Headlines

Go To Pro Hockey Rumors
Go To Hoops Rumors

Collective Bargaining Agreement

MLB, MLBPA Discuss Potential Bonus Pool For Pre-Arbitration Players, Changes To League-Minimum Salary

By | at

7:54 pm: According to Bob Nightengale of USA Today, the proposed pool system could allow players to increase their salaries by as much as 385% depending upon their WAR totals and placement in awards voting. He adds that under this system, reigning NL Rookie of the Year Jonathan India would be in line for a $1.193MM salary despite not yet being arbitration eligible.

3:31 pm: After weeks of silence between the two parties, Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association met today for a second straight day as they work toward a new collective bargaining agreement. While an agreement is not believed to be anywhere close, there’s at least been some semblance of headway in talks (though the extent of that progress is debatable).

For instance, MLB Network’s Jon Heyman tweets that the MLBPA had sought to raise the minimum salary from $570,500 to $775,000 — but MLB had countered with a proposal for a $600K minimum. (For context, the minimum salary has risen between $7-10K in each of the past several seasons anyhow.) The league today moved that offer forward a bit further, offering a $615K minimum salary for players with less than one year of Major League service time, per Chelsea Janes of the Washington Post (Twitter link).

Of course, the value of that “concession” is rather subjective. As Travis Sawchik of The Score observes, in order to keep up with inflation, the league would’ve needed to push the minimum salary to $650K just to match the minimum salary from the start of the 2016-21 collective bargaining agreement. Viewed through that lens, the league’s offer could actually be seen as a step back. The Athletic’s Evan Drellich adds that the minimum salary for players with one to two years of service would be $650K under the current proposal, while players with between two and three years would receive at least a $700K salary.

Interestingly, Sawchik reports that MLB proposed fixed salaries at those league minimum figures for players in each service bucket. While players would presumably still be free to sign early-career contract extensions, that would eliminate the system of teams renewing contracts for pre-arbitration players at amounts slightly higher than the league minimum. As one recent example, the Mets offered Pete Alonso a salary a bit north of $650K in 2020 (nearly $100K more than that year’s league minimum) as a reward for his Rookie of the Year-winning 2019 campaign. Under MLB’s proposal, that kind of deal would no longer be permitted.

Janes adds that the league has also dropped proposed scenarios that would alter the arbitration system and eliminate Super Two status — a designation that allows some players to reach arbitration a year early. Shrinking the number of players who can reach arbitration seems like something that would’ve been a non-starter for the MLBPA anyhow, so as with the incremental increases to the minimum salary, taking that component off the table doesn’t feel like much of a step back.

More interestingly, Major League Baseball agreed to the MLBPA’s proposal for a bonus pool, funded by central revenues, to reward pre-arbitration players (Twitter link via Jared Diamond of the Wall Street Journal). Pre-arb players would be in line for bonuses based both on Awards voting and on reaching certain Wins Above Replacement markers, Janes notes.

That figures to present its own levels of complication, as there are multiple versions of Wins Above Replacement. Beyond needing to agree on which form of WAR to set as the standard, the concept isn’t likely to sit well with the proprietors of those metrics. Baseball-Reference’s Sean Forman has already taken to Twitter to explain how uncomfortable he is with the notion of players being assigned millions of dollars based on a metric that is constantly undergoing slight tweaks to keep up with changes in the game (his Twitter thread on the matter is well worth a full read). Additionally, as Sports Illustrated’s Emma Baccellieri points out (Twitter link), there are some obvious potential conflicts of interest in tying pre-arb bonuses to awards voting that is conducted by the media members who cover those players.

For this bonus structure to work, the two sides would need to agree on the particulars of the bonus pool — and it does not appear as though they’re remotely close to doing so. While it’s promising, to an extent, that MLB was at least amenable to the union’s proposed framework, ESPN’s Jeff Passan tweets that the MLBPA proposed a $105MM pool from which to reward those players. Not surprisingly, the league balked at that figure and countered with a $10MM pool — a figure at which players surely scoffed. Large as that gap may be, the mere fact that MLB is open to the concept clears the admittedly low bar set to declare progress in these talks.

It bears repeating that elements such as the minimum salary, arbitration and this newly conceptualized bonus pool for pre-arbitration players are all merely pieces of what is a much larger puzzle. The league’s larger priorities still include, perhaps most notably, the expansion of the playoff field — an endgame that would dramatically increase television and gate revenues at the most lucrative point in the MLB schedule. Players, meanwhile, have sought changes to a service-time structure that incentivizes teams to keep prospects in the minors longer than would otherwise be the case, a marked increase in the competitive balance (luxury) tax threshold, and measures to eliminate the incentives for teams to tank — among many other elements.

Suffice it to say, while it’s refreshing to hear of any progress, however slight, between the league and the union — it remains abundantly clear that major headway still needs to be made if Spring Training is to begin in mid-February, as currently scheduled. Most have suggested that a deal would need to be reached by Feb. 1 in order for that outcome.

The greatest concern is that any lack of accord between league and union will ultimately result in some portion of regular-season games being wiped out. Sportsnet’s Ben Nicholson-Smith and Drellich both suggested last night that Major League Baseball on Monday expressed a willingness to go down that road, if necessary, though the loss of regular-season games still figures to be a last resort and a worst-case scenario on all sides. There’s certainly a middle ground, where Spring Training could perhaps begin in late February or early March, paving the way for a truncated exhibition season and a full 162-game slate.

Whenever an agreement is reached, the league will also need to lift the current transaction freeze, sending front offices and player representatives alike into a frenzy to get the remaining group of unsigned free agents into Spring Training camps as quickly as possible and to resolve any outstanding arbitration cases. Front offices will need to work with fervor to complete any trades or other offseason dealings in an expedited fashion. The longer it takes for the league and union to strike a deal, the more hectic the aftermath of that agreement will be.

MLB Reportedly Expresses Willingness To Cancel Games As Lockout Continues

By | at

On the heels of the MLB Players Association’s economics proposal this afternoon, Major League Baseball is preparing to make some form of counteroffer tomorrow. That’ll mark the first back-to-back negotiating sessions since the league instituted a lockout on December 2. Even as negotiations may finally be picking up steam, various reports characterized today’s meeting as contentious.

Ben Nicholson-Smith of Sportsnet adds some context to the continued tension, reporting (on Twitter) that the league expressed a willingness to accept the forfeiture of regular season games as the lockout drags on. MLB continues to maintain hope about reaching a new collective bargaining agreement on time to play a full schedule, but today’s session was the first at which owners outwardly maintained their willingness to lose games, according to Nicholson-Smith. Evan Drellich of the Athletic writes that some on the players’ side believed the league’s message amounted to a threat. For its part, MLB pushed back against that notion, with a league spokesman telling Drellich the league’s message was “mischaracterized and not a fair representation of the discussion.”

Even if MLB indeed suggested it was amenable to the possibility of losing games, that’d hardly be surprising. Admitting it’s unwilling to face the possibility of losing games would deal a blow to the league’s negotiating leverage, after all. As the scheduled start to the season gets closer, both MLB and the MLBPA are incentivized to overstate to one another their resolution to hold out for concessions from the other party.

It remains to be seen whether MLB’s alleged rhetoric proves to be anything more than a negotiating ploy. The league would stand to lose gate revenue for cancelation of games during Spring Training. More meaningfully, it’d face the loss of both gate and broadcast revenue for canceled regular season contests. A work stoppage carrying into the regular season, in particular, might also deal an incalculable blow to fan morale that could persist beyond eventual agreement on a new CBA.

In November, Commissioner Rob Manfred drew a distinction between an offseason work stoppage and one that ultimately results in game cancelations. “I can’t believe there’s a single fan in the world who doesn’t understand that an offseason lockout that moves the process forward is different than a labor dispute that costs games,” Manfred told reporters at the time, shortly before the lockout began.

Yet even if it’s an unsurprising tack, it’s at least somewhat notable MLB has seemingly taken the step of declaring their willingness to accept the financial consequences of losing games for the first time. Players are obviously facing financial pressures of their own. Players aren’t compensated for Spring Training, so their potential lost revenue doesn’t loom quite as imminent as that of owners. Canceled regular season games — and the forfeiture of salaries for those contests — would be a far more notable development. The MLBPA has set aside an undisclosed amount of funding for players in case a work stoppage lingers into the season, but there’s no doubt that’d prove far less lucrative than the salaries players would receive if gameplay were to proceed as scheduled.

The regular season is currently set to begin on March 31. It is generally expected that a new CBA would need to be in place by around the beginning of March in order for the regular season to begin on time. That’d leave around a month for teams to conduct their remaining offseason business and for players to report and build up during an abbreviated Spring Training period.

MLBPA Drops Push For Earlier Free Agency Eligibility In Latest CBA Proposal

By | at

10:05 pm: Drellich reports that MLB remained displeased with the reduced proposed cuts to revenue sharing in the union’s latest offer, writing “there’s no indication” MLB is willing to make any alterations to the revenue sharing system.

4:45 pm: In addition to holding firm on their push for two-year arbitration, the MLBPA remained steadfast on a few more of their top goals. Jeff Passan of ESPN reports that the union proposal included a bump in the league minimum salary to $775K, the institution of an eight-team draft lottery and a $245MM base luxury tax threshold. All three issues had been known goals of the MLBPA in past proposals, and the setting of the CBT threshold is expected to be of particular import. In recent offers, MLB has pushed for tax thresholds in the $214MM – $220MM range, leaving a fairly significant gap between the parties.

3:51 pm: As part of this afternoon’s collective bargaining proposal, the MLB Players Association dropped its push for an earlier path to major league free agency, reports Evan Drellich of the Athletic. It now seems likely the next CBA will require players to accrue six years of MLB service time in order to reach the open market — as had been the case under prior agreements.

The game’s service time structure is one of the most contentious issues during ongoing negotiations. The MLBPA, desiring to get players to free agency earlier, had previously been pursuing a modified service/age threshold that would’ve allowed players to test the market after six years of MLB service or after five years of service if the player had reached a certain age (initially 30.5 years, later 29.5).

Major League Baseball had steadfastly refused to entertain that possibility, either pushing for a continuation of the six-year status quo or an age threshold (29.5, in MLB’s previous offers) that was independent of service time. It seems the league will get its wish to preserve the path to free agency as is, marking a significant development.

In an additional alteration, Drellich reports that the MLBPA agreed to alter its push for reduced revenue sharing from large-market organizations to small-market franchises. Chelsea Janes of the Washington Post adds more specifics, reporting (on Twitter) that the union’s latest offer included a revenue sharing cut in the $30MM range relative to the 2016-21 CBA.

Earlier in the winter, the union had been pushing to cut revenue sharing by around $100MM. The past CBA required recipients to use those funds “to improve (their) performance on the field,” but there was no provision that required teams to invest the money into player salaries (as opposed to such things as scouting, analytics or player development, all of which indirectly attempt to improve team performance). The MLBPA has expressed its belief that smaller-market clubs have been too content to pocket that money, filing grievances to that effect against the A’s, Marlins, Rays and Pirates in recent years.

As with an expedited path to free agency, the league has opposed modifications to the revenue sharing system. It remains to be seen whether that pushback is categorical or one of degree. The MLBPA’s proposal still included a revenue sharing cut, of course, but it’s significantly smaller than the union’s previous pushes in that regard.

While the MLBPA made a pair of notable steps towards MLB’s vision, one thing that hasn’t changed is the union’s desire for earlier arbitration eligibility. Drellich reports that the union’s proposal this afternoon would allow players to qualify for arbitration after reaching two years of MLB service, as have all of the PA’s past offers. (The previous CBA required three years for arbitration eligibility for most players). MLB has thus far refused to discuss earlier paths to arbitration, either. Whether the league will be more amenable to that possibility now that the union has made some changes in other key areas is unclear.

Janes tweets that this afternoon’s meeting lasted around two hours and fifteen minutes. Encouragingly, the parties are set to meet again tomorrow, according to a report from Hannah Keyser of Yahoo! Sports (Twitter link). At that sit-down, MLB plans to put forth some form of counter-offer, tweets Drellich, although the league won’t make a comprehensive proposal that hits on every topic of discussion. It seems possible today’s proposal will kick-start negotiations, which have moved at a glacial pace in the nearly two months since the start of the lockout.

That’s not to say agreement on a new deal is imminent. According to Drellich, the MLBPA “rejected most, if not all” of the terms the league put forth in its most recent offer, a bit more than two weeks ago. Jeff Passan of ESPN tweets that today’s meeting was “contentious;” Drellich categorized it as “heated.”

It also bears reiterating that the full specifics of the MLBPA’s proposal aren’t known. In addition to ongoing potential holdups regarding arbitration eligibility and revenue sharing, such issues as the competitive balance tax, league minimum salary and playoff expansion will need to be sorted out. With a bit more than a month before the scheduled start of the first Spring Training games, the parties have to make rapid progress in a number of areas if a disruption to the exhibition schedule is to be avoided.

Collective Bargaining Issues: International Draft

By | at

Last week, Major League Baseball presented a proposal on (some) core economics to the MLB Players Association. Among the features included in the league’s offer: the implementation of a draft for the acquisition of international amateur players.

The league’s interest in an international draft is nothing new. MLB pushed for its inclusion during negotiations on the 2016-21 collective bargaining agreement as well. The MLBPA didn’t agree to one during the last round of CBA talks, although the union did consent to a modification of the existing international signing period setup. In the last CBA, team spending pools allotted for international amateur signees were hard-capped. That proved a much tighter restriction than had been in place under the previous CBA, when teams could exceed their allotted bonus pools (and often did in dramatic fashion) so long as they were willing to accept spending limitations in each of the subsequent two seasons.

Thus far in CBA negotiations, the union has continued to propose alternatives to an international draft, report Maria Torres, Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic. However, as The Athletic covers in a lengthy and detailed piece, members of various constituencies — MLB, the MLBPA, player reps, buscones (essentially hybrid trainers/agents for Latin American amateurs), players and team officials — believe the process for acquiring amateur players from Latin America needs some form of adjustment.

Under the current system, amateur players not subject to the domestic draft (i.e. those outside the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico) are eligible to sign with clubs after they turn 16 years old. While players have to wait until that age to officially sign, however, it is common practice for teams to come to verbal agreements with prospects multiple years in advance as part of a race for talent that The Athletic writes has accelerated since the introduction of hard caps.

The league has pointed to a desire to stamp out such early agreements as justification for its desire for a draft. Those kinds of early deals can leave players out in the cold. Teams can agree to verbal deals with players that, when summed together, exceed the value of their allotted cap. With the rules prohibiting clubs from honoring all their commitments, the team may circle back to second or third tier prospects and require that they lower their bonus demand. The player often has little recourse but to do so. Unlike a domestic high school prospect, international signees don’t typically have a looming college commitment as negotiating leverage. And while they could try to shop their services to other teams, many clubs will already have verbally committed the entirety of their bonus pools to other players in the signing class.

That said, the union doesn’t seem to agree that an international draft is the optimal solution. Implementing a draft inherently removes the player’s flexibility to choose their first employer, an element which the union finds concerning. According to The Athletic, the MLBPA would prefer the league implement and stringently enforce a ban on verbal agreements with players below the age of 15. The union is also pursuing more flexibility for teams to roll over funds from their annual bonus pools, which isn’t permitted under the current system.

In addition to concerns about early agreements, The Athletic article raises myriad other problems with the current setup. Ulises Cabrera, a player representative with Octagon, claims to Torres and Rosenthal that some scouts have taken under-the-table payments from buscones to arrange deals with players from outside their assigned geographical purview. The piece also goes into detail about concerns including lesser pay for international prospects relative to domestic draftees of a similar caliber and eradicating performance-enhancing drug use. It is well worth reading in full for a picture of the numerous issues that need to be ironed out.

MLBPA Expected To Present Next Economics Proposal On January 24

By | at

JANUARY 20: The league and players union are planning to meet next Monday, January 24, reports Jeff Passan of ESPN (on Twitter). At that sit-down, the MLBPA is expected to present a counter-offer to MLB’s most recent economics proposal. It’ll mark the second in-person meeting between the parties since the beginning of the lockout. MLB’s most recent offer was made via videoconference.

JANUARY 19: The MLB Players Association is preparing its response to the proposal made by Major League Baseball last week, tweets Jon Heyman of the MLB Network. Heyman adds that the union is expected to put its next offer on the table within a matter of days.

The league broached some features of core economics last Thursday, marking the first instance of discussion between the two sides on any especially contentious issues since MLB instituted a lockout on December 2. The league’s offer didn’t address all the most pertinent issues, though, with no mention of free agency eligibility or the competitive balance tax. Instead, MLB’s proposal focused on such topics as the draft order, arbitration, possible solutions to service time manipulation and playoff expansion, among others.

According to various reports, the players were generally dissatisfied with the league’s decision not to cover free agency or the luxury tax. It wouldn’t be a surprise to see the union try to reignite discussions on those issues, as the MLBPA is seeking earlier paths for players to potentially reach the open market and dramatically heightened tax thresholds.

Time is dwindling for the parties to make significant progress in talks if they’re to avoid interruptions to Spring Training, as Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic wrote this morning. Exhibition play is scheduled to begin February 26, and Jeff Passan of ESPN wrote a few weeks ago that Spring Training would likely be delayed if there weren’t notable developments by the start of next month.

Details On Today’s CBA Negotiations

By | at

The owners and players met today to discuss core economic issues for the first time since the start of the lockout, even if today’s talks seemingly didn’t result in much (or any) common ground being found between the two sides.  Ronald Blum of The Associated Press reports that the session lasted roughly an hour, with the league presenting its proposal, and the players then agreeing to make an official response and counter-proposal at an unspecified future bargaining session.

As one might expect, reports have already begun to filter out about the players’ dissatisfaction with the league’s proposal well in advance of any official response the union might make.  For starters, MLB’s proposal didn’t address luxury tax thresholds or free-agent eligibility whatsoever, and the MLBPA has made clear their dissatisfaction with the current rules regarding both issues.

According to Blum, The Athletic’s Evan Drellich, ESPN’s Jeff Passan and Jesse Rogers, and other reporters, here are some of the proposals floated by the league in today’s talks…

  • In regards to the top pick in the amateur draft, the teams with the three worst records would be involved in a lottery, with the winner receiving the first overall pick.  This is similar to a previous league proposal, except this time, MLB added that a team wouldn’t be allowed to take part in the lottery for three consecutive seasons (to help address tanking).  The MLBPA has also wanted a draft lottery, except a larger process involving the eight teams with the worst records.
  • A draft for international players, as opposed to the current “July 2” international signing window and bonus pool system.
  • The elimination of the “Super Two” arbitration system, as players who would count as Super Two-eligible in the future would have salaries determined by a formula.  The league’s proposal offers some leeway, as players with even one day of MLB current service time would have the option of taking part in this new system or opting to remain in the old system.  Regardless of this grandfather clause for current union members, the MLBPA isn’t keen on the idea of any statistical-based calculation tied to salary, such as the league’s prior proposal to entirely eliminate the salary arbitration process.
  • If a team has a top 100-ranked prospect on its Opening Day roster, and that player finishes in the top five in voting for a major award (the MVP, Cy Young, or Rookie Of The Year) during one of his arbitration-eligible seasons, the team would receive a bonus draft pick.  The idea is to provide a benefit for teams so they won’t hold back top prospects for service-time reasons, as extra playing time might help a player earn an award like the ROY as soon as possible.  According to Passan/Rogers, players have some reservations about this idea, including concerns over how the list of “top prospects” eligible would be determined.  (MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes is more bullish on the concept, as outlined in this Twitter thread.)
  • An expanded playoff bracket, with 14 teams reaching the postseason.  The players have expressed an openness for a 12-team postseason in the past, though as Sportsnet’s Ben Nicholson-Smith notes, an expanded playoff is “arguably players’ biggest bargaining chip” given how much the league and the owners want that extra postseason TV revenue.
  • The use of the DH in both the American and National Leagues.  The universal DH has widely been expected to be part of this CBA, and Susan Slusser of The San Francisco Chronicle writes that the players union seems agreeable to the idea as long as the universal DH isn’t “tied to something else as a bargaining chip.”

MLB’s Core Economics Proposal Not Well-Received By MLBPA

By | at

JANUARY 13: Details of this afternoon’s meeting remain unclear, but both Passan and Nightengale (Twitter links) characterize the union’s response to the league’s proposal as unfavorable. It’s not yet known when the sides will meet again, which Passan suggests is dependent on how quickly the union makes a counterproposal. Passan ominously adds that an on-time start to Spring Training “is in peril.”

JANUARY 11: Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association have scheduled a collective bargaining negotiation session for Thursday, reports Jeff Passan of ESPN (Twitter link). Notably, MLB is expected to present a core economics proposal to the union, marking the first development on the most contentious issues of the lockout since the league instituted the work stoppage on December 2.

Bob Nightengale of USA Today sheds some light on the upcoming proposal. The league is not expected to address the service time structure during this session. MLB is expected to put forth an increase in the league minimum salary to $600K, with further hikes to a height of $700K by the end of a potential CBA term, as well as alterations to draft pick compensation/forfeiture for signing free agents tagged with a qualifying offer.

Nightengale wrote Monday that the league was preparing to make its proposal within the next two weeks. In a bit of a surprise, they’ll come in at the earlier end of that timetable. Thursday’s conference will take place over video, tweets Evan Drellich of the Athletic.

Last-ditch efforts to progress on core economics before the previous collective bargaining agreement expired proved fruitless, culminating in a seven-minute session during the afternoon of December 1. Entering that meeting, the league had reportedly informed the MLBPA it would only entertain core economics discussions that didn’t involve changes to revenue sharing, six-year free agency eligibility and the existing eligibility requirements (for the most part, three years of service time) for arbitration. The union refused to accept those conditions, and the parties have been in a holding pattern since that point, with the MLBPA waiting for the league to bring forth another proposal.

It remains to be seen whether the league’s offer will meaningfully reignite discussions. It’s unclear to what extent MLB’s forthcoming proposal differs from its previous iterations, to which the union has not responded favorably. (MLB, of course, has been similarly unhappy with the PA’s offers). The possibility remains that the union will not consider this week’s offer sufficiently dissimilar from MLB’s past presentations to advance negotiations. Yet it’s at least notable that the parties are set to speak with one another regarding the most important topics for the first time in nearly six weeks. The sides have met a few times since the lockout began, but those discussions were limited to points outside of core economics.

Spring Training games are scheduled for February 26. In all likelihood, the parties will need to have a new CBA in place within the first half of next month to avoid any cancellations of exhibition play. That’ll require bridging the gap on a handful of key sticking points, like the service time structure, league minimum salary, competitive balance tax, playoff expansion, revenue sharing and the universal designated hitter.

Collective Bargaining Issues: Universal DH

By | at

Over the past few weeks, we’ve covered a series of issues that figure to be key areas of dispute in collective bargaining talks. In early stages of negotiations, Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association presented varying proposals regarding such things as playoff expansion, the service time structure and the competitive balance tax.

Today’s collective bargaining issue seems, on the surface, as though it should be easier to solve. Expanding the designated hither to the National League seems to have appeal to both parties. The union would welcome the creation of 15 bat-only positions that might expand the market for defensively-limited players and aging stars. As many teams have prioritized constructing rosters with defensive flexibility, the market has devalued non-elite corner bats in free agency and arbitration. A universal DH wouldn’t reverse that trend entirely, but it should be of some benefit to offense-first players.

The league, meanwhile, seems likely to embrace the universal DH as a means of aiding offense. The sport’s ever-increasing strikeout rate has drawn plenty of consternation. The leaguewide strikeout percentage ticked upwards every year between 2005 and 2020, setting an all-time record each season. Last year finally marked a stop to the record-breaking streak, as the strikeout rate marginally slipped from 23.4% to 23.2%. That’s perhaps a bit encouraging, but last year’s number still checked in almost seven percentage points above 2005’s 16.4% mark.

Pitchers aren’t the only culprit for the decrease in balls in play, but they’ve had real issues making contact. Last year, pitcher-hitters fanned at a 44.2% clip. Overall, they hit .110/.150/.142 across 4,830 plate appearances. That’s ghastly production, even by the historically low standards at the position. Their five highest all-time strikeout rates have come in the last five years of pitcher hitting. Four of the five lowest pitcher-hitters’ wRC+ (which compares their overall offensive output to that season’s league average marks) have come since 2017. However one wants to explain that trend — improved leaguewide velocities, specialization that leads to less practice for pitcher hitting, etc. — pitchers are putting up less of a fight at the plate than ever before.

Just as the universal DH won’t alone reinvigorate the market for defensively-limited sluggers, it’s not going to erase the game’s strikeout prevalence. Position players already take up the vast majority of at-bats, and they’re striking out a lot. MLB and the union agreed to a universal DH for the 2020 shortened season, and the league still broke its all-time strikeout record. Yet the elimination of pitcher hitting would no doubt have some positive boost on offense that should appeal to those in the league offices.

Given its seemingly mutually beneficial nature, many expect the universal DH to be a part of the upcoming collective bargaining agreement. That said, it was widely expected the NL DH would be in play for 2021 as well, seeing as the parties had agreed to implement it the year before as part of the pandemic protocols. That didn’t wind up happening. The league, reasoning that the players had greater incentive to embrace the universal DH, reportedly sought to tie its introduction to agreement from the union to expand the postseason field (a key revenue generator for MLB). The MLBPA viewed that as an unequal tradeoff and ultimately, neither the universal DH nor playoff expansion were put in place last season.

The potential introduction of a universal DH figures to again come up in discussions once the sides reengage on CBA talks in the coming weeks. If implemented, it’ll no doubt be a divisive provision for viewers. From a fan perspective, the DH is largely an aesthetic question. Some will point to pitcher-hitters’ woeful numbers as evidence that their continued hitting is an anachronism. Others would view the universal DH as a blow to the game’s tradition. In a December poll, 62% of MLBTR respondents expressed support for an NL DH; 26% were against the possibility, while 12% were generally apathetic on the issue.

There have been some creative ways floated to perhaps reduce pitcher-hitting while maintaining an increased amount of late-game strategy. Jayson Stark of the Athletic is among those to have floated the idea of tying the DH to that game’s starting pitcher, such that a team forfeits their DH whenever they remove their starter from the game. It’s theoretically possible the league and union consider such an idea, although it seems they’d have more straightforward interest in simply adding the DH to the NL in its current American League format.

MLB Expected To Make Core Economics Proposal To MLBPA Within Two Weeks

By | at

Last week, both Jeff Passan of ESPN and Evan Drellich of the Athletic reported that Major League Baseball had been preparing core economics proposals to present to the MLB Players Association. Both Passan and Drellich suggested that could ignite collective bargaining negotiations by the end of the month. Bob Nightengale of USA Today adds a bit more specificity to that timeline, writing this morning that the league is planning to make its proposal “within the next two weeks.”

Whenever the league does put its offer on the table, that’ll serve as the first notable development in CBA talks since MLB instituted a lockout in the early morning minutes of December 2. The parties have since met a couple times regarding issues outside of core economics, but there’s reportedly been no discussion on the most contentious issues since the start of the lockout.

The league and union did put forth core economics proposals prior to the expiration of the previous CBA, but neither side responded favorably to the other’s offers. That culminated in a seven-minute bargaining session on December 1. Both parties have expressed openness to returning to the table, but they’ve been in a holding pattern as the union has waited for the league to put forth a new offer.

Renewing core economics discussions by around January 21 (two Fridays from now) wouldn’t give the parties much time to bridge the gap without threatening exhibition play. The first Spring Training games are scheduled for February 26, and there’ll certainly need to be a few weeks between the signing of a new CBA and the start of gameplay for players to report, clear whatever COVID-19 protocols may be in place and ramp up physical activity.

Passan On CBA Negotiations

By | at

On Monday, USA Today’s Bob Nightengale wrote that no negotiating sessions were scheduled between MLB and the players’ union.  That remains the case, but ESPN’s Jeff Passan writes today that “MLB is working on proposals to bring to the table.”  Passan’s sources believe the “earliest negotiations will ramp up this time is late January.”

Passan suggests MLB is hoping to determine what tops the players’ list of priorities: the oft-repeated “competitive integrity” anti-tanking buzzword, getting players paid earlier in their careers, or raising the competitive balance tax thresholds.

As has been reported previously, MLB’s most recent proposal had the CBT threshold starting at $214MM in 2022.  MLB’s proposal had the thresholds progressing only to $220MM by the end of a presumed five-year deal.  Going from $210MM in ’21 to $220MM in ’26 would be a 4.8% increase.  As I’ll explain, that’d represent the union’s biggest failure yet in increasing the CBT.

Last month, I documented how the CBT thresholds have changed with each new CBA, after this tax was introduced in 1997.  In 2003, the threshold was increased by 98.6% from the previous mark, jumping from $58.9MM in ’99 all the way to $117MM in ’03.  That was the first of four collective bargaining agreements where CBT increases were on the table, once it was initially set at $51MM in ’97.

That set of negotiations had the CBT ending at $136.5MM in ’06.  In the CBA spanning 2007-11, the players were able to get a 30.4% increase by ’11, jumping up to $178MM.  But in the CBA spanning 2012-16, the players had a major loss.  They succeeded only in taking the CBT from $178MM to $189MM, an increase of about 6.2%.  Compared to that $189MM point, the 2017-21 CBA ended with an 11.1% bump to get to $210MM.

The players have reportedly set their opening bid for the CBT at $245MM.  That implies they might hope to see it progress to around $260MM by the end of the deal.  A jump from a $210MM starting point to a $260MM ending point would represent a 23.8% increase, falling neatly between the player-favoring 30% increase of ’07 and the MLB-favoring 11% increase of ’17.

The CBT is a major issue, but it remains to be seen whether the players will abandon some other more aggressive asks to prioritize it.  As Passan sees it, if the two sides don’t make progress by February 1st, a spring training delay is likely.  He feels that a lack of progress by March 1st “sets off the alarm” in terms of not starting the season on time, given all that must be done to be ready to play.

Show all

MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com

Do not Sell or Share My Personal Information

hide arrows scroll to top