Word of various potential changes in the MLB-MLBPA collective bargaining agreement has been trickling out of late, and Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle reports on a series of new matters under consideration. In particular, she looks at discussions involving the cash flow to the Athletics.
Revenue sharing is the key topic of interest for Oakland, which has been allowed to participate in the system despite its large-market status because of its inability to find a new ballpark. The O.Co coliseum has allowed the team to continue receiving funds, which Slusser pegs at $34MM in 2016.
Some around the game — including rival teams and the union — believe that the A’s aren’t putting those funds to use as intended. Reduction or even elimination of Oakland’s participation has “definitely been a topic” of discussion, a union source tells Slusser.
The interplay with the longstanding stadium question is complicated, as the report details. There’s a concern in some quarters not only that the club isn’t funneling enough cash into player salaries, but also that the team has been slow to settle its ballpark situation. (Of course, there’s a counter-argument to be found as well.)
If the team ultimately has its revenue-sharing pipeline narrowed, with a resulting hit to profitability, sources tell Slusser that there could be ownership changes. That might involve a minority owner leaving or even a full-on sale of the organization, she suggests.
There are a variety of other possible changes being discussed that could have even wider-ranging impact, per the report. That includes the possibility of trimming the regular season down to 154 games and inserting more off-days.
Even more intriguingly, perhaps, there’s apparently at least some consideration being given to expanding rosters from 25 to 26 players. That would certainly reduce the need to utilize the 15-day DL, increase teams’ flexibility to carry more specialty players, and perhaps add to the frequency of reliever usage during the regular season. It would also seem likely to enhance the value of somewhat marginal roster pieces (lefty specialists, power bench bats, glove-first players) who might otherwise be without a spot, while perhaps increasing the viability of the Rule 5 draft and opening service-time opportunities for less-developed players who’d otherwise be left playing in the upper minors.
MLBTR contributor Ryan Spilborghs recently advocated for several such provisions, reasoning that both teams and players could benefit. The current grind is arguably too great, leading to injuries (and rushed returns) that can harm players’ earning capacities as well as the investments already made by organizations.
This is exactly why people need to stop saying or thinking that Oakland is “cash-strapped”, and instead should expect them to make a ton of signs and trades for bigger contracts this offseason.
I don’t think Oakland is cash strapped in the traditional sense, like the Rays might be…just that the owner isn’t willing to spend. I would word the “isn’t willing to spend” differently but I’d probably violate the commenting policy lol.
Which is exactly why they shouldn’t be a benefactor in revenue sharing…
Is there any word on the NL getting the DH Rule
Let’s hope not. Too much opposition against it
Actually, there’s a lot of support for the DH in the NL. DHs tend to be among the higher paid players on a team, so the player’s association is pushing for it.
Hopefully that never happens.
No to the DH!!
If the Oakland A’s had their own stadium, they wouldn’t be receiving this petty money. SMH.
So they should build their own stadium…right in Oakland. No baseball (or other professional sporting team) should receive one dime of public money for building a stadium unless the public gets a percentage of the team and its revenues.
They haven’t asked for public funding.
What they DO need is the MLB to either decide that with the Giants territorial claims to silicon valley, the bay area is *not* a single large market and the A’s have claim to only the two poorest counties, or that the A’s can move to San Jose.
Right now, MLB has limited them to only building in Oakland itself, which has no good/un-hideously-expensive options beside the Coliseum lands. The Coliseum has the best transit access possible … there’s just the little issue that they can’t get the rights to the Coliseum while the Raiders still play there.
If they don’t get public money they will look somewhere else. you have to pay an extra 1% hotel tax to keep your team pretty much.
Oakland should not receive the revenue sharing dollars they receive, that is such bull. They are in a big market that should not qualify. If they truly wanted out of their horrible ballpark they could put together the financing—i.e., PAY FOR IT—and build a stadium in Oakland. The biggest hold up appears to be the A’s owners want to relocate to more affluent San Jose…where they can charge bigger premiums, jack up the prices of everything, and increase the value so they can sell their franchise for a couple billion.
If they Giants would just give back the territory of San Jose that the old A’s owner gave them for nothing when the Giants needed a new park this would have been settled already.
I am almost fearful as to what the players would be required to give up in order to shorten the season, and thus take away 8 games worth of profit from owners.
Why are you fearful? If the players want to cut back their season by 8 games they should cut back their salaries by those 8 games. And they’d be smart to do it. Eventually they’ll make that money back tenfold with ever-growing salaries, but the owners will never get those 8 games back. And it’s not that much money…for an minimum salary player it comes to about $25,000 less for the year…about $950 a check. It’ll cost players like Kershaw more, about $1.5M, but if he makes $32.5M instead of $34M is that really going to change his life? And he’ll have more days off, reducing the wear and tear on his body, and perhaps extend his career where he can earn even more money? Seems like a no-brainer.
the players union would NEVER agree to salary cuts for current contracts.
Agreed. The paychecks will increase to make up for the lost games. Same overall pay though. That’s the only way the union agrees to that – and rightfully so.
and i dont see anyway the owners agree to increasing paychecks while at the same time decreasing revenue by 8 games
Its not really a cut. Its an adjustment. Pay per game would remain the same.
but thats not how their contracts work, they are not worded as pay per game, they are written as pay per season,
Kershaw is just going to have to drop HBO from his cable bill to make up for it.
Change the Division Series round from 5 to 7 games series. the potential extra two playoff games should more than offset the 8 regular season ones
Only for the teams that play in that series.
True for ticket sales and concessions, but the money taken in from the national TV deals get spread around
Thankfully that doesn’t seem to be part of the negotiations this time around. It’s probably inevitable that it will eventually come to the NL too, but hopefully the league can hold out for as long as possible The baseball with the DH is pathetic. It’s like little league.
I agree if your unable to play in the field your not a ball player you belong in a beer league
There’s a difference between “not being able to play the field” and being a very poor fielder, like Ryan Howard, Jermaine Dye, Derek Jeter, Prince Fielder, etc.
Not sure it’s fair to lump Jeter in with that group. He could’ve been a good fielder at another position. Wasn’t so much that he lacked for ability as it was he didn’t have the range for the position he was (somewhat curiously, in a way) given to play for his entire MLB career.
Fair enough, though it’s something we will never know
I also don’t get why people say he should have moved to 3B when A-Rod came when :
1 – Cashman and Joe Torre specifically said “Jeter is our SS”
2 – No information/proof that Jeter would have been a good 3B and better one than A-Rod (who was good early on at 3B but got worse).
Wonder how much of Rodriquez’s issues at 3b was his hips tho and not the other “stuff”?
I agree that he was at one time passable, not the greatest, but fair at 3b. Mikey Lowell was a GG3b at one time, then tore his hips up and became maybe the worst in the league almost overnight.. Same injury, yet everyone was pointing fingers at arod about roids, not the labrum injury.
Good insight. Jeter had good hands and a decent arm, and might have been able to hold down 3rd or 2B. But with Cano there was no vacancy at 2B, and at third, he would have had to swap with A-Rod. I know a lot of fans think he should have been gracious and done it, but we don’t have any real insight into whatever discussions the Yankee FO had with A-Rod before trading for him. A-Rod was great, but unloved, and not every Yankee’s fan was thrilled to have him.
There’s no DH in Little League.
I think Pitchers Batting is like Little League, because most of them look like Little Leaguers at the plate.
I think a reduction to 154 games could cause a nominal increase to ticket and concession prices to make up for the revenue lost from 4 home games each team would be losing.
Every time I go to the game, I always remark how low the beer and concession prices are, and how the average fan should pay more.
Ha. I meant that as a negative. I guess I should’ve said nominal in owners’ view. Obviously any pricing increase is unfavorable.
What games are you going to that the prices are so low?
The A’s should move to Nashville
Not a fan of reducing the schedule.
If we contracted all the expansion teams however I’d be down… somehow I think that might alienate a few people.
ALL expansion teams? There would be what 8 teams left?
How would that solve anything?
Because reducing the amount of teams in the league is the obvious answer.
So you’re going to kick out all the teams but like 10? Then the schedule could be like 90 games and you would still play everyone for 3 series. It would also alter the whole sports world because there would be 20 billionaires that just lost their sports teams and would try to become minority owners in other teams and sports.
Right. No one enjoys watching Big Papi hit; everyone would rather watch a pitcher hit.
I enjoy watching Papi hit.,
I don’t enjoy watching Papi sit down and twiddle his thumbs until he has to make the laborious trip up the steps and back down again in 45min.
There are several players that make $150,000 per game. Multiply that by 8 games and that will give you a idea of how much money they would lose by reducing the schedule by 8 games.
Reduction of the schedule to 154 games makes a lot sense. It made sense before the addition of endless playoff series. However I’m not in favor of expanding the rosters which will simply result in more relief pitchers, pitching changes and game delays. I thought we were trying to speed up the game.
If they add the 26th spot to provide rest for the everyday lineup and keep them off the DL during minor injuries, there is only one way to make sure the teams use the spot properly. Cap the number of pitchers allowed on the 26 man roster. I agree. Managers don’t need an 8 or 9 man bullpen.
Not nearly enough being considered in the new CBA.
1-Advanced laser technology implemented for the strike zone. This would eliminate MLB’s biggest judgement call and assure the game to be the one professional team sport where the outcome of each game is decided by the players.
2-Increase active roster size to 27 as an incentive for the union to implement a much needed salary cap.
3-Consider expansion of two new franchises, one for each league which adds immediate revenue for the owners, adds even more player jobs, solves the 15 team per league scheduling dilemma and potentially resolves the issues with the one and done wild card scenario with as many as 8 teams per league advancing to the postseason. No more play in game would be necessary with 4 division winners and 4 wild card teams from each league. Seeding would be based on best record with top division winner facing worst wild card entry and so on. There would be 4 rounds of playoff with all teams participating immediately. With the current format there are “technically” 4 rounds anyway if the wild card game is included.
4-Make all postseason series a best of 7 format which rewards teams with the greatest depth, generally the clubs with the best regular season record. The World Series winner would need to win 16 games with a maximum of 28 played if each series went the full 7. Currently, 11 games are needed to win a World Series, 12 for a wild card team. The maximum number of games played for a champion is currently 19, 20 for a wild card winner. Increasing the field of playoff teams would generate more interest among clubs during the regular season, add more revenue at the cost of adding up to two more weeks to the playoff schedule. Starting spring training a week or two earlier or reducing the regular season from 162 to 154 games could help accommodate the increased postseason schedule.
5-Keep the 162 game season intact by cutting down a week or two of spring training. The increased roster size to 27 would help alleviate any undo stress on each clubs pitching staff, especially early in the season. The modern game has seen a decrease in starter innings pitched anyway with many teams building successful staffs from the back end/bullpen.
6-Resolve the DH situation on way or the other. No other professional team sport has two different rules governing each league. My preference would be to keep the DH but it is more important to have a unified rule in MLB.
Clearly, it’s too late to implement many of these ideas in time for the latest CBA but all should be given consideration before the next one is enacted. Each of these proposals would be a boon for the great game of baseball and potentially make it the true American past time it once was.
I’m pretty sure in your scenario, the season would start on St Patricks Day and wrap up right around Thanksgiving Dinner
I’m pretty sure you did not fully read or comprehend my comments that addressed your concerns.
You are making a one game series into a seven- that is 8 extra days already.
I had already commented that the postseason would need to be extended up to 2 weeks to accommodate the possibility of 28 games for the World Series participants rather than the 19-20 maximum that are currently slated for a wild card/division winner who reach the championship round.
1-The first round, conceivably called the wild card round, would become a best of 7 involving all the postseason teams rather than a one and done game currently played.
2-The second round, kept as the ALDS and NLDS would become a best of 7 rather than the current best of 5 format.
3-The third round would remain as the ALCS and NLCS and as a best of 7 series.
4-Ditto for the World Series.
Bottom line: MLB would have 32 teams just like the NFL, divided into two 16 team leagues each with four-4 team divisions. Unlike the NFL, MLB could have all teams participate immediately once the playoff begin, requiring 8 postseason qualifiers from each league. The first (wild card) round would start with 16 teams and conclude with 8. The second round league division series would begin with 8 and finish with 4. The third round league championship series would have 4 participants and end with two, the winners playing for the World Series championship. Nothing changes from the current format except the first round would become a best of 7 involving every postseason team rather than a one and done involving four clubs AND the second round becomes a best of 7 rather than the current best of 5.
No, I read it, and I understand it. It is just crazy talk. Four rounds of 7 game series would take 40 days total to play. Shortening Spring Training won’t lead to fewer injuries like it would in the NFL – it would most likely make things worse by not allowing pitchers to stretch out properly. Adding more teams to the playoffs and stretching the playoffs out over a month and a half won’t make them more exciting, it will water them down. Laser strike zones are not happening
After watching the World Series, allegedly with MLB best umpires, a pre-programmed laser strike for each player is clearly needed. Umpires have plenty of other responsibilities in overseeing a game, especially the one at home plate. It’s not humanly possible for them to be accurate with calls of balls and strikes during the course of any given contest, let alone their inconsistency with differing strike zones from game to game.
No umpire would need to lose their job with the implementation of this technology and it would also serve to speed up the game with an instantaneous call for every pitch with no reason for complaint from any pitcher, hitter, catcher, manager or fan.. The laser strike zone would eliminate the single biggest judgement call in MLB and could elevate it beyond what any other professional team sport is capable of doing in refereeing it’s sport. The players would truly dictate the outcome of the contest which could never happen in the NFL, NBA or NHL with the speed of those games and the potential for missed calls, fouls or penalties on every single play.
While I like the idea of a slightly expanded roster, I don’t like the idea of longer games, and the last thing we need is one more situational lefty or righty to make it into 60-70 games a year. I’d prefer the extra player be a utility position player.
26 Man roster. 25 active every day. No pitcher can be “scratched” more than once a month. No player can be “scratched” more than twice.
I like the 26 man roster, 25 man active roster, but the “scratch” rule is way off. That would not prevent teams from carrying a pitcher specialist outside of the 1 game a month he can’t pitch. The idea of a cap on the amount of pitchers is a better idea and leave the “scratch” spot open for managers to play with. Could be a guy who is going to be out for a few days and they could use the extra spot (instead of being placed on the DL) or maybe a guy who needs a rest while still allowing for the full use of the bench/bullpen. If the “scratch” rule is put into place then I would also put a rule in that pertain to Rule 5 players such as they can’t be the “scratch” for more than half of their team’s games in a month or that they can be scratched but the amount of time a team needs to hold onto a Rule 5 player is increased. What I mean by that last stipulation is that currently teams must carry a Rule 5 player for basically the whole season to retain their rights so instead of that, make it where each game the Rule 5 player is “scratched” counts as only .5 or .75 of a game so the team has to hold onto the player going into the next season as well.
I went further into it on a full-length piece, elsewhere.
I actually prefer two “scratch” players. Then, the concept gets a bit more manageable. A player can be “activated” from “scratch status” only twice a month.
Then, you can, on occasion, scratch an SP, but not every time. Your 3B needs six or eight days off, he’s scratched for as long as needed. Then activated when ready. And, it only counts as one of his two “activations” from being scratched for the month.
A 26 man roster makes the six-man rotation possible. And ought to push all 30 sides into drafting “enough starting pitching” to make it possible at the lower levels by 2018 at the soonest.
Draft that guy that is a reasonable college starter, and put him in A-Ball. Lower level teams in the minors don’t need 12 hitters. Especially with the DH, and a guy or two usually hanging around on the MiLB DL to avoid getting a normal job.
I
The minute Donaldson told A’s upper management – Billy is just a minority owner – they did not want to spend the money they have that upper management told Beane to trade out the player and so they got rid of Josh! They have the buckies for sure…