I only have two nits to pick. First, the commissioner of baseball is not an "ally" of the owners; he is their EMPLOYEE. A much stronger control that they would have over a mere ally. And second, Miller did not bring about an end to the reserve clause, which still exists in the standard player contract. Peter Seitz, the arbitrator in the Messersmith case, ruled that the clause only applies to one year, and not to a succession of one year after another, but he did not put an end to the clause. If you read Miller's biography, the last thing he wanted was an end to the reserve clause, because that would have meant unleashing the entire worker pool into free agency at once. Miller knew that if that happened, the players would lose the war, because they would all end up bidding against themselves for salaries. What Miller did do was work out with the owners the current staggered system where a team has control for some years, subject to minimum salaries, then arbitration but control except for that, and then, after a few years, free agency. This worked out MUCH better than deleting the reserve clause would have done. Miller is also one of the few whose lack of presence in the Hall of Fame shames the Hall much more than it shames Marvin. Marvin lived to be 95, was apparently not suffering during his last days, and knows damn well what he did. He knows that he'll be in the Hall of Fame someday. I imagine he died happy. - Brock Hanke

Yes, quite right, the "end of the reserve clause" is a misnomer for today's hybrid free agent system that has worked brilliantly for the players. Charlie Finley wanted to make them all free agents and refuse salary arbitration. He understood that would limit the players leverage and keep salaries for all but a few stars low. The rest of the owners thought he was crazy, that having all the players out demanding high salaries would be a nightmare. Charlie O was the only free market economist of the bunch. It was the arbitration system that Finley dreaded that became the players best friend, first in setting Messersmith free after playing the requisite one year without a contract and then, after the new CBA was signed, in tying arbitration-eligible player's salaries to free agent contract signings. Miller had the foresight to see that this system of keeping a limited amount of "free" talent on the market year after year would be very lucrative for the players.

#1 and #2 I've heard the Finley proposal and Miller's reaction to it. Moderately few things I disagree with Miller about, but this is one of them. I see no reason that having "everybody" on the market would change ownership behavior.

I've tried gaming the situation. Best I can tell, it just complicates management's life. Maybe some players sign "early/low" out of fear of being the last man standing, but it also works the other way.

Jim Bunning Remembers Marvin Miller, Baseball’s ‘Moses’. Only vaguely and as a mouse with a moses beard riding atop a cat.

#1 and #2 I've heard the Finley proposal and Miller's reaction to it. Moderately few things I disagree with Miller about, but this is one of them. I see no reason that having "everybody" on the market would change ownership behavior.

I've tried gaming the situation. Best I can tell, it just complicates management's life. Maybe some players sign "early/low" out of fear of being the last man standing, but it also works the other way.

Long term, salaries would rise and the market would not be free due to players getting locked up into long term contracts. Short term, it would have produced a drag on a good chunk of salaries as a few star players would get the lionshare of pay and the rest would be viewed as interchangeable.

The risk, from Miller's POV, would be that the ensuing chaos of everybody being a free agent would scare/piss the players off enough that it would turn them away from Miller and his guidance. If the vast majority of players felt they were getting screwed while the 1% were getting rich it would cause a schism between the players that create the power and the players that form the core of the union. Not good at all for Miller.

McCoy makes a good point about the social dynamic.

But the bit about the Miller/Finley debate is that I fail to see how you enforce 1-year contracts only. Sure, it could go into the CBA but why would the players agree to such silliness? And if it wasn't part of the CBA but only 1-year contracts were on offer, the collusion case is easy.

You're the Devil Rays and you've gotten the rights to Evan Longoria ... are you really only going to offer him a 1-year contract at 22 then let him become FA? Of course not, you're going to do essentially what the Rays did under the current system. And it's probably going to cost the Rays more.

What the system does is shift money from young to old but I'm not at all convinced that the overall money would be substantially different. The thornier question in my opinion is the distribution of young talent. Do you go back to amateur free-for-all or do you still have a draft? If you have a draft, what are the incentives for the Rays to develop Longoria to begin with if they aren't guaranteed to be able to keep him. If you don't have a draft, you have substantial competitive imbalance.

Anyway, think of the money that Kerry Wood and Mark Prior would have gotten if the Cubs might have lost them after their rookie years. The Cubs would have backed the money truck up to their doors ... and regretted it. :-) Bryce Harper or Mike Trout might right now be the highest paid players in the game.