When baseball’s seventh collective bargaining agreement expired on December 31, 1993, there was no fanfare. Murray Chass of the New York Times dropped it in this way, writing, “If negotiations for a new labor agreement ever begin — the old one expired uneventfully at midnight Friday — the owners will try to put salary arbitration in a time capsule and bury it deep underground, leaving it to be discovered by someone seeking the reason for the decline and fall of the business of baseball.” The expiration of the old agreement was basically an aside in Chass’ article about the owners’ desire to eliminate salary arbitration.
With the current collective bargaining agreement set to expire on December 1 this year, there’s an assumption a freeze will be placed on free agency and perhaps trades as well. Maybe that’s because we experienced a transaction freeze quite recently, spanning March 26-June 26 of 2020. But that was part of an agreement between MLB and the MLBPA, and it was triggered by a global pandemic that halted not just baseball, but life as we knew it.
So, the expiration of the CBA at the end of 1993 seems more instructive when trying to assess the possibility of a freeze this winter. In January 1994, the MLB offseason continued unabated, with seeming scant consideration for the lack of a collective bargaining agreement. The Padres agreed to a two-year, $8.5MM extension with star outfielder Tony Gwynn. The Mets and Royals exchanged problems in a swap of Vince Coleman and Kevin McReynolds. The Rockies inked free agent shortstop Walt Weiss to a two-year, $2.2MM deal. All the sorts of typical headlines you’d find on MLB Trade Rumors back in January ’94, had this site existed back then. None of these linked New York Times articles made mention of the just-expired CBA.
Of course, as Mark Armour and Dan Levitt of The Hardball Times put it, “in the summer of 1994, baseball’s owners and players were headed for the showdown to beat all showdowns.” MLBPA leader Donald Fehr correctly surmised in July, “We believe absent an agreement the owners will impose a salary cap sometime after the season. That leaves players with two choices — take what’s on the table or try to secure a new agreement by setting a strike date.” The owners followed by withholding the players’ $7.8MM pension payment, and the players soon followed through on their August 12 strike date.
With the 1994 World Series canceled and acrimony between the owners and players through the roof, it’d only be natural for ownership to implement a free agency freeze. Instead, they proposed a 45-day delay, which the union did not accept, and the 1994-95 offseason proceeded. It was far from a normal offseason, with Mets GM Joe McIlvaine saying things like, “We can’t do anything because we don’t know what the rules are.” Players like Jim Abbott and Jack McDowell were unsure if they had reached the six years of Major League service required for free agency, due to disagreement about whether service time was accrued during the strike. McDowell would eventually be traded to the Yankees despite that uncertainty. Other players were thought to be potential restricted free agents as four and five-year players, as part of the owners’ plan to eliminate salary arbitration.
Paradoxically, as Chass put it on October 28, “The business of baseball went on yesterday as if the strike did not exist.” Managers and GMs were hired and fired, sure, but clubs also continued doing big-money deals with players. On the eve of free agency, the Yankees and George Steinbrenner signed Paul O’Neill to a four-year, $19MM deal. A $1.2MM signing bonus included in the deal ran afoul of MLB recommendations, as they’d warned, “Clubs should keep in mind the payment of the bonus amounts to a decision by the club to help fund the continuing players strike.”
Teams continued signing free agents during the strike in the final months of 1994. “I’m not sure our words match our actions,” remarked Dodgers GM Fred Claire in this Bob Nightengale article. Angels GM Bill Bavasi commented, “I’m not saying teams are wrong for what they’re doing, it just has people confused. I know I can’t figure it out.” One of the winter’s top free agents, Gregg Jefferies, inked a four-year, $20MM deal with the Phillies. Not long after, the Mariners re-upped Jay Buhner for $15.5MM. December 23, 1994 marked a turning point, as the owners implemented their salary cap plan. It was only then that the union advised players not to sign free agent contracts, Chass wrote.
History shows us that if the current collective bargaining agreement expires on December 1 without a new deal in place, a freeze on free agency and/or trades is not fait accompli. It’s fair to say that the environment now is less contentious than it was 27 years ago, as ownership isn’t attempting to impose a salary cap and the players aren’t planning to strike this season. There is technically nothing stopping Carlos Correa, Corey Seager, Kris Bryant, and all the rest from signing free agent contracts despite the lack of a CBA. While uncertainty around things like the new luxury tax thresholds and the universal designated hitter seems likely to suppress hot stove action, an actual free agency freeze won’t happen unless MLB or the players impose it.
Nearly 30 years ago teams were making bad decisions on free agents. Greg Jeffries was the prize? How’d he do? And today these big deals are 8+ years, not 4, so if teams screw up, its a sunk cost for a lot of extra years
Cost of the market…..
Cost of stupidity and giving in to populism
Jeffries was only 26 years old. He was coming off two excellent seasons where he hit .342 and .325 with OPS+ of 142 and 130. He had a combined 58 steals and a combined 58 strikeouts while making his only two all-star teams.
It didn’t work out, but that is easily said in retrospect. A 26 year old on a four year deal with those stats is far from a bad investment.
The knock on him was to arrogant and immature. I do not recall mcreynolds ever being a problem for anyone. Only thing ever said of him is he never smiled. WFAN even had a contest if anyone could get a poloroid.
Jeffries was a player without a position. He was a pretty bad 2B, a worse 3B, a decent 1B and was solid in LF until hamstring issues effectively ended his career in 2000.
Jeffries was a pretty big deal and was regarded as the biggest prospect until Andruw Jones according to Baseball America.
In todays game given his age at the time it’s easy to imagine someone giving him a 10 year deal
I don’t see how this one ends without more acrimony. There are real structural issues that need to be resolved, and COVID hasn’t finished doing economic damage either. The first offer by MLB (the Cap and Floor) looks like a non-starter, and there’s nothing, yet, on the serious issue of service time and years at MLB minimums. Fans just want a settlement, and a lot of them side with the Billionaire owners. Players have a limited time to earn, and Minor League pay is so abysmal. Not optimistic here.
I feel like fans seem to be siding with the players for some reason (maybe because I am??). I haven’t seen a poll or anything but I would be shocked to learn that a majority of fans are siding with ownership. I won’t be shocked to hear people complaining about “millionaires arguing with millionaires over millions of dollars” non-stop if these issues lead to a work stoppage!
I feel like I’m not on one side or the other. There should be enough common ground and concessions to be made on either side to prevent a work stoppage in MLB.
@steve2 – What? Nearly every other comment on here last year around C-19 and players opting out was in favor of owners and how bad owners are hurting, “players are overpaid babies,” etc. there is a troubling and confusing anti-labor majority in this country and baseball is not immune from them. So these structural problems will not be resolved because they echo larger societal ones. Fans have spoken; “shut up and play” – but ironically we’ll likely get a lockout.
“nearly every other comment” That is simply inaccurate.
People see things as they want to see them.
Poor negotiations have put the players at a huge disadvantage.
Marvin Miller has to be rolling in his grave with what Tony Clark has done.
MLBPA got focussed on collateral issues that the teams were fine making concessions on (like QO) because they were easy to give away.
And no one on either side will truly stand up for the minor leaguers
Kinda like when US negotiated with the Taliban, without the Afghan govt at the table. The Afghan govt was not looked out for.
Much like the Afghan people, the minor leaguers need to stand up for themselves. Minor Leaguers, with the exception of the 14 guys on the tail end of a 40 man roster, are not part of the MLBPA nor are they a collectively bargained unit of any kind.
Nothing prevents minor leaguers from organizing other than fear of ownership.
“Nothing prevents minor leaguers from organizing other than fear of ownership” – it’s called livelihood. Ask Kapernick about it. Most people won’t speak out because they don’t possess the agency to do so. Minor leaguers make nothing and you can’t blame them for not risking their minimal shot at the bigs. But way to blame people without a voice in this situation – lol. “Why don’t they just organize!!!” Yeah. Same can be said about Amazon workers, fast food employees, any exploited class in this country. Man, get a clue!!!
Actually we saw how the public shat on Amazon workers and fast food employees when they went on strike for a living wage – called them “bums” and told them it’s a “college kids job”. My guess is roguesaw you’d be saying the same hypocritical crap if minor leaguers organized. “Shut up and pitch” am I right?
So if there is no CBA post December 1, what would prevent a team such as the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox from calling up Juan Soto, noting no one even knows if arbitration will exist moving forward, so you’re actually a free agent. Much rather pay you a 10/350 deal now beginning at age 22 than in several years!
If there’s no arbitration, the Nats could simply pay Soto the league minimum since they would still control his rights.
That gets to what I’m really questioning. If there’s no CBA, how do they still control his rights?
If players have existing contracts, those still have to be honored even without a CBA. But if they have no contract and there is no CBA, the two sides would have to create a contract, or the owners and players would have to reach some accommodation such as continuing parts of the current CBA.
If it ever went to court or to arbitration, then the judge/arbitrator would most likely say that the expired CBA would be the default until a new one is agreed upon.
This is how it played out at my job. We had our CBA expire three times, but never had a work stoppage. We operated under the previous CBA until a new one was signed. Any new benefits were, where possible, retro dated to the day after the last day of our old CBA. So we’d get a check for the difference in pay, credit for the extra vacation time etc. Of course we weren’t a multi billion dollar industry. Just a bunch of middle class workers working for an employer made up of local elected officials, all but one of which were also middle class.
I’ve had that happen as well. I think it’s called a status quo period. The union could strike. Management could lock out the workers. I think that if there is an impasse, management could try to unilaterally impose Or. both sides could just continue under the terms of the contract. i went through that a couple of time. Months after the old contract expired, we set a strike deadline, prepared to strike, and lo and behold, an agreement was reached each time the night before the deadline.
The expiration becomes a more important deadline when one side of the other is dissatisfied with the existing contract and would rather strike or lock out worker than continue under the expiring agreement.. Most owners are very unhappy with arbitration and small market owners are unhappy with big market teams ability to spend. The players are unhappy with what has happened with qualifying offers, the low payroll of a few teams, teams tanking, and how some owners act as though the CBT threshold is a hard cap. Are any of these to the point that the owners would lockout or the players would strike? Probably not, unless talks make it clear that both sides are intractably apart on multiple issues.
Imagine today getting a circa ’95 Tony Gwynn on a 2 year 8.5 mill contract.
Actually, today we would be hearing that a .370 BA really isn’t very good because he doesn’t walk enough or hit homeruns and that Hunter Renfroe is really better.
“Everything you have ever known about baseball is wrong.” -math nerds who have never played baseball
I’m not a math nerd, and I don’t think singles and home runs are equal…
Don’t need to play baseball to understand it’s stats. The argument that playing the sport is necessary to understand how to build a team is positively infantile. (And the math nerds build better teams, it’s why they get hired. Notice no one hires radio talk show callers).
Completely disagree Cosmo. The math nerds have completely screwed up the game. They do not put together better teams. Where is your evidence that they do? Old school scouting, team chemistry, on field strategy and other factors are only really understandable by “baseball people” and that is what has been lost here.
Well, there’s the fact that the analytics driven teams and the most consistently successful teams overlap almost perfectly.
But do you think a walk is as good as a single, or if your not getting a hit, may as well strike out cuz its not a dp?
The 1927 Yanks called. They don’t agree math nerds build better teams.
You have to back almost 100 years to an era in which the game was totally different. Kinda proves MY point.
Damn, all this time and people still misconstrue how modern analytics work.
Straw man argument. Analytics would definitely love Gwynn. Straw man.
I was just gonna type that myself. People don’t understand how advanced analytics work.
Nobody would say Renfroe is better than Gwynn with a straight face.
I was in a conversation where I heard some analytic lover said that Bobby Abreu was better than ichiro
Ichiro is overrated offensively. He’s one hell of a hitter, sure, but he’s very one dimensional (at the plate). Bob Abreu was hands down the better bat. His career OPS+ is 128 vs 107 for Ichiro.
Hunter’s mother would.
Two completely different players , Abreu hit for more power ! Are you willing to tell me that you’ll choose Abreu over ichiro ?
Pretty sure someone who could hit .370-.390 (and thus post high OBP) and who rarely strikes out would be paid extraordinarily well today, especially in a game when someone hitting .250 is considered a victory.
1) Teams use analytics that are far more detailed and nuanced than the ones we see on Fangraphs and Baseball Reference. 2) A lot of what the analytical stats do is better measure talent, often reinforcing what we see with our eyes but traditional stats don’t measure. Saves, Wins, RBIs are stats of opportunity and poorly approximate things like the ability to pitch under the most pressure, the ability to pitch well enough deep in games to take pressure off the bullpen, and the ability to get clutch hits and not choke under pressure.. New stats measure these better or tell us that some of it is just chance. And the stats are only going to get better. HD cameras have helped tremendously and I look forward to seeing stats in 10 or 15 years.
100% that’s why I get so confused when I heard stuff like ichiro was overrated , I also heard the same thing about Pete rose ! I asked that person the same question , would you take Bobby Abreu over ichiro ? That person asnwer was :NO , then I asked , so what are you talking about ?
I wish there was a way to use the negotiations to rein in the crazy amounts of money in 2021 baseball. These days, 10 year contracts of ungodly salaries are not uncommon, and will probably be exceeded soon.
It’s come to be the fans, not the players or owners, who feel the pain. Everyone else is on the gravy train. Maybe they can institute a min/max cap, but add allowances for teams who reduce prices on tickets and concessions. Bring the families and regular folks back, revive interest in the game.
Aren’t you suggesting reduced salaries in return for reduced ticket prices? I get the idea of attracting more fans, but should this simply be on the players?
Yes it should be on the players. They’re the ones with the crazy salaries. Billionaires invest their billions and already make a profit no higher than what is normal for investors or even less. No one is worth a 30 million a year salary. Owners will pull their money if you ask them to take less profits than other businesses allow. Players already make an abnormally huge share of overall profits. (Although it wouldn’t work anyway because, as someone points out below, owners wouldn’t lower ticket prices anyway).
Baseball players are entertainers. Would you say that that Mike Trout provides more or less entertainment than Dwayne Johnson? From 2015 to 2020, Mike Trout made $144M. From 2017 to 2020, Dwayne Johnson made $366M.
Ticket prices are set by market demand not player salaries. Owners sell tickets for what the market will pay. If we drop player salaries, owners will keep ticket prices right where they are.
Obviously the empty seats have not yet lowered ticket prices, because few team sell out. Demand is not setting the price.
Most teams set different prices depending upon the expected demand for tickets and offer deals to dump unsold tickets, much to the chagrin of people who paid full price. It’s hard to do that mid-season–these aren’t airlines–but they try, at least for unpopular seats. The Mets, when the team was struggling mid-season in 2019 had deals for discounts based on the number of strikeouts by pitchers on road trips, Pete Alonso’s home run derby numbers, and Jeff McNeil’s uniform number (6). The new owner has continued those with Home Run Derby and Javy Baez #23 deals. There comes a point when you just want to get fans in the stadium spending on parking, food and drinks, and souvenirs. But, if they fans aren’t interested, lowering the price won’t matter. You need to put a better product on the field (except in St. Pete, where you just need to be somewhere else). And, better to keep prices high enough to cash in of a couple of dozens sellouts than to lower them across the board and see the aftermarket of scalpers reap the benefits. Ticket prices are set by supply and demand and cutting payrolls will do nothing to lower prices. Owners will charge what they can.
It’s just not going to happen. I agree that there is just way too much $$$ in sports today. However, every dollar goes to either the owners or players. There is no world where owners/players take 20% less and give it to the fans.
I mean, first thing most owners would do, if you lowered their payroll, is pay off debt leveraged against the team. Second thing would be to create more debt and buy a yacht or some nonsense.
For Mom and Pop employers, having employees can cost them 75%, 80% of their revenue. For baseball owners it’s more like 50-55%.
Owners already have it pretty good. You cut the player share down and make it better for them… maybe you’ve bought some time at the current ticket price, but they won’t lower them. Those prices are here to stay.
Look at Pittsburgh and Tampa. Two lower payroll clubs. What are their ticket prices? Clearly not low enough. No one goes to their games. Ownership doesn’t even care. They make so much money from TV, streaming rights and IP that they ain’t hurt by low attendance, and still they won’t slash ticket prices to try and fill the stadium.
It’s a pipe dream my friend.
Don’t forget how much Pitt and TB make off of other MLB teams. In 2019 revenue sharing came out to about $125 million per club and their payrolls were nowhere near that.
Since you brought up my team, I’m genuinely curious. Are there rules about what and how a team uses that shared revenue? I really don’t know. I do know that player payroll isn’t the only cost to running an organization.
Keeping Tropicana Field at 72° can’t be cheap. At least they don’t have many fans to cool off during the weekday games….sigh….
@roguesaw
That’s a defunct mom and pop if they are paying that much on payroll. Rent, utilities, taxes, inventory, insurance, advertising, debt payment, are just some of the things you may be forgetting about. Because of the high $$$ in sports, payroll can be a higher percentage than most other industries.
TV money drives the big salaries. Owners charge for tickets what they think the market will pay. If fans stop showing up (like in Oakland) prices drop…..
The A’s can have 0 fans attend games this year (almost tried that last night) and turn a profit. I mean, you truly can’t lose money in this business.
Have tickets dropped in Oakland? What was the change?
It is interesting to think about how the Owners and Players are just negotiating on how to split up the money that us, the fans, are providing them. The reason the money keeps going higher is because we keep paying for the product. The only way to reverse this is for the fans to stop going and watching.
Funny we talk about what side we are on when the fans themselves have no seat at the table. Perhaps we need an MLB fan association, which of course would be an impossibility.
Pretty sure on 12-1, the owners will lockout the players which is nothing more than legal maneuver and this will create a transaction freeze. If a deal is done, unlikely to see it until right before spring training. I’m sure teams will be negotiating during the lockout and then all transaction announced the first day.
One more comment I’d add, Regardless of where you come out on this; pro-player, pro-owner, pox on both their houses, we still should expect owners going to the taxpayer for more goodies.
What teams and players need to know is
a) what compensation, if any, must be PAID for teams signing free agents who have declined a Qualifying Offer and
b) a few teams need to know the tax thresholds, both on the upper and lower end of the payroll scale
We can probably assume- although nothing is assured- that teams making a qualifying offer will RECEIVE supplemental draft picks when the offers are declined. This is because the offers have to be made after the end of the season, almost a month before the CBA expires, and because players suffer no real detriment in their former clubs receiving compensation.
Players who decline a QO and clubs who sign those players would like to know the consequences if there is still payment of draft pick compensation required.
The owners put elimination of the payment of compensation for signing free agents on the table in the last round, but in exchange for an international draft. The players wound up giving them hard slot bonuses, no draft, and got nothing really in return. So few players are affected that it might be an easy throw away for the owners, but it’s a spanner in the works for some of the top free agents.
I’m not going to go all doom and gloom on these negotiations. They’ll wind up picking a number somewhere between the current deal and the players getting more monetary gains that are less than all the new revenue that MLB will take in with new TV deals, gambling revenue, and expanded playoffs.
Whether the players make their gains in the form of increased tax thresholds, a salary floor, higher minimum salary, earlier arbitration or free agency eligibility, there will be some concessions. And they’ll give expanded playoffs and probably withdraw their grievance in exchange. We’ll just have to suffer through all the posturing to get there, but we’ll get there.
players do suffer a detriment in their former clubs receiving compensatiom. They could and would be paid more if the signing team didn’t need to give up a pick.
PAYMENT of compensation is not the same as teams RECEIVING compensation. Under previous systems, signing teams had to give their draft picks directly to the players’ former team. Not so any more. Teams receiving compensation get that based on their market size and whether they are over the tax threshold.
If the Tigers signed Corey Seager, they would give up their third highest draft pick, which is a supplemental second round pick. The Dodgers would receive a pick after the fourth round because they are over the tax threshold.
The player is only affected by a new team having to PAY compensation, not bothered by his former club receiving compensation. Two different things.
so if the Tigers sign Seager they give up a draft pick; this reduces the comp Seager would receive.
You still miss the point.
Teams PAYING compensation may impact the player.
His former team RECEIVING compensation does not.
They are two different things.
It seems likely that, since teams have to make their qualifying offers in early November, they will receive compensation if the player signs with a new team.
But it’s entirely possible that the new CBA will eliminate payment of compensation entirely.
And as a practical matter, losing a supplemental second round pick would not stop a team from signing a player like Corey Seager, if they’re willing to pay the freight for him.
Optimist!
I hope players realize that expanded playoffs is the wort it can happen to them and the sport. Why will teams spend premium $25M-$35M p/year on players if most teams make playoffs ? and we know anything can happen once a team is in playoffs much more than in other sports where favorite wins the majority of the times.
Are teams really going to earn more in the long run for the lack of interest during the regular season? Why as a fan are we going to spend in regular season?
Yes sure you can make some extra $$, Any one can see that. but at what cost?. Soon this will look like the Mexican soccer league
I think your argument is flawed..sorry…you make reference that fans would not really make a difference if their team has a chance to make the post season with expanded playoffs….I totally disagree. As a Toronto fan who watched the Skydome fill up in 2015 after the Blue Jays acquired David Price, LaTroy Hawkins, Mark Lowe and Ben Revere for a playoff push which lead to them leading the league in attendance that year. With expanded playoffs more teams would do this and that means more money generated thus more funds to go around. Each playoff game would be sold out (for most teams as some won’t sell regardless of playoff format) which means even more money again.
Bottom line almost every team has “bandwagon” fans that only watch when said team is in the playoff race and those are the ones MLB are after as they are “new money”. Whales are fans who will watch regardless and that money is there no matter what.
I just don’t like the idea of a below .500 team can be the World series champions. It’s mediocre.
To get a ticket to the championship you have to win the marathon.
You want a chance for every team to be in the playoffs, Im fine build another competition or Cup like they do on soccer (european leagues), but all leagues have their long term champion.
There should be a floor with no cap and profit sharing with all clubs involved. $100M for the floor is a start.
Thanks for your input, Tony.
What’s amazing is they played most of 1994 without a CBA or under the old CBA?
I would invite people to compare the doom and gloom prognostications when the NBA and NFL got their salary caps versus the absolutely huge money players make in those sports today.
Securing a guaranteed % of the profit in exchange for a cap and floor system is an absolute no brainer.
It would benefit all but a handful of people in the sport, but since those are the people the union will always and only cater to…myopically…they probably will not see it that way.
a cap only benefits a handful of players, not everyone. The salary discrepancy in MLB would just get worse. The top players would still get paid, but at the expense of the middle of the pack players.
Yup.
If you are under contract on 12/1, you play next year on that contract. Starting with the last out of the 2022 World Series, all contracts become null and void, and the free agent frenzy starts, as all players are deemed free agents. Owners, agents, players…have at it. No cap, no floor. Want to sign 40 guys for 10 years/$800m, go for it, you are the owner. Want to sign 40 guys at 1/$1m? Your choice. Each team signs 40 players, that’s your 40 man roster. After that, sign as many guys to minors contracts as you want. but, where we may be headed if an agreement can’t be reached…
Love how it has Paul O’Neill kicks left on his baseball reference lol.
Transactions could happen, but they won’t. That $30 million to Max Scherzer for 2021 could be $30 million or $50 million of actual expense depending on the luxury tax thresholds and rates.
You think any owner is going to OK a deal with that much variance possible? No way.
So if this happens and no luxury tax, then I would suppose its fair game to blow through $210 million?
How do you blow past $210M until there is a CBA stipulating the new thresholds? Some team can build a $300M roster over the winter, and then on March 15, if a new deal is signed, they’ll still have to adhere to the new CBA thresholds and penalties.
The perfect agreement would the one that would benefit players, owners and fans alike. We’d have complete revenue sharing across the board on all money outside of attendance. Attendance dollars would be split in thirds with 1/3 of the money going to the visiting team and 2/3 going to the home team. This way the Yankees and the Pirates would have the same financial footing – the only difference being that teams that don’t draw won’t have the extra money to spend. No salary cap. If a team and it’s fan base want a championship team, they need to draw fans or extra payroll would have to come from the owner’s pockets.
On the eve of free agency, the Yankees and George Steinbrenner signed Paul O’Neill to a four-year, $19MM deal. A $1.2MM signing bonus included in the deal ran afoul of MLB recommendations, as they’d warned, “Clubs should keep in mind the payment of the bonus amounts to a decision by the club to help fund the continuing players strike.”
Crooked Nixon supporter (I voted for Ford, so I’m a pretty resolute Republican). Nobody’s been worse for baseball than Gorge Steingrabber.
My suggestion for the next CBA would be:
100M floor (any money not spent goes into revenue sharing)
Luxury tax starting at 200M with higher brackets at 220M, 230M and 240M
DH on both leagues
No service time manipulation (1 day on MLB roster counts for 1 year service time, except for September call ups during expanded rosters)
QO don’t cost the signing team a draft pick, but awards a compensation pick to the losing team between the 1st and 2nd round, only if they didn’t have one the year prior, if they did, then they get a pick between the 2nd and 3rd round.
QO can only be tendered to one player per team, regardless of when the player was acquired and could be placed on the same player in consecutive years.
Ownership aside, it is ridiculous what players make in guaranteed money. Since players will never accept the salary cap, teams should be steering toward more marker/incentive pay models if they want to keep the business of baseball profitable.
Baseball is so profitable that it churns in profits hand over fist despite the Carl Crawford contracts. Best thing ownership can do to keep it profitable is… more of the same.
I’m maintaining a positive view. Both sides are making lots of money, but both sides lost a lot of money during the season of COVID, so they will eventually come to an agreement, but it will go right up to the deadline.
Most unions and owners just go by the old contract until a new one is reached.
With the service time one day beyond it’s the agents that complain, not really the union.
I could see them doing up until opening day. That’s it for the cut off.
In the new agreement I want to see
1.. No more 7 inning games
2. No runner on second in the 10th maybe the 12th but not the 10th.
3. Expanded playoffs 16 teams (8 per side) where yes the division leaders get in BUT the teams are ranked based on regular season record and teams 1-3 get to pick who they play.
4.Teams that receive revenue sharing only get a portion they are due based on the amount they spend on player salaries..Max amount spent on salaries you get max amount of revenue sharing, half the max and you only get half what you qualify for. The unspent revenue share goes into post season pool money.
5. Automated ball and strike calls or at the very least sterner punishment for umps who are very poor at calling balls and strikes.
Sign me up for 1,2 and 4.
What happens to the Qualifying offer system for impending free agents without a CBA.?
What happens to the Qualifying offer system for impending free agents without a CBA.?
Most of us old enough to remember ’94 probably Remember the post-strike free agent signing frenzy that happened all the way up to opening day of the ’95 season but most of the offseason heavy lifting was done as business as usual during the strike in November/December of ’94. In theory that could be the same here. Only difference being back then teams did their offseason shopping immediately and quickly unlike the glacial pace of todays MLB offseason. I would not expect a flurry of moves as the luxury tax penalty threshold potentially being cut $30 million dollars may make teams hesitant to spend until an agreement is reached
I don’t see any chance the luxury tax threshold goes down. It will absolutely go up. What could happen, however, is the owners (through their proxies) will keep floating the lower number out there until a new CBA is signed, paralyzing the market, while trying to create pressure on the players to sign a new deal. It could get ugly.