One of the main criticisms of Major League Baseball’s recent free-agent periods is that star players have gone too long without signing contracts. Just last offseason, the game’s two premier free agents, Bryce Harper and Manny Machado, didn’t ink deals until a few weeks before the regular campaign started. The same was true of Jake Arrieta, to name one prominent example, the prior winter. But MLB has shown interest in cutting down on big-name stragglers on the open market, Evan Drellich of The Athletic explains (subscription link). Earlier this month, the league sent a proposal to the MLBPA that would’ve placed a cutoff date on free agents signing multiyear contracts, but the union summarily shot it down, according to Drellich.
“After due consideration, we rejected their proposal as not being in the best interests of players,” MLBPA senior director of collective bargaining and legal Bruce Meyer said (via Drellich). “We asked if MLB was interested in discussing other, more direct and tangible ways of incentivizing early signings and they weren’t at this time.”
Had the union said yes to the league’s idea, there wouldn’t have been any contracts of more than one year doled out past the Dec. 8-12 winter meetings. MLB at least wanted to implement the plan on a one-year trial basis this winter, Drellich reports, but the union didn’t think it would benefit the players because it might have given too much leverage to the teams. In the MLBPA’s estimation, a multiyear signing deadline would have created a “take-it-or-leave-it” mentality among some free agents, who may have felt pressured to accept an offer before the drop-dead date, potentially decreasing their earning power.
Of course, there’s also an argument a deadline would’ve taken away quite a bit of offseason intrigue. In leagues like the NFL, NBA and NHL, free agency often opens with a mad rush of headline-worthy moves before becoming rather dull with most of the top players off the board. For better or worse (depending on your perspective), that hasn’t really been the case in baseball, nor does it look as if it will be this offseason with super-agent Scott Boras set to oversee negotiations for the likes of Gerrit Cole, Anthony Rendon, Stephen Strasburg and perhaps J.D. Martinez. Boras clients (including Harper and Arrieta) have shown a willingness to hang on the open market for months until the absolute best deal comes along.
The outspoken Boras shared his opinion on MLB’s rejected FA proposal with Drellich, saying in part: “They want to make the offseason more predictive as to when players sign, and the answer to do that is to provide incentive, not limitation, on the free-agent right. A player has six years, he should determine when he signs, that should be his choice, because he’s earned that right. Any restriction, any limitation on that timeframe would restrict the right. Because some clubs make decisions in February they wouldn’t make in December. And there’s obviously a strong history for that.”
YAY!! We have to watch teams and Top free agents sit and wait until a week until spring training to get serious about working out deals. So fun for the fans!!
Get ready for 4 months of Gerrit Cole rumors!!!
Here come the rumors of Cole to a SoCal team in brown
Wake me up in Mid February!!!! Someone will sign by then. Also, in April, Rendon, Cole, Strasbourg and all other Boras clients will be missing Spring Training (Keuchel, Kimbrell). Because a draft pick is involved with them, they won’t play until after the All-Star break. When they are finally signed——they will be a mere imagine of themselves from 2019.
Gosh. No sense in you watching. You’ve already got it figured out.
Please Hammer… Don’t hurt ’em.
If they can use it as leverage to get players with 1-3 yrs more commensurate pay, I’m all for it.
Ah, MLBPA still thinks free agency is the problem. Guess progress won’t happen in the next CBA.
You want to incentivize teams to sign players? Lower or remove the draft pick penalty on signings before the Winter meetings. Have the same draft pick penalty as they currently have after the Winter meetings.
That’s not a bad idea.
I actually really like your idea.
Most intelligent thing I’ve read on this sight all year
Please explain this. I don’t have or know this bit of info-
I like this idea
That’s a great idea, this needs to be spread around
It’s an interesting idea. However, I always thought it was more throwing a bone to the smaller teams losing the FA they can not afford to keep
But that doesn’t artificially lower spending so the owners wouldn’t be for it.
That is a really good idea, it is good meet in the middle instead of MLB proposal of Muliti year deal deadline for the players which was silly and a waste of time to propose in the first place.
Very interesting!
I think if MLB made a deal that included no more of that “keep them down for another year for another year of control” agreement, maybe MLBPA would open the idea of a signing deadline. At this point, MLBPA should stick to their guns so worthy players aren’t held in the minor league system too long.
Who gives a crap when players sign. Literally doesn’t matter.
It matters to the players who sometimes don’t know where they’ll be spending the next year of their life until spring training starts, or even after
@sidewinder11
When players sign is at the discretion of the player not so much the team. I would think the team would like to satisfy their team needs sooner than later. Those going into ST still as free agents are doing so likely because they want better offers. That falls on the player and agent.
Since none of us are personally effected by any of that. Who gives a crap.
I’m having a hard time feeling sorry for them.
Yah I totally feel bad for them. They get to play baseball year around and get paid millions of dollars. What a tough life
Yeah, and I totally feel bad for the owners of the team who have so much money they can buy a team. It must be a tough life watching from your suite while the money rolls in. They should keep all the money as they are the reason fans go to games. Let’s hear it for the owners!
Hip hip hooray!!!
they really thought limiting the options of guys who sit kn the market is a good idea? so what, teams will hold off on guys wanting multi-year deals until after the deadline. what a stupid idea.
So if players didn’t agree to a multi year deal by a certain date, all they could get is 1 year!? If MLB isn’t going to negotiate in good faith, we’re having a strike next year.
@pplama
If I’m ownership why am I compelled to do anything? Guys like Harper and Manny had multiple offers on the table. They assumed that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers would create the market for them and it never really happened. Players have a right to negotiate the best deal they can get but if ownership feels that they’ve made their best offer in December or January then why should they budge at all? Players are looking for a solution to the problem they are causing. I wouldn’t budge if I’m management.
Well stated, southbeachbully
1. Machado and Harper both got their $. So the markets did develop and they got PAID.
2. Putting a hard cap on when a player must sign hinders a players’ ability to negotiate the best deal for themsevles. So it was smart of them to turn it down.
3 Obviously ownership can set a price their willin to pay and walk away if a player doesn’t accept. Nobody is dsputing that.
4. Because ownership can walk away anytime they want, if a player’s asking price is too high, this timeline offered by MLB was a disignenuous ploy.
Agreed. Instead of spring training for vacation, I have planned to hit Hawaii.
Always trying to take more from the players
Terrible proposal by the league. They can come up with a better plan to shove a pacifier in the mouths of the impatient fans. I usually think the players act entitled at times but that is just silly.
Why on Earth would the Union agree to that? It’s the ultimate “sign for what I offer or go year to year” strategy. It would potentially hurt every free agent, would make taking the QO almost mandatory, and would incentivize the teams to slow down their offers, You want to incentive signings? Get rid of the penalties for signing. Give the teams a compensatory pick for losing them, but no forfeiting draft picks. I realize the Union showed no abilities last time, but they couldn’t possibly be this dumb.
I like how many act like the players are so abused. The difference in the markets is that teams are realizing older guys on long deals don’t age well.
I do agree that there shouldn’t be penalties to signing teams for paying guys. I would like to see a compensatory system like the NFL has for losing guys but no sooner than after the 2nd round.
The reason why players are older when FA starts is because they are held in the minors for too long. By the time players hit free agency, they are near or over 30 years old. Knock out that stupid “another year of control” for holding them in the minors agreement. I think that is the stupidest agreement Tony Clark did in his tenure as head of MLBPA. Sooner they knock out that agreement, the more likelihood of free agents being mid-20s to late 20s. It doesn’t benefit the players to be held in a minor league system when they have proved they can play at the highest minor league level. They only thing that agreement does is benefits the organization by dictating a players career. I don’t blame some of these kids who leave MLB for other sports. Why sit in the minors for 4.5-7 years before you got your call to the MLB club and cash in on your contract you signed after being drafted? In that time in other sports, you have either made a name for yourself or didn’t and now a Free Agent. You get a bigger contract while laughing at these first rounders who were drafted still in the minors or just reaching the MLB club.
@Shannon Wolfe
That’s not really true. First off, it only happens to the very, very best and even then, it’s not to everyone. I extra year of control means little in terms of hurting the player. It’s a one year difference. Plus, let’s not act as if these kids are earning the minimum in that extra year. They may not be able to get 100% of aav market value but they are getting 75% or better in most cases. Mookie Betts is likely to make around $25 mil to $30 mil in his last year of arbitration.
It’s not a bad idea, but December is way too early. Maybe 1 week before pitchers and catchers report is more reasonable.
A strike would be bad for both sides. Both teams and players lost during the 1994 strike and many ans never came back.
This makes reporting on mlb offseason more annoying
A “more direct and intangible way” is giving these guys all Trout like contracts as they enter regressive portions of their careers. Kuechel continuously boasted he deserved more (funny how these guys believe they DESERVE millions) than the offers he received. Yet proved this past season teams made a wise choice not spending the money.
As a fan of the sport I’m really tired of seeing teams I enjoy spend big on players that won’t play like they did in their better years. If you want to make baseball more fun, eliminate the ability to sign 10+ year contracts. If a superstar player is really beloved by their organization and fanbase, they fork up the money for another contract.
But the MLBPA doesn’t want to do that because their minds are on their own pockets. Not the teams, not cities, not the fans and probably not all much about the rings. They want dependable contracts that pay the big bucks. It’s no secret why and I sincerely don’t blame Harper one bit for signing 12 years at $330 mil to stay in just one city.
If the MLB wants to work for the fans in this regard, they’ll push to minimize that.
What’s the difference, to me the fan, if Anthony Rendon or Stephen Strasburg sign in November or February?
How about a compromise? Take MLB’s proposal and give the players until the start of ST to decide on whether to accept the QO. This would discourage some QOs. It would also put the team making the QO in a bind with budget uncertainty going into ST which might encourage them to retain their player with an improved winning offer. Good for everybody I think.
My solution has always been to allow teams to trade the 5 day exclusive negotiation window to another team instead of the draft pick competition we have now.
Why not do the opposite and put the pressure on the super-rich owners? After this proposed deadline make five years a minimum contract length at 20mil/year. As I thought this idea up I was thinking it was just as idiotic as the actual proposal but it would actually help out the middling players (who probably need the most help) while leaving things the same for the Cole/Rendon types.