But doesn't this seem like you're solving an artificial problem? The contracts are only onerous because teams refuse to go over the luxury tax thresholds. Frankly, I'm not sure baseball is any more "competitive" with a luxury tax - it seems like it's actually made the big clubs stronger because instead of flipping prospects for short-term gain they're keeping the prospects and becoming juggernauts.
Until the Betts trade, I would have bought that argument, but a super rich club trading one of the best young players in the game to avoid the tax seems like a shot at the MLBPA.
I really hope labor wins this round- looking at the amount of team control that a club gets would make an NFL owner blush. 4 or 5 years in the minors before the rule 5 draft, followed by option 3 option years on the 40 man (assuming the player is good enough to be protected, otherwise 6 years until minor league free agency), followed by 3 years at league minimum and then 3 more of one year arbitration deals. A players who does something crazy like playing in college can enter a system at 22, be 26 when they are exposed to the rule 5 draft, and need to be put them on the 40 man which means a team can keep them in the minors for another 3 years, so 29 when those are exhausted and they need to be put on an active roster (at league minimum) and then heading into their first shot at arbitration age 32.
