Collective Bargaining Agreement

1:55pm: Heyman tweets that the MLBPA executive subcommittee “appears” to be voting against the proposal, though it’s not clear whether that’s a unanimous decision or whether there’s a split camp among the eight players on that committee. That’s an important distinction, as the MLBPA needs a simple majority among the 30 team union reps and the eight members of the subcommittee — a total of 20 yes votes. In other words, it’s still possible for the union to approve the deal even if the executive subcommittee is against it.

1:45pm: Heyman tweets that MLB’s proposal also requests that the MLBPA drop the $500MM grievance it filed against MLB, wherein the players posited that MLB did not negotiate in good faith during return-to-play talks in the pandemic-shortened 2020 season.

1:14pm: Heyman tweets that MLB’s proposal calls for spring games to begin around March 17 and for Opening Day to fall on April 5. That would require backtracking on several of the games previously announced to be canceled or “removed from the schedule,” and ESPN’s Jesse Rogers adds that the remaining games would be made up through a series of doubleheaders that, notably, would be nine innings in length.

As notably, Rogers tweets that free agency could reopen as soon as tonight if the two sides reach an agreement and ratify the new CBA today. Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci suggested the same earlier today in an appearance on MLB Network.

1:09pm: The MLB Players Association has received the league’s latest counterproposal, as first reported by ESPN’s Marly Rivera, and is now in the process of reviewing the latest changes proposed by ownership. MLB Network’s Jon Heyman reports that the newest proposal saw the league up its proposed pre-arbitration bonus pool from $40MM to $50MM. Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic, meanwhile, tweets that there have been a few more modest concessions made in terms of the competitive balance (luxury) tax threshold and the minimum salary. MLB increased its proposed luxury threshold in 2026 (the final year of the proposed CBA) — slightly closing what had been an $8MM gap. The league held firm on its proposed $700K minimum salary for the upcoming season but offered a $10K increase over the $770K it had proposed in 2026 — up to $780K.

The movement on the pre-arbitration pool is the most notable jump made. The two parties had been facing a gap of $25MM, with the players coming in at a $65MM pool in 2022. However, the larger issue is surely whether that pool will grow at all over the life of the agreement. MLB has been steadfast in its push to keep the newly created bonus pool static, whereas the players have sought a $5MM annual increase to the size of the pool.

On the CBT front, the two parties had previously faced annual gaps of $2MM, $3MM, $4MM, $5MM and $8MM over the life of the potential agreement. MLB has held firm on its $230MM, $232MM, $236MM and $240MM threshold proposals from 2022-25, but they’re now proposing a $244MM threshold in 2026.

Notably, Heyman adds that the league’s proposal requests that the MLBPA drop previously filed grievances against the Rays, A’s, Pirates and Marlins — suits that allege that those four organizations had not sufficiently reallocated their revenue-sharing funds toward improving the on-field product. That’s not a new request, MLBTR has learned, but it’s also not one to which the union has previously agreed. That will be among the many topics considered when the union takes its vote — which ESPN’s Kiley McDaniel suggests could be taking place right now.

Confoundingly, Rosenthal indicates that MLB has yet again attempted to set another “deadline” for players, this one at 3:00pm ET today — a bit under an hour from now. MLB’s repeated attempts to set a deadline have not resulted in a deal yet and have generally served to stall negotiations rather than encourage them. The union hasn’t felt compelled to stick to those league-implemented deadlines, but the fact that they union appears to be in the process of voting right now, rather than outright refusing the proposal, at least offers a notable departure from some of the previous and more contentious back-and-forths that have taken place. Also of note, Daniel Alvarez Montes of El Extra Base tweets that if a deal is reached before that 3pm “deadline,” players will be allowed to begin reporting voluntarily to their Spring Training facilities as soon as tomorrow.

All of this movement comes after a morning agreement in which the two parties reached a provisional agreement regarding a July deadline to negotiate an international draft that would begin in 2024. If a deal is reached by July 25, the qualifying offer system (and the draft-pick compensation associated with it) will be eliminated. If no deal on the international draft is reached, the qualifying offer system and draft-pick compensation will remain in place, and the current international amateur free agency structure will remain in place.

12:28pm: The union has received MLB’s new counterproposal, tweets ESPN’s Marly Rivera.

10:43am: The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal tweets that with the international draft and qualifying offer disagreements now resolved, the league is preparing to make a “full proposal” to the union. As of this writing, MLB had not yet countered the final proposal received by the MLBPA yesterday.

10:29am: Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association have reached a provisional agreement regarding the international draft, reports ESPN’s Jeff Passan (Twitter thread). The two parties have set a July 25 deadline to determine the specifics of an international draft that would go into effect beginning in 2024. If a deal on the draft is reached by July 25, the qualifying offer system and the associated draft-pick compensation will be eliminated. If the two sides do not reach a deal on the draft, the qualifying offer system will remain in place — as will the current international amateur free agency structure.

While this is a step shy of an agreement to actually implement the draft itself, it’s nevertheless a major hurdle that has been cleared on the path to the ratification of a new collective bargaining agreement. Discord regarding the league’s desire to trade the elimination of the qualifying offer system for an international draft yesterday derailed talks and led to commissioner Rob Manfred further postponing Opening Day until April 14. The MLBPA’s final proposal to the league included a similar provision to the one agreed upon today, with a Nov. 15 deadline to agree to the draft instead of the newly proposed July 25 deadline.

With the theatrics surrounding the theoretical international draft’s implementation and the qualifying offer system now set to the side, it would appear, ostensibly, that the focus can shift back to the core economic issues that have been the crux of recent negotiations. While the international draft was framed as a sticking point yesterday and garnered a huge portion of the attention, there are still some gaps to bridge on key economic issues such as the competitive balance (luxury) tax thresholds, the newly proposed bonus pool for pre-arbitration players and, to a lesser extent on the league-minimum salary.

As of yesterday afternoon, the MLBPA had dropped its asks on the new CBT thresholds to $232MM in 2022, $235MM in 2023, $240MM in 2024, $245MM in 2025 and $250MM in 2026. The league’s prior proposal included proposed thresholds of $230MM, $232MM, $236MM, $240MM and $242MM over those respective years. In essence, the two parties face respective gaps of $2MM, $3MM, $4MM, $5MM and $8MM in that five-year span.

There’s a wider rift on the pre-arbitration bonus pool, with the union yesterday dropping its proposal to $65MM (presumably with the same $5MM annual increase previously sought). Ownership, meanwhile, has countered with a flat $40MM pool that will not increase at all over the CBA’s five-year term. That $25MM gap is sizable on the surface, though it does boil down to a matter of $833K per team — scarcely more than the new league-minimum salaries that will be going into place.

On that note, MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes reported yesterday that the MLBPA had dropped its proposed league-minimum salary to $710K — narrowing what was a $25K gap to just a $10K gap between MLB’s proposed minimum of $700K. Both parties have agreed that the minimum salary would rise by $70K over the five-year life of the CBA, so the difference at this point rests solely on that small difference in starting point. Of all the issues, this would seem to be far and away the simplest to bridge.

It’s hard not to be encouraged by progress surrounding what had emerged as a major roadblock, but optimism should still be tempered. The gaps on the CBT threshold and, particularly, the bonus pool for pre-arbitration players are still relatively prominent, and there’s no indication yet as to the extent to which MLB will move in its forthcoming proposal. It’s also eminently possible that additional hurdles will arise. Few foresaw the international draft playing such a prominent role prior to this week.

A pair of issues that shouldn’t serve as an obstacle, Dierkes further reports (via Twitter), are on-uniform advertising patches and the Athletics’ revenue-sharing status. Yesterday’s MLBPA proposal agreed to allowing advertising on player uniforms, and the union also agreed to reinstate the Athletics as a revenue-sharing recipient. Oakland did not receive revenue-sharing funds in 2021 or in 2020. They’d seen a reduced share in 2017-19, under the terms of the previous CBA — a penalty levied due to questions about whether the team had sufficiently invested those funds back into the on-field product and whether they’d made their best efforts to secure a new stadium.

Time will tell just what the owners’ latest offer brings, but even tempered optimism is a welcome change from last night’s tenor. Whenever the two parties finally reach an agreement, the floodgates could well open in a hurry. Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci said in an appearance on MLB Network this morning that free agency could potentially reopen the same day that an agreement is reached, for instance (Twitter link via MLB Network’s Jon Morosi). And it’s worth noting, too, that The Athletic’s Jayson Stark tweeted this morning that the league still viewed a 162-game season as a possibility.

It’d be premature to say an agreement is nigh, but the breakthrough from yesterday’s most prominent roadblock is a breath of fresh air as an increasingly stagnant lockout reaches its 99th day.

Major League Baseball announced it has postponed the start of the regular season for at least another week. A statement from Commissioner Rob Manfred reads:

“In a last-ditch effort to preserve a 162-game season, this week we have made good-faith proposals that address the specific concerns voiced by the MLBPA and would have allowed the players to return to the field immediately.  The Clubs went to extraordinary lengths to meet the substantial demands of the MLBPA.  On the key economic issues that have posed stumbling blocks, the Clubs proposed ways to bridge gaps to preserve a full schedule.  Regrettably, after our second late-night bargaining session in a week, we remain without a deal.

Because of the logistical realities of the calendar, another two series are being removed from the schedule, meaning that Opening Day is postponed until April 14^th.  We worked hard to reach an agreement and offered a fair deal with significant improvements for the players and our fans.  I am saddened by this situation’s continued impact on our game and all those who are a part of it, especially our loyal fans.

“We have the utmost respect for our players and hope they will ultimately choose to accept the fair agreement they have been offered.”

The MLBPA offered a statement of its own in response (via Twitter):

“The owners’ decision to cancel additional games is completely unnecessary. After making a set of comprehensive proposals to the league earlier this afternoon, and being told substantive responses were forthcoming, Players have yet to hear back. Players want to play, and we cannot wait to get back on the field for the best fans in the world. Our top priority remains the finalization of a fair contract for all Players, and we will continue negotiations toward that end.”

The league and union had seemingly closed the gap on core economics issues in an effort to hammer out a new CBA. However, the league’s efforts to tie the introduction of a draft for international amateurs to the elimination of the qualifying offer proved a sticking point in discussions. MLB had offered the union three proposals on the matter: 1) accept an international draft in exchange for the elimination of the QO, 2) leave both the QO and international signing period in place as they’d previously been or 3) agree to the elimination of the QO with the chance to reconsider the draft next offseason; taking the third route would’ve given the league the right to unilaterally reopen the CBA after the 2024 season if the union continued to object to the draft.

MLB tabled all discussions on other matters beyond that decision, presenting the MLBPA with an ultimatum — choose one of those courses of action or break off negotiations, which would result in another week’s worth of game cancelations. The MLBPA rejected the league’s proposals, instead putting forth a counteroffer. Jeff Passan of ESPN reports (Twitter link) the union proposed the elimination of the qualifying offer for next offseason with a November deadline for a final decision on the international draft. In the event the union rejected a draft at that point, the QO would return the following winter.

MLB declined to counter that proposal, maintaining that their three presented choices were the only scenarios on the table. The league then moved forward with another week of game cancelations. It’s not clear when the parties will reengage in negotiations, but future discussions now figure to be tinged with a whole host of new complications.

The league’s decision today appears to wipe out the possibility of playing a 162-game season. With the shortened schedule are likely to come debates regarding player pay and service time. Manfred has previously stated it’s the league’s position that players shouldn’t be paid for canceled games. MLBPA lead negotiator Bruce Meyer indicated the union would fight any efforts to prorate pay, noting that the game cancelations have been the sole decision of the league.

It’s frankly baffling that the league and union ended up where they did, given how much ground they’d closed on issues like the competitive balance tax, minimum salary and (to a lesser extent) the bonus pool for pre-arbitration players. Those topics hadn’t been formally settled, but the gaps between the parties’ respective asks on each seemed manageable enough to close with further discussions. Despite the movement on core economics, the international draft and indirectly, the qualifying offer, proved a bizarre roadblock.

The MLBPA has continually maintained an unwillingness to implement an international draft, suggesting that players from Latin America are particularly opposed. However, the league’s offers to take the international draft off the table in exchange for the continued existence of the QO make clear that compensation for signing free agents was an equally important issue. The qualifying offer hasn’t garnered a ton of attention as a contentious problem throughout negotiations.

That’s in part because the league agreed early on to its removal before later tying that to the implementation of the draft. However, it’s also because the union has focused much of its attention on a desire to improve compensation for players earlier in their careers. The qualifying offer isn’t related to those efforts, as it only comes into play for around 10-20 free agents (all of whom are at least quality players with six-plus years of service time) each winter. The MLBPA’s decision to draw a line on the qualifying offer is odd, as is the league’s immediate refusal to continue negotiations and cancel more games after the union’s small modification.

The players’ offer to eliminate the QO for one winter and then reevaluate the international draft in November wasn’t all that different than the league’s proposal to maintain the status quo on both topics. Were the union to refuse the international draft and reimpose the QO in 2023-24, the only benefit beyond what the league had been offering would have been one year of free agency without compensation: a matter that would have affected around a dozen players.

Given how close the parties are, it makes both the union’s decision to introduce this counteroffer and the league’s call to end negotiations look like the creation of an avoidable problem. Now, they’ll have to deal with the new issues of player pay and service time on top of whatever gaps remained in the actual questions of substance on the CBA. How long today’s setback will linger can’t be known, but it’s another blow to fans who’d gotten their hopes up at reports of progress over the past two days.

Andy Martino of SNY first reported the upcoming cancelation of games before the league announcement.

1:00pm: Alden Gonzalez and Jeff Passan of ESPN add some further details (Twitter links). The top pick’s slot value is actually a slight bit higher than previously reported, landing at $5.5125MM. That’s due to MLB upping the size of each slot value from the weekend by a matter of five percent. Gonzalez notes that MLB is “flexible” on the $20K cap for undrafted free agents, though the extent to which the league is willing to bend isn’t totally clear.

Passan writes that rather than set the draft order based on record, teams would be broken up into “pods” which would rotate every year. Castrovince suggested a similar setup this weekend, writing that pods of six clubs would rotate through the draft order each year; in other words, Pod A would have selections one through six in a given year, then seven through twelve the following season, etc. Passan posits “pod” sizes of seven or eight teams rather than six (thus giving teams a crack at the top of the draft every fourth year rather than every fifth), but the general concept remains the same.

11:50am: Newsday’s Tim Healey tweets that under MLB’s proposal, the international draft would not go into effect until 2024. That’s surely vital for Latin American players, as some prominent figures have stressed that if implemented, the finer details should not be rushed.

Among those prominent voices is Red Sox icon David Ortiz, who spoke passionately in a message to his countrymen from the Dominican Republic today (Twitter thread via ESPN’s Jeff Passan). Ortiz stressed the importance of the league and players working together to get the specifics of the draft right. Ortiz adds:

“Baseball is such a big thing in the Dominican. Baseball keeps kids off the streets. We don’t want that to walk away from us. We want it to get better. That’s my focus. Nothing else. We have the youth. People wanting to be me, Pedro, Pujols. We can’t let that go away. At the end of the day, I don’t want those kids to be affected by it. I already played baseball. I had a career. I care about the kids being treated right. I understand MLB wants to have control over everything they do, but you’re not going to change the system overnight. Baseball is one of the secret weapons of the Dominican economy. If you talk about a draft here in the states, you have choices. You can do football, basketball. … Dominican has baseball to make your way out. That’s it. You have to be careful.”

11:00am: The potential implementation of an international draft has become a focal point in collective bargaining between MLB and the Players Association as gaps elsewhere in negotiations begin to close. Sportsnet’s Ben Nicholson-Smith reported last night that the international draft is one of the largest remaining obstacles in talks. The league, reportedly, is seeking to trade an elimination of the qualifying offer system for the draft — a concept they’d already proposed in prior packages. Of course, everything in these package proposals is dependent on other factors, so the league now using the QO elimination as a “give” in exchange for the international draft likely just reflects the manner in which other elements of the proposals have ebbed and flowed.

In some new developments on the topic of the proposed international draft, Maria Torres and Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic report this morning that MLB’s latest proposal included a slot value of $5.5MM for the No. 1 overall pick (Twitter thread). That’s up slightly from the league’s weekend proposal, wherein MLB.com’s Anthony Castrovince reported that MLB was positing a potential $5.25MM slot value for the first pick of a 20-round draft. Slots would be hard-capped and picks could be traded, per Castrovince, as opposed to the soft-capped “recommended” slot values in the domestic draft, where picks cannot be traded (save for those awarded via the Competitive Balance Lottery). The newly proposed $5.5MM top overall slot value is still miles shy of the $8.415MM first overall slot value from this past summer’s domestic amateur draft; today’s $250K bump narrowly pushes the top international slot’s value past the No. 7 overall slot value from the 2021 amateur draft.

Major League Baseball’s pitch to the union is that the proposed slot values could generate as much as $23MM in additional spending on international amateurs in a given year, per Torres. She adds that the final 100 slots in the draft would be valued at a combined $3.3MM, whereas MLB has pointed out to the union that the bottom 100 bonuses in the past couple of signing periods have averaged about $1.78MM in total. Notably, that particular spin ignores that the “bottom 100 bonuses” in prior signing periods is not necessarily equivalent to the “bottom 100 slots” in an international draft where only a finite number of players (600) can be selected. Torres notes that undrafted international amateurs could still sign, but Rosenthal tweets that bonuses would be capped at $20K.

Regardless of specific permutations on the late rounds and undrafted amateurs, there’s still some considerable pushback against the concept from the players’ end of things — particularly among Latin American big leaguers. Padres shortstop Fernando Tatis Jr. has publicly pushed back, telling El Caribe (Twitter link):

“The International Draft is going to kill baseball in [Dominican Republic]. It’s going to affect us a lot, because there will be many young people who used to give them the opportunity to get a bonus and with the draft it will not be the same.”

ESPN’s Marly Rivera reports that many Latin American players share those concerns, adding that the general sentiment among Puerto Rican players is that their entry into the amateur draft has stunted the development of baseball on the whole. Astros catcher Martin Maldonado, originally drafted by the Angels out of Dr. Juan J. Nunez high school in Puerto Rico, tweeted this morning that he “agrees 100%” with the concerns raised by Tatis.

As Rivera further notes, MLB’s position on the international draft is that it will help to regulate some of the many improprieties that currently exist on the international market. It’s a poorly kept secret that verbal agreements between Major League teams and international amateurs are in place years before those players are eligible to sign on their 16th birthdays; Major League scouts are regularly evaluating players before they even reach their teenage years, and players can have verbal agreements with teams as early as 13 or 14 years of age. Additional concerns include steroid usage among baseball hopefuls during those critical formative years, as well as exploitative behavior from many “buscones” who arrange deals between teams and amateur players.

The pushback from the union, presumably, is that these improprieties can be corrected without the implementation of an amateur draft. Major League Baseball has rules and regulations in place that are intended to bar early agreements of this nature. However, with the exception of former Braves GM John Coppolella being banned for circumventing those rules, punishments have been few and far between. Even after Coppolella’s ouster, early deals have continued. As Mike Axisa of CBS Sports explored recently, MLB could crack down on corruption on the international market by simply choosing to enforce its own typically ignored rules and regulations.

All that said, the draft system does figure to have some benefits for international amateurs. MLB’s current system is hard-capped, and while the draft wouldn’t change that, the simple fact that the combined value of the draft slots being proposed exceeds the combined value of the current international bonus pools means more money will go to those amateurs. Further, even though the league could likely cut down on corruption without implementing the draft, that does not change the fact that the draft ought to nevertheless curtail those early agreements. (Other forms of corruption, of course, will be more difficult to suppress.)

For the players, concerns surely remain about the potential stunting of baseball’s growth in the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Panama, Colombia and other markets. It’s also a clear negative for a player not to be able to choose his first team and to not be able to negotiate more openly. The draft could potentially lead to fewer high-dollar deals for the market’s very best prospects — depending on the exact distribution of slot values.

Ultimately, given the manner in which the two sides have begun to move closer to an agreement on other elements of the deal, it seems hard to imagine the finer points of an international draft truly scuttling a deal. It’s clear there’s still work to be done, though, and much of it will center around this topic.