MLB’s collective bargaining agreement expires December 1, and both MLB commissioner Rob Manfred and MLBPA head Tony Clark have expressed optimism that two parties can avoid a work stoppage. While Manfred had previously said he hoped to have a new deal in place by the end of the postseason, though, Joel Sherman of the New York Post reports that he hears there is still work to be done, even on the day of what could be the clinching game of the World Series.
It is possible, Sherman writes, that rules from the previous CBA could be “rolled over for at least this offseason.” A rollover of the current rules could potentially keep this winter’s free agent market from stalling by allowing free agents to negotiate with teams without either party worrying about how a new agreement might affect them.
Sherman notes that the two sides have batted around a number of possible changes to the qualifying offer system. One possibility is that MLB could agree to stop taking draft picks from teams that sign free agents who have rejected qualifying offers. (As we’ve seen in the cases of Kyle Lohse, Stephen Drew, Ian Desmond and others in recent years, these draft pick losses reduce free agents’ value, which is why the MLBPA would want to change the current rules.)
Sherman writes that, under the changes being considered, teams losing good free agents would still receive compensation. It remains to be seen what form that compensation would take, although it’s worth noting that, under the previous system, a team that offered a Type B free agent arbitration before his departure received a draft pick, without the signing team having to give up anything. Perhaps MLB and the MLBPA will consider reinstituting a similar system for a certain class of free agents.
Instead of protecting the top 10 picks, I’d like to see the top 20 picks protected for the teams that miss the playoffs. Or let every team have one protected pick, and then if they sign more than 1 offered free agent, they then lose a pick. I think if you make every pick protected, it’ll allow the richer teams to take advantage of the market. I could be wrong though, maybe it’ll let smaller market teams open up their budget a bit since it’s a little less risky signing these free agents
I like the ‘top 20 picks protected’ idea and I would really like to see that put into place…
That or just sandwich picks at the end of the first round
Getting rid of the penalty system isn’t the way to fix the qualifying offer system. I agree the current system needs to be changed but eliminating penalties would make it worse. The loss of draft picks is the only thing preventing big market teams from signing multiple big name free agents each year. Get rid of the penalty system and what’s to stop big spending teams like the Yankees and Red Sox from signing every free agent? I like the idea of extending the protection picks to non-playoff teams but I’m not sure if that is the best option either.
I disagree. If anything, QO is helping the big market teams spend more on big name free agents. The QO system hurts the players and the smaller market teams.
Maybe protect the top 20 picks but bring back the Type A/Type B system with a few tweaks. For hitters, players must amass xyz number of PAs to even be considered in the Elias Rankings. For pitchers, the pitcher must amass xyz number of innings pitched, something only a starting pitcher is likely to achieve (thus preventing a Juan Cruz issue where dominant non-closer RPs are the victims of their own success). A tweak here is that if the pitcher amasses xyz number of saves, then he is eligible to be ranked as a potential Type A/Type B free agent.
With the top 20 picks protected, teams will be more willing to part with sandwich and second round picks to sign free agents,
The old system was broken, but it’s far better than what is in place now.
“The QO system hurts the players and the smaller market teams.”
Can you name examples of how it hurts the teams. It wouldn’t hurt the players at all if they weren’t greedy. Particularly Ian Desmond who once turned down a $100+ million extension from the Nationals.
It clearly operates as a tax on free agents who receive it and disproportionately burdens good-but-not-great free agents. It’s not really possible to discuss this when you’re using the term “greedy.” It’s a market in which millionaires are being paid by billionaires.
As for small-market teams, there are some ways in which that is true. Those clubs often can’t afford to take the risk that a somewhat marginal QO candidate will accept. And there’s an argument to be made that they have to put a higher value on draft picks, making it harder for them to sign QO-bound players.
Well, the current system of cost control of players for their first 6 years acts as a subsidy to free agents by over-inflating their worth.
How many of those free agents that were damaged by the QO system were the top 3-4 players on their team? If you are not a top 4 player on your team, a rational person would accept the qualifying offer and play for an over-inflated market value. With the value of the QO approaching $17.2 million, there is no reason not to take it. And once players start acting rationally and accepting the QO, teams will have to start curtailing the use of the QO.
“The loss of draft picks is the only thing preventing big market teams from signing multiple big name free agents each year”
I’m sorry but I think this is false. When we think big name free agent, we think guys who are all star/MVP candidates almost every year. The chances of a completely random SECOND Round Draft pick becoming an all star/MVP candidate in the future are very slim
Don’t anybody bother wasting your time showing me Second Round draft pick players who are/were All Star/MVP candidates because for every one of those guys you list, I can probably name 20+ who probably never even made it to the major leagues
No team, big or small market, is going to pass on a big name free agent if they had already lost one draft pick from signing another
Oh and I know a team loses an Unprotected first round pick Before a second round draft pick, but JT19 specifically said Multiple
The main point I was trying to make, that probably got lost in translation, was that nothing is going to stop a big market team from signing multiple guys. If a team, like the Yankees for example, feel there are 3 free agents out there (with a QO attached) who are better than alternative options (in-house, non-QO players, etc), the loss of 3 draft picks isn’t going to hurt them as much since they can just buy players left and right. I’m not saying that’s a smart move, but big market teams have a slight advantage in that they don’t necessarily need to wait on prospects to develop. Small market teams can still end up signing 1 or 2 of those guys but the loss of draft picks hurt more because they can’t afford a team salary in the high $100 million range and as such, they need to focus moreso on prospect development. That’s not the big market teams problems if the small market teams can’t afford multiple large salaries but it doesn’t mean we should just write-off any sort of penalty system.
I totally agree that not many teams are going to pass on a big free agent if they already gave up a pick through another free agent signing and I agree that not many post-first round picks turn out to be any good, but that’s a risk certain teams can and cannot take.
I would tend to agree here, but I think that if a team in the 10-20 range signs multiple Qualified FA they should forfeit the 1st rounder
How about all non playoff teams can sign single player who recieved QO with no penalty. If u sign two players with QO u lose 1st rounder. 3 players with QO you lose all picks in first 3 rounds.
All playoff teams who sign a QO must surrender 1st round pick.
Drop the inability to offer a QO if player was traded for.
So, the Cardinals could sign Dexter Fowler with no penalty?
yup….. But then again Mo doesn’t have to tank to build a yearly playoff contender unlike other teams unlike the other teams within the Central.
This is not the most important issue in this CBA. There needs to be an international draft and a cap on salaries for all drafted ( international and regular draft).
And the owners will get an international draft, as they did previous changes that limited amateur spending.
But the most important part of this is the players think they’ve been winning the last few CBA negotiations by avoiding a hard salary cap. In truth, they’re losing because the percentage of MLB revenue going to player salaries has been declining, from 56% in 2002 to 38% in 2015 per Fangraphs.
Much of this is due to the explosion of lucrative media rights deals from regional sports networks. They could be a house of cards that collapses in the next 10 years as cable subscriptions decline, but the players should be looking at the big picture and trying to lock in a better percentage of revenue, even if the unthinkable, a salary cap, is the cost.
I don’t see how players should be concerned with getting a % of revenues. Owners have to pay for stadiums, operations, etc. Owners have all the risk. I am not pro-owner, but let’s be real, the players who have made it to MLB aren’t hurting.
First thing is minor league players need to be paid an actual salary. Oh, but that’s right, the union doesn’t cover the minor league players until they make it to the majors…
Owners have no desire to pony up for minor league players. They won’t, until forced to, for the reason you noted.
You’re really going to have to walk me through this as far as an international draft being a good thing.
Preventing players at 16 from signing with a team at an attractive rate will dis-incentive-ize playing baseball. The player your team signs will be 20 before he hits short season ball.
Baseball will be a worse product. Which discourages people from watching the game.
Owners are unlikely to magically respond by spending more on players drafted from the US, or already in the pipeline. Unless you have a bit of counter-intuitive logic to show they will.
Players will still often need to get off-season jobs to pay for their necessities through the off-season.
Countries outside the states will provide fewer talented players. Teams that don’t scout or coach well will still get beaten by teams that do.
My solution involves ten owners (nine could work, but ten to be safe) to stand up to Manfred and the other owners with this concept.
***
Baseball is in a really good spot. Minor market teams can make the playoffs and World Series. Money is raining in from media contracts. Football is having problems due to concussions. Let’s make baseball the best sport it can be.
As all of the owners are billionaires, losing a million here or there to make baseball a better product worldwide shouldn’t be a major concern.
Every owner and organization ought to commit to a moderate increase in talent development across the globe.
Pick a country, any country, with a population of youngsters who could probably pick up baseball somewhat rapidly. (My choice would be Brasil, but whatever.) Encourage teams to develop academies in that country. Give each of the thirty permission to spend up to $200 K per player for ten players per season in the “new” country
Begin a league (similar to the Venezuelan League) to allow teams to get their newly acquired talent some innings.
As the limitation, put in place a heavy punishment on any team that overspends internationally. Allow/encourage teams to spend an amount ($4-$6 million, though what the number is isn’t important, so much) every year internationally. If they exceed that amount by a nickel, their top three executives get kicked out of MLB for a decade.
Yeah, it’s unfair when “a few” teams get “more than their share” of the talent.
It’s also absurd to let international improvements be thwarted by owners unwilling to invest in their product.
If the fear is the rich taking over, could make it that teams who spent in the upper 10% (top 3 spending teams) lose picks if they sign free agents. or something like that.. Much like how the Luxury Tax was most of the time a Yankee tax with few others paying it until recently.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea that all teams should be forced to have a hard salary cap. This idea of a luxury tax just doesn’t really work. It never prevents big market teams from having huge budgets. I may be in the minority on that. I know the MLBPA won’t agree because it would stop players from making $30 million a year
In regards to the FA. I agree with the point above. The current system only hurts small market teams. When a team like say Tampa Bay wants to make a splash and sign a free agent they can’t really afford to go for big names. Even if they stretch the budget they can’t afford to lose a draft pick because they depend on their farm system to keep them going.
Why should the players agree to a hard cap in a 9 billion dollar a year industry? Really imo teams that go over the cap should face higher costs associated with that… imo teams that spend 30 or 40 million on a international player over their pool money shuld lose draft picks.
When a player plays 3 years at minimum salary I don’t blame them for going for every penny.
A properly set up salary cap is NOT actually about reducing salaries, it’s about spreading talent throughout the league. What a properly structured salary control system would do is, yes, probably clip off the max salary for some the top players, but if paired with some kind of floor what you’d get is WAY more teams in on WAY more FA.
As is, when a big FA is on the market you pretty much know which teams are going to pursue him. There’s the same handful of big market teams every year that do not operate with any meaningful restrictions, with a sprinkling of the occasional mid grade team that you know is going to have buyers remorse immediately and is going to be severely limited in what they can do to build a team.
I have to disagree. A total salary cap is entirely about reducing salaries, across the board. Why shouldn’t players be able to earn whatever the market determines their value is? You want to protect smaller market teams from the loss of a prime FA leaving, then you can modify the QO system to enhance compensation. Maybe a top-ten player earns compensatory picks in successive rounds. But what you can’t protect is small and mid market teams from their own mistakes. And no-one has ever been able to articulate a reasonable salary floor–and in fact salary dumping and deliberate tanking have been a key rebuilding strategy for several teams. Besides, baseball is a taxpayer subsidized business. Owners already have enormous structural advantages, including, BTW, minimums and control of service time. Salary caps merely enhance those advantages at the expense of players who have limited high-earning years.
A salary floor would be an important part of a cap system – that, and actual meaningful revenue sharing. What that would do is put almost every team in the market for at least a couple of decent FA every year. You’d have to allow for reasonable rebuilds and reasonable splurges for a window of contention. A floor could work by allowing teams to go under by loading money into “escrow” that’s either used on players in the future, or thrown into revenue sharing if they don’t use it later, so they’d be paying out the rear for nothing. This would actually set up rebuilding teams to eventually sign guys to blowout contracts.
I’d pair that with reforms to the hard Arb @ 3 FA @ 6 progression… what I’ve been saying is a steeper pay scale before arb, and some kind of restricted FA at year 4 that would afford non-superstar players a lot more opportunities than they get now.
The problem is a cap/floor with good meaningful revenue sharing would mean the top handful of teams aren’t in an auction for the top handful of talent – if more teams were in on more players, mid grade teams AND players both would come out ahead. Unfortunately MLB generally caters to the top few teams and the MLBPA is far more fixated on maximizing earning potential for the top few players than they are doing something that would almost certainly end up raising average payroll overall.
Ok, let me pick that apart just a bit. You’ve already put a trap door in the salary floor by letting the teams place unspent money in escrow, or throwing it back to revenue sharing. That money would essentially come from the players–a salary cap without a salary floor. If you want to create a pool, why not keep the no-cap no floor situation, but place revenue sharing in escrow for lower revenue markets to use to subsidize spending to retain their own players? I don’t see big market teams having an obligation to pay small market teams so small markets can bid on players like Albert, Cano, Heyward, Price, Grienke, etc. Rather, good marketing (which can help small-market teams) can be built around home-grown players with more of a history with the fans and the community.
There’s also another issue here that you blur by just classifying small-market and big market–cost of living, cost of construction, RSNs, amount of taxpayer subsidies, etc. Profitability is different–and BTW, a team that is handed competitive balance picks–the St. Louis Cardinals, Forbes rated as the 7th most valuable franchise. There are 17 ML teams with an estimated value of $1B or more. This is not an industry on life-support
There’s a trap door in my floor because this is a comment section on an article and I’m throwing some general concepts out there for the sake of the discussion. What I didn’t say because I’m typing in a half-inch window on a smartphone is that there’d have to be all kinds of mechanisms to 1) ensure the Trouts of the world can get what they’re worth and 2) minimize the ability of teams to game the system. The problem with home grown superstars you can market around is that you can market around them for six years and then get to outbid the usual suspects in FA – teams that don’t ultimately have to worry about their ability to field a worthwhile ball club if they have $28m of dead money on the books on he back end of an 8 year deal. Hard caps and floors would never work with the way players are developed and rosters are constructed in baseball so there’d have to be give on both sides.
There isn’t a way to break down the numbers and come up with a world where the top handful of teams don’t blow the rest of the league out of the water in terms of cash flow. When you boil it down every realistic barrier to a cap or floor doesn’t come from the MLBPA but rather the top few richest teams in baseball wanting to preserve the huge competitive advantage they have over the rest of the league.
As an aside: We all know competitive balance picks for the Cardinals is a joke.
I also don’t think I did an especially compelling job explaining the “escrow” concept..
If a team would spend under the floor – say, a rebuilding team with lots of pre arb guys – they’d either have to go out on the FA market or otherwise fill that gap, or end up basically throwing the money in the toilet.
So if the floor was (totally making up the numbers here) 90m payroll and you were at 70m, you’d have to bank that $20m with an obligation to use it on payroll within a certain amount of time or forfeit it (in a manner that would end up directly subsidizing payrolls elsewhere)… if you think teams would still essentially pay $90m for 70m of players we could even have a cheapskate tax on top of that.
But the main idea is that going below the floor would basically mean that team’s floor is going UP in the immediate future as a result. It would spur teams to either pay to fill their roster (read: entering bidding on FA) or basically give other teams their money.
I didn’t think we were having an argument–rather, a discussion. We seem to both want to get to roughly the same place, but have different ways of accomplishing it. I would have revenue sharing pooled with smaller market teams able to draw the lion’s share in order to retain homegrown talent–but your point about bidding on new FA is a good one, so perhaps a small market team could use its pool allocation on any player. I don’t like hard salary caps for two reasons–the first is simple free-market: let the players be paid whatever the market dictates. But the second relates to manipulation of salary caps in other sports–trading people just for cap room, losing roster integrity. I’m also pro-labor anyway. No fan every bought a ticket, a beer, or a jersey of the team’s GM or in house lawyer.
A cap/floor would have to be somewhat soft… NFL and NBA I’d kind of have “rolling” limits where teams would kind of accumulate bad karma for being continually over (under) the limits but where teams are able to splurge for a window of contention or realistically reload their minors without being penalized. I’d also like some revenue sharing to be kind of tied to extending home grown players, so if you offered your 6-year vet home grown superstar a massive extension, a percentage of the offer comes out of rev sharing and goes straight on the player’s contract – so lesser market teams can slightly underbid others on the market and retain their players without the players having to accept “hometown discount”.
My only problem with free markets in a baseball context is that what’s best for owners and/or players financially isn’t necessarily what’s best for a competitive baseball game. So I’m kind of a commie when it comes to baseball. God Bless America and all but like you said, nobody wears a Werner or Steinbrenner jersey to the ballpark. Everyone in the game will still make a crap ton of money if the systems a bit fairer for all the teams AND players out there and we’re not just focused on the top handful. If it means Joey Superstar gets an AAV of $32m instead of $38m but a few perfectly good players elsewhere get nice two or three deals when they otherwise wouldn’t because it’s a buyer’s market on mid range players… Hooray, we all win.
Didn’t complete a thought in the second sentence there, NFL and NBA don’t have giant minor league systems, they have the NCAA and by then many of their dreafted players are already household names… and nearly all the players come out of college. What they do would be like MLB drafting out of AAA. MLB teams develop and scout to get talent, that takes time. Talent comes from high school, college, 16 year old kids from the DR, etc., and then they’re molded through five or six levels of the minors before they get to the majors. We have to be fair to teams in that process as well as teams who got there and have a couple years they want to make a couple of pennant runs.
Salary Cap.
Not going to happen. The Union will never agree to it.
Union will agree to it a lot faster than guys with names like Werner and Henry will.
MLB’s the only major sport here with one foot still stuck in the 1950s. It’ll happen in some form or another eventually.
Here is my idea for international players since there is a backlash about imposing a draft.
Hard cap on bonus pool. Let’s say it is $10 million per team. You cannot go over the pool, period.
You can invest the money however you want – 1 player, 10 players, 100 players.
If you go over the pool, you lose every player you signed for over $10 million. If you signed one player for $15 million? You no longer have that player. If you signed 9 for $1 million each, and the tenth is $1.5 million, you lose the 10th player. Size of the pool increases a % each year.
Teams then have to choose whether they want to go for high end talent or if they want to diversify their risk. among many lower-priced players.
Create national academies to train players 16-18 until they are old enough for the draft. Players can earn a stipend of say, $5k per year (which in Latin America, is pretty good)
All your going to do with a hard cap on international talent is encourage more package deals, encourage these players to go play in another market (Japan/Korea) or simply wait until they are no longer subject to international spending limits, or discourage the number of young kids who play baseball.
A hard cap should be fine, if the cap amount is large enough to encourage the second-best player on the third best football side in Belo Horizonte to choose baseball instead of soccer.
The hard cap can start at what the average was spent each of the past two years, when many teams went way over. It’s just that instead of a few teams doing it, the total amount of money in the pool is divided by 30. That way, no money is coming off the table for the buscones, ect.
If players are eligible for the bonus pool at 18, but have to wait until they are 23 to not be subject to international spending limits, I don’t see too many waiting those 5 years.
I’m largely good with your take.
I think the number $10 million is probably a bit too rich for most owners. While I wouldn’t mind 10 per year, halving it ought to get more of a groundswell of ownership support. I could probably name 8 teams that would vote against that high of a limit.
I would prefer the punishment to be against the executives involved. If my Cubs overspent, ban Theo Epstein, Jed Hoyer, and Jason McLeod from the league for a decade. Reserve the right to do the same for anything that appears off, like bundling signings across two seasons.
I’m completely for expansion of the academies into new countries. I’d start with Brasil, and lean toward a Eurasian country (India or China) with something in Africa in a few years.
Owners that don’t like baseball enough to push the product should sell their team to someone who does.
Setting the hard cap at 5 mil? Yeah I see no way that has a negative influence on the talent coming into mlb (sarcasm font).
Baseball is a business. You don’t just get to tell owners to sell their team because they may not like baseball enough to push their products. If they are turning enough profit to satisfy them and not breaking any rules, who are you to tell them they must sell their business that is making them money?
I value expanding baseball to new countries. Some owners agree, and others, clearly, don’t.
Teams trying to develop talent will. Teams trying to hinder teams trying to develop talent internationally will harm baseball long-term.
I’m glad the negotiations are taking awhile. Hopefully, there;s closer to a 50-50 split on teams wanting to expand growth versus teams wanting to push for a draft.
And “wanting a draft” or “not wanting a draft” seems to be a line in the sand, even on sites like this.
Color me against.
I don’t think it should be the teams individually developing the academies, I think the teams should have to pay MLB, which would work with/pay the baseball organizations in each country to develop the academies.
MLB doesn’t develop anyone. MLB serves as a clearinghouse. They notice which players have reached a “modicum of support”, and bring them together for some scrimmage games.
I don’t consider that development. I consider development to be hitting fungoes, pitching BP, and developing running skills.
Perhaps I misstated it – it would be the baseball organizations in the respective countries that would run the academies.
MLB could just provide funding to run the academies and possibly pay players a stipend.
I think the same problem exists.
The Brasilian Baseball Federation, or the Ghana Baseball Federation aren’t likely actively seeking out talent. And paying people 40 hours a week pay scales to hit grounders and flies to kids.
I would prefer the Rangers, the Phillies, and, yes, the Dodgers to be able to expand their academies into other countries. Allow teams to spend “more” but “the same” developing talent internationally.
However, I doubt 23 of 30 teams would want that.
The QO system works just fine. This year the QO will be over $17M. Take the money and run if you aren’t worth that much. A guy like Lohse wasn’t worth the value of a QO on an average annual rate. The best thing the MLBPA could recommend is for players to take the offer. Then there isn’t a concern regarding draft picks. I have no pity for whining millionaires.
I don’t have pity for whining millionaires or whining billionaires, but I have pity for the gods of competition trying to make the sport more fair and competitive… they get shoved aside to satiate whining millionaires and whining billionaires far too often.