Has free agency ruined baseball?

I don't think free agnecy has ruined baseball but obviously it has changed baseball, and maybe not for the better. Because they keep changing the rules regarding free agency, I would say it has not been perfected yet. I don't care for the new compensation to teams that lose a player (in oldspeak, a Type A player) to free agency. I suspect there will be more tweaking of the system.

I don't know if either "ruined" or "made better" fit simply because they are two extremes.

The game is certainly different, but realistically the old reserve clause was damn near being slavery, so you obviously had to have something change.

The only real drawback to me has been the fact that players move around more. As a Cubs fan who started watching ball in the 1960's, I can say it was a lot easier to identify with a team that had the same 4 infielders (Santo, Kessinger, Beckert and Banks), the same catcher (Hundley) and one outfielder (Billy Williams) who played together for about 6 years or so. So much more easy for those teams to carve an identity than it is in the current climate. As an example, I just read an article in the Chicago Sun Times stating that the Cubs will probably only have about 10 players on the 25 man roster that were with the club last season. Not a bad thing to retool, but it makes it difficult to root for a team when you don;t know the players well. Feels more like I'm rooting for a jersey than a ballclub at times.

All in all, I would say that free agency has done more good than bad.

More good than bad.

I don't like the increased turnover that Fozzy mentioned- only four of the eleven players who played 100 regular season games for the Giants this year were 'with' the Giants when they won the WS in 2010. (Of course, I know that at least Brandon Belt and Brandon Crawford were prospects, so...)

But the main problem people have with free agency is the idea that a few rich teams buy all the good players. They do; it's exaggerated, but it 'does' still happen. It's just that, this has kind of 'always' happened. Between 1920 and 1960, the city of New York (including Brooklyn) won 42 of a possible eighty AL and NL pennants. Chicago won six, Detroit won four, and Philadelphia won four. Add the Dodgers' pennant in LA, then that's 57 of 80 pennants won by teams in the four biggest markets.

And that's no coincidence- teams in bigger markets had more money to spend, and bought all the better minor league players.

Well, without free agency, the standings wouldn't really change because many players would stay on the same team for their whole career. In most divisions, it's two teams that are pretty close and three that suck. Like the AL East: Usually Yankees and Red Sox on top, but because of FREE AGENCY, it was Yankees and Orioles last season.

I don't see how it could make it worse, so better. Teams have a chance to get players who are doing well and rebuild their franchise. The only downside to free agency is that teams with more money usually do better. But overall, free agency is great.

It did for me... That and how you just can''t get away from the business of it all is all wrapped up together.

It's all about the money that the players, owners, vendors, parking attendents, etc can get out of my pocket.

No thanks.

There is good and bad to it like many things.