what it can and making a trade for another team's prospects instead of letting the player walk at the end of the season.

Some how I hadn't seen this, but this is a big one as well.

And this too:
the other way for clubs to do well in the number of picks they get is to win the lottery. seriously. there will be this very strangely devised lottery for small-market, low-revenue clubs to get a chance at one of six slots at the end of the first round, with the lottery probability dictated by winning percentage. all clubs who receive revenue sharing funds (who did not win one of the 6 slots in the first round) will compete in a similar lottery for one of six slots at the end of the second round.

Huh?

If the UAW tried something like this (say Ford negotiated something with them where pay for all employees (even those who may not be in the union eventually) was dictated) the conservatives would be screaming so loudly the noise might bring down entire cities. And they'd be right.

Wait, isn't this exactly what the UAW did. Negotiated a two-tier wage scale in which current members avoided pay cuts by agreeing that future employees would get less?

I'm about as pro-union as they come, but how can the rights of someone not in the union be bargained away?

While there are obvious problems with the major league players bargaining on behalf of these players, I think that the player's association can plausibly claim they tried to get some benefit for the drafted players. As I understand it, all of the salaries for slot positions were significantly increased by the CBA over the old informal slot system. There are quite a few teams that followed Selig's slot system, and presumably these teams' draft budgets may increase as a result of the slot salaries increasing. This system at least gives the union some input into the slot salaries which were being secretly churned out by the MLB office.

So which will be the first team to screw this up and lose a 1st round pick?

So which will be the first team to screw this up and lose a 1st round pick?

It would have to be Yankees vs. the field, although it might not be "screwing up" for a team to do so.

If you're the Yankees and always picking late in R1, it might make sense to sign one impact R1 player in a two-year period (i.e., paying bigger money to a top talent who slips and then forfeiting the next year's R1) than to sign two typical late-R1 picks with lesser upside. (It would take all sorts of luck and scheming to pull it off, but there's upside involved.)

I'm about as pro-union as they come, but how can the rights of someone not in the union be bargained away?

Me too (Current NTEU Member), but you'd be surprised. It happens ALL the time, at least around here. Mother worked for the County, and not only did you have to pay the Union even if you were NOT a member, they bargained away rights of non-union employess ALL the time. This also happens to teachers around here.

P.S. I live in California, not N. Korea or anything.