The one piece of this CBA that doesn't make sense is how the owners swung their hammer at amateur players -- specifically, penalizing teams for overspending on draft bonuses according to newly established thresholds. Tamping down the ability of teams to evaluate the value of draft picks is a strike against the heart of competitive balance. This rule doesn't harm the Red Sox, Yankees and Phillies. It harms teams such as the Pirates, Nationals and Royals, who spent the most money on draft bonuses over the past three years and are better positioned because of it. (The Red Sox, Yankees and Phillies rank 10, 16 and 20 in bonuses over the same period.)

Moreover, the reward for small- and middle-market teams that do well, such as Tampa Bay and Milwaukee, is to be given less money to spend in the draft because they will be drafting later. And if they do exceed a threshold, they can be penalized with the loss of draft picks -- the very important currency that helped create parity. And are not some drafts -- such as 2005 (perhaps the best ever) -- stocked with more great players than others? Of course. So why should spending be treated the same every year?

It makes no sense, and it is why many teams, such as Oakland, Kansas City, Cleveland, Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh, consider this cap on draft spending to be counterproductive.

"These are the very teams the system works for," agent Scott Boras said. "And now [Selig] has handcuffed them? This is not [coming from] the union. It's not the major league players. They were told that to get a deal done this was needed. GMs tell me they don't understand this at all. Why is Bud damning the scouting industry? . . . It makes no sense for parity."