David Price being a Super 2 guy is probably going to cost the Rays 1 plus year of control.  Matt Garza coming up to arbitration would of been too costly for the Rays.  The Cleveland Indians may not be able to maintain control of Chris Perez through his arbi years if he continues to garner the all important "save" stat.  

The goal of arbitration is to allow players to make more money based on performance but that amount is still less than what the player would make on the open market as a free agent.

Does it seem as if the arbitration system has peeked a little north of what the owners should be paying for some guys?

Does the arbi system, as it is now constructed benefit owners and players both?

Does the arbi system hurt smaller market clubs? 

If you could make any changes to the arbi system what would it be?

Do you agree that the present arbi system is designed in such a way that its benefits of the whole outweigh the salaries of a few?

I don't know where I stand but I'd like to see some examples/justifications that others may have on this topic.