While there are four seasons to go before a new collective bargaining agreement needs to be worked out, Thomas Boswell of the Washington Post says that’s sooner than it may seem. He discusses the matter with several players and provides another worthwhile perspective on a story that isn’t going away any time soon. Those interested in that topic will also want to check out recent articles from Roger Mooney of the Tampa Bay Times and Billy Witz of the New York Times on the MLBPA Spring Training camp, both of which feature chats with some notable players and union chief Tony Clark.
Here are some other pieces worth a look on topics of broader interest:
- The recent MLBPA grievance action may be about broader issues on some level, but in substance is tied to the use of revenue-sharing funds. As Baseball America’s J.J. Cooper explains, the spending of those dollars is increasingly cabined in light of changes to the CBA rules — including stricter definitions of permissible uses as well as the reduction of what can be doled out to amateur players.
- Elsewhere at BA, Cooper also discusses a new five-a-side baseball concept that has been proposed as a means of engaging youngsters in the sport. And while we’re still a ways off from the 2018 draft, it’s prime time for amateur players looking to firm up their standing. The Baseball America team has issued an updated version of its top-300 draft board.
- The increasing propensity of baseballs to leave the yard during MLB contests has certainly been documented in many quarters. And plenty of analysis has been dedicated to understanding why. Rob Arthur and Tim Dix of FiveThirtyEight helpfully round up some of the work on the topic and add to it by presenting the results of an x-ray analysis and core sample. You’ll need to read the post in its entirety, but the net of it is an identification of a reduced weight that, along with increased bounce off the bat and other changes, helps explain the surge in the long ball.
- Comings and goings between the majors and the Korea Baseball Organization are of greater and greater relevance. There’s also plenty of intrigue for players who are established and intend to stay in the KBO. Writing for Fangraphs, Sung Min Kim has an interesting look at the experiences of newly-knuckleballing southpaw Ryan Feierabend.
Some predictions for the new CBA: Elimination of arbitration; four years of league minimum with unrestricted free agency after that; 26 man roster.
Teams win arb more often, they won’t concede 2 years of control for a single potentially cheap year. Also the union would never add any time stopping the arb clock.
I can see an expanded roster especially if the luxury tax is raised. But arbitration years and free agency years will not be on the table. Other than that the fight will be over pace of play and the union may try to find language to stave off suspected collision.
Is 26 man roster supposed to make up for the 6 to 4 year decrease of team-control?
That’s a big sacrifice. Yes, players would hit FA at younger age, but that’s a big sacrifice for small-market owners who need the team-control to survive.
More likely, I think, is a substantial increase in the MLB minimum, and if the MLBPA is smart it will increase from year 1 or a player’s control.
The players main grievance is the way the revenue sharing teams fail to spend that money so I would predict something more on the order of a payroll floor to go along with the soft cap they have now.
The players main grievance is the way the revenue sharing teams fail to spend that money so I would predict something more on the order of a payroll floor to go along with the soft cap they have now.
Same teams still don’t spend now and i mean on the draft. notice small market teams like Pittsburgh and KC spent big prior? boston also was always a huge spender before. tampa never spent on the draft, even in 2011 when they had *11* of the top 100 picks.
CBA limiting resources for amateur players was nothing but a feel good move to satisfy some of the same markets that still refuse to spend now.
They changed the draft and bonus pool rules in large part due to the Pirates spending habits. The Pirates would select players in the first round and sign them to below slot value in order to turn around and sign later picks to huge bonuses—these were guys who were passed over in the first round due to strong college commitments.
I don’t remember that always being the case. Granted, they always drafted high with poor teams back then a lot of the times and the top pick would have gotten a lot of the money, but without looking up the figures.. Josh Bell was a guy am remembering received nearly 5m in bonus money as remember in 2011 and he wasn’t taken in round 1.
I can find others, not a huge pirates fan, but think maybe Alvarez was not 1st rd either? Am I wrong?
Alvarez was a top 5 pick
Bear in mind the “cap” is like tempurpedic Swedish sleep system soft. Look at the list of teams that have ever gone over the luxury tax and we see that its not even within the realm of the possible for the bulk of the league to even approach that line. There’s no sense beating this to death for the millionth time this offseason alone… but basic economics take over. If the league’s financial system let the poorest team in the league at least have an outside shot at signing a top player without sabotaging the team’s payroll for years to come, we wouldn’t be having this kind of offseason.
A cap/floor with enough revenue sharing to subsidize a nice floor would put most teams in on most free agents and create the strongest market for roster filler, ever. The only players that would lose out would be the very elite, but even then a system could accommodate that to make sure the Trouts of the world get laid accordingly.
Laid accordingly. Yeah, uhh… that’s PAID accordingly…
Why would the owners agree to that?
As the fan of a small market team I really hope it stays 6 years before FA. Any lower and the windows of contention would close even faster.
Take it out on the owners of the large market teams which are outspending your favorite. Instead of the players who are seeking fair compensation for their services.
How exactly do you propose he “takes it out on the owners of the large market teams?”
Increased revenue sharing.
Yeah, god forbid more than 8 teams bid on a big name FA
“Fair compensation” is a whole can of worms, man.
You’re kidding yourself if you think MLB’s financial system isn’t heavily slanted towards supplying the richest teams with the most talent.
Eliminating arbitration is big, and please keep in mind I’m not necessarily saying what he is advocating is fair or will happen. But arbitration salaries can escalate quite a bit, especially for super 2 players. Josh Donaldson just agreed to 24 million to avoid arbitration!
So this still does favor players quite a bit, but an extra year of major league minimum compared to first year of arbitration is millions of dollars for star players. But yes, I’m sure in most circumstances teams would rather 2 years of control at arbitration prices versus a bonus cheap year.
All I’m saying is an additional year of league minimum is definitely significant and could have a ripple effect for some players.
How about… Replace arb with restricted FA. Teams can either make a “QO” to guarantee they’ll keep their guy, or can negotiate with the player, but other teams can make offers too… team can either match to keep their player or leave it in the player’s hands. For superstar players, teams can “franchise” a player, to gain a 7th year of control for a large “QO”. This eliminates the Bryant et al minors stashing concerns… teams don’t have to fluff the rules to get that 7th year. Could even have a “Super 5” line similar to super 2, except mostly aimed st the guys just a couple weeks short of FA.
Restricted FA and franchise tags come very close to the idea of the reserve clause which was one of the main reasons for the player’s union creation. The union would never allow either.
You forgot the part where you explain how giving players who don’t warrant a high-end arb salary the opportunity to start chasing better contract offers at 3.000 is like the reserve clause.
Making teams pay to maintain exclusive control of their guys after 3.000 or 4.000… that would be about the furthest from the reserve clause era we’ve ever been.
Good article on the baseballs. MLB still maintains there is no “fundamental” difference in the baseballs. Right. There is no fundamental difference between a housecat and a tiger either, but a combination of a few subtle changes in the construction allow the balls to travel about 8.6 feet farther.
The players have a bee in their bonnet about a lot of little things, like pace of play, free agency, revenue sharing, and more. IMHO, the big one flying under the radar is the players’ share of revenue has been declining since 1994. In the meantime the value of franchises has climbed astronomically, and almost any team in the league will change hands for numbers in the billions. of dollars.
Salary cap. Salary floor. Relegation. That is the 3 step process to fix it.
Relegation. Funny.
I love Euro football and it’s relegation structure… but MLB owners would never agree to expose their billion dollar clubs to the risk of becoming a AAA team…
So do I but that practice coming to MLB is laughable. Never gonna happen. Ever.
It just wouldn’t make sense here. And the Marlins would have the priciest ballpark in the gulf coast league.
I remember 3 – 4 years ago when the talk was all about the low-scoring environment.
The data on heat zones and hitters’ weak spots was really taking a toll on run scoring.
Well, they figured out a way to address that by changing the baseball.
The problem is they did it enough so it becomes an an all-or-nothing game, where hitters are trying to elevate the ball more.
And Manfred and Rawlings continue to deny that they know what’s going on.
If Manfred gives a lick about the integrity of the game (which I doubt) he’d start by worrying about his own integrity on this issue – which seem to be in the toilet.
Meanwhile, per the 538 piece, Rawlings filed for a new baseball patent in 2015, and the patent describes a juiced baseball. Bunch of liars, the lot of ’em.
Team control for 6 years or until the player turns 26. Helps free agency spending and will encourage controlling teams spend money on players that are young, while trying to gain control. I.e. Chris Archer.
And what do the players give up?
That means Judge would be a FA after this season. I’m not a Yankees fan but that seems a bit unfair for a player to get to leave after his rookie year. Especially a player of that magnitude
Forces teams to evaluate players better and make determinations earlier so they don’t sit in the farm system while teams build control until they’re 30. Then overspend on down years in their careers.
Then players could eventually give up money signing long term at 22 on their first “big” deal instead of waiting until March to sign for outrageous deals in the down points of their career.
Exactly. One other thing that would shorten the window of player evaluation is shorten the period it takes to become a minor league FA.
Right now it’s 6 years. Make it 4 years. What does that do? it would help level the playing field on the competitive balance issue.
Overall… there’s all kinds of creative ideas to try to get money flowing to the people that deserve it rather than playing 38 year olds for being productive 28 year olds. Will MLB and MLBPA ever even make a superficial attempt to discuss any of that, who knows…
First off they agreed to the current CBA tough luck second way too many players seeking 2o mil + a year salaries that has to change. Third they need the revenue sharing to preserve the League as a whole actually they need a salary cap which is way overdue and the organizations like the Yankees Dodgers Red Sox do not really want to see that. Reality has to sit in someday I know most of the sports writers and media personalities cannot see past New York and the Yankees however to get a level playing field to promote more diverse playoff competition the current revenue sharing is all they have. I do not know about everyone else but this need to have so many players above 20 mil a year and on lengthy contract is all but destroying a level playing field so something needs to be done and without caps the league cannot continue asis indefinitely that unfortunately is economics 101. Baseball is back on the rise and we all want to see it flourish. As far as team control right now that is the only way most of the teams in the league stand a chance at competing.
So end all the arguments the easy way. Figure what percentage of revenue goes to salaries. For sake of discussion, let’s say 50%. Every club puts their 5% in a pot. Every club determines their own roster. Let the Players Association rank the players from 1-750 or whatever, and let them pay the players for performance, just like the NFL slots draft choice salaries. Want more money next year? Have a better season now. Aging and declining players would naturally be paid less as they slide. Rising stars will increase their salary. Every year the rankings get recalculated. No more arguments over salary, no more teams dumping high salaried players, no more bad contracts, problems solved. Trades would be based on talent, ability, and potential, not money. It makes too much sense.
Or, eliminate guaranteed contracts. No signing bonuses or roster bonuses. If you sign for 5 yes at 60 million, that’s great. When your team decides you are not worth next years12 million, as long as you’re not injured, they release you. You can remarked yourself freely, and you’ll get what you’re worth, relative to the other players. Smart players and agents would front load a contract so pay decreases as your talent declines. That keeps you attractive enough for teams to retain. Pujols at $10 million now makes more sense than Pujols at $25 million or whatever he makes.
Both are simple, and either way works.
I think the Union’s complaint is so misguided, and I’m against a salary cap bc I love it when a big market teams signs a terrible contract.
I could really care less that aging players aren’t getting the contracts they think they deserve. Instead, I’d rather the minor leaguers get a living wage. If they got a real slice of the pie instead of $6600/year, then there wouldn’t be concerns about teams not spending enough.
Revenue sharing could easily cover the cost of player minor leaguers.
And pay minor leaguers a decent wage, say $10,000 per month. If they aren’t worth that investment, Goodbye Felicia…..