Collective Bargaining Agreement

Major League Baseball is pressing a plan to implement an international draft in the near future, Baseball America’s Ben Badler reports. With ownership behind the initiative, says Badler, it’s possible that the league could attempt to institute such a system as soon as the 2020 international signing season.

That general attempt has long been anticipated. What’s most notable about the report, which arises in the wake of a league-run session with teams’ international staff members, are some of the potential particulars. The changes, if implemented, would represent a significant further tightening of an already closely controlled labor-intake system.

According to Badler, the initial structure under consideration features “hard slot value[s]” that would leave no room for negotiation for incoming players. In other words, in addition to losing their ability to select which organization would best nurture and care for a 16-year-old while providing the best long-term opportunity, players and their families would be stripped of the chance to negotiate a larger bonus than the system dictates.

The proposal also includes a simple rotation system for assigning top draft choices to teams. That’d make for quite a different approach from the domestic amateur draft, in which the order is tethered directly to MLB team performance. A rotating approach would largely preserve the status quo, in which spending pools aren’t connected to MLB-level outcomes; it’s unclear whether there would continue to be any connection to competitive balance (recipients currently get more pool money) or free-agent outcomes (there’s a pool hit for non-revenue sharing teams that sign a player who declined a qualifying offer).

MLB has already succeeded in shaving something like a quarter of its international expenditures by imposing hard caps on amateur spending. Though many players signing under the regime are teenagers, the rules also extend to cover those who haven’t yet turned 25 and who possess less than six seasons playing in a foreign professional league. (That’s why the immensely talented Shohei Ohtani signed for peanuts.)

It’s impossible not to connect the question of the international draft to the still-building labor battle between MLB and the MLB Players Association. First and foremost, the international intake system is subject to bargaining — just as it was when the union acceded to the hard-cap system. More broadly, there’s an obvious connection between amateur signing bonuses and early-MLB extensions — the recent run of which has had a huge (albeit still not fully known) impact on the ability of MLB players as a whole to command future free-agent earnings.

It’ll certainly be interesting to see how the MLBPA responds to this initiative. Chief Tony Clark hinted recently at a new stance on the amateur side, though it’s still not clear whether the union will be able to enunciate an encompassing vision to compete with the league’s — or, at least, use this topic to pry other, worthwhile concessions. Mid-CBA negotiations are now in process; the international question will no doubt feature significantly.

Badler notes that members of the international intake apparatus — trainers on the player side and scouts on the team side — are increasingly “split” in their views on the draft after a history of general opposition. That won’t dictate the players’ position by any stretch, but it’s a notable shift from a set of important stakeholders.

There are numerous considerations to be accounted for here beyond bonuses. The international signing system has long featured nefarious, sometimes dangerous, situations involving young and often vulnerable players. While there are indications that some of the most concerning elements have improved in recent years, it’s still plenty concerning that teams are lining up advance deals with extremely youthful players who are not yet eligible to sign. There’s still ample potential for harm. And while teams have increasingly seen the value in investing in education and health initiatives for their amateur players, there’s no common standard and no firm support system for those that aren’t chosen to continue advancing as professional ballplayers. It may be hoped that, if the league is successfully able to tighten control through a draft, it also focuses serious energy and resources to creating a truly just overall program for players that are eligible for selection.

MLB Players Association executive director Tony Clark chatted with the media today as part of this week’s All-Star festivities. The Twitter feeds of Alex Speier of the Boston Globe and Eric Fisher of the Sports Business Group feature many of the key comments. Those interested in reading more about the labor situation should also read this interesting look at the efforts of Clark and other union leaders from Tyler Kepner and James Wagner of the New York Times.

Clark emphasized just now notable it was that the union and league have launched negotiations now, well in advance of the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. He didn’t shy away from a lofty goal, stating: “We are interested in restoring meaningful free agency.”

The MLBPA is chasing other goals as well, including putting a stop to service time manipulation, increasing the marketing of players, and boosting compensation for young players that haven’t yet reached arbitration eligibility. On that last score, Clark says that “a young player needs to be fairly compensated for what he’s doing.”

As ever, the question remains just what alternatives can be proposed to create the desired outcomes. In part, MLB teams’ collective shift away from free agent spending is a reflection of the volume of young talent now rising to the majors. That speaks in favor of boosting pre-arb spending, but the capital side of the equation surely won’t boost the compensation of such players unless there are corresponding savings elsewhere.

Clark notes that the $555K league minimum is only that. “You can pay players more,” he says. “Teams are choosing not to.” But it isn’t clear why organizations would come forward with across-the-board raises for young players when there’s nothing compelling it. And it’s also fair at least to note that some teams have gone well over the minimum, especially for star players. That they have done so on an essentially ad hoc basis reflects the simple fact that the current CBA does not require more.

It still isn’t clear just what universal approach the players would like to accomplish, not that they necessarily want to put forth a complete vision at this stage. That’ll ultimately be necessary if Clark and co. want younger players to grab a bigger slice of the pie — or, perhaps, get the piece of the action that the owners seem to have taken away from free agency (not that they’d see it that way). Perhaps there are ways to find some extra cash to bring to the players’ coffers; Clark did note the ongoing influx of gambling money (and potential problems along with it).

On some level, though, the discussion will have to involve moving resources from one class of player to another. It’s at least somewhat curious, then, that Clark also indicated it was “not yet” necessary for a radical overhaul of the general arbitration and free-agent systems of compensation — a system that he has said previously “doesn’t work” in its current form. He did say that he has broached the concept of ending the amateur draft, which would assuredly represent a dramatic change in approach (albeit one that seems quite unlikely to gain traction and that might result in undesirable side effects).

Clark also addressed the matter of the increasingly regular long balls finding their way out of the field of play. He declined to subscribe to any particular conspiracy theories, but did say that he has clearly noticed the jump: “I believe the ball suddenly changed, and I don’t know why.”

That matter is not directly related to the labor situation, but it has loads of potential to impact the transactional market and is certainly a subject in which the union will take great interest. Given the strange degree of intrigue surrounding the MLB ball in recent years, perhaps it’s also a subject that the union can utilize for a smidgen of public relations leverage. And the rise in dingers may actually create some opportunities to shake up the labor market. The arbitration system, for instance, will struggle to react. It’ll take some creativity and foresight to take advantage (and avoid disadvantage) on the union side from disruption of this sort.

Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association have spent the winter negotiating over rules changes while publicly bickering over the operation of the player market. The sides now appear to be nearing agreement on a package of new rules, per Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (Twitter link), though it’s not likely to address the broader concerns.

According to Rosenthal, a new deal may only be a day or two away from completion. It’s not clear just what’ll be covered by the pact, though we’ve known of the areas under consideration for the past week or so. From a hot stove perspective, the application of a single trade deadline and roster size modifications (26-man roster with two extra openings in September) appear to be the most important possible tweaks under contemplation.

There are some much more consequential possibilities that the union would also like to discuss, given its frustrations with the transactional landscape. Those conversations would occur during the season to come, per Rosenthal’s prior reporting, with at least some possibility of a CBA renegotiation and extension.

Meanwhile, the league has announced a new deal with the Liga Mexicana de Beisbol. The MLBPA has ratified the pact, which will govern the movement of players from Mexico’s top league to MLB organizations.

Players who have deals with LMB clubs will be free to go to the majors without compensation once they reach 25 years of age and have accumulated six seasons of professional ball. To acquire a LMB player who hasn’t yet reached that status, MLB teams will need to work out a contract with the player and convince his former team to accept a release fee — 15% of guaranteed MLB money or 35% of a signing bonus on a minors deal — to cede its control over the player’s services.

TODAY: There has been “significant progress” between the league and the MLBPA about these potential rule changes, The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal writes (subscription required).  Since these changes have garnered support on both sides, they are seen as “win-win” developments that can be handled in the shorter-term, as opposed to a larger re-opening of the Collective Bargaining Agreement as a whole.  In regards to the much more complicated matter of discussing financial issues, MLB and the players’ union are “proceeding with the understanding they would discuss broader economic concepts sometime after Opening Day,” Rosenthal writes.

WEDNESDAY: Major League Baseball has brought the MLB Players Association a new package proposal of potential rules changes, ESPN.com’s Jeff Passan reports.

The sides have been going back and forth on potential tweaks over recent months, all while trading barbs on a variety of matters. There are indications, per Passan, that this latest effort represents a compromise vision that could lead to an eventual deal.

MLB’s new proposal features a willingness to push back the implementation of a pitch clock until after the current CBA expires, per the report. Commissioner Rob Manfred has the power to implement the clock unilaterally but is evidently willing to utilize it as a bargaining chip. It remains to be seen whether the players will make concessions in other areas to oppose such an unpopular but financially neutral rule change.

Other aspects of the proffered approach are at least as notable. Passan says the league would like to implement:

• single trade deadline of July 31st
• three-batter minimum per pitcher (by 2020)
• 26-man roster (by 2020) and 28-man September roster (with 13 and 14-pitcher limits)
• 15-day injured list and 15-day minimum optional assignment
• further limitations on mound visits, position-player pitching, and time between innings

The proposal also contemplates joint studies on more extensive rule changes. Some of the more exotic concepts are due for real-world testing in the Atlantic League. Per J.J. Cooper of Baseball America, the indy ball outfit is slated to function as a laboratory for robot umps and a moved-back mound. The agreement covers other areas as well. Of particular note, Trackman is coming to the Atlantic League.

MLB Players Association executive director Tony Clark has issued a statement pushing back against recent comments from MLB commissioner Rob Manfred in which the latter rejected the idea that tanking teams have led to a depressed free-agent market. Said Manfred (link via the Associated Press):

…Our teams are trying. Every single one of them wants to win. It may look a little different to outsiders because the game has changed, the way that people think about the game, the way that people think about putting a winning team together has changed, but that doesn’t mean they’re not trying. …

I think it’s important to remember that the Major League Baseball Players Association has always wanted a market-based system. And, markets change. Particularly when the institution around those markets change. We’ve had a lot of change in the game. People think about players differently. They analyze players differently. They negotiate differently. Agents negotiate differently. … I reject the notion that payroll is a good measure for how much a team is trying or how successful that team is going to be.

Unsurprisingly, Clark took umbrage both with the notion that every team is making an effort to win and with Manfred’s apparent attempt to suggest that the players are partially to blame for the lack of free-agent activity. His comments today are as follows:

Commissioner Manfred’s latest comments and his attempts to shift blame and distract from the main issues are unconstructive and misleading at best.

Players’ eyes don’t deceive them, nor do fans’. As Players report to spring training and see respected veterans and valued teammates on the sidelines, they are rightfully frustrated by a two-year attack on free agency. Players commit to compete every pitch of every at-bat, and every inning of every game. Yet we’re operating in an environment in which an increasing number of clubs appear to be making little effort to improve their rosters, compete for a championship or justify the price of a ticket.

Players have made a sincere attempt to engage with clubs on their proposals to improve pace of play and enhance the game’s appeal to fans. At the same time, we have presented wide-ranging ideas that value substance over seconds and ensure the best Players are on the field every day. We believe these substantive changes are imperative now — not in 2022 or 2025, but in 2019. We look forward to continuing to engage with MLB on changes that address substantive issues — to the benefit of fans, Players, the 30 clubs and the game of baseball as a whole.

There’s obviously some underlying disagreement as to just what it means for a team to be “trying” in this day and age. There’s no denying Manfred’s point that the market is shifting, though of course it’s anything but an unregulated arena. Teams are responding to the incentives established in the collective bargaining process, and doing so with ever more attention to economic rationality. Setting up a potentially expansive contention window in an efficient manner, though, often means sacrificing near-term improvements for longer-term flexibility. And there’s surely a reasonable argument to be made that many teams aren’t “trying” — or, at least, aren’t doing so as much as might be preferable from the perspective of creating a competitive and entertaining product.

In any event, this is just the latest exchange of words in the still-evolving battle over team spending on player contracts. Clark indicated that the players are still amenable to engaging in talks regarding several proposed rule changes, though the league’s position seems to be that the union’s efforts shouldn’t be entertained until it’s time to discuss a new collective bargaining agreement. For the time being, then, both sides are jockeying for position in the realms of both public perception and their own direct constituencies.