Headlines

Go To Pro Hockey Rumors
Go To Hoops Rumors

Collective Bargaining Agreement

MLB Looking Into Potential CBA Violations By Multiple Teams Regarding Top Free Agents

By | at

Major League Baseball has opened an investigation into the Yankees and Mets to determine if their owners improperly communicated about the free agency of AL MVP favorite Aaron Judge, reports Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic.

The investigation is rooted in a column by Andy Martino of SNY earlier this month. Martino wrote the Mets were unlikely to pursue Judge in free agency, in part because of a mutual respect between Mets owner Steve Cohen and Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner.

As part of that piece, Martino wrote: “Talking to Mets people about this all through the year, the team in Queens sees Judge as a Yankee, uniquely tailored to be an icon in their uniform, stadium and branding efforts. Owners Steve Cohen and Hal Steinbrenner enjoy a mutually respectful relationship, and do not expect to upend that with a high-profile bidding war. The only way people involved can see the Mets changing course and pursuing Judge would be if the Yankees somehow declared themselves totally out of the bidding.”

To be clear, Martino didn’t characterize that as the sole reason the Mets could choose to sit out the Judge bidding, nor did he expressly state Cohen and Steinbrenner had talked about Judge’s free agency. He went on to note the Mets could be wary of signing another deal in excess of $300MM after extending Francisco Lindor last year.

The Mets could certainly make a legitimate baseball argument for not going after Judge, but communication among owners not to pursue a free agent — if it occurred — would be a collusive violation of the collective bargaining agreement. The MLB Players Association expressed concern about the SNY article to the league, Rosenthal notes, spurring the investigation. Rosenthal adds that MLB is expected to request communication records between Cohen and Steinbrenner.

In the 1980’s, arbitrators found a pattern of collusion among owners that depressed the 1985-87 free agent markets. In 1990, owners agreed to pay players $280MM as part of a settlement. Renewed collusion allegations arose in the early 2000’s, and Rosenthal notes the league agreed to a $12MM settlement but no admission of guilt during the 2006 CBA negotiations.

The MLBPA can file a grievance on Judge’s behalf, and Rosenthal writes the union would have to demonstrate both a) improper communication between the Yankees and Mets actually occurred and b) Judge’s market was harmed by that communication.

Meanwhile, Rosenthal suggests the MLBPA could take issue with the Astros in an unrelated matter. That’d relate to comments made by Houston owner Jim Crane last night on the free agent status of Cy Young winner Justin Verlander. Brian McTaggart of MLB.com wrote that “Crane said Verlander is seeking a deal similar to Max Scherzer,” who secured a three-year, $130MM deal with the Mets last winter, as part of an interview with MLB.com on Tuesday. Crane isn’t quoted on the record mentioning Scherzer, telling McTaggart of Verlander: “He’s looking at the comp, which I think there’s only one or two. … J.V.’s probably got a few years left, and he wants to make the most of it. I think he’s going to test the market on that.”

To be clear, there’s no suggestion Crane has been in conversations with other clubs about Verlander’s market. However, the CBA also expressly prohibits team officials from “(making) comments to the media about the value of an unsigned free agent, regardless of whether discussions have occurred,” including comments to the effect of “Player X is seeking more than Player Y received.”

If the Players Association decided to file a grievance against Houston, they’d likewise need to demonstrate Verlander’s market was harmed by Crane’s comments — ostensibly by arguing that Crane’s claims of the nine-time All-Star’s high asking price may deter other teams from jumping into the fray. To this point, there’s no indication the union has filed a grievance in either situation, but each bears monitoring over the coming weeks

MLB To Implement Pitch Clock, Limit Defensive Shifts Beginning In 2023

By | at

Major League Baseball announced Friday that the Competition Committee — an 11-person panel consisting of six ownership representatives, four players and one umpire — has voted to implement three new rule changes for the 2023 season: a pitch clock, a limitation on defensive shifting and larger bases.

Commissioner Rob Manfred issued the following statement after the vote:

“These steps are designed to improve pace of play, increase action, and reduce injuries, all of which are goals that have overwhelming support among our fans. Throughout the extensive testing of recent years, Minor League personnel and a wide range of fans – from the most loyal to casual observers – have recognized the collective impact of these changes in making the game even better and more enjoyable. We appreciate the participation of the representatives of the Major League Players and Umpires in this process.”

The league’s press release describes the changes (and provides context from minor league testing of the pitch clock) as follows:

  • Pitch Timer: A Pitch Timer will improve pace of play and reduce dead time.  The Pitch Timer Regulations include the following provisions:
    • A pitcher must begin his motion before the expiration of the timer.  Pitchers will have up to 15 seconds between pitches when the bases are empty and up to 20 seconds between pitches with at least one runner on base.  Testing in the Minor Leagues involved 14 seconds with the bases empty and 18 seconds (19 seconds in Triple-A) with at least one runner on base.
    • A pitcher may disengage the rubber (timer resets) twice per plate appearance without penalty.
      • Subsequent disengagements result in a balk, unless an out is recorded on a runner.
      • The disengagement count resets if the runner advances; testing in the Minors had no reset until the following plate appearance. 
    • A hitter must be in the batter’s box and alert to the pitcher with at least eight seconds remaining.  Testing in the Minor Leagues included nine seconds remaining.
    • A hitter receives one timeout per plate appearance.
    • Umpires will have authority to provide additional time if warranted by special circumstances (e.g., the catcher makes the last out of the inning and needs additional time to get into defensive position).
      • KEY STATS:
        • Compared to last season, the Pitch Timer has reduced the average nine-inning game time by 26 minutes (from 3:04 in 2021 to 2:38 in 2022) while increasing action on the field.
        • Stolen base attempts per game have increased from 2.23 in 2019, at a 68% success rate, to 2.83 in 2022, at a 77% success rate.
        • In its most recent week of play, Minor League Baseball has averaged just 0.45 Pitch Timer violations per game.
  • Defensive Shift Restrictions: A set of restrictions will return the game to a more traditional aesthetic by governing defensive shifts, with the goals of encouraging more balls in play, giving players more opportunities to showcase their athleticism, and offsetting the growing trend of alignments that feature four outfielders:
    • Lateral Positioning: Two infielders must be positioned on each side of second base when the pitch is released.
    • Depth: All four infielders must have both feet within the outer boundary of the infield when the pitcher is on the rubber.
    • No Switching Sides: Infielders may not switch sides unless there is a substitution.
      • KEY STAT: Defensive alignments that feature four players in the outfield increased nearly 6x across MLB since the start of the 2018 season.
  • Bigger Bases: With the goal of improving player safety, the size of first, second, and third base will increase from the standard 15” square to 18” square. 
    • Bigger bases are expected to have a positive impact on player health and keeping Major Leaguers on the field.
      • KEY STAT: Base-related injuries decreased by 13.5% in the Minor Leagues this season, including declines at every level of the Minors. 
    • Bigger bases will reduce the distance between first and second and between second and third base by 4.5”, thereby encouraging offensive Clubs to attempt to steal bases more frequently and generally to be more aggressive on the basepaths.

The committee unanimously voted in favor of the larger bases, although as first reported by ESPN’s Jeff Passan, the players voted against both the pitch clock and the limitation of defensive shifts. The MLBPA confirmed as much in a since-issued statement, which reads:

“Players live the game — day in and day out. On-field rules and regulations impact their preparation, performance, and ultimately, the integrity of the game itself. Player leaders from across the league were engaged in on-field rules negotiations through the Competition Committee, and they provided specific and actionable feedback on the changes proposed by the Commissioner’s Office. Major League Baseball was unwilling to meaningfully address the areas of concern that Players raised, and as a result, Players on the Competition Committee voted unanimously against the implementation of the rules covering defensive shifts and the use of a pitch timer.”

Competition Committee To Vote On Several Rule Changes For 2023 Season

By | at

The competition committee is set to vote on various proposed rule changes for the 2023 season, report Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic. A pitch clock, limitations on defensive shifting, pickoff limits and enlarged bases are all set to be formally voted upon tomorrow at 11:00 am CST.

As Drellich and Rosenthal note, it seems a mere formality that all the proposed changes will pass. The competition committee was established by mutual agreement between the league and Players Association during the most recent round of collective bargaining. It’s an 11-person panel designed to vote upon potential changes to the on-field playing rules. That committee is comprised of six league appointees, four MLB players and an umpire. Andy Martino of SNY reported in June that the league would be represented by Dick Monfort, John Stanton, Greg Johnson, Tom Werner, Mark Shapiro and Bill DeWitt for this round of voting. The players on the panel are expected to be Jack Flaherty, Tyler Glasnow, Whit Merrifield and Austin Slater (with Ian Happ and Walker Buehler as alternates), while Bill Miller will represent the umpires.

With MLB appointing a majority of the committee, it’s generally expected the league will be able to push through its desired changes with relative ease. (MLB had a unilateral right to change playing rules under the prior CBA, although it had been required to wait a full year after formally proposing it to the MLBPA in the event the union refused to sign off on earlier implementation). Under the current CBA, the committee can implement rules changes 45 days after making a recommendation to the union. That grace period won’t be relevant for this set of proposals, all of which are focused on 2023 and beyond.

The timing of the vote had been unclear, but it has seemed a formality for months that each of the pitch clock, a shift limitation and larger bases would be implemented by the start of next season. MLB had pushed for all three of those provisions at one point during CBA negotiations this past offseason. The parties eventually agreed to temporarily shelve any changes to the on-field product and focus on larger economic issues, but it has seemed inevitable since March that these three factors would be on the agenda (and would very likely be approved) for the 2023 campaign.

Drellich and Rosenthal report the specifics on the proposed alterations. Pitchers would have 15 seconds to begin their delivery with no one on base, while they’d have 20 seconds to start their motion with runners aboard. The countdown begins when the pitcher has the ball, the batter and catcher are in the vicinity of home plate, and all baserunners are in an appropriate position. Catchers must be in position with no more than nine seconds remaining on the clock. If either the pitcher or catcher violates the provision, an automatic ball is called.

Batters also have a time limit. They’re required to be in the box and “alert to the pitcher” with no more than eight seconds remaining on the clock. If he’s not prepared, an automatic strike will be assessed. (The league also has the authority to impose additional discipline on players and/or staff circumventing the clock). There are 30 seconds allotted between batters and 135 seconds between innings and for pitching changes.

The pickoff limit is also a pace-of-play measure. Pitchers are freely allowed to disengage from the rubber twice per plate appearance — whether to throw a pickoff or for any other reason. Doing so resets the clock for that pitch. A pitcher can disengage for a third time, but an automatic balk is assessed if the baserunner is not thrown out. Essentially, the disengagement rule limits pitchers to two “free” pickoff attempts per batter. After two unsuccessful step-offs, the pitcher can again attempt a pickoff but the baserunner would be awarded an automatic base if he’s not thrown out. If the runner advances without a ball put in play — via balk, stolen base, wild pitch, etc. — the pitcher’s disengagement limit resets.

The pickoff limit figures to incentivize more aggressive baserunning, at least among faster runners. Particularly once a pitcher uses his first two step-offs, a baserunner can theoretically extend his lead. The third disengagement means the runner won’t have free rein, but there’ll be more flexibility to push the leadoff knowing that another unsuccessful pickoff attempt is treated as a balk.

Turning to the shift restrictions, teams would be required to deploy four players (not including the pitcher and catcher) on the infield. All infielders have to have both feet on the dirt, and two players must be completely on either side of the second base bag. A shift violation results in an automatic ball, unless it occurs on a ball in play or hit batsman. If the baserunner reaches anyway, the play stands. If there’s an out recorded, the batting team’s manager decides whether to let the play stand. In most instances, they obviously wouldn’t do so, although there are certain situations (i.e. a sacrifice fly) where teams may be content to accept the out for the advancement of other baserunners. Whether a team violated the shift ban is subject to replay review, while possible pitch clock offenses are not.

The league has experimented with the possibility of restricting shifts for quite some time in an effort to increase the batting average on balls in play. That has included some rather complex and extreme tests in the minor leagues. Jayson Stark of the Athletic reported in July that MLB was introducing a “pie-slice” restriction on shifting at the Low-A level. Not only did that require two infielders on either side of second base, it carved out a restricted area around the bag to prevent middle infielders from playing deep and just to their side of second base to take away would-be hits up the middle. That is not in the proposed rules changes for MLB in 2023, to be clear, but it illustrates the league might experiment with further defensive restrictions down the line if the initial shift ban doesn’t produce a desired uptick in base knocks.

The bases, meanwhile, would be enlarged from their current 15 inches square to 18 inches square. That’s a small change designed to facilitate more aggressive baserunning and minimize the chance of collisions on bang-bang plays at first.

Drellich and Rosenthal report a host of other timing restrictions (on mound visits, in-stadium music, defensive timeouts, etc.) that would also go into effect if approved. The Athletic’s post is worth a full read for those interested in all the changes that seem likely to come to the majors next season.

MLBPA Rejects MLB’s “Final” Proposal On International Draft

By and | at

The Major League Baseball Players Association announced Monday that it has rejected Major League Baseball’s latest (and purportedly “final”) proposal regarding the implementation of an international draft. The MLBPA’s statement reads as follows:

“The Players Association today rejected what MLB characterized as its “final” proposal to establish a draft and hard slotting system for international entrants.

Players made clear from the outset that any International Draft must meaningfully improve the status quo for those players and not unfairly discriminate between those players and domestic entrants. To this end, the Players Association made a series of proposals aimed at protecting and advancing the rights of international amateurs.

Our draft proposals — unprecedented in MLBPA history — sought to establish minimum guarantees in player signings, roster spots, infrastructure investments, playing opportunities, scouting opportunities as well as enforcement measures to combat corruption. We also made proposals to compensate international signees more fairly and in line with other amateurs, and to ensure that all prospects have access to an educational and player development safety net.

At their core, each of our proposals was focused on protecting against the scenario that all Players fear the most — the erosion of our game on the world stage, with international players becoming the latest victim in baseball’s prioritization of efficiency over fundamental fairness. The League’s responses fell well short of anything Players could consider a fair deal.”

An MLB spokesperson released a statement of their own (relayed by James Wagner of the New York Times):

“MLB has worked to reach agreement with the MLBPA to reform the international amateur system in ways that would address longstanding challenges and benefit future players. We are disappointed the MLBPA chose the status quo over transitioning to an international draft that would have guaranteed future international players larger signing bonuses and better educational opportunities, while enhancing transparency to best address the root causes of corruption in the current system.”

The system for acquiring international amateur players has remained a topic of negotiation between the league and union going back years. It was a particularly prevalent point of discussion in the most recent collective bargaining talks, with the league’s desire for and the MLBPA’s opposition to an international draft emerging as a late sticking point in the parties’ efforts to finalize a new CBA last spring. Eventually, the parties agreed to temporarily table international draft discussions while ratifying the remainder of the CBA and ending the lockout. The sides gave themselves until July 25 to agree upon a draft, with the condition that the qualifying offer system for free agents would be eliminated if a draft were implemented.

It would appear that no draft will be put in place, although the July 25 deadline was a mutually agreed upon date between the league and union the parties could revise if they wanted to do so. The “final” terminology of the league’s proposal indicates no additional discussions are on the horizon, but it’s at least worth remembering that in March, the union rejected multiple CBA offers MLB had presented as its last proposal before the sides eventually agreed to circle back and reconvene in time to avoid the final cancelation of regular season games.

That certainly doesn’t mean the same process will play out in this case, however, particularly since it seems the parties weren’t anywhere close to agreeable terms. Jon Heyman of the New York Post reports (on Twitter) the MLBPA leadership was so dissatisfied with the league’s offer they never brought it to the players for an official vote, as the union leadership has authority to do. Union leaders did inform player reps they planned to reject the offer before officially doing so, according to Heyman, to which there were no objections.

There indeed seemed to be a large gap between the sides to bridge, primarily on the amount of money that would be allotted for signing bonuses. The league’s “final” offer involved the creation of a $191MM bonus pool to be distributed among the players taken in the 20-round draft; the MLBPA had been seeking $260MM. The league wanted fixed, hard slots associated with each selection that could neither be exceeded nor undershot; the union wanted slot values to serve as a floor but afford the flexibility for teams to go overslot. Additionally, there was a reported gap in the proposed maximum bonuses for undrafted free agents — with the league offering $20K and the MLBPA proposing $40K.

MLB has maintained that even a $191MM bonus pool would be a boon for players relative to the status quo, claiming it’d result in more than $20MM extra going to international amateurs than had been the case under the existing system. The union has countered the bonuses for the top international players would still fall short in comparison to those of domestic draftees and that any overall financial boost would be more than counteracted by international players’ forfeiture of their ability to choose their first team.

The league has also expressed concern about the current system’s incentivizing teams and players to verbally agree to deals well in advance of players reaching their 16th birthday. A hard-capped draft would all but eliminate that occurrence, but the union has expressed its belief that tighter enforcement against verbal agreements would achieve the same purpose without necessitating a draft.

If this truly marks the end of negotiations, the status quo for both the international amateur setup and the qualifying offer will remain. That’s a notable development for upcoming free agent markets, as teams will still have to forfeit draft picks and/or international signing bonus space to sign players who received and rejected the QO. The MLBPA has sought to remove that non-monetary cost associated with adding any free agents, but that hasn’t proven a sufficient enough inducement for the union to agree to the league’s vision for an international draft. Even if this closes the book on the issue for a while, it stands to reason the league’s desire for a draft will come up again during future CBA negotiations.

League, MLBPA Exchange Proposals On International Draft

By | at

July 25 is the deadline for Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association to come to an agreement on an international player draft, which would replace the current international signing system and end the qualifying-offer system for big league free agents.  The two sides have been in negotiations for weeks, and ESPN’s Alden Gonzalez (all via Twitter links) reports that counter-proposals were exchanged within the last two days.  The union put forth a new offer on Saturday, and the league quickly countered again today with what MLB said was a final offer.

“There was some movement on the money,” Gonzalez writes, with the league increasing its offer from a $181MM bonus pool for the top 600 players to $191MM.  Of course, this is still well below the $260MM bonus pool the MLBPA was and is still seeking, and there wasn’t any word on whether or not the league’s new proposal involved fixed slot prices.  According to past reports, the union wanted slot prices acting only as minimum expenditures for the assigned selections, whereas MLB wanted hard slots that couldn’t be exceeded for any pick. 

Also, the two sides differed on the amount of money available for signings of undrafted players, as the MLBPA wanted a $40K limit and MLB wanted only $20K.  This other financial aspect was one of many differences floated between the union and the league (as illustrated by The Athletic’s Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal), and it isn’t known if any common ground on these issues has been reached.

There are definitely still some hurdles, as Gonzalez notes that the MLBPA “still isn’t satisfied with some of the other aspects of the league’s proposal.”  With less than 24 hours to go until the deadline, it would seem unlikely that a deal will be reached on the creation of an international draft, considering that the two sides remain some distance apart.  Then again, back in March, it didn’t seem like a new collective bargaining agreement was going to be reached in time to avoid the cancellation of games, but the two sides were rather quickly able to make up a lot of ground in order to launch a shortened version of Spring Training and a full 162-game schedule.

The question of the international draft was the last outstanding issue from the offseason’s CBA talks, as the two sides agreed on the broader new collective bargaining agreement in March in order to end the lockout, and talks resumed this summer about the possibility of the draft.  If no agreement is reached, the current rules regarding the international signing system and qualifying offers would remain in place through the term of the new CBA, which expires following the 2026 season.

Beyond just acting as the last vestige of the CBA negotiations, the talks also have a sizable impact on baseball business as a whole.  The Athletic’s Jim Bowden observes that with the international talent-acquisition process and QO-related draft compensation undecided, teams have been waiting until after tomorrow’s deadline to propose major trade offers, as clubs want to be sure about their future avenues to obtaining young talent before considering moving any current prospects at the August 2 trade deadline.

MLB Makes Counterproposal To MLBPA On International Draft

By | at

10:08pm: In a follow-up piece, Drellich and Rosenthal report a host of additional specifics on each side’s proposals to date. Among the most notable aspects under consideration: the union has proposed to extend the posting window for players coming from Asian professional leagues from the current 30 days to 45 days. Both sides are also proposing the creation of prospect leagues to operate in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela (contingent on U.S. government regulations in the latter nation). MLB’s proposed draft would begin in 2024, while the union has offered to start at some point later in 2023.

Under the MLBPA proposal, teams would be unable to sign players for below slot value but would have the discretion to go above slot. That addresses any concerns the union would’ve had about teams not spending at least their minimum bonus pool. The league’s hard-slotted proposal would prevent teams from going over the allotment, capping overall spending while eliminating the cutting of pre-draft deals.

The Athletic’s piece is worth a read for many more details for those interested in the subject.

9:05pm: Major League Baseball made its latest counterproposal to the Players Association as the sides negotiate the possibility of a draft for international amateurs, report Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic. It’s the league’s response to an offer put forth by the MLBPA last week. For the first time, the union showed a willingness to implement an international draft but only with certain conditions such as a higher bonus pool and the exemption of players from Japan.

The league’s proposal calls for a $181MM signing bonus pool for drafted players, according to the Athletic. That’s the same as the league’s previous offer, while Drellich and Rosenthal note the union has been seeking a $260MM pool. There is also a gap between the parties on the maximum signing bonus that would be available for undrafted players. The league is proposing a $20K cap, while the union’s proposal called for a $40K limit.

Additionally, Alden Gonzalez of ESPN reports there’s a discrepancy in slotting between the two sides. MLB is proposing fixed, hard-slotted bonuses for players depending on with which pick they’re selected. That’d differ from the domestic amateur draft, which features a set overall pool of money teams are freely allowed to spread around to draftees. The domestic draft comes with recommended slot values per pick, but teams can and do ignore those recommendations to pay certain players overslot while cutting below-slot deals with other selections. (Teams are permitted to exceed their bonus pool in the domestic draft, but doing so by more than 5% comes with future pick forfeitures no club has been willing to take on). The union, according to Gonzalez, is pushing for a similar soft-slotting system in the international draft.

Of course, the prospects involved are not perfectly analogous. International players would likely be draft-eligible at age-16, while domestic draft prospects must have graduated high school. Domestically, many high school prospects have the ability to play at a major college if they don’t sign with their drafting team. In contrast, most international amateurs won’t have that fallback.

Hard-slotting would keep teams from not offering to spend their entire allotment to take advantage of the players’ comparative lack of leverage, and it’d eliminate the possibility for teams to cut pre-draft deals with prospects. Yet it’d also reduce the ability to go over-slot for top players in the class. The league’s proposals during negotiations in March came with a $5.5125MM value for the first overall pick, for instance. The #1 pick in the 2022 domestic draft comes with an $8.842MM slot value, according to Jim Callis of MLB.com. Last year’s top selection, Henry Davis, signed for $6.5MM.

The union’s desired bonus pool would close the gap between the slot values of the selections between the international and domestic drafts. According to Gonzalez, MLB counters their proposed bonus pool would pay international players $23MM more collectively than what they received during the 2020-21 signing period, making it an economic improvement over the status quo. Of course, one of the trade-offs would be the forfeiture of players’ abilities to choose their first employer. If no draft is agreed upon, the existing system would remain in place. That features hard-capped bonus pools to limit overall team spending, but players are permitted to negotiate with all 30 clubs.

Gonzalez reports some movement the league made in more minor areas than the overall bonus allotment. The league has withdrawn its push for a mandatory one-year suspension for prospects who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs. MLB also proposed that any prospect who submitted a pre-draft physical would have to be offered the full slot value of their selection. Both sides are in agreement that a draft, if implemented, would last 20 rounds.

The parties have until July 25 to come to an agreement, with the draft likely to go into effect in 2024 if implemented. If a draft is agreed upon, the qualifying offer system would be removed, and teams would no longer have to forfeit selections for signing free agents.

Interestingly, there’ll also be a small change for the upcoming domestic draft. Bonuses for undrafted free agents have been capped at $20K in each of the past two seasons, but Kyle Glaser of Baseball America reports that’ll no longer be the case. Any expenditures north of $125K on a non-drafted player would count against a team’s pool limit, however. That’s a return to the pre-2020 setup.

MLB To Pay $185MM To Settle Class Action Minor League Suit

By | at

Major League Baseball is set to pay $185MM to settle the class action lawsuit brought by minor league players nearly a decade ago, as Jeff Passan of ESPN was first to report. Evan Drellich of the Athletic adds (Twitter link) that the league will lift any “contractual prohibitions against (teams) paying minor league players wages” for work outside of regular season play. The agreement is pending final approval from the court.

It’s the culmination of a suit first filed in 2014. Among other aspects of minor league pay, the litigation was concerned with the process of unpaid spring training. MLB came under public fire for arguing for players to remind unpaid for Spring Training as recently as February. That proved unsuccessful, however. The following month, the trial court rejected the league’s argument that minor leaguers were seasonal employees exempted from minimum wage laws.

The case was set for trial on June 1, but the parties came to a settlement agreement in mid-May. Terms were unreported at the time, but the league has apparently agreed to dole out $185MM in backpay. Passan notes that more than $120MM of that figure will be distributed among the class of players involved (with the rest presumably going to court costs and attorneys fees). One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, former minor leaguer Garrett Broshuis, tells Drellich more than 20,000 players are expected to share those funds.

“This settlement is a monumental step for minor league players toward a fair and just compensation system,” Broshuis said (via Passan). “As a former minor league baseball player, I’ve seen first-hand the financial struggle players face while earning poverty-level wages — or no wages at all — in pursuit of their major league dream. For the better part of a decade, it has been my honor to help lead this fight and to shine a light on the unfair labor practices that have long plagued America’s pastime.”

MLB released a statement of its own. “We are only in the second year of a major overhaul of the 100-year-old player development system and have made great strides to improve the quality of life for minor league players,” a league spokesperson told Passan, referencing a 2021 uptick in minor league salaries and this season’s requirement for teams to provide housing to players. “We are proud that minor league players already receive significant benefits, including free housing, quality health care, multiple meals per day, college tuition assistance for those who wish to continue their education and over $450 million in annual signing bonuses for first-year players. We are pleased we were able to come to a mutually agreeable resolution but are unable to comment on the details until the agreement is formally approved by the Court.”

The proposed lifting of the ban on payment outside of regular season play, meanwhile, has the potential to impact countless of players moving forward. Whether and how many teams will begin to pay minor leaguers for things like Spring Training and instructional league is unclear. Nevertheless, the removal of the ban has to be viewed as a win for groups fighting for better pay for minor leaguers, most of whom are not part of the Major League Baseball Players Association and do not have a union of their own.

Latest On International Draft Negotiations

By | at

Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association agreed to a new collective bargaining agreement on March 10, ending a lockout that froze the sport for more than four months. In order to reach that agreement, the two sides had to find the middle ground on a wide variety of issues, but there was one issue that both sides agreed to kick down the road and deal with at another time.

The league wished to replace the existing international signing system with an international draft, suggesting that this would be a way of improving a system that has its fair share of problems. MLBTR’s Steve Adams took a look at many of the issues back in March, relaying reports from many sources who had concerns including players being evaluated even before they become teenagers and making verbal agreements as young as 13 or 14 years of age. Other concerns include steroid usage among those youngsters as well as corruption among the “buscones” who often arrange deals between the teams and players.

The players pushed back, however, with many pointing out that there are already rules against such behavior but little to no enforcement, and that the real motivation for MLB wanting the draft is to stifle the players’ earning power and ability to choose their employer.

The league tried to sweeten the pot by offering to get rid of the qualifying offer system in exchange, which has a negative impact on the earning power of players who receive one. But it wasn’t enough to get the union to bite. In the end, both sides agreed to putting this particular standoff on ice until July 25. If the two sides can agree on an international draft by then, the qualifying offer system will be eliminated. If not, the existing international system of hard-capped bonus pools will remain, as will the QO.

With that deadline now just over two weeks away, the sides met today to discuss proposals. Jeff Passan of ESPN was among the reporters to relay word of the meeting, noting that the two sides are separated by significant gaps in their proposals. Bob Nightengale of USA Today added that the union proposal involves a higher pool of money for the drafted players and noted that players from Puerto Rico and Japan would be excluded from the draft. (An earlier report from Jorge Castillo of the Los Angeles Times noted that inclusion or exclusion of Japanese players was still being negotiated.) Hannah Keyser of Yahoo! Sports added that what the two proposals had in common was the same number of rounds and age limits.

Alden Gonzalez of ESPN then broke down the key differences when it comes to the numbers. MLB’s proposal is for a 20-round draft with hard slot values, meaning that the player and team would have no ability to negotiate for a higher or lower amount. The total pool of money for the draft would be $181MM, with undrafted players limited to a maximum bonus of $20K if they subsequently sign as free agents. The MLBPA counter proposal is also 20 rounds, but comes with no cap on player bonuses, a $260MM pool and a $40K limit for undrafted players.

For reference, the current draft includes players from the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Each team is given a bonus pool, with those pools varying in size depending on which picks the team possesses. Each pick comes with a slot value, though teams are free to sign players for above or below those assigned slot prices, as long as the total price tag of those signings doesn’t exceed the value of their bonus pool. It’s not a hard cap, as clubs are allowed to exceed their bonus pools, though there are increasing penalties depending on the extent to which teams go beyond their limit.

In that existing draft system, players at least have some leverage in negotiations with teams. If a player doesn’t get a bonus to their liking, they can refuse to sign and play college ball instead, returning to the draft at a later date. It seems that the players value this bit of agency, as they are trying to implement it for international players as well. The league, on the other hand, is more interested is tamping down costs, both via hard slots and the smaller pool of total available money.

Whether or not the two sides can bridge those gaps and come to an agreement will have huge ramifications for many players, both current and future. As Evan Drellich of The Athletic points out, 28.2% of the 975 players on Opening Day rosters are foreign-born, with hundreds more in the minor league systems of each club and more joining every year. The current youngsters who will one day follow in their footsteps could be facing the status quo or looking to navigate a new system that is finalized in the coming weeks.

The agreement, or lack thereof, will also have a big impact on current players. It’s been known for years that the qualifying offer system has a drag on the earning power of free agents, as it’s tied to draft pick forfeiture. Most teams that are interested in signing a QO’d free agent will consider the loss of the draft pick as part of the acquisition cost and lower their financial offer accordingly. This only affects around a dozen or so players each year, however. It was 14 this year, for example. Although the union would surely love to be rid of the QO, the international draft impacts so many more players that they likely won’t accept an unsatisfactory draft framework just to eliminate it.

More news will be forthcoming as the two sides will surely continue negotiating over the coming weeks. Of course, it’s possible the two sides could agree to another extension and push the deadline beyond July 25, but that would come with complications. Players who are traded mid-season are ineligible to receive qualifying offers at season’s end, meaning teams will likely want to know whether the QO system is in place before deciding on how to approach the August 2 trade deadline.

Rob Manfred Discusses Automated Strike Zone, Pitch Clocks And Potential Expansion

By | at

In a wide-ranging piece, Don Van Natta Jr. of ESPN chats with MLB commissioner Rob Manfred about possible changes to the sport that could be implemented over the coming years. Of particular note are Manfred’s comments on a trio of issues: an automated strike zone, pitch clocks and the possibility of league expansion.

Manfred expressed support for the implementation of the robotic strike zone at the major league level in 2024. Precisely what form that’d take isn’t clear, as the commissioner raised two possibilities for such a setup. The first would be to have all ball-strike calls computer-generated, with the result relayed to the human umpire via earpiece. An alternative possibility is to leave the home plate umpire in charge of initial calls but institute some form of challenge system, whereby each manager would have a finite number of chances to contest a ball-strike call during the game.

MLB has tested the automatic strike zone in the Triple-A Pacific Coast League for the past five weeks. The possibility of taking calls away from human umpires has been discussed for some time, with the proliferation of pitch-tracking technology making that a more viable possibility. The process hasn’t always gone entirely smoothly, however. Last month, Guardians manager Terry Francona opined to The Athletic that an automated zone used in exhibition play in 2020 was “not ready.” Francona suggested that while the zone tended to be precise on the corners of the plate, “up and down it’s got some work to do.”

In addition to having every pitch called by the robotic zone, MLB has experimented with the challenge system during certain minor league games. Two weeks ago, Manfred told reporters (including Evan Drellich of the Athletic) that the league was likely to continue both systems in the minors and didn’t intend to institute the automated zone next season. “We’re continuing to experiment in the minor leagues,” Manfred said at the time. “Big kind of development in the challenge-system alternative. The idea of using two different formats is a big change this year.”

While the automated strike zone seems unlikely to be a factor at the major league level before 2024, the pitch clock seems to be trending towards implementation next season. MLB has been testing with as few as 14 seconds between offerings when no runners are on base at certain levels of the minors. Van Natta writes that the 14-second marker would also be a target for major league implementation, while pitchers would have 18 or 19 seconds to throw when runners are on base. Manfred’s affinity for the pitch clock as a means of expediting pace of play is hardly a new development. He’s supported its testing in the minor leagues, and he expressed a desire last November for it to be part of the most recent round of CBA negotiations.

On-field rules changes ended up on the back burner as the league and Players Association focused on bigger core economics issues late in CBA talks. Yet the sides did agree to the implementation of a rules committee that’ll go into effect in 2023. The committee will be made up of four active players, six league appointees and an umpire. The league’s majority gives it de facto authority to implement many on-field rules changes it desires, and the committee will have the right to institute a new rule within 45 days of informing the MLBPA. (Under the previous CBA, the league had to wait one year after informing the PA before making a unilateral on-field rules adjustment).

This week, Andy Martino of SNY reported the identities of the people expected to be on the 2023 committee. Making up the players’ contingent are Jack Flaherty, Whit Merrifield, Austin Slater and Tyler Glasnow, with Ian Happ and Walker Buehler tabbed as alternates. On the league side will be John Stanton (Mariners), Bill DeWitt (Cardinals), Greg Johnson (Giants), Dick Monfort (Rockies), Tom Werner (Red Sox) and Mark Shapiro (Blue Jays). Bill Miller is expected to serve as the umpire representative. Along with the pitch clock, the committee is widely expected to examine the possibility of enlarging the bases and limiting defensive shifting.

While on-field rules changes figure to be relatively simple to implement, league expansion would be a much more complex process. Manfred tells Van Natta he’d “love to get to 32 teams,” although he didn’t elaborate a timetable or possible target cities for two new franchises. MLB’s last round of expansion was in 1998, when the Diamondbacks and Devil Rays were added to push the league from 28 to 30. Each of the NFL (2002), NBA (2004) and NHL (2021) have added teams to their respective leagues within the past two decades.

Manfred himself is under contract through 2024, having been unanimously approved for an extension by the league’s owners in November 2018. Van Natta reports the commissioner has a $17.5MM annual base salary under that deal, which also includes unspecified performance bonuses. Asked whether he wanted to continue in the role beyond 2024, the 63-year-old Manfred said he “hasn’t made a decision about what I’m going to do, whether I want to continue. I love the job, but I haven’t really made a decision about what’s next.“

Senate Committee Examining MLB’s Antitrust Exemption

By | at

This week, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee reached out to the non-profit group Advocates For Minor Leaguers for further information on Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption. Evan Drellich of the Athletic and Jeff Passan of ESPN (Twitter thread) were among those to cover the development in detail.

The focus of the current inquiry is on how the antitrust exemption affects minor league player pay, the 2019-20 reduction of the number of minor league teams, and the league’s acquisition process for international amateurs. Senators from both parties released statements, which can be found in Drellich’s piece, expressing support for a reexamination of the exemption. MLB has not commented on the matter.

The exemption has been in place for a century. It dates back to a 1922 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that MLB was an intrastate affair outside the purview of the interstate commerce being regulated by federal antitrust law. In subsequent cases, the Court has acknowledged its original reasoning was overly simplistic and no longer applicable in declining to expand the exemption to other professional sports leagues. The Court has nevertheless left the onus on Congress to overturn MLB’s exemption with a new piece of legislation, which it has yet to do.

Passan and Drellich examine the implications of the antitrust exemption in greater detail. Its arguably biggest impact has been in allowing teams to fix low salaries for minor leaguers, most of whom are not part of the MLB Players Association and do not have their own union. Drellich notes that other issues like television blackouts and the process for relocating MLB franchises may also be impacted were Congress to modify or lift the exemption.

While an overhaul of the antitrust exemption could have wide-ranging effects on affiliated ball, this is hardly the first time Congresspeople have hinted at the possibility. In recent years, legislators on different sides of the political aisle have publicly expressed a desire to reconsider or revoke the exemption. Those have come in response to MLB decisions as varied as the minor league restructuring and the call to move the 2021 All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver. To this point, Congress has not moved forward with any serious threat to the exemption; it’s possible, seemingly likely, this inquiry from the Judiciary Committee also winds up blowing over without an alteration to the existing system.

The Committee’s examination into the international amateur market comes at a time when that process may be nearing an overhaul anyhow. MLB’s desire for a draft to replace the international signing period proved a sticking point in last offseason’s collective bargaining negotiations — one which has yet to be resolved. The MLBPA refused to sign off on an international draft during the winter, and the parties agreed to extend their window for those talks. If the league and union agree on an international draft by July 25, the qualifying offer system — which serves as a drag on the market for some free agents by attaching draft pick forfeiture for signing them — would be eliminated. If the parties do not agree on an international draft, the current amateur signing process and QO will remain in place, likely to again be a key topic during the post-2026 CBA negotiations.

In a separate post Wednesday, Drellich reexamined many of the potential effects that could arise from an overhaul of the international amateur system. MLBPA executive director Tony Clark declined to delve into specifics on the status of negotiations, telling The Athletic:

“We agreed in March to explore whether a negotiated and mutually acceptable agreement could be reached for an international draft. Additional time on this complex issue was needed precisely because the league’s proposal was not and is not anywhere close to acceptable. The league committed to further negotiation on these complex issues, and we expect those discussions to continue in the coming days and weeks. Whether in the end a negotiated, mutually acceptable agreement can be reached remains to be seen.“

Show all

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

hide arrows scroll to top