Con:  It’s not that the Yankees with buy all the good players, it’s that most teams will besides a select few.

Pro: More power to the players.  Every agent would be better represented as well.

There aren’t any cons as far as I can tell.

Could it be that the Yankees don’t sign away all the top international talent because it’s a much bigger crapshoot than the US talent pool?

Do you really think that the Nationals or Rays or Orioles would have any chance at signing top talent out of college like Strasburg or Price or Wieters if there were no draft?

There’s no draft in college, but last I checked, there’s not exactly a lot of parity there.

Con: Logistical disaster.

Pro: It’s fairer to the so-called “amateur” players.

Con: The very best prospects would likely land in one of only a few places. (This is somewhat mitigated by the high chances of failure for most prospects.)

Pro: Having the worst team get the best pick is a classic example of a disincentivizing situation, so doing away with the draft would do away with that

Con: The draft is somewhat exciting.

Pro: Free agent signings are somewhat exciting.

Ultimately it comes down to this. Would the Rays have made the W.S. without a draft? And, do we care if the Rays never make it to the World Series? (I’m not being sarcastic or facetious, it’s a serious question. Is parity, in and of itself a good thing?)

Wow, nearly 2000 people have voted on the poll at Rosenberg’s page, and a full 93% are in favor of a draft salary bonus cap.  Amazing how willing people are to give away the rights of others.

@Greg - Remember that primarily, it’s the Players’ Association that has given away the rights of the draftees, and it’s pretty clearly designed to get more money for major league players.

Abolishing the draft is not going to magically cause teams to have more money to spend on players.  Maybe they pay more for the amateur talent, but every dollar that goes to an otherwise drafted player will be taken from the pocket of an established major league player through free agency.  To believe otherwise is to believe that teams are just sitting on cash that they would otherwise be spending on players.

@Rob^2 - I don’t care if it’s owners, MLB players, fans, whoever.  They’re restricting, or wanting to restrict, the ability of individuals to find employment in their desired field.  Imagine whatever field you work in, but now one employer has exclusive rights to hire you.  They may be located in a city you have no desire to live in, their management may be inept, etc.  How would you like that?

But because we’re talking about rich, greedy baseball players who bolt at free agency, leaving their “hometown” team to go elsewhere, so that makes it okay.

This system would hurt the players. there would be such a glut of players in the market every year that the price would go down. Sure, the bigger talents would still be bought by the Yankees and Red Sox and other big market teams, but maybe not for as much, and the remaining talent would almost certainly be signed at a discount.

This reason is why baseball doesn’t have a bunch of 1-year contracts for everybody with free agency for everybody at the end of each year.

And just to be clear, I don’t begrudge the players getting paid.  They should get as much they can get whenever they have the chance, be it through the draft or arbitration or free agency.

Let’s just be honest about who benefits from the draft, because it’s not just the owners.