DEC. 3: Jon Heyman of FanRag tweets that, under the terms of the new CBA, each Rule 5 Draft pick will cost $100K, rather than $50K in the previous CBA.
DEC. 1, 8:10pm: Passan also reports (on Twitter) that the new CBA allows the league to issue extreme levels of punishment to teams that try to circumvent the international spending guidelines that are in place. Per Passan, MLB can penalize up to 50 percent of a team’s international bonus money through the 2021 season if it is found to be in violation of the new international signing rules.
12:39pm: Notably, teams can trade all of the new international bonus allotments, per Passan (Twitter links). Alternatively, they may boost their spending by adding up to 75% of their initial spending capacity.
Also, the top slot of the 2017 draft will fall to $7.4MM, though the overall spending availability in the domestic arena won’t change, Passan further tweets.
In another detail on the QO front, Rosenthal tweets that teams signing multiple qualifying offer-declining free agents would continue to sacrifice their next selection (or, in the case of a team over the luxury line, selections).
NOV. 30: Major League Baseball and the MLB Player’s Association have announced that they’ve tentatively settled on a new, five-year collective bargaining agreement. The sides are still hammering out the final deal, per the announcement.
With the new deal, the owners and union have averted any impairment of the offseason market and continued a strong record of labor peace. Fresh on the heels of a thrilling postseason, and with the game sporting rising profits, the stage is set for continued prosperity.
The expectation all along had been that a deal would be found in advance of the expiration of the prior CBA at midnight tonight. With huge amounts of money at stake for all involved, and general agreement on all but a few areas, it would have rated as a major surprise had things gone south. Still, there were rumblings of late that there could be a lockout, and it took until about three hours before the deadline to finally resolve all the deadlocks.
There will certainly be many details to parse out as the results of the negotiation are revealed. Here are some key areas that have been discussed in recent months:
Roster
In one notable realm, there will be no changes. The sides decided against modifying the active roster rules, Joel Sherman of the New York Post reports on Twitter. Rosters will remain at 25 players, rather than moving to 26, and September roster expansion will not be curtailed.
There will, however, be a new league-minimum salary, per Ronald Blum and Stephen Hawkins of the Associated Press. It’ll be $535K next year, $545K in 2018, and $555K in 2019. Then, “cost-of-living increases” will provide further bumps in the final two years of the agreement. That seems to be a rather modest rise; certainly, it does nothing to fundamentally shift the balance of earning power to newer major leaguers. There are also some minor bumps in the MiLB minimum salary applicable to players making their second appearance on a 40-man roster.
The minimum DL stint will now be ten days, Blum further reports. By making the DL more readily utilized, the rule could also increase the amount of player movement — as well as the value of optionable 40-man assets.
Luxury Tax & Revenue Sharing
Meanwhile, the luxury tax threshold will rise from $189MM to around $195MM in the 2017 season, Sherman further reports (links to Twitter). It’ll then reach $210MM over the five-year span. ESPN.com’s Jayson Stark provides the full schedule of the luxury tax line, via Twitter (as Rosenthal had previously suggested, also on Twitter). Between the $195MM starting point and $210MM max level, the tax will kick in for the intervening years at $197MM (2018), $206MM (2019), and $208MM (2020).
Additionally, the CBA imposes new penalties for spending over the tax line that figure to serve as a rather notable deterrent to big-market spending. Going past the threshold for the first time comes with a 20% tax, which increase to 30% for a second year and 50% for a third. There’s an additional 12% added on top when teams exceed the mark by between $20MM to $40MM, while going past $40MM triggers the maximum penalty — which can reach a 90% tax on overages. (That information comes via Bob Nightengale of USA Today, via Twitter; Sherman and Stark previously sketched the parameters.) Teams that go $40MM over the luxury tax line will see their top draft pick fall by ten spots, the AP adds.
The existing “performance factor” element of the revenue-sharing system will be removed, per Passan (Twitter links). That had functioned as what Passan terms a “revenue-sharing multiplier,” so its removal will likely mean that large-budget clubs are required to pay less into the pool.
Qualifying Offer
The qualifying offer system has been another area of some uncertainty, and it seems as if it will undergo some highly significant changes:
- Beginning next offseason, there will be three categories of teams in assessing the loss of a pick for signing players who turn down qualifying offers, per Blum and Hawkins. Revenue-sharing recipients would lose their third-highest selection (not necessarily a third-round choice). Revenue-sharing contributors would lose their second and fifth-highest selections and also sacrifice $1MM in international signing availability. And all other teams would stand to give up their second-highest pick along with $500K in international bonus funds.
- In terms of compensation, an organization which loses a QO-declining player who signs for $50MM or more will pick up a draft choice “after the first round.” If a QO-declining player inks for under $50MM with another organization, the draft compensation slides to “after competitive balance round B.” There’s a different set of rules for teams that are over the luxury tax line; any compensatory picks they receive will take place after the draft’s fourth round.
- Importantly, players will no longer be able to receive more than a single qualifying offer, Rosenthal reports (Twitter links). Players now will have ten days, instead of seven, to consider the offer, according to the AP duo.
All told, the above changes promise to represent a rather monumental shift in the function of the qualifying offer system. It will clearly hurt free agents less, and the reduced draft compensation will likely make it slightly more likely that veterans end up being traded in the season before they hit the open market. Whether less players will be tagged with QOs remains to be seen; though there’s less to be gained for teams, there’s also less of a disincentive for players to enter free agency.
Details also remain foggy regarding how the luxury tax assessment will be made, as regards the qualifying offer. Presumably, the league will look to the team’s ultimate Opening Day salary (or some other date certain), in which case the final draft order could shuffle depending upon an organization’s future roster decisions.
Amateur
There will indeed be a hard bonus cap for international signings, rather than a draft, Stark reports. It will only be about $5MM per team, he adds on Twitter, which seems likely to suppress international spending. There are currently some different numbers floating around on that score; presumably, it will vary over time. Here’s the latest:
- The bonus pool available will be dependent upon revenue, with the 15 smallest clubs entitled to $6MM and the 15 largest at $5MM, Nightengale suggests (Twitter links).
- The initial international bonus pool will actually be $4.75MM, according to the AP.
- There are three tiers in spending allotment, per Jon Heyman of Fan Rag (via Twitter). Large-revenue clubs will have $4.75MM to spend, mid-tier teams can go up to $5.25MM, and the smallest organizations can tap $5.75MM.
Another critical element of the system is just who is subject to the spending caps, which could significantly influence top young talent and whether it flows to the majors. Cuban players who are at least 25 years of age and have six years of Serie Nacional experience will be exempt from these limitations, Morosi tweets. It’s not entirely clear whether players from other countries will continue to be exempt from these limitations, though. Nightengale suggests that the limitations will not apply to players coming over from Asia, though that element still seems a bit unclear. Passan, for example, tweets that the current rules would seemingly keep Japanese star Shohei Otani from moving to the majors for several years (he’s still just 22).
Meanwhile, in the domestic draft, there’ll be some changes in the spread of slot values, according to the AP. Details remain unknown, but it seems there’ll be a more gradual decline than the currently steep fall after the first few picks.
Other
- There will be some changes to the Joint Drug Agreement, including additional testing, per the AP. Notably, players will not be able to accrue service time during any period they are suspended, which serves as a fairly significant additional deterrent. Finally, there’ll now be “biomarker testing for HGH.”
- The All-Star game will return to simply being a spectacle, rather than determining home-field advantage for the World Series, per the AP. Now, the World Series team with the better regular-season record will enjoy an added home game, which seems clearly a better approach.
- To accommodate additional off-days, meanwhile, the league will kick off the season in the middle of the week beginning in 2018, per Rosenthal (via Twitter). Some of those days could go toward international marketing efforts. MLB intends to put on regular season games abroad as soon as 2018, Morosi tweets, with London and Mexico the most likely targets. The CBA is expected to accommodate that new addition.
- The Athletics “will be phased out as a revenue-sharing recipient over the next four years,” Rosenthal adds (via Twitter). The A’s slice of revenue sharing will go to 75%, then 50%, then 25% over the next three years before disappearing, according to the AP.
- In other team-specific news, the Yankees seem likely to benefit under the new deal, per Rosenthal (Twitter links). Beyond the removal of the revenue-sharing multiplier previously reported, the organization will keep revenue-sharing offsets related to the fact that it paid for its new ballpark.
- The league will ban incoming MLB players from using smokeless tobacco, with existing players grandfathered in another wrinkle, per Sherman (on Twitter), .
Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports first reported agreement on a CBA (Twitter link), while Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports was first to tweet its duration.
Details or GTFO. No, but seriously I want to know what’s in it. Hurry up Rosenthal!
I’m just glad April 3rd will still be a great day as baseball will be played!!
+1. No games cancelled = win for baseball fans.
Yay!
Thank God.
5 year deal.
Huzzah!!!
Fantastic
Woooo!
WINTER MEETINGS TIME!! LET THE INSANITY BEGIN!!
True dat!
PREACH
Thank god we still will have the Winter Meetings.
Thank God for Dak and Zeke!!!
From Joel Sherman- New CBA is agreed upon. Hear luxury tax threshold is going to start at about $195M rise to $210M-$215M over life of 5-yr deal, sources say
It should have risen much more right away, it’s been 189 for 5 years.
Agreed, I was actually thinking it could be 210 to start. SO much money has come into this game since the last CBA started. It’s silly.
Actually, the threshold of $189M has only been in place since 2014. It was $178M in 2013.
It was $178 million in 2012 and 2013 and $189 in 2014-2016. Only 4 teams have gone over it since the previous CBA started in 2012, so it’s really a moot point.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!
Let the games begin. Theo go get us another ring
YESSSSSSSS
QO system?
I know the draft probably wouldn’t be good for the players, but I’m really hoping there will be an international draft.
No 26 man roster.
Good luck Dodgers.
Fewer billionaires can pay fewer millionaires a larger amount of money. Woo hop.
Woo hop?
A new TV series about a Chinese kangaroo.
Or autocorrect.
In true fashion of CBA negotiations, there was a lot of back and forth, discussion, disruption and fear of lockout. But in the end, it’s done.
And, in true CBA negotiation fashion once again – not a whole lot was actually achieved, by the sounds of it. Just a bit of shuffling here and there.
A number of issues were spoken about quite some time ago, and next to no progress was made since. All of sudden, oh crap – we need to sign something quick! And very little was achieved.
Like usual, top tier of teams and top tier of players rejoice, new roof and siding on the status quo. Everyone else rolls their eyes and is just glad we can get on with things.
Personally I thought 60-70% is huge along with the draft compensation change it’s closer and closer to a cap. As it was all you heard from larger market teams like the Yankees,Dodgers,red sox prior to this was they needed to get under once it seems like more and more if a team does go over it’d be only a few times.
Large market teams got killed everywhere except the revenue sharing bit
The revised QO rules seem to benefit the large market teams way more than the small market teams. They might lose a 2nd and 5th round pick, but keep first round that they were previously losing, and the team losing the player who is likely a smaller market team may not be getting a 1st round compensation pick back (Have read conflicting reports on compensation pick)
Yeah but it’s still more and more closer to teams wanting to stay under the tax. As it was u kept hearing the Yankees of all teams say it and then back it up by not signing a single free agent. I feel the way it is now more teams will if they do go over the tax not stay there long especially @ a 60-70% tax and that change in compensation pick makes it so they wont get full drafts or not lose multiple picks like that. These teams value picks like crazy and constantly losing picks (young players) for aging players will eventually catch up with you.
It sounds like that was the trade off they had to make to decrease the amount given in revenue sharing. I for one am happy about it as it will help to decrease the increasing gap between the low and high payroll clubs (Except A’s possibly with their revenue sharing money going away). I am more surprised that the players went for that idea as I see it slowing down some spending.
Yeah it bothered me looking it up and finding the Astros having a 69 million $ payroll last year or how about the diamondbacks how laughable is the fact that half their payroll is on one player? But it seems like the gap is closing like u said teams all across the board are spending $ and that’s the best part.
Its all bullshit. We know it, they know it, everybody knows it.
That’s what I was thinking. Rich people arguing/planning with richer people about how to get richer. At least there will be baseball come spring. Now let’s fire up the hot stove!
OJ Simpson stabbed Bill Walsh in the neck with a pitch fork!
Surprised the DH never came up. Seemed like a no-brainer. Daily interleague makes it necessary. And it was a huge chip for owners since players would benefit from 32 DH jobs available …
Are they adding two teams?
They should.
I still think we should get rid of all the expansion teams.
You want to go back to 16 total teams?
Havana & Montreal!
We should totally go to 16 teams so each team is stacked with superstars and owners just randomly lose a huge piece of their net worth! At this point, something like that won’t happen because the other 14 owners losing teams would never agree to it.
Trump is saying he will roll back all the changes in the relationship with Cuba, so players will have to go back to being smuggled out and no MLB teams in or travel to Cuba.
‘Seemed like a no-brainer.’
To me it doesn’t seem like a no brainer. Why would they make it less interesting by dumbing it down when they’re trying to bring in more fans?
Because offense and scoring always brings fans of any sport. Adding a dh instead of watching 99.9999% of these pitchers hit offers more scoring.
There are only 5 teams in the AL that had a full time DH in 2016 and that falls to 4 in 2017 with Big Papi’s retirement. More and more teams want flexibility with their roster so they are signing guys that can play a position and DH instead of the dinosaurs that can only hit. It’s time for the DH to go away completely.
Adding the dh in the National League will completely kill the game for anyone that understands strategy.
Honestly though it’s not as fun and exciting to young people as scoring. Kids don’t care about a double switch or a bunt as much as having to watch the abysmal performances most of the pitchers perform @ the plate. I would think a sport that is trying to attract youth would stand more to gain.
Having a dh would not kill the game for people. I’d much rather watch Ortiz or encarnacion bat than the 130/190/200 slash line
More offense won’t get more younger people into the game. More offense means longer and slower games, something many people feel is already a disadvantage for baseball in getting younger fans involved.
Sorry ppl, you can’t have more offense and a faster paced game at the same time. Baseball will always be a game the requires patience in some ways, so get used to it.
All you will accomplish by implementing the DH in the NL is make it more one-dimentional for people already into the game or like that strategy part of it. Think of better ideas if you want to get younger people involved so bad.
Garbage
I’m youngish (22) and yes I love scoring. The more the merrier, but I do not want a dh in the NL. I love that we have two leagues with different styles. I like that pitchers fair better in the NL without the dh. I like the strategy involved.
Also screw needing new younger fans! Stop trying to please new people who don’t enjoy the game. Those of us who love the game deserve to continue to love it. I love long games. I don’t usually want them to end. If you really love baseball why would you want to have less of it? If you don’t have the patients to watch a whole game then we don’t need you IMO
FACTS: NL baseball is mostly boring to watch, unless its the Cubs. NL gives pitchers 1 free out and boosts their stats to make them look better than they are. The “strategy” part is bogus and just makes games longer than they need to be.
“More offense means longer and slower games” – that is an absolute lie.
They need young people for the future of the game. Young people won’t all of the sudden grab on to the idea of baseball once they hit 50. Like any industry, you need to adapt to survive.
I’m 14 and I love pitching duels more than most other games.
I completely agree I love pitching duels but how much does it retract from actually pitching a good game when you face a pitcher 3 times? Pitching a great game is alot harder when you don’t have to face the dh and face a pitcher instead.
Starts his comment with the word FACTS and then states all opinions. lol
You really need to look up the word fact, because nothing you said is fact. It’s actually a very poorly written option.
Just another fan has a knack for that lol. He thinks he’s smarter than everyone else. Really he’s a just a dumb troll that most of us on here can’t stand
I see. Sounds like he’s twelve and I’m being generous.
Yeah baseball can surely survive without a younger generation picking it up and enjoying it on their own. :rolls eyes:
Then they don’t understand baseball as it was meant to be played. But they don’t have the exciting play at the plate anymore or the break up of double plays like it should be either. The games going downhill fast. He’ll even the cubs can win now.
Sounds like your typical cub fan really.
+1
Yeah, there’s nothing more exciting on earth than the double switch.
That slash line will get a pitcher some silver slugger votes lol
No no no no the DH was a terrible idea to begin with. Keep Baseball the way its supposed to be.
Adding the DH to the NL will piss off too many fans
lol you think baseball peaked in the 1960’s
When do you consider baseball’s peak? 90’s?
There is no peak in baseball, it has always been popular in many countries and generally interesting to a great deal of people…its literally why we are posting on the internet about it right now. It is a billion dollar global industry that has shown no signs of regressing.
I doubt many of the NL owners are actually in favor of it. It takes away too much of the late-game strategy. Besides, the rare decent hitting pitchers like Wainwright, Leake, Grienke, and Bumgarner actually like to hit.. I myself would institute a personal partial boycott (only attend one game a year) if they ever did make the change.
Lanidrac they have the option to hit still u can forego the dh. Personally I love the game watch I feel alot of games but watching most pitchers hit is a joke and makes a mockery of the games @ times. Watching Pedro in the 04 world series not even take his bat off his shoulder you’d rather watch that 2-3 times than kendrys morales or someone else way more exciting and for the guy that said longer games less exciting that’s not totally true if the product is more watchable and also not exactly true when it could extend stars careers like Griffey or chipper? Those guys needed the dh to stay healthy to at least give them a day off those last couple years.
That “late game strategy” is total BS and only exists to make games longer. MLB does not want longer games, ergo, its only a matter of time before the NL gets the DH.
I do agree that it should be optional though, like if the managers of the 0.1% of pitchers who can actually hit well want to use the pitcher there, so be it.
Also longer slower game I think not have u seen how much longer a football game is? Baseball literally even in the al can be the shortest game with good pitching @ under 2 hours @ times. MLB want to kill dead time like pitching changes and things like that which is pretty much the same as watching a John Lester hit.
It’s optional right now, but if you don’t use one you don’t get a DH for the entire game. A lot of restrictions on DH seem to go back to some Earl Weaver gamesmanship
Having a DH actually increases your strategic options by leaving you with multiple bench players at the end of a game and because pinch hitting for the pitcher forces your hand and makes you predictable. And teams occasionally use up all their pinch hitters/double switches and end up pinch hitting pitchers for pitchers at the end of the game, which can just hand the game to the other team in the most anti-climactic fashion; kind of like a walk-off-walk
Huzzah!
In other news , a verified source said EE to the Astros , 5 years/$115 Million.
twitter.com/jordanlray/status/804146845136076805
So does this come in to effect for this offseason? As in now the Blue Jays who were probably banking on getting 3 first round picks for losing (potentially) both EE and Joey Bats are only going to get their original pick at #25 or 6 i cant remember what is was???
I was wondering the same, as that would put more people in on those players if they weren’t over or in danger of going over the cap.
probably affects the Rockies a bit too, they have the 11th pick so the highest unprotected in the old system but if thats gone then maybe they can buy a decent free agent instead
No, the qo system won’t become effective until next off season.
But if you go to that link you will see this:
twitter.com/JordanLRay/status/804152875857412096
Then
twitter.com/brianmctaggart/status/8041555176439193…
So, no deal.
Finally.. any clarification in regards to international draft?
Or that piece will remain as it is?
Did they expand the rosters as part of this deal?
no
Those scumbags! I really wish we’d see rosters expanded to 26 or 27 if it didn’t mean more pitching changes.
BTW – A pitching change COULD be made more efficient if we really wanted to.
Hey! Hey!
Holy Cow!
You can put in on the board…Yes!
Thank the baseball gods. Now we can play ball all winter long.
MLBPA sucks but let the free agency frenzy begin!!
Yeah, how dare the people who generate all the revenue ask to get paid their fair share. Stupid players.
Sooooo… all that posturing about a lockout and it appears very little changed. Well at least that distraction is over.
The $6 million cap is a bit low on international free agency, but at least teams know what they can spend each year. And 16/17 year olds can still play.
I see that as a good compromise to a draft. Depresses international signing bonuses, and also helps level the playing field for all teams to sign top talent. Only thing Id like to see is competitive balance international slot money like they do for the draft, just excluding the Cardinals.
Not seeing why it’s a good thing to remove incentive from foreign players wanting to choose the sport. Now that the number is closer to 5 mil, liking it much less.
Question is what happpens when you sign multiple “qualified” free agents? Say if you’re under the luxury tax threshold do you give up a third for one player then a fourth for another player then a fifth etc etc
Yes.
How would the system work for teams that sign multiple QO free agents? Is it just the second and fifth/third round pick is forfeited and then everything else is moot? Or do teams lose picks in other rounds? I kind of like the different pick forfeiture idea, but if the loss of picks is only capped at those rounds, it’s not going to prevent big market teams from signing multiple guys.
yeah thats exactly what i was thinking. maybe its 2&5 then 3&6 then 4&(7?) or who the hell knows but i can see the under the threshold teams one making sense 3->4->5 etc
It sounds like they’ve succeeded in turning a massively complex system into a total hairball that lawyers can earn endless billable hours arguing about for the next five years.
“Organizations that are over the luxury tax line will punt a second and a fifth-round choice, while those who are under the threshold would stand to sacrifice a third-rounder. That would represent a rather monumental change to the qualifying offer system, as only a few organizations in any given year would be at risk of sacrificing a pick.”
Wait, so most teams are neither over nor under the tax threshold?
i think they are adding things as they come to light. that sentence originally only said teams over the tax line will forfeit a pick and never mentioned those under losing anything. I think they are editing things as they go.
wow QO is total bs
I think we would be better off seeing the entire proposal. I’m surprised that the big market teams would have agreed to give up two draft picks.
The players are probally pissed at the no tobbaco thing, honestly I’m glad they made the rule but I doubt they are.
It’s FEWER, not LESS!
Oh no not a fifth round pick
Do you know how many superstars were drafted after round 5? Just look at Piazza.
I’d assume very few “superstars” were. Maybe serviceable players.
More than you think. Do some research. Granted the odds decrease, but there are quite a few HOFers drafted after round four.
It’s almost all on scouting and minor league development after the first few rounds. The idea that losing a 5th round pick in baseball is an actual penalty is ridiculous.
Piazza was a special case somewhere around round 55. And then lasorda only drafted him as a favor to the family. Pujols was drafted in the 10th round would be a better example.
I fail to see the relevance of it being a family favor or a true draft selection. The point is no matter the round, players are available.
Thank you baby Jesus!! I was so worried!!
What’s going to happen with signing multiple FA with QO’s?
I can see this leading to big market teams giving all their free agents having 1.8 WAR or more, a qualifying offer.
thank god roster size hasn’t changed…i hope they take out the DH in the next CBA
I’m sure the MLBPA would love to take away jobs from aging sluggers.
That’s funny, because I hope they add the DH to the NL. Mine wish is more likely to come true than yours. The AL will never lose the DH, it makes way too much sense. And the NL will get it eventually, although it will honestly probably take a lot longer than I would like.
wow you sound like a little girl
Witty comeback,
Yes, because it makes too much sense. LOL
Actually, MLB should save any roster size increase, including future expansion, as a “carrot” in exchange for something that is most needed in the sport…a sensible salary cap.
Perhaps, in 5 years they will also consider other truly important issues to benefit this great sport that was once known as the “American Pastime”…like a pre-programmed laser strike zone for each hitter to eliminate it’s foremost judgement call, resolution of the DH issue one way or the other and a better solution to the postseason that should include a best of seven format for each round and fixing the one-and-done wild card game.
tobacco ban is stupid…its not hurting anyone who isn’t willingly taking it…but whatever…
Yeah, but sometimes it’s best to protect people from their own stupidity. It’s why we have things like seatbelt laws.
Yeah, seatbelt laws, soft drink regulations and a ban on chewing gum. The road to tyranny is paved with good intentions as well as heavy doses of condescending paternalism.
You mean moderate doses of helpful paternalism, at least in those first two cases. I’ve never heard of anyone other than orthodontists banning chewing gum. That would just be silly.
Being a scrub pro baseball player means you make more money in a year than 20 doctors do. Its a privilege to play in MLB, not a right, MLB should be absolutely forcing players to keep themselves in line as model citizens while they are taking obscene money from us to play the same game children play.
Not saying they can’t be unique individuals, and I think MLB should ban the Yankees from their stupid haircut rule, but we lost Tony Gwynn, one of the best players ever, to chewing tobacco. That is more than enough to get MLB involved in their players personal decisions. Plus its not like they won’t have an army of doctors and therapists at their disposal to help them get off it.
So please, go use smokeless tobacco, take your seat-belt off, and drink a gallon of soda a day. In fact, start using heroin AND crack AND tweak while you are at it. We won’t mind.
It’s because these players are supposed to be role models (whether that’s fair or not is another topic) and they don’t want kids to start dipping. It makes sense, and guys like sale have quit willingly since it lead to Gwynn’s cancer
Thanks for verifying my observation on paternalism. A lot more people die from high blood pressure or poor diets, so using that logic, they might as well police what the players eat, drink as well as their medications.
Medications are already restricted by needing a prescription for the potentially more dangerous ones. As for diets, the difference is that food and drink is beneficial in the right amounts (even junk food has some nutrients); whereas inhaling tobacco has no redeeming use whatsoever, is highly addictive, and quickly creates lasting health problems. Just because it doesn’t technically cause as many deaths as poor diets doesn’t mean it isn’t overall much more damaging to society even if second-hand smoke isn’t an issue. Depending on the issue, paternalism is sometimes a good thing.
Players don’t eat or drink on the field while they are playing. They chew while they play. Big difference
The ultimate role models are parents, so it should be against the law for a parent to display examples of human frailties? If the league can ban chew or dip, then most certainly a government should be warranted in banning parents from partaking in any activity deemed to be a negative influence.
If it means finally getting rid of tobacco use once and for all, go right ahead. Same for alcohol and anything else that only has negative uses. Unfortunately, such blanket bans of popular vices are just not realistic as was proven during Prohibition. At least we can tax them to high heaven instead.
The tobacco ban is paternalistic nonsense. I’d like to see at least one major sport thumb their nose at political correctness.
With any business, the cost of medical insurance is rising substantially. MLB is no different. Tobacco usage raises those costs. As long as it is something that can save the owners money, it is on the table during negotiations. Unless it was brought up by the players union, this was about saving money.
it’s a public image thing. doesn’t matter if the kids will emulate it, just matters that people think it looks bad. They’ll put whatever excuse on it, but it just looks bad. I’m ambivalent
You’re purposefully ignoring or simply being daft about the fact these players are being paid millions. You sound like a spoiled millennial. Life’s not fair. But here’s your participation trophy. Happy now or do you still need a safe place?
I agree. They try to say that kids will emulate it, but I spent my whole childhood oblivious to the fact that baseball players chewed.
Its part of the game, leave it as an option.
Its far from obvious…
#fail
Oh, so your sample size of just you means anything?
About the draft compensation being tied to market size, is this the same BS definition that lets teams like the Cardinals get competitive balance draft picks despite being able to draw a lot more revenue than their population base suggests?
While there are teams like that (formerly the Cubs as well) that pull in revenue no matter what they do, its meant to bridge the wide gap between top tier teams and teams that are struggling to fill seats.
That middle ground isn’t as important.
I’m not talking about the middle ground. Teams that are in technically small markets shouldn’t get these extra benefits if they don’t actually have any problems filling their seats or making money. They should be treated the same as the rest of the middle class teams regardless of their actual metro area population.
The Cardinals were not one of the ten smallest markets last year and ended up not getting a lottery pick
Are you serious? Do you realize that the top tier teams like the Dodgers and Yankees are drawing in more than $300 million per year in TV revenue alone while the bottom 10 are all drawing in less than $40 million per year in TV revenue with the bottom 5 all under $25 million. The gap between them is huge.
And yet the “small market” Padres are spending like 60 million dollars this year on Kemp, Gyorko, Shields and Olivera. None of whom play for the team.
That is pretty ridiculous that they get the extra picks. MLB should ship that pick over to the White Sox instead. Sure, they’re in a huge market technically, but when you factor in the other team in Chicago, they’re basically a small market team that doesn’t draw worth a damn.
They can revisit the idea of an international draft if/when Cuba finally opens up. It would be rather silly to shoehorn one in now when Castro’s brother is going to retire in just a couple of years with no idea what policies and views his successor may have in mind.
Well to that end I tend to believe that we’ll start seeing Cuban players posted.
I’d grade this one as a win for the owners. Not a huge one, but the net is going to be better for them. The hard cap International signings is a big prize. The enhanced penalties on the mega-market spending is also a win. The changes to the QO help the players marginally, but look for the $50M level to serve as a mini-hard cap for a class of free agent players–you won’t see 4/$52M anymore.
From the baseball fan’s perspective….Election is over–and it’s time to go back to things that actually give me pleasure. Glad to see this, waiting for pitchers and catchers.
ASG no longer counts!!!
Thank God
glad to see them come to an agreement but I saw things that kinda piss me off I think instead of a 25 to 26 how bout a 30 man roster, now banning first year players from smokeless tobacco how bout an all out ban and I think the ultimate f*ck up by pardon my french Selig making winner of the All star game that team get home field advantage I will do away with that the teams with the best record gets home field and going to the U.K for games in two words hell no I mean no one in the U.K are baseball fans heres an idea for Manfred the game at Fort Bragg we need more games like that games in Mexico Japan Korea countries that have baseball leagues I would die to see an Japanese league team vs a team from MLB play
The problem with 30 man roster size is pitching changes a team having 4 loogys or something like that for the final 3 innings would add time to the game and people hate down time in the game.
Could get around that by changing the rules so that relievers must pitch to at least 2 batters (unless they get injured, ejected etc).
I’d be OK with it then except for the final 2 innings I feel like 8th 9th inning there’s so much @ stake @ that point and you can only do so many changes with there being only 6 outs left.
they’d be more likely to do a 28 player team with 3 players designated inactive before each game
Would’nt every team just designate the 3 previous starters from the previous nights then? it’s very rare when one actually pitches on those nights anyways in effect the 3 inactives part is useless.
That’s easy to fix.
Allow each player to be ‘unfrozen’ twice per month.
That way, SPs can occasionally be ‘the guy’, but more often, it will be a reliever getting four days off. Or having a spare catcher, and one being iced for three or four days at a time.
But, teams might prefer icing guys that were the SP a few days ago. But, my fix eliminates the concern, largely.
That’s not a flaw in the rule, that’s the exact purpose of the rule.
It would take up to three unusable starters off the active roster and allow you to add extra bench players..
It’s a rule the Japanese leagues use.
Then, if the league wants to do it, and the league makes the rules, there ya go.
Cutting off foreign value seems to be a dumb goal, as well.
$4.75 million. Sheesh.
I think any roster change needs to reflect on luxury tax threshold as well. I am OK with 25.
What things does everyone wish were in the new CBA?
For me it is:
* Continue the international spending pool amounts to be in draft order (but I’m ok with less of a difference between best and worse team, I do like the hard cap and increase of pool amounts)
* Just like in draft, having competitive balance international slots. Id recommend they be in the neighborhood of 500k each
* Increase of MiLB minimum pay
* All QO players signed elsewhere get sup 1st Round pick for old team (not subject to contract amount), and players can continue to be offered QO every year (with a potential escalator for any player offered multiple years in a row like NFL’s franchise tag). I do think the new penalties for the signing team are better than them giving up a first round pick.
Thoughts? What ideas do you have?
Owners will voluntarily up MiLB pay about the same week the MLBPA calls for a salary cap.
I wish it were made public which people prevented draft picks from being traded.
The ian desmond s of the world still get screwed which was the point of this change in thought they’d get that same pick as before the team signing should just lose the later pick. My question is what happens to the teams that blew up their international spending are they still subject to those rules? And can teams still trade away $ from their pool.
My guess? Cubs in the sin bin for 2017-8 with the Dodgers. No bonuses over 300 K for the year.
I haven’t seen any trade proposals. Use it or lose it.
I was wondering the same thing about previous international signing penalties and trading pools. My guess is that penalties will stay in effect, not sure about trading pools, or draft picks for that matter.
I would love to see trades happen with draft picks just like every other sport. I still have no idea why teams can’t.
Owners or the Commissioner don’t want that to happen. Easy peasy.
Tying the luxury tax line to on-field resources is a novel replacement for a salary cap that’ll give teams the flexibility they need and don’t have in the NBA and NFL.
It also gives a new meaning to “all-in.” Now if a team is making a world series push, they’re even more locked into the present. And if a team isn’t making that push, it’s unlikely they’ll hang onto veterans and keep signing high priced FAs for more than a year or two.
But if the Las Vegas Scorpions want to spend $400 million and sign Strasberg, Harper, Stanton, and Kershaw to one year deals, they can still do it. Realistically, my guess is you’ll see teams sticking their nose above tax/penalty thresholds or trying to get back under them at the trade deadline. It could become a big part of buying and selling.
You know you have excellent union representation when they can carve out cost of living raises for people earning greater than $500,000 per year. Wow.
*sigh*
Can someone tell me what small and mid market teams and low to mid grade players get out of this? I seriously can’t see how any changes here benefit anybody but the very top slice of owners and players.
Increase of penalties for teams who spend above and way above luxury tax amount could decrease their spending, and the hard limit of international signings will prevent big market teams spending 10 times their international pools and should decrease the costs off all international players.
Cost of living increases. Thats funny, I havent seen one of those in a decade..
Personality I don’t agree with QO changes. But they known better how to make baseball more competitive.
If your sacrificing a first round pick, is because you get a great free agent athlete that rejected the QO. Now you get that great Player plus a high % great future player. And team losing rejected QO free agent, has way lesser % of improvement.
No brainer of losing a third round pick (or second and fifth in other situation), Who cares, you get a great free agent and your first and second round pick. (Perfect).
Agree I would’ve just upped the qo to make it so it’s undesirable for a team to make it for a desmond type like up it to 25 million the elite will still deny it and guys like desmond never get the offer.
The increases in ML minimum were low-lying fruit and aren’t costly. The penalties for the revenue sharing contributors are real, and put them at a disadvantage in the International signings. There’s clearly a strong incentive to disincentivize the big market teams. The owners must figure that the top-down approach will have a depressant effect on over all salaries. This isn’t really about competitiveness. It’s about profitability.
6 teams have ever hit the luxury tax. 4 of them went over a total of 10 times for an average of about $2.5m in taxes paid per overrun – insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
The other two teams overran the luxury tax in a very deliberate and calculated manner, and they’re the only ones that ever would have felt the new penalties, if applied retroactively.
This is NOT going to have a salary-suppressing effect.
It’d be slight in nature the suppression and would make it common place to get under or at least not drastically over like other teams have in the past mainly Dodgers Yankees. It makes it a soft cap so to speak and stop the 100 million dollar difference we’ve seen in the past between team #1 or 2 and team #5 or 6.
Not “mainly” the Dodgers and Yankees, it’s “just” the Dodgers and Yankees. Dodgers went way over in 14-15 and the Yankees have basically ignored the luxury tax since it was instituted, sometimes paying $30m just to be over it. The number of legacy contracts they have/had caught up with them as their roster went geriatric which is the only reason Cashman has been talking about getting under the luxury tax again.
They’re clear outliers and they operated in contempt of the system. They just shrugged and said “who cares, we can afford it” and flagrantly spent whatever they wanted. Any encouraging effect that may have had on salaries overall shouldn’t have been there in the first place… it’s uncompetitive and it’s a good thing that there’s some stricter penalties now.
Revenue wise, most teams just aren’t equipped to get much past $180m for very long even if they wanted to.
You used the phrase “contempt of the system” but that’s misplaced. The system was not designed for a hard cap–it was designed for penalties to go over a threshold. MLB was unable to negotiate a hard cap–and I will bet you they were privately thrilled that teams went over it, to show there was no collusion.
Is it not kind of implicit that they never thought a team would be so overwhelmed with money that they were perfectly content to throw away close to $300 million to the luxury tax? It’s like having an entire phantom superstar on your payroll for over a decade.
I don’t think the system meant to allow teams to have so many beefy long term contracts layered on top of each other that they’d pay over $80 million in luxury tax over two seasons for the privilege of loading up on big money talent while still paying big money to guys you don’t want anymore, all while barely meeting the league’s debt service rules.
Yeah, I used the term contempt of the system on purpose. It’s no shock to me that the MLBPA isn’t especially perturbed about it but I don’t know on what planet that kind of stuff is good for the game baseball.
And for the record…
Luxury tax $$ != Rev sharing $$
I don’t honestly think MLB cared all that much about a couple of big spenders, although I’ll agree that they probably didn’t expect the Dodgers shooting the moon. In the very beginning. they were thrilled to get McCourt out, and as Selig was a major John Henry fan, thrilled to see the original Red Sox to Dodger salary dump trade. What happened after probably took them by surprise.
And I still maintain the league is focussed on profitability more than they are at competitiveness. They could do more to insist that tanking teams stop pocketing cash instead of improving product–but they won’t. Lack of competitiveness by some teams is a useful bargaining chip.
I think both MLB and the MLBPA seriously don’t care in the least about competitiveness, they’re all about keeping their top quintile in as much $$$ as possible and to hades with everything else.
With a properly tuned system the league could easily subsidize a soft floor of around $90-95m, preventing tanking and creating a cornucopia of opportunities for FA… but nobody in the league is ballsy enough to push it because of the response it’s going to get from the top third of the league in revenue that has nothing to gain from a more competitive and fair financial system… and nobody in the MLBPA is going to push it because it naturally needs a soft cap to work and as long as that top third is driving up FA prices they’re happy.
Selig, Werner, Henry, and Loria… peas in a pod. Ugh.
With the new CBA and the inevitable end of the World Baseball Classic, we seem to be undoing all of Bud Selig’s blunders.
While we’re at it, let’s move the Astros back into the NL where they belong.
I am a life long Red Sox and Ortiz fan, however in light of the new CBA some things come to question. I was always impressed that Ortiz passed his drug test the past 13 years since that article that named him. I thought he must have either stopped or been inoccent, however players know at least somewhat what is going to be on the table in the CBA talks in advance. What a coincidence that after posting MVP like numbers Ortiz decides to retire right before the new CBA (which includes an HGH marker). This goes for a-roid and Rex as well.
Sure. He predicted this. And retirement had nothing to do with the persistent issues with his feet.
They had been saying an HGH marker would be probable for this CBA for years. It wouldn’t take a psychic to figure out there was a strong possibility of it being implemented this year. The dude hit MVP numbers, he has been one of the most persistently pestering players when it comes to extend me now, give me insurance, I don’t want a one year deal, for the past 5 seasons and now after batting well over 300 with over 35 bombs he decides to walk away right before HGH is being tested? LOL
Disagree with this entirely. The only actual claim that he did anything came from a NY Times writer with an anonymous source and has been parroted around without any legitimate evidence for years. The players who tested positive in that anonymous testing period were informed of their positive tests, Ortiz never received such notification. He wasn’t a user. Yankees fans and Sox haters want to project onto him because they supported A-Rod for years but the fact of the matter is there is no evidence because he wasn’t using. We do however know that quite a number of Sox officials have stated that his foot injuries had become increasingly worse over the last few years and Ortiz was very vocal about this. I find it hard to believe that you consider yourself a Sox fan at all when you’re trying so hard to assume guilt on a player who has never been found to have done anything wrong (and if you think that he still cheated, Rob Manfred would not have put himself on the line this past season vouching for Ortiz’ innocence if he thought it would come back to burn them later).
Yes I have always discounted the report, however a 40 year old putting up MVP numbers then retiring right before a new CBA agreement that impliments HGH testing doesn’t pass the sniff test. Ortiz foot issues did not appear watching him game by game to affect him anymore than it did years ago, also there is the distinct possibilty HGH aided Ortiz with the foot issues themselves
MLB has been testing for HGH since 2013.
The thing I hate the most about the PED era is that any time anyone has an unexpectedly good season, every mouth breathing idiot everywhere cries roids
Nice, well you clearly didn’t read the arcticle.
The thing I hate most about life is idiots like you in general. Even redsox announcers were poking fun and subtling referencing how good he was doing at 40, and “every time a player has a unexpectedly good season ” you say? How about a historically greatest season by a player 40+ followed by retirement just in time for HGH testing to be implimented. It’s really not rocket science.
google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/sports/base…
Literally been out since 13 the year they won the world series and he preformed @ a historic level late in the season and then continued for years afterwards @ a high level.
I guess you are in aware of the concerns about evading that HGH test were at the time, and what testing for a HGH marker now in 2015 means.
I’ll just leave you with david Ortiz own words about why he came up on a list of 2003 positive tests.
Nine days before he arrived in Fort Myers he was crowned the Most Valuable Player of the Caribbean World Series for leading his Dominican team to the title. In the following years, at least five members of that Dominican club, including Ortiz, would be publicly linked to performance enhancers.
“I was taking whatever supplements were good at the time, stuff that everybody was using that would sustain me in my workouts,’’ he said.
Which supplements? The substance that triggered his positive test result has yet to be identified.
“It’s been a long time,’’ Ortiz said. “I don’t know.’’
He must have a clue, he was told. He had previously stated he was “careless’’ about the products he put in his body.
“All I can tell you is, I was using what everybody was using at the time,’’ Ortiz said. “It’s not like I was picky about it.’’
– that is from the boston globe and Ortiz own words.
You people are fools….
Well u questioned his historical 40 year old season what about that season? Sorry I brought up facts you bring up suspicion no tangible evidence. Sorry if I don’t believe that he evaded all tests 2013-2016 without actual tangible evidence. In his words I get tested more than anyone and guess what he passed. No evidence makes u sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist would u like to discuss 9/11 next? That was in 03 since then how many has he taken? Oh wait he dodges them and gets a tip he’s about to get tested hahaha
The man himself basically admitted to it in 2003. In 2013 the HGH program was extremely flawed and you could time your cycles, go ahead and read up on it. The new HGH marker is almost impossible to beat.
First off that could be anything banned substances could be the worst kind of steroids, amphetamines it could be creatine we don’t know and it’s purely speculative everything even those quotes. So I’ll be speculative and just say if hgh was that easy to beat everyone would be doing it right? It’s so easy to beat so any pro athlete can beat it so everyone is on it. It’s just so easy to do and gives you that extra advantage. Everyone recovering from an injury mainly tj gotta question them to right? And if it was so easy to beat why would the owners and players agree to such a flawed system? Anyone who knows David Ortiz knows he had serious problems with his legs but that’s all made up because he can just take hgh or another drug and fix it.
And your argument has officially devolved into nonsense. I can’t even comment on all of the rediculous statements. Sorry but point blank, and these are just facts. David Ortiz was linked to steriod use in several ways in the early 2000’s and admitted uses substances his Dominican teammates were using to help with his work-out. Said he wasn’t “picky” as well. 5 of those players are positively Identified steroid users, including manny. Then at age 40 after posting historic MVP like numbers he calls it quits right before the CBA rumored to included HGH marker testing which is a fool proof HGH testing method that baseball had not yet agreed upon. Also it is a well known fact that yes HGH does help with injuries.
I knew it did that’s why u have to speculate them to. You honestly can’t answer any of those questions and have come back to speculation. Jeter was around a rod clemens giambi does that mean he was juiced out of his mind to? Again u can’t say facts it’s speculation based off his friends pretty much. And a failed test from 13 years ago and continued to pass for that time. Again can u answer what he even did back then? No so again all u have is speculation from back then or even more recently.
For your information my original post was opinion based and speculation. And the things I did just state are facts. 1- he was linked to steroid use in 2003, that is factual. ( I did not say proven I stated linked and he was that is an indisputable fact) 2- he did say he was taking what they were all taking from drug stores in Dominican. Fact he did retire after age 40 record breaking season. Fact he did retire the season before new CBA implimented new HGH marker testing. Those are indeed facts.
Also on a different point maybe you should read the arcticle. Jester didn’t play on a Dominican baseball team that was heavily linked to steroid use, an then when asked about it jeter didn’t say, I took what everyone else was taking, I didn’t know what it was, it helped with my work out. Now I jeter was asked about a reported positive drug test and about links to Clemens and arod and he said, I took what everyone else was taking for my work out, I didn’t know what it was and I wasn’t picky, I would say yes there would be cause for much speculation……
Did the Ancient Aliens guy start a sports blog, or what? I can see you’re limited in the amount of available processing power in that noggin of yours, so I guess I should be honored that you repurposed some of it from coming up with inane conspiracy theories and dedicated it to hating idiots like me in general.
It would serve you well to figure out what a conspiracy theory is before continuously using the world like a fool and sounding like one.
It is a conspiracy if you have no idea what he’s taking especially since he didn’t. I brought up Jeter for a reference he was on a team with people heavily linked to steroid use a team that employed Brian McNamee fact we can go deeper everyone who played on the A’s when Canseco and mcgwire so Idk Rickey Henderson. Personally I just hate when someone speculates because none of us do know whether he or anyone else from the era i.e Griffey the big unit Jeter Henderson were clean or guilty. Fact he showed a now banned substance on a test 13 years ago and that’s all you really go by he owned up to it and passed every drug test since then fact. Everything else yes is speculation, coincidental or a conspiracy like knowing this was going to be in the new cba before the cba was even being discussed and announcing a retirement. Unless you have something other than him admitting to something 13 years ago or the actual test then yes it’s pretty much just you being a conspirator and guessing he knew a test was coming or it looks bad because he was on a team that had juicers like pretty much every team had and some even employed a supplier like McNamee.
Cherry-picked tidbits of information and speculation presented as reality, check.
Unrelated events correlated in a painfully simple and contrived way, check.
Staying loyal to silly conclusions regardless of logic and reason as long as it continues to match your worldview, check.
Yep, it’s a conspiracy theory.
This deciding the World Series home field business is silly. How is it a better solution? Every year, the team emerging from the toughest division will be penalized. Come out of a weak division and you get home field. At least with he all star game, it incentivized players and managers to actually compete a bit. That game will return to the same non-relevance as the nfl’s all star game—a ridiculous exhibition.
Just alternate years then. Anything to do with the inequity of the schedules the teams play should not be the determinant.
Given everything, going by the winningest team is the least arbitrary. Beats the snot out of the ASG thing anyway.
“That game will return to the same non-relevance as the nfl’s all star game—a ridiculous exhibition.”
The game was, is, and always will be strictly an exhibition game. It started as a sideshow to the Chicago World’s Fair, and the way that managers and players deal with it hasn’t changed one iota since, regardless of the linking of the WS HFA to it (one of the worst decisions ever made by MLB).
The sheer idiocy of that Selig decision was brought home in force this year (which likely resulted in finally getting rid of it) when the Indians, with only the 4th best record and 3rd worst home attendance figures in MLB, got an extra World Series home game over the Cubs, with the best record by a large margin and 5th best home attendance figures.
Yes, returning to the alternating year system would perhaps be more “fair”, but they already got rid of that system for the division and league playoffs, and it makes sense, for a number of reasons, for the same system to be used throughout the postseason.
Look at it this way: after they changed the HFA rules for the earlier rounds, teams that had previously coasted once they had clinched their division, now continue to try to win games to try to secure HFA for the league playoffs. Hopefully the change to the WS HFA rule will have the same effect for late season games.
Geesh. Oakland sure got singled out in this deal. Does the CBA force teams to use their revenue sharing allocation specifically on new player revenue? If not, I feel like it sort of defeats the purpose of competitive balance. That luxury tax money the small markets receive should be allowing those teams to sign more mid to high level free agents to help them compete.
This is a players union demand and not a competitive balance change. For years the A’s have been just pocketing the money they have been receiving. The players union wants that money to go into player salaries rather than the Athletic ownership. Most other teams spend the money they receive, thats why the A’s were singled out.
I personally like the 10 Day DL, but I think if you’re doing the 10 day concussion DL stint, you should be able to free up a 40 man spot. After all this research has come out, players should have all the time they need to recover. And they need to give teams the incentive to give players that time.
ridiculous that they’re banning tobacco. everything else looks like a plus
its an appearance thing. How many moms do you think are stopping their kids from watching/attending games because the players are bad role models. Its just like violence in movies and video games.
It’s 2016. We’re legalizing marijuana and banning tobacco.
Pretty sure players can’t be smoking jazz cigarettes in the dugout, either.
MLBTR should start keeping a team profile page that would show estimates on:
1) The team’s revenue sharing/contributing/other status.
B) Any picks forfeited or earned for the upcoming draft and a draft pool estimate
iii) International bonus cap spent/remaining
Can teams make an informal agreement in September to limit the roster for each series? Say the home team has 30 players and the visiting team has 32. Can the home team offer that each team can use 28 players for the series?
Can, yes. If both sides agree.
Like, with the 10 Day DL.
Question: in 2013 the Red Sox and Cardinals had the exact same regular season record. So… what’s the tie-breaker to decide home field advantage? Best Post Season Record?Interleague? Divisional? What if ALL of these are the same? I’d love to know the trickle down.
From what I understand its going back to alternating home field advantage. One year the NL has it, the next the AL has it.
Are you talking about as the tiebreaker being alternating? Because if not, you’re wrong, it’s the pennant winner with the best record who wins HFA.
If I were to guess, they’ll look at Interleague record as the tiebreaker.
The more details I read, the worse it gets for the players. No increases in the US amateur draft pools and the top levels actually go down. The luxury tax doesn’t keep pace with revenue increases. Since only 4 teams have passed the luxury tax level during the previous CBA, the $6 million increase really amounts to less than $24 million a year. Since they are placing a penalty that will mean over 90% penalties and the loss of draft picks in the first 3 rounds for any team going $40 million over the luxury tax, teams like the Dodgers and Yankees will no longer spend as much on payroll. The Dodgers and Yankees have gone $20 million over every year, and Dodgers have surpassed the luxury tax by more than $40 million each of the past 4 years and the Yankees did in 2012 and 2013. It will be nice for teams to be able to trade international free agent pools, but those pools are so low that it is actually a huge decrease in international spending. Baseball America said that $271 million was spent on international fre agents on 7/2/16, the first day of the current signing period. I know much more has been spent since then with players like Gurriel and others. Now the maximum will be $150 million. Thats alot of money. The QO is changing, but since it really only affected 3-4 players a year in terms of the size of their contract it doesn’t really help the players overall. Who wins in the QO issue is the big market teams. Since they no longer get a 1st round pick for hanging on to them, small market teams will be trading better free agents away. I was really hoping to see a minimum payroll level so that teams that are receiving revenue sharing have to spend it.
It’s too bad clubs still can’t trade draft picks. That would essentially solve the small market teams’ problem of compensation for giving up top guys.
Invest in better scouts, I guess.
I dont understand the reasoning in not making them tradeable.
Make baseball great again