Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred met with the media for about 30 minutes Thursday morning as the quarterly owners’ meetings drew to a close, discussing the status of the ongoing labor dispute with the MLB Players Association. Among the more concrete takeaways, Manfred said that the league has “agreed” both to the implementation of a universal designated hitter and the elimination of draft-pick compensation for free agents who reject qualifying offers.
However, as MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes reports (Twitter links), the use of “agreed” is a bit misleading. The two parties have not reached a formal agreement on either issue. Rather, Manfred’s use of “agreed” merely indicates that both the universal DH and elimination of draft-pick compensation were included as components of a broader proposal put forth by MLB some time ago.
Still, with regard to the universal designated hitter, this is one of the most concrete indicators of its likely implementation. Both parties, after all, have in the past shown a desire to add a DH to the National League. For the players, this creates another spot in 15 lineups and could create a handful of jobs for free agents. For teams, this all but eliminates the risk of pitchers being injured at the plate and on the bases. Because of that mutual interest, though, the league’s desire to frame the universal DH as something of a concession is somewhat questionable. It’s not clear the union will perceive it as a concession.
With regard to the elimination of pick compensation, Dierkes reports that the league’s proposal instead would award draft picks to teams for losing free agents, based on the quality of player, with no offer of any sort required. That raises issues on how to specifically determine that player’s value, however, and the MLBPA likely harbors concern that by giving teams a pick for losing a free agent, the league is actually disincentivizing clubs from re-signing some of their own players.
Beyond those two more concrete elements of his side’s recent proposal, Manfred offered little in the way of definitive statements. Asked about the status of Spring Training (i.e. whether it will be delayed), the commissioner replied that the “status of Spring Training is no change right now.”
We’re only a week out from the original report date for players and have, to this point, seen no meaningful progress in negotiations between the league and union. A delayed Spring Training feels like a foregone conclusion, but Manfred at least kicked the can down the road a couple days on any such formal declaration, suggesting that the decision was contingent on how Saturday’s meeting with the MLBPA plays out. That said, while Manfred didn’t explicitly state that Spring Training will be delayed, he addressed the possibility, acknowledging that the three-week ramp up period to the pandemic-shortened 2020 season was insufficient.
“The injury data shows that,” Manfred said of 2020’s training period. “We’d like to be [at] 28 [days] — we think four weeks makes sense.” A four-week Spring Training would still fall a good ways shy of the typical six-week period, but the extra week of build-up time in that theoretical scenario would prove beneficial to players, particularly to starting pitchers.
Manfred declared himself an optimist, stating more broadly that he believes the two sides will reach an agreement in time for the regular season to begin, as planned, on March 31. Missing regular-season games would be a “disastrous outcome to this industry,” Manfred said, adding that MLB is “committed to reaching an agreement to avoid that.”
Upon being asked about the league making just one proposal in the ten weeks since implementing the lockout, Manfred demurred and stated that “phones work two ways,” painting the lack of meaningful talks as a two-way street. Whichever side you take in the increasingly ugly battle — and it’s plenty fair if your answer is, “neither!” — it was ownership that locked out the players in, as Manfred stated at the time, an effort to “jumpstart” progress toward a deal. A silent period of more than six weeks followed. It’s plenty defensible to say the union should have been more proactive in instigating talks, but at the very least, the players have spent the past two weeks publicly declaring a desire for daily negotiations.
In one of the more eyebrow-raising moments of the press conference, Manfred was asked whether purchasing an MLB franchise was a “good investment.” He bizarrely implied the contrary, stating that between the purchase price of the team and the money invested into the club on a year-over-year basis, the “return on those investments is below what you’d expect to get in the stock market,” adding that there was greater risk in owning a team. Comments of that nature are sure to further galvanize a union that has repeatedly suggested the league isn’t being genuine or negotiating in good faith.
That term, “good-faith,” is a recurring theme when both sides discuss negotiations, as each indicates that the other is effectively neglecting to operate in such a fashion. For his part, Manfred vowed to make a “good-faith, positive proposal” to the players when the two sides meet Saturday, implying that perhaps this weekend could serve as a turning point.
“One correct move sometimes opens the way to an agreement,” said Manfred. “My view of the world is you always keep looking for that one move that creates that opportunity.”
end of draft pick compensation = big win
still no increased minimum and an end of service time manipulation.
I don’t know that there is a fair way to end service time manipulation while still giving teams the right to determine their own rosters, short of going nuclear and saying that one day = one year like they do with options.
If the prospect is up for 1 month, not counting September call ups, it counts as a year regardless. If a prospect is being held down in the minors when he should be promoted and can take his case to someone and if there’s significant evidence for it the team either promotes him or has to trade him.
Keep in mind many rookies make opening day rosters and don’t get fanfare because it’s not juicy “manipulation”. Shohei Ohtani cracked the 2018 Opening Day Angels roster even after having a terrible spring.
Kris Bryant was a widely known example but hardly a harbinger for every call-up situation.
What’s going to end up happening if they try to end service time manipulation is that the players are just going to end up being called up even later. They would all end up only being September call ups. That wouldn’t help the players at all. The service time would stay the same and they would just spend more games in the minor leagues picking up minor league paychecks instead of major league paychecks.
“If a prospect is being held in the minors when he SHOULD BE promoted and can take his case to someone.”
They already have this in effect. They tried this with the Kris Bryant. “Should be” is a matter of opinion and it’s basically impossible for anyone to prove the team was breaking the rules by not calling the player up. What you are talking about is a rule that already exists so you should be happy. Implementation of rules like that never work. The players don’t get to decide when they are ready for the bigs. The teams do. Any change in the way service time works is just going to make things worse in a different way.
The ruling in the Kris Bryant grievance confirmed what was already known. Service time manipulation is not prohibited under the terms of the CBA.
The best they can do without an age based system is to include language that prohibits teams from keeping a player down for the purpose of service time or financial reasons.
The player would still have to file a grievance and prove his case which isn’t easy- they have to prove intent, but it’s a start. Bryant had a very good case if he had that language in the CBA. The arbitrators never reached the merits of that argument.
I think nuclear is only fair. No other sport has service time as far as I know like they’re in the dang military.
They sign a professional contract for length and terms including compensation.
They should be lucky and good enough to be in the “dang military “.
Please, Hammer. Don’t hurt ’em.
What’s going to end up happening if they try to end service time manipulation is that the players are just going to end up being called up even later.
================================
You can’t stop it, but you can make it more favorable for the players. If you made the deadline June 30th, for example, the team has a choice between having a guy for 6 years & 3 months, or having the guy for a full season.
If I was Baltimore, I’d definitely look for the 6.3 option. But if I were the NYY or RS, with a top-10 prospect, who was clearly ready, I wouldn’t put my season in jeopardy to save 3 months of service time.
He wasn’t a traditional rookie and wasn’t subject to the same rules. Please list some of these are the Rookies of which you speak
@Phantom X I disagree on how that works because every prospect has potential to get a injury or even struggles at a certain level. I think a more direct approach is need. Option A to eliminate the manipulation) 500 AB or 400 Innings pitched with minimum of 3 years of pro ball, before an organization must choose to add them to the big league roster, trade, or send them through the waiver wire. If a team loses a player through waiver, they are offered a value of a second or third round pick or cash worth of his slot value on the day of his draft. If traded, it must be a player within 3 years or less of service time or potential draft pick.
Option B) If player doesn’t meet the above eligibility of 500 ABs, 450 IP, and 3 years service time. 5 years in pro ball or 27 years of age which comes first, organization must trade or waive the player. Upon waive claim, team only receives minimum value of 50k and max value of 150k. A trade can not either be a future draft pick or a draft pick within 3 years of service time.
All transactions are processed through the Commissioner and his executives (one for owner and one for player while an executive to the umpires union holds the third and final vote) for approval or denial. If commissioner and executives deny or find a transaction unfair or manipulating, will cost the organization draft capital and players involved in the trade. They will be deemed free agents and only organizations not penalized, may sign this prospect and are required to have the prospect in the major league within a full season. Failure to do so, prospect is awarded Free Agent status with a guarantee MLB contract at league minimum.
Bryant never had a good case… Mike Olt had a good spring training and he was on the 40 man roster… Bryant was not. There was no way Bryant was going to win there.
@mstrchef13 Its truly simple. If a player exceeds the rookie designations, then its a full season of service time. More than 130 at bats or more than 50 innings pitched. Solved.
Sooooo … has anybody else noticed that none of the changes the owners agreed on would cost them money.
They are like “we’ll give you whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t reduce our profits”.
Universal DH, draft pick compensation, postseason expansion .. other than the $10M pre-arb bonus pool offer, they haven’t budged an inch if it will cost them.
Sure they are not negotiating in good faith, they are intentionally dragging this thing out just as I said they would.
There’s a partial trade off here. Players who get manipulated are usually ones that wind up being super 2 eligible, so they wind up with a fourth year of arbitration. If they’re held down for less than 116 days-the super 2 cutoff this year, then they at least get that and the ones worth manipulating could have some good numbers to carry into arbitration.
That’s no substitute for free agency, but it’s not insignificant.
We don’t generally see teams manipulating the service time to avoid the super 2 cutoff. First, its unpredictable since we don’t know where the cutoff is in the first half of the season. Second, 116 days is a long time to lose a bona fide major league starter and keep making excuses for keeping him down.
LOL! EVERY player who is called up will file a grievance saying they should have been called up earlier. Ridiculous idea.
Not at all. The burden is on the player to prove their grievance, which has an element of intent. It would be an exceptional case like Bryant that has a shot to prevail.
That would be good for players, teams, and fans. Teams who are trying to win, should have their best on the field and in the clubhouse from day one of the season. With expanded playoffs, that should be more teams. But if a team falls out of contention by midseason, you’d like them to be able to call up the future at that point when you’ve probably opened up some space on the roster through trades and not have any incentive to keep the player down at that point. When my favorite team is out of contention, I watch more baseball after the trade deadline and in September.
Ohtani was an international signing. His 6 year contract was 6 years regardless of service time. There was nothing for the Angels to manipulate.
I mean they have to in theory pay someone to DH.. That’s money given out. Not enough, but some.
Ohtani was paid already and agreed to a 6 year contract, Service time doesn’t apply to Ohtani, he was always making that roster… Like Ichiro before him, like Seiya Suzuki will after him…
@Tigers3232, I don’t think that’s true. Ohtani chose not to wait until 25 and so was subject to the international bonus pool spending limits and a minor league contract. He entered as if entering from amateur ball. That’s why he is cost controlled whereas Suzuki is a posted professional and therefore can sign a major league contract. Teams can no longer sign international players under 25 to major league contracts like they used to. The Angels did not sign him to a major league extension after acquiring him. So technically, they could have manipulated his service time, but that would have been overly blatant.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/11/shohei-ohtani-contract.html
He signed under the rules of an amateur free agent. His contract is for 6 years in black and white. The under 25 yrs of age as it applies to amateur free agents is a whole different issue. It is only a matter of time til MLB is sued for age discrimination. Using service time, rookie contracts, etc at least they are using a slightly veiled attempt to discriminate. With amateur free agents they flat out put an age and pay limitations. It is about as discriminate as they could possibly be as age goes.
His contract isn’t for 6 years. It’s for one. The Angels have no obligations to him beyond this season. Technically he’s not even guaranteed his one year contract this year. He’s never signed an extension. He signed the same contract with the Angels that Javier Osario signed with your Tigers. It’s a different set of rules for Suzuki.
I agree that it is discriminatory. I think the age was put in place so that teams couldn’t bypass the bonus pool spending limits by signing international talent directly to major league contracts. It would give the large markets a big advantage in terms of adding young talent.
My answer would be to begin the free agent clock when the player signs his first contract. Players drafted out of high school become free agents in X years, regardless of major league service time. Players drafted out of college become free agents in Y years, regardless of major league service time. This would incentivize major league teams to develop and get their players to the majors as soon as possible.
yeah, because it’s so easy to “end” service time manipulation. and we all know the minimum will go up – it always does.
The owners are offering the minimum to go up less than inflation and that it would then be locked in for the next 5 years.
Set arbitration at 2.5 years and free agency at 5.5 years. If a team gets material (more than half use) of a player that year, it brings the player closer to arb and free agency. If he’s called up as a late-season injury replacement or whatever, he won’t accumulate 5.5 years in an offseason and it could be 6.25 years.
It follows Occam’s Razor – choose the options that requires the fewest assumptions. Or KISS.
There is definitely an increased minimum salary. That goes without saying. There has never been a new CBA that didn’t increase minimum salary. There will also likely be some level of increase on the luxury tax. The players may not be getting everything they want or increases to the level that they want but a standard level increase in minimum salary and luxury tax plus an additional $10 million going to pre-arb players along with 15 new starting jobs for defensively challenged players and now the elimination of draft pick compensation really is a win for the players. That’s 5 different ways players can make more money without the players having to give up anything on their side other than expanded playoffs which actually makes the players more overall money as well. Turning this down to demand an additional 1,000% increase in bonus pool money along with a complete restructuring of service time and the economical structure of the game would be bad news. None of that is going to happen unless they agree to a complete revenue based income and total revenue sharing around the league. This deal gets rid of the QO (which they have been complaining about for years) and it helps them make more money in several other areas as well. At some point you have to admit the owners are trying to compromise and you are just asking for way more changes than any other sport has given to it’s players in one CBA.
It isn’t at all clear that the DH “adds” any jobs. There are still the same number of roster spots for MLB players. It’s possible that teams might roster a veteran hitter rather than an extra reliever, but teams have really moved away from the full time DH anyway.
The owners receive the vast majority of playoff revenues – the players’ share of that is trivial.
The eventual tradeoffs (in my opinion) will be the players trading expanded playoffs for a pretty substantial increase to the luxury tax thresholds.
But wouldn’t a quality DH’s salary be much higher than the last man in the bullpen?
Yes, there’s a little something there for the players, I think. But how many teams even have a full time DH these days? Plenty of teams will still mix and match with their AAA sluggers/4th outfielders.
Dudes who got a qualifying number of plate appearances at DH last year:
Shohei Ohtani
Nelson Cruz
JD Martinez
Yordan Alvarez
That is all..
Yes ..to me universal DH is definitely a win for the player’s. Compare the salary of a Nelson Cruz to a bullpen guy who is being optioned to AAA multiple times per season.
Cruz is a high end DH example to be sure, but to scoff as though it’s nothing is incorrect. And Manfred said they agreed to it, so it’s done whether or not Steve and Tim want to parse it.
If there were any other veteran DHs that teams were willing to pay for, they’d already be DHing on AL teams.
…but there are few Nelson Cruz types. Even someone like Stanton is a solid RFer who the Yankees have opted to DH in the mistaken belief it will keep him healthier, when there’s evidence it’s actually led to his injuries. They also have one of the top RFers in the game in Judge. The DH goes away, Stanton takes over as a full-time OFer again. So using Stanton as an example, he’s providing benefit to management more than to the players. Most AL teams use the DH as a rotation spot. I do believe it still leads to overall to some increase in salary, but it’s also used by teams to maximize players to “rest” them and also as a landing spot as they age and are still being paid. Both sides gain with the Universal DH, and MLB wants the Universal DH so all leagues play by the same rules, which they want for future realignment. It shouldn’t even part of negotiations. Simply recognize that it’s something both sides want, but MLB is trying to position a gain for them as a concession. It’s disingenuous.
And you’re certain all 15 NL teams want the DH? And all the NL owners want to see on average millions in payroll increase for the same number of roster spots? There is a real cost associated.
This exactly. The threshold for how good a hitter needs to be for teams to pay up for them as a DH only is really high. Unless you can hit at a Cruz/JD Martinez level, you’re not going to get paid as a DH only.
I didn’t say it “adds” jobs. I specifically said it adds STARTING jobs, which it does. An every day DH is typically going to make a lot more money than the last relief pitcher or defensive replacement bench player on a team. The universal DH should definitely be part of the negotiations and recognized as helping players. It would add thousands of plate appearances every year that would go towards hitters who make their money off hitting as opposed to pitchers who don’t. That gives the hitters much more opportunity to prove themselves and get paid more in arbitration and on the free agent market.
It increases the bidding market for DH only players. They will have twice as many teams bidding for their services as they did before. The increase in demand always results in an increase in price.
It also helps players who aren’t currently a DH get bigger contracts on the free agent market. A lot of players typically lose their defensive ability before their hitting ability. Teams will be more inclined to give out longer contracts to players if they know they can move them to DH later in their careers. It is very likely that the implementation of the universal DH will result in players like Freddie Freeman, Nick Castellanos and Kyle Schwarber all getting more money than they would have this offseason alone.
The rules really need to be the same in both leagues regardless of which way they go. If the players think the DH doesn’t help give them 2 options. Offer the universal DH with them giving a little something back because it clearly helps the players or… Option 2 Don’t ask for anything in return from the players at all and eliminate the DH in the American League so there is no DH at all. If the DH doesn’t help players than they should have no problem with that. Of course players like Nelson Cruz and Yordan Alvarez would watch their paychecks tank. Having different rules for teams who compete for the same title is always a bad idea. The players either need to admit that the DH is good for them and helps them make more money overall or they need be okay with it being eliminated entirely.
@cow disciple
The CBT effects minimal teams and minimal players. Only the largest market teams are up at the CBT level. The rest base their payroll off their revenue stream, which doesn’t allow it to come near that. Maybe if it gets raised enough Correa will get his contract. Won’t change how BAL, CHW, CLE, DET, KC, MIN, OAK, SEA, TB, TEX, TOR, ARZ, ATL, CHC, CIN, COL, MIA, MIL, PIT, SFG, STL, OR WSH operate though.
Five teams- five of the biggest spending teams- were within $4 million of the CBT threshold last year without going over it. It’s a big issue to the players. Others on your list have gone over it in the past.
You are talking almost COL increases. Hockey’s minimum is more than $150K than baseball’s. There is no way baseball’s minimum should be below hockey’s therefore the traditional COL increase will not work. it needs to be more substantive than that
It doesn’t add a roster spot but teams spend more for a full time hitter compared to a bench player. There’s been research on this in the past. The AL pays considerably more for that 25th guy to DH than the NL does for the guy to sit their bench and PH.
What you’re neglecting to address is having the Universal DH doubles the potential landing spot for DH’s who are FA’s. Certainly this makes a guy like Cruz more money.
Furthermore, it will help guys like Freddie Freeman get an extra year or two from an NL team because they know they can rest them defensively to save their legs a bit over 162. Thus prolonging their career.
Universal DH is definitely a win for players on many levels.
Nope, They’re not asking for too much. The owners were definitely asking way too much.
The owners’ proposal is for less than one percent increase per year in the CBT threshold. Just inflation alone went up 7%. There is no gain there. They’re losing. And the tax goes from 20% to 50% and they add draft penalties.
The latest minimum salary proposal barely keeps pace with inflation. And they convert the minimum to a maximum. Most players lose money there also.
$10 million for pre arb bonuses? Spread over 540 players? Not even worth talking about
The QO affects a handful of players. That’s it.
Not giving up anything? They’re giving up any share of years of soaring revenue increases that owners get because of their performance.
DH salary is not higher on average than starting pitchers. That is who they are taking the place of on the roster. DH salary is $5 million more than MLB average for position players.
I don’t know. Are there more starting pitchers on NL rosters than there are in the AL? A typical AL roster has 4 position players on the bench in a game, one of those being a catcher. And they’ll have 13 pitchers, five of them being starters.
I’m sure there will be a few veteran hitters who get to stick around longer.
DHs are NOT replacing pitchers on the roster, they are replacing them in the lineup. The DH is not replacing a pitchers salary but rather replacing the salary of the 26th man on the roster, a salary generally less than that of a DH. Think about it.
@outinleftfield: “DH salary is not higher on average than starting pitchers. That is who they are taking the place of on the roster.”
What are you talking about? The DH takes the roster spot from the worst player on the team. Either the teams worst bench player or the teams worst relief pitcher. Do you really think National League teams are going to start rolling with 4 man rotations once next season starts? Why would they keep their entire bench and their worst mop up reliever at the expense of cutting a starting pitcher?
“DH salary is $5 million more than MLB average for position players.” So what you are saying is that by allowing the universal DH MLB is going to end up paying the players an additional $75 million every single year on top of what they are already getting. How is that not a win for the players? How is the players getting paid another $75 million a year and the owners losing that $75 million every year not an obvious win for the players?
Your name: outinleftfield is very fitting. It seems like you never know what you are talking about.
the problem with inflation is you assume if inflation is up 5 per cent teams can raise ticket prices 5 percent. networks will also increase their advertising 5 percent. Inflation does not work that way.. Essential items like food and gas go up 10 percent but inflation is still 5 because movies, baseball, non essentials stay the same. The obvious is to increase the salary cap based on total revenues for baseball. If they go down 5 percent then the cap goes down 5 percent. and vice versa.
There’s also very few cases that it involves. Don’t change a major aspect of the game for a possible 1-2 every year. For every Kris Bryant’s, there are a lot of those who it makes no difference to.
They could easily make it affect nobody. Scrap service time altogether, if a team signs a player to a 6 yr rookie contract, they have him for 6 years. If the player is under team control for a clearly defined time frame either way, teams will call up players when they deem them capable talent wise not when it fits an ulterior motive. Shouldn’t this be the goal, to get the best product possible on the field?
How do you propose they end service time manipulation?
The players want an end to service time manipulation. As a fan I dont want it to end.
My idea to end service time manipulation is anyone called up within a team’s first 30 games (naturally, this assumes being on the roster the rest of the year) gets a full year of service time and a year toward arbitration. Anyone called up between games 31 and 81 gets a year toward arbitration, but not toward service time. Anyone called up after gets neither. Teams could hold prospects down for 30 games to get another year, but now it’s 20% of the season they miss rather than 10% and they’d still have to pay arbitration in three years (and thus give players an extra year of arb).
Currently, 172 days on the major league roster or IL counts as one season. A season normally spans about 180- 182 days. So a player only has to be kept down about two weeks from opening day to extend his time under club control for another season.
With the super 2 cutoff at 2 years and 116 days, they’d have to keep a player down until the end of June to deny the fourth year of arbitration.
They could mess with the 172 days, but they would need to make it like 150 or something to pose a real deterrent.
172 – 30 days in April and 31 days in May = 112 days. Keep a player in the minors until June 1st and buy an extra year.
It was the Players Association who signed off on the last CBA that permitted the so-called “manipulation.” The owners merely used the tools as authorized by the CBA.
They should tie age to it. That would help.
What about a system like arbitration. A player could apply to have his case heard before an arbitration panel. If that panel believes that the team manipulated the players service time, the player is automatically awarded 1 year of service time for the season. Then teams would feel like they might as well get the full value for the 1 year service time and put them on the roster at the beginning of the season.
In order to have a grievance, there has to be some rule that is violated. MLB has no such rule, as the Kris Bryant case confirmed. They would have to insert language in the CBA that prohibits service time manipulation, and then a player could file a grievance if he feels he was manipulated. But he has to prove his case, including the club’s motivation for not promoting him. It’s still an uphill fight.
In a vacuum, I’m sure the PA would see it that way. As part of a broader proposal with other elements surely not to their liking, perhaps not as much. Manfred stated this today, but it was proposed awhile ago, which says plenty about how the MLBPA felt regarding the proposal at large.
I’m sure both sides do this, for what it’s worth. It’s in anyone’s interest to make sure the pieces of a proposal that make them sound most reasonable are known to the public, but the “take” is rarely made public in conjunction with the “give.”
Steve, am I reading this correctly? “Dierkes reports that the league’s proposal instead would award draft picks to teams for losing free agents, based on the quality of player, with no offer of any sort required.” Doesn’t that mean that a team about to lose a player to FA no longer has to take the risk a QO will be accepted? Isn’t this a big win…..for the Owners?
Might be, but just FYI, it’s a lot easier to replace the players than it is the owners. There’s thousands in the Minor Leagues that would jump at the chance to play MLB ball as a “replacement player”.
The owners have to get some wins in here too. It’s not JUST going to favor the players.
“Might be, but just FYI, it’s a lot easier to replace the players than it is the owners. There’s thousands in the Minor Leagues that would jump at the chance to play MLB ball as a “replacement player”.”
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. The last time they had replacement players, during the ’94-’95 strike, the replacement players were permanently banned from the MLBPA and were treated like second hand citizens in the league.
See, for example, Brandon Donnelly, who was a key relief pitcher for the Angels during their 2002 WS winning season, couldn’t be featured in any official team photos or merchandise, because during the ’94-’95 strike he “crossed the picket line” to play in ’95 spring training games prior to the strike ending. As a result of this, he was forever barred from the MLBPA, the MLB pension, or participating in official team/league merchandise. Heck, Donnelly and other players’ like him couldn’t even have their names/likenesses used MLB video games (the games would generally create fictional characters with similar stats and sounding names).
This is too say, its doubtful there’s a large selection of high ceiling minor league players that would be willing to play as “replacements” (a nice way of saying “scabs”) because, regardless of how long it takes, everyone knows that MLB and the MLBPA will eventually come to a new agreement, the stars will return and if a minor leaguer plays as a scab, they’ll be forever barred from some of the most lucrative parts of being a MLB player, the merchandising.
That’s not to say that lower tier prospects that are on the bubble of ever making it to the Show would be willing to cross the line…but that’s just because of a different cost-benefit analysis…they have less to lose because they weren’t likely to make it in the first place and even if they did, they’re not likely to get big money from merchandising.
I personally didn’t mind when these players jumped at that opportunity back in 94. They wanted to play, and when the opportunity came to achieve a dream, they took it. I won’t look down on that.
This is a rationale answer. Too bad a lot of people don’t understand how to be rationale.
The only “scab” that seemed to come out ok is Kevin Millar, but he was prevented from joining the Union and getting certain player benefits and royalties, IIRC. I suspect one reason Millar is on the MLBN, which is run by management, is a payback to him and also some one management can use as an example for any future players they might ask to cross a line. I don’t believe players should even agree to appear on MLBN as long as Millar is employed by the network.
Good for Millar and everyone else, who freely chose to do what they want in their own personal lives.
there are many billionaires waiting to buy a mlb team. there are even people to invest $2 billion to have the rights to have a new team.
Nobody would want to watch them. The players would end up in a new league.
@vdncsc Every time a team comes up for sale there are multiple groups of people that are bidding to buy it. There is a never ending supply of people willing to invest in a guaranteed investment. Its a monopoly protected by the US government so there is no way to lose money long term. Especially since all the largest costs are paid by the taxpayers or TV contracts.
There are 780 people that have the combination of genetics, skills, health, and drive to play baseball at the MLB level out of 7+ billion on the planet. We saw what happened when the owners tried to bring in replacement players before. The quality of play was so bad that no one was willing to buy tickets or watch it on TV and those were all minor league players.
It is much, much, much harder to replace the players than the owners.
Millar ended up giving up $7500 per month in pension to be a scab. Plus any money he normally would have received for licensing and merchandising.
It was his choice and he certainly has not done poorly in terms of contracts after that.
He was the only one I can find that made out well in terms of playing time and contracts though. The rest faded into obscurity, pariahs in the sport they loved.
Pads – Brian Daubach was a scab who ended up 4th in ROY voting and played 7 years earning $4.4M.
@mike: it would be a win for the owners that lose players but they would be taking the draft stock directly from other owners. No player salary would be involved. It would be a team gaining a draft pick and other owners watching their draft pick move down a spot. It won’t affect the players salaries or income at all. Are you really so obsessed with making sure owners don’t get anything that you dislike it even when they are taking directly from each other? Yes… It would be good for the owners who lose a top player. It would also be bad for every single owner who drafts behind them. What is your point and what does that have to do with anything? Why should anyone on the players side even care about that? Do you really think it’s possible for the owners to “win” if they are only taking from each other? How is that even possible?
Kerry Ligtenberg pitched in eight seasons and made $6.5M.
@Mike156 – It sure sounds like clubs will get draft pick compensation if they lose free agents they didn’t even offer a QO to. It’s basically the NFL free agency model. They look at all of the free agents you lose vs. all of the free agents you signed and then determine if compensatory picks are needed. I love this idea! I’ve wanted MLB to implement this model for years; hopefully this gets agreed to.
When it comes to service time, I originally thought that any player who spends more than 81 games on the MLB 26-man roster should be given a full year credit, but I like the idea pitched above even more. If a player exceeds the limits for rookie consideration (130 ABs or 50 IP) they get credit for a full year service time. That would stop most of the manipulation on good rookies who can contribute in the big leagues. They might need to implement a lower IP totals for pure relievers but something along these lines would be great.
Correct!
Daubach didn’t play in the majors until 1998. Replacement players were used in 1995.
Some good stuff there that I didn’t know, however, it is still easier to replace players than owners.. Even with a long list of rich people wanting to be owners.
@bhambraves: Kerry Lightenberg was a beast. Back when saves were considered a big stat he had a season where he converted 30 of 34 save opportunities. If it weren’t for the existence of replacement players he would have never had a career. Oil Can Boyd was a replacement player. So was Brendan Donnelly. The Braves got a pitcher from Cleveland in the John Rocker trade named Steve Reed who was a replacement player. All those guys earned their careers and stuck around to do well against MLB competition for a long time. I would love to watch replacement players. I would probably go to even more games and support baseball even more than I do now for replacement players. I usually root a lot more for replacement players because they seem less whiny. They seem more down to earth and it’s like talking to the average worker instead of having to listen to so e guy who makes over $40 million a year playing baseball but somehow still finds a bunch of things to whine or complain about.
Over the past CBA, number of players accepted and offered QO
2021-22 1 of 11
2020-21 2 of 6
2019-20 2 of 10
2018-19 1 of 7
2017- 18 0 of 9
Average 1 of 8.6
So the players wouldn’t like compensation being given for losing a FA with no offer going out the door, but if it’s the elite players being lost, the trade value would far exceed any compensation draft pick.
It’s a nice perk for players to get rid of the payment of FA compensation, but it’s not going to affect enough players to give up something that would impact all players with with 0- 3 or 2-3 years of service.
The vast majority of the players receiving a QO were superstars and it didn’t suppress their salary to have the QO attached. Its just 1 or 2 a season where it has effected them. To me that is not a win for the players if they have to give the owners a low CBT and bigger penalties.
For a player who rejects a QO, I don’t see how it really helps to end compensation to the losing team. Ending penalties for the signing team would seem like be a big win for the players and big market teams.
i particularly prefer that the losing of the pick is eliminated myself. if they were keeping the compensation than it should have been a sandwich pick. perhaps this is the overall compromise that makes the players accept the revenue sharing not being cut.
Teams are disincentivized to resign or extend their own players if they know that they can recoup value in the form of draft picks for their players leaving.
It ties into the whole tanking as a strategy for winning conversation. Players actively want steps taken to stop incentivizing teams not actively working to improve or maintain their roster.
The draft lottery is one such step. Ending draft pick compensation entirely and saying that if a player leaves you get nothing is as well, as it makes it more likely that teams would make active attempts to keep their players knowing they get nothing if they walk.
In reality, I think it has the unintended side effect of more teams punting on the season at the trade deadline knowing that if they hold onto pending free agents, there is no draft pick compensation if they leave.
Line, I think that is too much of a leap for one CBA. Eliminating the cost of signing a free agent removes a significant impediment. Couple that with a draft lottery to reduce the incentive to tank. If those aren’t sufficient, take another step at the next CBA.
The type of player that would result in a meaningful draft pick- the highest would be a supplemental first round pick- would be one who is paid among the top 100- 125 players in the game, so the draft pick won’t be a real incentive to let that player go.
Yeah I mean I’m not necessarily arguing for it even — personally, I do think there is legitimacy to the idea that small market teams require some level of free agent compensation to help them continue to develop talent to compete with big market organizations. I think that there is truth to the players arguments that tanking has reached new heights as teams use analytics models to continue to justify not investing in rosters, as well. It is a complex problem that is generally painted in an overly simplistic fashion by two sides who have something to gain by that framing.
Mostly, I was just explaining the players side here which is that giving draft picks to let your players walks incentivizes making your roster weaker. Between pushing back on cap/tax issues and ownership calls for increased punishment, loss of draft picks for signing players, draft lottery, and the draft pick compensation, this probably rates the lowest in terms of what moves the needle for players in terms of anti-tanking/disincentivizing free agent spending.
Trading a vet at deadline and getting almost ready players is much different than a draft pick who may still need 3-5 years in the minors.
I don’t think it has huge impact on deadline trades
It’s a win for both and remember NFL does this as well
Offering a QO isn’t the same as letting a player just walk away. It’s an active effort by the team to retain the player.
Maybe the method for setting the QO salary could be adjusted. But the idea for draft compensation when a player rejects a QO is to help smaller market teams retain enough talent to try to compete in a system with no hard payroll cap. It’s really the opposite of encouraging tanking.
It will absolutely have an impact by increasing deadline trades bc teams will no longer have that failsafe to fall back on. The result will be that more teams that are close to contention but behind in standings will choose to sell upcoming free agents instead of potentially holding onto those players to make a run knowing that they still have the potential free agent compensation picks as a fall back should it not work out.
In recent years alone, many teams that were outside of a playoff spot held onto assets through the deadline bc a) they were within ear shot of a playoff spot and b) felt that the deals offered didn’t justify punting on the season at the deadline given that the pending free agents would net draft compensation. Just looking through some of the players that fall into this category: Mets with Wheeler, Giants w/ Gausman and both Bum & Smith the year prior, Reds w/ Bauer, Phillies w/ Realmuto (less likely given they resigned him), Whitesox w/ Abreu, Angels w/ Iglesias, Reds w/ Castellanos, Rockies w/ Story (though this one was still surprising given how far out they were and it seems like a stretch that they didn’t receive offers better than the value of the picks).
There is almost no chance that some of those players don’t get moved at the deadline if draft compensation isn’t a thing.
Well, players would want some qualifier such as offering arbitration to the player to get that draft pick.
I’m all for teams that raise a player in their system and can’t afford to keep him being compensated, but that has been more the exception in the current system. Teams that kept their players for six years generally are the bigger market teams that can afford the 5th and 6th year of arby for the top players. Smaller market teams don’t want the player to walk for nothing, so they wind up trading them more often than not.
It depends if they institute a payroll floor. With no floor you’re right. Having a floor with penalties means a small market club, with no chance in July, will have to keep their higher paid players and not sell for prospects. Assuming that the payroll is counted at years end , like for LT purposes.
Why would it be a big win for the players? Only a dozen players a year or so turn down a QO and the superstars are not affected at all by a QO. So it helps 5-6 players??
Its a small win for the players, but to get that win they would have to give the owners stiffer penalties on going over the CBT. The MLBPA has already said that they want lowered, not raised penalties for going over the CBT threshold.
The players will not make that swap. We can only hope that the owners’ draconian penalties are just their last absurd stalling point and they’ll toss it out on Saturday, or very soon.
If the players get rid of their proposal to reduce revenue sharing, that would be a fair swap. Two bad ideas gone and we’re much closer to a deal that can be settled by numbers rather than “principles”
Manfred has said he was getting rid of the compensation draft pick for weeks.
Why Angel fans were obsessed with the loss of a draft pick when they signed Thor was beyond me. Sure it might still happen, but what might happen should not affect a team’s decision to sign a free agent.
I’m assuming that the draft pick compensation loss would begin with the 2023 draft as baseball decisions to not trade players during the 2021 season (not to mention decisions at the start of the offseason including whether or not to sign free agents that cost picks) were made based on the old model of compensation but who knows… I guess we’ll see when the ink dries
It’s possible, but why would you assume that? Long ago he said it was gone. The owners knew that.
It’s possible, but I doubt it.
To not sign a player because it was possible a team might lose a draft pick would have been a silly move.
Tell that to the Mets who legitimately avoided every QO FA because it would cost them the #14 overall pick in the draft bc of the Rocker situation.
Pretty much everything published on this at the time of Free Agency was saying to expect that any changes to free agency compensation would not impact the draft until 2023.
Because they could only draft 19 pitchers instead of 20.
lol, “The price should never matter when buying something.” Seems like we found JeDi’s burner ya’ll.
eh, kinda like losing the game winning rbi. There have been a number of great compensatory draft picks.. just take it away from the new clubs loss of draft pick, . go back to the old system, get draft pick for loss of free agent not signing a free agent
Kinda forces trades of players knowing their will be no compensation for free agent loss.
It’s a shame to see this considered a “big” win. It’s is absolutely dwarfed by the other issues. Owners are going to. pound this mantra into the ground. “We gave up A, B, and C” that wasn’t in last CBA to make it look like they are giving in “more” than the players. Meanwhile the sum of all those parts is a fraction of even one of the major issues, CBT structure. The bottom line is that team revenues have soared since the last CBA and payrolls are flat. That needs to be fixed to fairness above all else
Its neither a new ask by the owners, nor did the owners offer it without asking for a large concession from the player’s union.
MLB asked for increased penalties on the CBT in exchange for no draft pick compensation for signing free agents with a QO. The CBT portion is not something the union is willing to give the owners. So this is dead in the water.
Saying its “agreed to” is a complete lie by Manfred unless he is just saying all the owners agreed to it. .
Go pound sand Manfred!
end of draft pick compensation big win for who owners”?
They way they’ve picked to do it is a big loss for the fans. Fewer players will stay with their team for as long. (Yes, I know this type of compensation existed before, never liked it.) What they should do is offer draft pick compensation for re-signing a player long term, not for letting them walk. We need more continuity, more jerseys a fan can buy securely.
MLB’s offer isn’t that good for players either though, because their former team is usually one of the prime bidders, and this compensation bribes them to not bid. That makes the eventual contract signed smaller.
Sounds like the old school type a and type b free agent set up with sone tweaks.
It does make more sense to compensate teams for losing players than punish teams for signing them IMO.
That is the NFL model, with free agent signings and losses balancing out and comp picks determined by contract and playing time of the player who left.
Thinking the same, looks like a return to the old Type A & B free agent system. Now why exactly was it replaced with the current one? Hmm.
I’m not sure it makes sense to compensate teams for losing players to free agency at all. Those teams have already captured the benefit of these players for years at sub-market salaries. So by what logic do those teams deserve compensation for not paying them at market rates when they become free agents? Seems to me just a continuation of the weird economics of baseball labor that assumes nobody deserves to get paid what the market will bear.
The market is not an even playing field.
It’s designed to be uneven. The unevenness isn’t a function of anything but MLB’s lopsided revenue model.
Please please please
With the DH coming, I need to prepare my trivia knowledge. I need the following answers!
Last pitcher to get a hit? (Zack Greinke in the World Series
Last Pitcher to get a hit in the regular Season?
Last pitcher to hit a homerun (Bumgarner)?
These are the answers I need!
D)All of the above, Ohtani
Exactly. Hard to forget anyone has forgotten about Ohtani already.
No the Greinke one remains correct
It may end up correct.
Ohtani had 12 hits and 3 homeruns as a pitcher last year (meaning when he pitched). The last pitcher to register a hit is Greinke which was in the World Series. The last pitcher to hit a homerun I think was Logan Webb actually
because he’s not listed as the pitcher in the batting order but DH most of the time?
Until the second game of the Angels season, if not sooner.
I’m pretty sure Ohtani is listed as a pitcher in the batting order. They forfeit the DH slot.
Last pitcher to hit a grand slam;
Daniel Ricardo Camarena
off of Max Scherzer!
Tony LaRussa always had a talent for losing the DH and getting his AL relievers to the plate. We’ll see another pitcher get a hit someday, even excluding Ohtani games.
MLBPA better fight for higher min salary.
They always do in beginning, but it gets lost in shuffle. Union fights for younger players knowing it’ll push the ceiling up too. But ultimately the players representing the players union were past rookie status and league minimums a long time ago.and they’re gonna look out for vets 1st
The players have to approve the deal, right? So since more than 50% are pre-arb players, they should have the leverage to fight for a higher minimum salary.
The gap is:
Owners offering $615K for less than one year service
650 K for 1- 2 years
700 K for over 2 years
But all these numbers would be fixed, teams can’t pay more except on multi year contracts So the minimums are maximums as well
Then super 2 arbitration
Players propose $750K increasing to 850K over five years
They should seize the three tier structure in the owners’ proposal and don’t budge much on the first year minimum. It’s about all they’re getting in this CBA
The owners proposal is not happening. Currently the best pre-arb players make more than the minimum. with some making as much as $1.4 million in 2021 Under the 3 tier system the owners proposed they would be locked in at those salaries period regardless of how well they played AND there would be no increases to that tiered system for 5 seasons. The players need to stick to their guns on this one.
To be fair, the owners are open to the idea of a bonus pool for top pre-arb performers. I’m still in favor of a much higher minimum salary for all pre-arb players. I’d rather 600 players get more than 30 split $10M+.
With DH look for the Mets to go for Kyle Schwarber or Nelson Cruz
The Mets already have too many position players as is and are pretty much stuck with Cano. They might sign more FAs, but I bet they won’t be a primary DH.
the answer is Davis, Smith, McNeil, or Cano
I can see McNeil being traded and they might not get much considering his cost
the answer is that, one way or another, at least 1 or 2 of those guys are going to be moved
They’ll still lose.
The addition of the universal DH does not create 15 new jobs. Most players that will slide in at DH are already on the roster. However it will likely create some openings for much older players to continue playing; Pubols,Cruz…
Right. It creates 15 new spots in the lineup for teams to use hitters (as I wrote) and could create “a handful” of new jobs. Even American League teams don’t all use dedicated designated hitters, but a universal DH would certainly still be a boon for the markets of guys like Cruz, Castellanos, Schwarber, etc. — assuming it is ultimately implemented, that is.
And while I fully expect that it will be implemented in the end, Manfred sort of framed his statement as “It’s in place, done deal” today, which isn’t really correct just yet.
I appreciate this look at things. I personally prefer things the way they are, but I see why both sides want it and am kinda resigned to the fact that it’s inevitable at this point. I still doubt that these benefits outweigh fan anger, but there are indeed reasons to believe otherwise.
Seems two separate issues are being stitched together here. A universal DH adds no roster spots, so in effect it knocks another player off the roster. The reason the union likes this is because the DH players are probably going to be at the higher end of the pay scale and the players knocked off the roster are likely going to be utility or bench players at the lower end of the scale.
Yes, and teams have DH s that could be traded, like Gallo?
Manfred stretched the truth…again? Say it isn’t so Steve.
Yeah it’s always irked me when they say “new jobs”. Each team has 26 jobs at a time for players. American League teams haven’t had an extra roster spot all these years and national league teams aren’t getting another one so no new job was created
It’s a fair gripe, although my counter would be that for someone like Nelson Cruz, it does create a new job opportunity he likely wouldn’t have otherwise had. And most NL teams would probably have used that 26th roster spot on a league-minimum/pre-arbitration player — whereas with a DH, there’d be greater incentive to at least sign an additional veteran for the bench who could, say, rotate through the OF and spend some time at DH when matchups dictate.
Even if you’re only using the universal DH as a means of making it easier to sign an Andrew McCutchen type as a platoon LF/DH, you’re still swapping out a league-min roster spot for one that’ll pay a player a few million bucks.
As for the more hard-line semantics, though, I understand the criticism and probably could have framed it more appropriately.
I’ll bet Ohtani still hits on days he pitches.
We can agree to disagree. Thanks for the great articles
The difference in pay between a DH and a 26th man
How many extra years did Pujols get because of the possibility he could DH?
Spoken like a true Angels’ fan! (but true)
ppujols was a pure money move by the owner.
I actually think adding the DH gets rid of jobs, particularly for middle relievers.
That Man Fred is sure a piece of work.
I don’t think he’s actually optimistic, but he said two things I like. That’s 2 more than usual. Good job, Rob.
Like cogs on an idiot wheel so are the MLB days of Rob Manfred.
Another win for negativity.
I SUPPORT THE OWNERS!
I really hope this isn’t posturing from MLB to set up players for blame when they don’t start on time. With all that’s happened so far, it smells fishy to me. I really am beginning to resent the owners/MLB on these negotiations. Don’t get me wrong, I think the players have asked in total for more drastic changes than are reasonable in one bargaining session, but I see no movement or sense of urgency from MLB. I really feel they are slow playing to get public sentiment against MLBPA, but I’m not biting on that.
The owners proposed eliminating arbitration entirely
Replacing six year service time with age system that would mean 7 to 10 years for most players under team control
Still proposing that the minimum salary also be a maximum
Still proposing less than one percent annual increase in the CBT threshold over five years
Still proposing increasing the CBT tax from 20 percent to 50 percent, plus draft pick penalties for first time offenders
Their proposals are much more radical than anything the players have proposed, IMO
Patrick, I think you are right.
There has to be some kind of luxory tax threshold. It should be reasonably increased. There has to be some kind of system in place to avoid teams from tanking. Young players need to get paid. There needs to be an incentive for owners to promote its best young players.
If the owners want to go out and mortage their future signing players like Pujols, then they deserve what they get. But the players can’t expect teams to do that. Pay them earlier, and don’t expect so much later.
If team’s take care of the young players, then a luxury threshold which makes sense… makes sense.
The elimination of arbitration coupled with maximum salaries and age-based free agency would be a disaster for players. I wonder if MLB delivered it with a straight face?
Making proposals that have no chance of being agreed to was just part of the strategy of stalling. Owners want to maximize the leverage of lost games to get their best deal.
One can only hope that the draconian penalties being proposed for the CBT tax and thresholds are also just stalling tactics. Once those go away, and the players drop their cuts to revenue sharing, most of the rest is closing numbers gaps.
@Darren Wheeler, I don’t doubt MLB wants to shift public sentiment against the MLBPA, yet as I noted elsewhere, that’s a losing hand. If the public turns against the players, then the public turns against MLB. No business wants to damage their product, and the players are the product. The owners lose either way here.
And yet, some fans with short/no memories are saying “bring on the replacement players,” as if that wouldn’t the repeat of a disaster. But as some wiseguy once said, “history repeats itself. That’s the problem with history.”
I wouldn’t mind it. It’s an opportunity and dream made possible. Yes, I was to young to recall 94/95. But, if that makes me horrible person, to you, I’m sorry.
Hyperbole alert. No, it doesn’t make you a “horrible person,” just uninformed. Some of us remember the inept baseball played in 1995 spring training by minor league washouts and weekend warriors. It was as completely embarrassing to the sport as you might imagine and if it had carried over into the regular season as threatened by MLB it would been huge blow to the sport’s reputation.
So, you still watched? And all players who had the opportunity, agreed to the condition of employment still played?
Completely embarrassing? I go to aaa and high school games and have just as pleasant of a time as mlb.
Just enough, and the stories ran in all the papers. A person would have be unconscious to not know what was going on, even if they weren’t a baseball fan. Not sure what you mean by the second statement.
Yeah, you’re uninformed about what the scab play was like. It wasn’t triple-A or even low-A level, it was mostly fumbling and bumbling amateurs and no-hope minor leaguers. So I’m trying to inform you here. This is nothing any baseball fans should to wish to see in any major league ballpark.
Were mlb players allowed to come back and “cross the picket?”
If so, I truly see no issues whatsoever.
Not sure what you mean by allowed, but no major league players scabbed then, and most likely none would now. Not many minor leaguers did either. If you want to see amateur or semi-pro baseball being played by all means seek that out. Nobody who calls themselves a fan of major league baseball should want to see that kind of play in major league parks.
Lou Whitaker played 92 out of 115, Gibby 98, Tram 76, Fielder 109, Travis Fryman 114, Tony Phillips 114. Pretty big name for my Tigs.
I could honestly be looking at it wrong, to be fair. 1994 was the season correct? But, 1995 looks the similar.
Newman, the replacement players played for part of spring training in 1995. None played regular season games, and no major leaguers played with the replacements in spring training.
Ahh, gotcha. That makes sense
If I remember right, I heard Sparky said he would not manage a team of Scabs/Non-Major Leaguers.
He was Blacklisted & never offered another Managers Position..
@Newman Not to mention, in the case of using scab players, there is NO WAY they’d lower prices at the ballpark to what you’re used to paying to see those minor league games you talked about enjoying. Would you pay major league prices for minor league product? I for one would not.
You don’t pay MLB prices to go see AAA and high school games. In fact, the high school games are free. You can sit behind home plate at AAA games for less than $20. Its not the same product on the field and that is obvious from the price you pay to see it.
True, and further we can easily imagine the size of the asterisk that would be required for the results of any season involving scabs playing games that actually counted.
I know what I’m paying for & that’s just fine. You can call them scabs, I’ll call them ball players. Don’t care if Sparky, or anyone else doesn’t want to coach ball players not on the Union wallet. If the market is there great, and if not, something will take its place.
Asterisks for what? They’re not cheating.
I’m not going to get irate at anyone, willingly paying people to make a living playing a game. Mlb or anyone else.
Acting like players don’t have fantastic opportunities, and a choice at that, is getting old. I don’t here cries toward Bezos or other vastly richer people.. but, since they rightfully bought an mlb franchise, they are horrible human beings? Things are bigger in life, than entertainment of a game of catch.
If I have to explain it to you then I can’t explain it to you. It’s definitely that sort of thing.
Blue: I think the conversation content in the thread demonstrates by itself how negatively this impacts the game. The owners effectively turned the convo into “how much money do these guys need?”
@outinleftfield Gosh, I wish I had your AAA team prices. $20 doesn’t get you a seat anywhere at a River Cats game, you’ll have to sit on the grass. The Giants actually have some cheaper tickets than anything you can get at a River Cats game, and the Giants will even give you a seat for that instead of grass.
@Yankee Clipper. Exactly. A lot of this “screw the players” attitude I think stems from player salaries being made public and ownership profits kept secret (even from the players). If I was negotiating on behalf of the players, I would insist on all of these numbers either being made public or kept private. Put an end to the spinning of public perception about who is being the “greedy” party in these negotiations and watch fan attitudes change. Maybe more would remember they show up to see the players play, not to watch the owners own, and they really do like watching Major League Baseball, which has always been a competition between the best players in world (and not a bunch of bums who couldn’t get work in the game if they paid for it).
Both sides have postured for sure. I agree that this smells fishy by the owners.
If the two sides agree to eliminate pick compensation for free agents in the next CBA, what will happen to the current class of free agents who rejected qualifying offers (for example, the Blue Jays would under normal circumstances of the old CBA recieve two compensation picks for losing Marcus Semien and Robbie Ray in free agency)? Will their respective previous teams be compensated in a different manner, or simply lose those picks?
I’m not positive, but I’d assume already done deals would be grandfathered into old rules and everything signed after would fall under new rules. But who knows
Yes, the done deals were all necessarily done under the old CBA.
It is possible that the new rules won’t even apply to those who have not signed yet, but I would think the players want them unchained from compensation as well.
There are just five free agents remaining who declined qualifying offers
Carlos Correa
Nick Castellanos
Trevor Story
Michael Conforto
Freddie Freeman
I’m not sure that losing a second or third round pick would deter a team that really wanted to sign them anyway. It’s a point to be negotiated.
I would imagine it would be something that starts down the line. changing the rules mid-FA is a good way to bring grievances into play.
The players can file a grievance about anything, but why wouldn’t it be part of the new CBA. There are players that are still unsigned.
This is the least kept secret in baseball.
15yearold.
The owners knew that the compensation pick was likely going away.
This is not coming as a surprise to anyone and may better explain why Kershaw did not get a qualifying offer.
I’m wondering if the QO system stays but now the team that signs the player who rejects a QO no longer forfeits a draft pick. You still won’t offer a guy a 1yr/20Mil deal unless he is worth close to it. Teams still get compensated for losing that player but the QO will no longer prevent the Kimbrel, Kuechel, and Martinez types from signing with a QO attached.
F U and the universal DH. Buh bye
Right, because watching pitchers hit is so much fun.
It can be. Who doesn’t remember Randy Johnson swinging and falling down? It was hilarious.
@rememberthecoop The argument against the DH has never been about watching pitchers hit, and I never understand why pro-DH fans bring that up as if that were the only factor.
I will say though, that we’re in an era of baseball where small ball is dead. Joy the NL game has changed dramatically. I hate the DH, but I’m for it at this point. The game has lost the small ball mindset a few years ago anyway.
@von other players can bunt, too. Also, have you seen most pitchers try to even bunt? It’s not as if we’re taking anyone away from what they do particularly well.
The argument for a DH is actually a pretty weak argument when you look at the data. It isn’t like games with DHs have a lot more scoring (something like 0.1 runs per game) or hitting than games without. Check the data.
Meanwhile, the slash line for DH vs pitchers continue to grow farther apart when you check at data. That is what people actually look at and talk about. Not the runs per game.
Who helped grandpa set up the computer?
No surprise on ending payment of compensation for signing a QO free agent. The owners put that on the table last round in exchange for an international draft, and the players were all set to go for it until a large group of Latino players vehemently objected. Those kids don’t have the same leverage that a north American prospect has. But they gave MLB the hard bonus limits anyway.
Owners are happy to end the system because it applies to fewer and fewer players each year, and it has helped larger market teams more than smaller ones, who tend to trade those players before free agency.
Teams receiving compensation for losing a free agent was always part of the offer, but there are criteria. Teams that pay a tax are severely penalized, and revenue sharing payers get lower round comp picks. It’s another of MLB’s penalties to pile on teams that spend over the de facto salary cap.
We live in a greedy world where everyone squeezes everyone for everything they’ve got and the only ones with any real money are the ones selling the juicer
Put them in a room, no food, no water, no phones etc….nobody leaves until it’s worked out, otherwise this drags out another month.
Manfred makes a great stable hand. He’s so good at shoveling…stuff.
Put up or shut up manfred. You can cry to the media all you want, but when you won’t have an engaging conversation with the MLBPA. Noone has any sympathy for you or the owners.
you’re telling him to put up or shut up but the dude just delivered a proposal
Lol
No. MLB didn’t deliver a proposal. They are scheduled to do that Saturday. All Manfred did was reiterate offers that MLB made earlier. Might want to read the article again.
I SUPPORT THE OWNERS.
I do not thank you for your service.
RobM supports ALL masses of mlbpa ball players, who have served and paved the way for entertainment, to all those ungrateful troops.
I do, but I disagree strongly with your stance here. MLBPA isn’t much better, though.
I thought the SS Bootlicker was decommissioned a long time ago.
I’ll believe that the season will start on time when they’ve reached an agreement, not before. My guess is opening day will be in June or July, based on the egos involved.
Manfred sucks. Doubtful there will be a full season.
The Dodgers can win another 1/3-season championship and pretend it’s a real one!
Universal DH FTW.
Manfred needs to be a realist. Maybe he’s living in a fantasy world. I can’t see this thing not delaying the start of the regular season. Now, he might be thinking with 7 inning double headers they could start late and still play 162. But I can’t possibly envision an offer Saturday that could lead to significant progress. MLB is tone deaf.
He knows it’s going to get delayed. He’s simply setting the narrative to show they were allegedly prepared to move forward in good faith when they come back with a terrible counter proposal – then he will blame the PA, just like his “phone works two ways” which avoided the question and placed unfair blame on the PA when it was out of their control and he knows it.
How soon did a season come together after the 2000 agreement?
If an agreement is in place by the last full week of February, which is entirely possible, no game will be missed.
My bet is zero games are missed.
In 2000 the MLBPA exercised its option to extend the then current CBA through the end of the 2001 calender year. In 2002 the season began in similar vain as 1994 with no CBA in place the MLBPA imposed an August 30th deadline for a new agreement or the players would strike. An agreement was literally reached with mere hours before the first game was scheduled which would have been the beginning of the strike.
You may be thinking of 1990 when the owners locked out the players in February right before the start of spring training. A resolution came on March 19th and opening day was delayed a week. That could still miraculously happen but unlike 1990, which basically had a normal offseason there are still tons of players left in free agency, contracts and arbitration still to have to go through and i don’t think the players and the teams would be ready to go in three weeks time.
Halo11: I would / did agree up until this conference, but the season to which you’re referencing had one major exception – it wasn’t a lockout. I think that move complicated matters; whether the actual process should or shouldn’t is another story.
Anyway, they could theoretically make it happen by 31 March, but I don’t see it at this point. I’m also wrong at least once per day, so I very well could be on this too.
I meant to type 2020. After they came to a Covid agreement the seasons started up relatively quickly.
Because the still have a couple of weeks, I’m not worried about the season starting on time. Of course when the data changes, my opinion will change.
Both sides want to get it done.
They came to a COVID agreement on March 28th 2020. MLB stalled and stalled and finally brought a new proposal to the table in mid-June. When did the season start? July!
Unsigned players aren’t that big a problem for a fast spring training — they’d form their own separate spring training camp and play intersquad games with each other until their numbers dwindle.
It’s never “out of their control” — no answer means no answer. If you ask for something absurd that you know you won’t get, why should you get an answer.
BTW they got a “Not a bad idea on the pool, but $110 MM is out of the question. And so is $100. Get real!”
Well, what I mean is that the purpose for negotiation is a back-and-forth. You can’t claim time as a problem when your side wasted a TON of it by ignoring the other side regardless of how ridiculous the proposal. If that were acceptable, nobody would ever respond. They said they were going to respond in a few days and it took six weeks. That’s not acceptable. That timeframe is outside the PA’s control and has nothing to do with both sides having a phone.
My guess is $1M per team, $30,000,000
That is what they will agree on.
Simple Simon, MLB offered $10 million but that would only be available to players that were in top 3-5 in 3 awards. In a typical season 1-3 players would make the cut. That is a joke and they knew it.
Once the concept is agreed to, how much and how to spend it is the negotiation.
The one and only thing Manfred has to do is be able to count to 16.
So true. He doesn’t report to the Union or anyone dissing him in these comments.
He can wait until the PA is reasonable, then agree,but he has to have the support of the owners who are rich because they don’t do stupid things. Except Mets owners. Including the new one who truly has more money than brains
“Phones work two ways” says it all. What a tool bag. So they took forever to return a counter proposal and that’s the lame excuse?
Anyway, draft picks compensation doesn’t sound like it ended, it sounds like it just changed a bit in how the pick is assigned & determined. They need to stop pampering small market teams with extra, extra, extra rewards for losing, then losing & not Re-signing FAs. Reward winning – it’s a thing.
@Yankee Clipper
Your inability to empathize with small-market teams & their fans is quite remarkable. Oblivious or just plain selfish?
No, it’s not lack of empathy, it’s simple, really, it’s intentional manipulation of drafts, players, & teams’ abilities to compete. Your naïveté to small-market bias league-wide is incredible.
I’m not here to be empathetic to competition. I don’t want every team to win in a fair schedule. That’s not sports – that’s everyone gets a trophy.
No it’s an attempt to level the playing-field, no more, no less, and you know that, but you instead choose to deflect from your self-centered large-market bias perspective.
$600MM+ revenue vs $250-$300MM — $200MM+ payroll vs $100MM — and you complain about “intentional manipulation of drafts”, seriously? Like this is soooooooo unfair to the behemoths, who can spend tens of millions more on infrastructure as yet another advantage that NEVER gets talked about. I could go on for 4-5 more paragraphs of competitive advantages realized by the large-markets but won’t.
That was a depressing press conference by Manfred. It’s a PR stunt; a setup for when the players reject Saturday’s weak proposal (it will be weak). He simply wants to try and shift the public perception of blame toward the players. A stupid strategy, btw, because the players are the product. Management and owners lose when they damage their product.
The owners have made few concessions and there have no “agreements.” despite what Manfred said. Their most consistent strategy is delaying negotiations, then trying to blame the players for the delay. They locked the players out on December 1, then didn’t make a proposal or schedule a meeting for six weeks. It will be 10 days on Saturday since the players last proposal, even though owners originally said they’d respond within two.
The owners want the Universal DH as much, if not more, than the players right now. They consider it a necessity long term for expansion and realignment. Manfred as indicated as such in the past. They need both leagues playing by the same rules. That’s not a concession. That’s a get by owners. The proposal to increase the minimum salary actually comes in under inflation since the last CBA, representing a pay cut! The luxury tax thresholds have never been indexed, so the increase proposed by owners also represents no progress.
Manfred always puts his foot in his mouth, which is surprising for someone who is trained as an attorney. His statement regarding the value on franchises is the latest. He also claimed there’s never been a loss of games since he’s been involved in negotiations. He conveniently ignores he advised management in the 1994 work stoppage that included the loss of the World Series.
I hope management makes a serious proposal on Saturday. If so, it will be their first. I’m not optimistic. There will be no movement until the owners get serious. So far they haven’t. Ugh. Reminder: Baseball is not dead; it’s is the second wealthiest sports league in the entire world, only behind the NFL.
Yeah, very true RobM. But, I think the ownership problem is groupthink. They’re cordoned off in their ownership silos and they affirm each other’s views. It’s the worst type of reinforcement. They need objectivity but attack it when they hear it. This is history repeating itself because of egos, nothing more.
BTW, I am most often pro-owner, but I am not throughout this negotiation cycle. Although I understand this is simply a business process, and I’m not emotionally invested, owners have demonstrated to me a clear willingness to push their money-savings agenda at all costs. Lockout was a mistake, imo, and they’re doubling down for the sake of trying to force their goal.
Yes, and I’ve said similar, meaning we all shouldn’t get too wrapped up in the words. The best solution is to ignore what’s going on, wait until I hear there’s news on an agreement, and then re-engage. Unfortunately, I saw Manfred’s press conference, and it supremely annoyed me, mostly because I believe it’s setting up his next press conference when he blames players and we are back at a standstill.
RobM: perfectly said & it’s exactly how I feel. Really, imo, Manfred compounds the problem because he has no tact, he’s just a mouthpiece who seems to confirm the biases of everyone who has an opposing view. When he resorts to blaming & telegraphing his next move, it’s almost embarrassing.
The owners want the best deal possible, they don;t really care how they are perceived. You can totally see it in everything they do.
The draft compensation thing is a riot. MLB acts like they have made some big concession when in reality they have made it easier for teams to be cheap and get compensated for it.
As much as the owners use sleazy negotiating tactics they are winning big time right now. The MLBPA is going to get a 2% increase in the minimum league salary and nothing else by the time this is over
This is all posturing before their proposal comes out so that when it contains tiny concessions, they can point the finger at the players in blame.
Finally. DeGrom blew his side out swinging the bat last year and missed 15 starts. Long overdue
Does anyone actually believe this lying sack of shiitake mushrooms?
No. I said on day one he’s totally corrupt and it’ll be a total disaster with him
Obviously I was right
How is he corrupt?
Do you believe everything the MLBPA says?
It’s a matter of determining what MLB asked for in exchange for this public relations, supposed compromise. Manfred lacks nuance.
My Feb 7th prediction for the lockout ending has gone by the wayside
Plenty of money for both sides to get fat without quibbling over a couple of percentage points. Manfred is a Puppet, and never had an original thought in his life.
Like Trevor May said, Manfred isn’t going to magically become a nice guy and concede to a fair agreement. Because the parasite is just there to suck the host dry
This is the problem, and I said it the instant he was announced as commissioner, of having an improvident, “vampire” type of personality as the commissioner
Who defines “fair”?
Me
If you think Manfred is an attack dog, it might be worth your while to consider who holds the other end of the chain.
I truly do not understand how he is labeled a “vampire.” Rob Manfred is a negotiator, it’s his job. If you really believe he’s doing something unethical or immoral, I get it.
When we see players leaving the game, due to poor working conditions and sub-standard wages, I’ll be right on board w/ you. When we see owners slashing the behind the scene workers salaries & benefits, I’ll especially be on board with you.
But, I highly suggest trusting the concession process, & hope for satisfaction for all parties involved.
You’re right. So many people on here jump to a narrative and hedge their whole stance on it. They prejudice themselves with it. Why is he such a villain? I “side” with the players, but I understand the owner’s perspective and don’t want them to be eradicated.
I keep saying the players will fold… once Scherzer sees he is losing 5 million a month cole 4 million a month etc, the middling players who seemed to get squeezed out are getting squeezed to zero salary, the players who will be breaking camp for first time won’t even have their meager minor league salaries , they will fold and do whatever it takes to get an agreement
I think that may be what is going on. The owners just slow walk everything until the players can’t take their financial losses anymore and they fold. The players current salaries are much better than zero.
If the season starts at all, the players don’t lose a dime in salary if they are already under contract. The union has been setting aside 100% of the $180+ million in licensing and merchandise revenue the players receive each season since Meyer took over as the lead negotiator in 2018. That money has been put in a pool to help compensate players in case the season doesn’t start on time. A portion of union dues has also been added to that pool. Since players don’t miss a paycheck until a couple weeks after the regular season starts, none of them will really be under any pressure to reach an agreement until June or July. Can the owners who have had revenue losses in 2020 get through half a season with exactly zero revenue if the 2022 season doesn’t start on time?
When will the MLB ever end the stupid 3 batter minimum rule???
Speeds up the game. they probably should get ONE mulligan.
It really doesn’t. We spend the same amount of time watching the LOOGY get knocked around by RH hitters waiting to face the next lefty
hitter as we would if they let the Manager change Pitchers like before
Don’t let the singular smother the plural
Games got longer. So how exactly did it speed up the game?
Other factors are leading to the game slowing. Nothing is more boring than the third pitching change/commercial break in a half inning. Relievers need to learn to pitch to more than one batter.
It’s not worth caring about.
When managers stop pitching relievers one batter at a time.
Question for everyone…
If the owners decided to end the lockout, with no deal in place, the previous CBA and all of it’s “satellite” agreements would be reinstated until a new CBA is reached. My question is this……Who thinks that the MLBPA would immediately go on strike?
I think thats what would happen. If the owners never lock out the players the players probably report to spring training as a sign of good faith, but since they did lock the players out even if they lift the lockout now the players would likely strike
Why would the owners play with no contract? Last time they did that the players struck in-season and left the owners holding the bag.
They would stop negotiating and strike in September if they didn’t get their last proposal. Owners had to lock out the players or give up ALL leverage once games began. Dec 2nd I blamed both parties.
So far the MLBPA has made the biggest concessions and been the quickest to the table. Owners biggest “concession” has been a $10Mil bonus pool when a Cedric Mullins type put up a season most clubs would pay $30Mil a year for. The Million dollar prize Pete Alonso won for winning the HR Derby is more than his salaries both those seasons.
If the league addresses the league minimum, provide pre arb players some way to get more $$ when they deserve it, and find a fair way to prevent 1/5 of the league from sitting out of the FA market completely during a 3-5 year “rebuild”, the players would be reporting next week. The league hasn’t offered anything close and instead are trying to paint the players as the villains. I’m personally not buying it for a nickel.
The players would wait for the playoffs to strike, when the owners would be hurt the most.
The owners cannot unilaterally impose the old CBA unless a federal mediator declares an impasse. According to federal labor law they now have to return to the negotiating table. The MLBPA would have to agree to playing under the old CBA and that will not happen.
That’s not how it works.
The previous CBA would continue without a lockout,and those terms include termination of the CBT tax. The players would be operating under that agreement unless they strike, which they are not going to do in April.
From the NLRB website:
It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other, but parties are not compelled to reach agreement or make concessions.
If after sufficient good faith efforts, no agreement can be reached, the employer may declare impasse, and then implement the last offer presented to the union. However, the union may disagree that true impasse has been reached and file a charge of an unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith. The NLRB will determine whether true impasse was reached based on the history of negotiations and the understandings of both parties.
If the Agency finds that impasse was not reached, the employer will be asked to return to the bargaining table. In an extreme case, the NLRB may seek a federal court order to force the employer to bargain.
——————————————————————
This is what happened in 1994-95. The owners insisted on a salary cap and when the players didn’t agree, they declared an impasse. The players filed an unfair labor complaint and the NLRB agreed, then asked the federal court for an injunction which was granted, maintaining the old CBA until a new agreement was reached- two years later.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/employer-union-rights-and-obligations
This is the court ruling from Judge Sotomayor
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/880/246/1408599/
Am I missing something on why disincentivizing teams from resigning their own players could be a problem for the union? isn’t the free market the best way to get them the most money?
You are missing something. That generally is the case that the free market is the most money and that is how it used to be. But look at sports like the nba. The most money to be made is staying with your team they have the right to free more money then anyone else and that’s something I’m sure the union would be thrilled with because it would mean more money in players pockets.
but the NBA has a completely different salary structure with a soft salary cap for teams that makes exceptions for individual players the MLB has nothing like that right now
Its not like Manfred can publicly say there is no chance the season starts on time and there is likely the same no chance of 162 games being played.
Most of us have been saying this was going to be a disaster for the last two years and they certainly haven’t disappointed. I think we all figured the universal DH was coming, so nothing new there. Eliminating the Qualifying Offer (at least as it is now) is a step in the right direction. But the service time elephant is still in the room and still isn’t being addressed and thats going to halt everything
Somewhere, Zack Greinke is crying
Welp, I found out I’ll be in Phoenix for business the third week of March. I’m hopeful to get a couple of ST games in.
Teams pay good draft bonuses for good prospects, provide years of professional coaching and training, give pretty fair first year salaries, and all get annual increases and some are very good for guys still learning the game, and studs get substantial raises or long term contracts.
After 3 years (or 2.5 for some) they get commensurate raises during arbitration.
After all the investment in player development — most aren’t ready for MLB even in 6 years — these guys are doing better than their most likely alternative: teaching high school PE if they have degrees or bagging groceries if they made it through 12th grade.
How many reading wouldn’t trade their 20’s and get paid for playing a game if they could?
Beats joining the Navy and seeing the world.
Even “organizational” guys hang with it for years trying to grab the Golden Ring.
Not very many are lucky enough to win the “start a great company lottery” or inherit their wealth and can buy a team.
Quit whining and suit up!
You don’t think the owners make tons of money, many of which do so whilst not even trying to win?
Sure most of them make “tons of money” — how did they get rich enough to bean Owner.
Players should be glad they get a well paid job that’s puts them in the 1% club in earnings.
A 3-year career gets you enough money to do whatever you want to get a long career started.
And you probably had fun.
When a worker is extremely well compensated, how much the owner makes is not really relevant.
MLB revenues have been soaring over the past five years while the average player salary has declined and the median salary has dropped by over 30 percent.
Players are absolutely right to want their share of the profits in the game, and they have every right to strike until they get it. They provide unique skills that nobody else has. They are the best baseball players in the world. They deserve their cut.
Funny thing that a lot of people on here say that about the “tons of money” and it isn’t even proven to be close to true. Forbes (a respectable source) notes that MLB teams profit margin is between 2% and 12% annually, that isn’t a great return on investment and by itself makes that type of business very hard to get the bankers to let them borrow money against if they don’t have other businesses to boost their bottom line!
It’s all relative but those numbers are not true. If it were teams would release that because it would bolster their argument. 2%-12% profit margin? No way. Yankees made almost $700B in revenue – only ~30% that is roster payroll which drops like a rock in ‘23. The profit margin there is probably the inverse.
Teams are like Movie Studios. They cook their books to add phantom expenses. They’re making a lot more money than they say they are, and they don’t have to show their books to anyone.
George bought the Yanks for 10 million and now they are worth over 5 billion!
Simpleton Simon is Rob Manfred’s burner account.
I’m old enough to have lived through multiple MLB work stoppages and I’ve usually been on the owners’ side. This time is different. Ownership had the Disneyland of CBAs after 2016 and they took full advantage and worked every angle. Manfred claiming a franchise is risker than the stock market is rich. Maybe poorly-run franchises will have cash flow problems in down years, but the underlying asset will keep appreciating over time. The players are the ones dealing with high risk. I heard over 50 percent of rostered MLB players were a on a first, second or third year league minimum salary last year. $600k sounds like a huge amount of money, but not if you blow out your elbow before getting to arbitration let alone free agency. I hope the players nail the owners to the wall or at least get back to being paid a higher share of revenue.
No one believes “This time is different.”
As the article said, his financial comments verged on the bizarre, though they were perhaps more revealing than he intended. Ownership really wants us fans to believe that they are in this business for altruistic purposes, or maybe these multi-billion dollar investments are a hobby. What a silly idea. All investments live somewhere on the risk-reward spectrum. The more risk an investor is willing to take, the higher the potential reward. If owning a baseball team returns less than the “stock market” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) then it’s because they are less risky investments overall. And that’s what it really comes down to. Be sure these billionaires are no fools about money, and baseball teams have proven to be very safe places to park theirs. The values of the franchises are priced accordingly.
Manfred is the guy who referred to the World Series trophy as “some piece of metal.”
A business that has a profit margin between 2% and 12 actually sucks in today’s market. Forbes agrees with Manfred here on year to year basis he was talking about!
LOL. We know what the two teams that are pubic companies make and its not a 2% profit. They are not even the most profitable teams in baseball and they make closer to 10 times that. We know that the Pirates had $285 million in revenue in 2019 and had a large increase in 2021 due to new national TV contracts signed by MLB. Even with losing a small percentage of ticket sales that make up less than 30% of their revenue, the Pirates brought in close to $300 million in 2021. They spent $64 million on the players on their 40 man roster. That is less than the $70 million or so they received in revenue sharing from the large market teams. They made a profit of around $70 million based on the ratios we see in the publicly held teams books.
A 12% net profit margin is actually good. Only a few dozen companies in the S&P 500 hundred are over that and only 9 of the 30 in the DJI.
In the profit margin as stated the projection this year for lib braves after winning the World series is 11.8 and is projected to fall dramatically this coming financial year. Thus the article from forbes is essentially correct just as Manfred’s statement is correct within those 2-12% for baseball teams. While margin only shows financial health Ie liberty braves is not a good investment for the next few years. Again what Manfred was saying is that. But all projections are just that not true to form per se.
I do not need to hear someone like Cole who makes over $30m a year acting like he is Norma Rae and the players are being oppressed. Both sides suck:
This made me laugh, man… thanks.
I hope Manfred is Manfried for ruining baseball
Why not a DH for all the position players? Why should we expect a DH for pitchers but not expect a DH for the position players? Pitchers only have to do one job while the position players have to do two jobs.
Both of those claims by Manfred are disingenuous. Both require concessions by the MLBPA.
The universal DH proposal, which adds no new jobs and increased pay for only 15 players, is contingent on the MLBPA agreeing to expanded playoffs to 14 teams with no additional pay for players outside of the 30% of the ticket sales they currently get. Its a non-starter. .
The dropping of draft pick compensation, something that only effects the pay of a 13-14 players a year, is contingent on increased penalties in the CBT. Its a non-starter.
Manfred is a weasel.
Manfred does what the 30 Owners tell him to do,
He was right though. Manfred is a weasel. A real man stands up and tells the truth no matter who is telling or paying him to lie.
“He” is you pretending to be someone else.
43 players were given a qualifying offer over the past five years, and only 6 accepted, leaving 37 players who were subject to draft pick compensation being paid by their new team- and some of those even resigned with their old club.
So it’s actually more like 7 players a year.
Who knows what is linked to what? MLB tried to link the DH to expanded playoffs in 2020 and were shot down, then acted like the players were being unreasonable. It was the owners’ fondest wish and the players’ biggest bargaining chip, and they weren’t giving it up for the DH.
Manfred definitely wants a quid pro quo for everything he bargains. He’ll never say “well, we made a few billion dollars more last year, so let’s give the players a share”.
I suspect, and hope, that the draconian CBT penalties are a last major chip that he wants to use when all other terms fall into place. I hope so because it’s a complete non starter with the players and he has to know that. As much as the players want to help the younger guys, they’re not going to harden the de facto salary cap any more.
Inflation is 7.5% and the economy is bad. I have 0.0000000% empathy ( let alone sympathy) for millionaires or billionaires.
Inflation IS 7.5% and the economy is (otherwise) very good. The strongest it’s been in 40 or more years.
Rising wages and record levels of disposable income fueling spending on goods are the two biggest drivers of inflation after the supply chain issues.
The economy is the worst in 40 years. Look at gas and food prices for example. I am anti owners and anti players
@NY_Yankee
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_stock_market_crash#Black_Thursday_(12_March)
https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/basics/crashes/
We get more than enough hyperbole from both sides in these negotiations. Let’s not add our own BS.
No, inflation is the worst it has been in 40 years, the economy is doing very, very well with the highest growth rate in 40 years, with wage growth for the lower two quintiles, and with very, very low unemployment. In economics, a booming economy often creates inflation (related to supply and demand amongst other things). Americans are spending like mad currently but have changed what they buy.
Also, the other thing that is at record highs are corporate profits.
When corporate profits are at record highs, that’s not “inflation” that’s price gouging.
They just call it “inflation” so you get mad at people besides them and things besides their price gouging.
That’s hilarious. The entire reason for the inflation is people have more disposable income and are spending more. Its called supply and demand.. Today there is more demand and supply has stayed the same or went down slightly. Gas prices are lower today when adjusted for inflation than they were during the Reagan or either Bush admins.
It’s inflation not price gouging. Prices are up across the board. Price gouging is when prices are raised due to a temporary high demand vs low supply of goods and services. Not at all what is going on here. Nice spin though.
I predict that most of the people on this thread are going to scream and holler that the owners’ proposal had extremely small compromises! Please ask yourself why you have that perspective? Is it because you think the MLBPA’s outlandish and radical proposals are a legitimate side of negotiations and the owners’ proposal is the legitimate other side of negotiations, therefore the owners’ counter proposal MUST be somewhere close to the middle of those two sides? If you haven’t gotten this yet, you are drinking the MLBPA’s coolaid. How about this?…the owners’ side/position is equally outlandish and radical, i.e. the players must play for free and are the servants of the owners. Now, find the middle ground between those two outlandish and radical proposals! Do you get the point now! Just because the MLBPA put out an outlandish and radical proposal, does Not mean the owners must accept that as a legitimate negotiating starting point. Guarantee lots of posters here are going to yell and scream.
“Never stop servicing The Job Creators!!!”
“I wash my bosses car on the weekends for free!!!”
In what world is the union’s offer outlandish? 3rd year performing players finally getting closer to pay that reflected their contributions on the field is outlandish? $20 million value seasons getting paid under $1 million is fair? A min salary raise is outlandish? Team revenues are at record levels. Increase in CBT threshold is outlandish? Take one look at a graph comparing team revenue to payroll growth since the last CBA and get back to me
Thanks for being here. Isnt there another side to that $20m season 1m salary story. You cop that for the benefit of guaranteed contracts in FA. You can sign for 5 years at $100m, perform to $50m but get the $100m ? You can sign for 3 years for $60m, be injured for 2, don’t perform in the third but get the $60m. Isn’t that the trade off ?
That’s the trade-off in free agency. We are talking about pre-arb players that currently have their salaries dictated to them by the team and capped at a relatively absurdly low number. The ask is not even for full arb for well performing players. The ask is a middle ground between what players would receive if they actually had arb and team-dictated, near minimum salaries.
Ok. So you are happy with being owned for 6 years for the guaranteed contract trade off, but just think pre arb needs to start higher. Cool. Thanks.
I got about 12-15 days before catchers and pitchers are supposed to report but spring training is expected to delayed.
After this press conference, I felt compelled to make an account and start commenting here. You can guess what I am from my username. Manfred is turning this negotiation extra sour with all the lies he just put out there. Some were corrected by his own spokesperson, others not. The chance that the season starts on time is zero. Owners moving on the margins, still refusing to budge on the biggest issues concerning CBT threshold and structure, 3rd year player $, and min salary. Owners trying to make relatively minor concessions on multiple issues to win the PR battle of “look how many areas we are giving in to”, while not negotiating on the major issues that outweigh all others. The union is as united as I’ve ever seen it since I’ve been in and I don’t see an agreement happening anytime soon unless the “new” Saturday proposal makes significant moves, which I do not expect.
At this rate I’ll find a ps5 before the lockout ends and it’s damn near impossible to find a ps5.
Some simple solutions:
1-Up the minimum slightly, but…
Get rid of difference between 40 man status if in minors: if you are on the 40, you get full salary – players on IL get paid so all should
2- removing draft pick and QO system is a win for players, and awarding draft picks to teams losing FA is fair – it will not disincentivize a team from signing own player….players want to negotiate with all teams right? If your team values the draft pick more than you, that’s your fault
3- bump the CBT up, the top tier of FA will still get paid; spending more isn’t an automatic guarantee of success (see LAA)
4 – keep arb and FA years as-is, and accrue service time for big league actual days…players have to earn that. Manipulation is not always real – young players often not ready; if players are getting paid ML $ to be in MiL, they are being compensated
5- if you want a draft lottery with 5-6 teams, fine, but a true NBA style lottery isn’t going to magically make teams better; signing mediocre vet FA has never been a winning strategy
ut a true NBA style lottery isn’t going to magically make teams better
=============================
It will make -0- difference, imo. Especially if the system is that the worst team has more ball in the hopper. I no longer follow the NBA, but I believe the system use to be that the #1 worst record would get 8 ball,s #2 7 balls, etc.
If a team is going to tank, they aren’t going to sign Castellanos simply to decrease their chances of getting the #1 from 8 balls to 7 balls. And if you are restricting it to say, 5-6 teams, those teams never had a shot anyway.
I don’t believe that teams lose games intentionally for draft picks in baseball anyway. Teams don’t spend money because they want to keep the money.
MLB going along with a draft lottery and players promoting a draft lottery as if it will make the cheapest owners spend on salaries is a fool’s errand. It won’t work.
I wrote about this in December.
https://www.blessyouboys.com/2021/12/13/22830846/mlb-lockout-cba-negotiations-rob-manfred-tony-clark
MLB offered an increase in entry level salary, an increase on the top end salary with the CBT, and no penalty for signing free agents. What the heck are the players waiting for, sign the deal.
MLB’s proposal for the CBT is an increase of less than one percent per year over five years, with an increase in the tax rate from 20 to 50 percent, plus draft pick penalties. It wouldn’t even keep up with inflation in the first year. It’s not an increase.
” – and it’s perfectly fair if your answer is, ‘neither!’ ”
Appreciate the hat tip, Mr Adams. There is a number of us on the board that have held that “position” since before the lockout. Although still a minority viewpoint, there are more of us daily.
I get it. It’s a lot of money. But figure it out, man.
“ It’s a lot of money. But figure it out, man.”
Perfectly said, Ducky. I nominate you for the fed that steps into the middle to get this thing settled.
Oh, hell no, Clip.
I’m a contractor. I spend way too much of my life splitting up money as it is. & I realize it’s complicated. But no one making money if they’re not playing. So the proper motivation is certainly there.
Well, when Manfred and Hal call me back after the 146 messages I left for them, I’m gonna recommend you.
Only 146? Well no wonder this thing hasn’t been resolved yet.
Okay, Ducky, on your word I’ll keep trying.
Here is an incentive to not tank…
Have a non-MLB city put together a team each year. That team will play a best-of-three series against the worst team in the league for the opportunity to replace them the following season.
Promotion and relegation in baseball would be cool. You’d have to absorb the Triple-A leagues and convert MLB to a First/Second/Third/Fourth Division for such a scheme to work. That eliminates any incentive for tanking because tanking would mean your team drops down one division. Plus it increases fan interest wherever there’s a relegation scrap or a promotion chase.
The universal DH does not create ANY jobs for players. It just changes a part time pinch hitter to a full time pinch hitter.
I’d say the upgrade would be in salary. Instead of having a well-rounded bench player, you’ll upgrade to a slugger.
I think we’ll see a short era of tons of proposed trades revolving around Voit and Andujar now, kind of like the more long lived “Frazier + Andujar for XYZ” era.
“My view of the world is you always keep looking for that one move that creates that opportunity.”
There’s not much opportunity in this world? Baseball is a major American economy? If a deal doesn’t get done there will be less opportunity? I think the owners realize this?
Manfred needs to remove himself from the negotiations. The players don’t trust him. The way Manfred handled the scheduling of the shortened 2020 season killed whatever trust there was. The players believe he didn’t act in good faith to play as many games as possible. That distrust has carried over to these negotiations & the players feel that he isn’t be genuine and fair in his negotiating tactics. They feel like Manfred is out to get them. That doesn’t make for a very good negotiation atmosphere. Manfred is a detriment to getting an agreement. If removing Manfred from the room means the players taking Clark out too, so be it. The atmosphere in the room needs to change to get real progress. As long as Manfred is there, it is harder to get real progress
GUARANTEED. YES,GUARANTEED salary. Where else does one get this type of deal even when you can not perform and is hurt or sick. What more can one ask for!!
RIP pitchers hitting i mean striking out 90% of the time.
Boring baseball in the #9 spot no more
30 billionaires worried that the help is asking for too much money so they send the supervisor out to quell the uprising
If you support the owners over the players you have no knowledge of the history of the game.
No, really.
As long as they leave the competitive balance picks in for my Cardinals. Tehehe!
They need to eliminate compensatory picks and start the six year FA clock when the player turns 21.
I’m all for universal. Whatever they choose, pitchers or DH. Just time to be consistent either way and it looks like DH is the future.
Both sides better get this figured out before many fans leave this sport behind them!
I think Saturday will be a good day! If the owners up the starting salary to 650 in the new proposal, increase the cap to 220, increase the bonus money to 30 million, add the DH,, 14 team playoff, eliminate compensatory picks, and we have a deal. Get er dun!
I think that’s pretty fair. But no matter what the owners offer, the players will ask for more.
I SUPPORT Ken Kendrick
I support Liberty Media
I SUPPORT PETER ANGELOS
I support John Henry
I support Thomas Ricketts
I support Jerry Reinsdorf
I support Bob Castellini
I support Larry Dolan
I support Charlie Monfort
I support Christopher Ilitch
I support Jim Crane
I support John Sherman
I support Arturo Moreno
I support Mark Walter
I support Bruce Sherman
I support Mark Attanasio
I support Jim Pohlad
I support Steve Cohen
I support Hal Steinbrenner
I support John Fisher
I support John Middleton
I support Robert Nutting
I support Peter Seidler
I support Charlie Johnson
I support John Stanton
I support William DeWitt
I support Stuart Sternberg
I support Ray Davis
I support Rogers Communications
I SUPPORT LERNER ENTERPRISES
Hopefully they all see this post.
If the Navy always tried this hard Pearl Harbor wouldn’t have happened.
Mentally ill or paid intern in Manfred’s office?
Either way, exceedingly bizarre.
how much did you get from manfred?
Lindor says players will to miss games. Lindor, if you thought Mets fans were hard on you last year … you better get ready for Mets to be even harder on you if games are missed!!!
They should be meeting every day. All these delay tactics to get the other side to concede is counter-productive. 150 game season is probably the best case scenario at this point.
“We haven’t gotten diddly done in two months. We have a week. No problem!”
manfraud may just be stupid!
Aren’t unions great?! Smh.
Exactly! Whatever happened to the good old days when you could replace the 11 year old who just cut his thumb off in the assembly press with a different 11 year old, who will appreciate his 7 day work week more than that last thumbless ingrate.
Further Destruction of the game of Baseball with the Dumb Hitter being added to the National League game.
Any Player that can’t play on both sides of the ball SHOULD NEVER be voted into the Hall of Fame,
Quit FLUCKING DESTROYING THE GAME because it’s going to drive away baseball purist away.
Do you folks really think teams like the Pirates and now going to go out and spend 8 to 20 million to land a DH? This won’t change a thing for the teams that won’t spend money. They will add a player on a minimum salary and go with that.
CBT tax is the main issue for players, as a team that spends a lot New York team(2) Boston Chicago(2) Los Angles will raise all other teams salaries. The CBT tax whatever the amount is, around 240 million should go up each year and an annual increase tied to inflation.
#BantheDH
I Like watching Ball Players being Ball players. Pitchers should be able to hit despite spending most of their time working on pitching. DH players should be able to field well enough to keep them on the Field. Bench players get more time, even if it is minimal.
My opinion has little to do with strategy, but that is also there.
Draft pick compensation, Agreed with the MLBPA. we want more incentive for players to resign, not less. Players staying with a franchise most of their career is something I would like to see. However allow teams to trade second round picks and lower. Add Comp picks for teams that have been lower records based on the average going back so many years. Change the top 10 picks to a lottery.
And change service time to a flat 8 year contract from the time they are eligible to play a full season at any level after drafted. If injured going into that first season (only) and missing the majority of time then that pauses the 8 year deal. (while still receiving their pay) Incentivizes teams playing the better prospects quicker.
On Saturday, the MLB owners and the players union will agree to a new CBA and end the work stoppage for good.
And they all live happily ever after… The End.
In one of the more eyebrow-raising moments of the press conference, Manfred was asked whether purchasing an MLB franchise was a “good investment.” He bizarrely implied the contrary, stating that between the purchase price of the team and the money invested into the club on a year-over-year basis, the “return on those investments is below what you’d expect to get in the stock market,” adding that there was greater risk in owning a team.
Steve, why are using the phrase “eyebrow-raising” or “bizarrely”. He’s not exactly wrong in what he was saying, he just didn’t word it well. The average annual ROI is around 10%, which is right around what teams are bringing in as well. However, that doesn’t account for stadium costs, and there is definitely a ton of risk in owning a sports franchise.
Until the owners open the books this is all speculation and fodder. Yum yum eat it up
“We have a pool and a pond. Pond would be good for you.”
People are bidding billions on these teams because they are bad investments….no.
Actually on what he said, the Return on the spent money is only a smaller amount with a high risk then is expected in a truly average market place.
What I would add is these bidders are willing to take higher prestige for the lower Rate Of Return and a small benefits to their personal tax debt being lowered.
No, Josh is correct. There’s only one reason billionaires bid so heavily to get into a small exclusive group that only other billionaire owners can grant permission to access… it’s not prestige, it’s always, undoubtedly, unconditionally, monetary gain. Look at everything these owners say & do – none of it has to do with prestige, fandom (pure fandom/enjoyment, not generating more for more money), players, game, etc. It is ALL about saving money. Every single utterance, every single decision, every single red cent spent is to make more money, imho.
The ROI being 10% is complete hyperbole, imo.
A ten percent ROI would actually be quite attractive for an investment of this kind, similar if not better than real estate. The other attraction of both is capital gain and in those terms owning a baseball team is less risky than real estate as the downside potential is practically nonexistent.
“ owning a baseball team is less risky ”
Also a great point.
Lot of work and year on year expense for 10%.
This stuff is silly and in some cases criminal in the lies and misrepresentation of the actual conditions and issues. This is mainly on MLB and its Owners but some players are not helping the situation either. The lies from “proffesional” individuals is killing my taste for the sport at this level. Why would I support folks who are not honest? Seems a very simple spot to start like….
Service time = 1 day over half the season equals a season
DH = Universal (sad but weak minded folks run things now)
Bottom 5 teams go into a lottery for the next draft order
Minimum Payroll = half the previous year’s league average
Regular Season = 150 games
Playoff Teams = 14, each league’s best records can get a bye
CBT = raise it by 20-30 million to cover DH and min payroll add
Qualifying Offer = stands as is with draft pic comp but is raised to over 20million amd counting.
I’m disappointed in the DH coming to the NL. As a AL (Tiger) fan, I enjoy the DH. But I also enjoy the way the NL plays…a lot more strategy involved imo. Yes, pitchers mostly suck at batting. And that’s too bad.
I’m in favor of keeping the AL with a DH and the NL without it. I like the different strategies used, it keeps the leagues unique.
Please excuse me if this is a stupid question: Let’s assume the upcoming CBA does not have draft pick penalties for signing FA refusing QOs anymore, will this already be effective for all the FAs signed before the lockout?
Gruß,
BSHH
I would assume not since they were technically signed under the previous CBA, unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on which team you are.
Prong Manfred & the majority of the myopic, greedy & moral cowards who own & operate MLB. Their abject obsessive greed along with the degenerate corporate gambling interests have infiltrated , disgraced and sucked the tradition and life out of what once was a great game..
.
He was miss quoted… it was they have Greed not Agreed
Does eliminating free agent compensation help the smaller markets?
In a way. A team could sign a big name player on a one year contract (think Josh Donaldson with the Braves) and not lose a draft pick opens the market for more teams to sign players
A new CBA will be signed when the MLBPA admits that the players have a very good, very well paid, very unstressed job and gives up its attempted extortion of the Owners.
Advice to Max Scherzer: save your preposterous salary and do a Jeter: buy his own team.
MLB players are the most pampered and overpaid athletes in the World.
When they finally start playing again in 2023, be prepared for Steroid Era 2!