MLB CBA/Labor Dispute Thread

[Camden_yardbird]

2 hours ago, LookinUp said:

Very interesting. Seems like the ideas being proposed are tweaks to existing formulas rather than a new way of doing it. Basically:

1. Salary floor for teams,
2. Arbitration after 2 years, not 3, and 
3. Free Agency after 5 years, not 6.

Basically, let guys get paid younger and make teams spend on something. That wouldn't stop gaming of service time, but I'm not sure how else to do it.

With a salary floor small market teams are going to be getting that 6th year on QO more often than not.

[OriolesMagic83]

On 11/16/2021 at 10:10 PM, Frobby said:

Well other than that, it’s perfect.   OK, maybe not.  But I do kind of like the idea of a system that looks at how many games a team won and then allocates the credit.   (And yes, I realize there are flaws in that idea, too.)

Are you proposing that O's players wouldn't get a salary, but would owe money for last year?

[DrungoHazewood]

23 hours ago, LookinUp said:

Very interesting. Seems like the ideas being proposed are tweaks to existing formulas rather than a new way of doing it. Basically:

1. Salary floor for teams,
2. Arbitration after 2 years, not 3, and 
3. Free Agency after 5 years, not 6.

Basically, let guys get paid younger and make teams spend on something. That wouldn't stop gaming of service time, but I'm not sure how else to do it.

Don't have service time have anything to do with free agency.  Instead:

1. Have free agency occur at age 28 no matter how much or little you've played in the majors

Or

2. Allow everyone, from the moment they're drafted, to negotiate whatever contract they can.  Your #1 pick could negotiate for a 10/$50M deal lasting from ages 18-28.  Your 11th rounder gets 3 years, $50k.  The 22nd-rounder gets 1 year at $10k.  When the 11th rounder has already made the majors at the end of the 3rd year he negotiates a new 5/$10M deal.

In the first scenario you could call up your top prospect at 19 if you want, if he can contribute, has almost no impact on future earnings.  Same thing with the #1 pick in the second scenario.

[DrungoHazewood]

21 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

Are you proposing that O's players wouldn't get a salary, but would owe money for last year?

In Win Shares there is no below replacement.  Players get credit for all wins above zero.  An average Oriole in 2021 gets 1/26th of (52 x 3) win shares, or about six per full season.

[LookinUp]

10 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Don't have service time have anything to do with free agency.  Instead:

1. Have free agency occur at age 28 no matter how much or little you've played in the majors

Or

2. Allow everyone, from the moment they're drafted, to negotiate whatever contract they can.  Your #1 pick could negotiate for a 10/$50M deal lasting from ages 18-28.  Your 11th rounder gets 3 years, $50k.  The 22nd-rounder gets 1 year at $10k.  When the 11th rounder has already made the majors at the end of the 3rd year he negotiates a new 5/$10M deal.

In the first scenario you could call up your top prospect at 19 if you want, if he can contribute, has almost no impact on future earnings.  Same thing with the #1 pick in the second scenario.

Both of your options make some sense, but are non-starters in negotiations, right? Kind of like a relegation league. #1 would hurt college baseball, which is something MLB doesn't want to do because college lowers development costs. #2 would let the big markets take over.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Both of your options make some sense, but are non-starters in negotiations, right? Kind of like a relegation league. #1 would hurt college baseball, which is something MLB doesn't want to do because college lowers development costs. #2 would let the big markets take over.

The owners already proposed having free agency at 29 or something like that.  I don't see how that would hurt college baseball.

I agree that #2 is a much bigger change, and therefore much less likely.  But how would it let big markets take over?  There would be nothing stopping a team like the Orioles from signing Rutschman to a 10-year contract that would give them more years of control than they do today.  You'd still have a draft, and teams controlling rights to their draftees.  Just there's no limitations on what contract they can sign.  I guess it's possible that some players would refuse to sign anything but very short contracts and then jump from poor organizations to better ones.  But even in the pre-draft era good players signed with poor teams because there were far more opportunities there.  Brooks and Palmer and others signed with the Orioles shortly after they were the terrible Browns, when they could have signed with the Yanks or the Dodger or Cardinals.

[foxfield]

If I were commish I would explore a push for these things.

1). Higher Salary minimums for Minor League Players ALL Levels $50,000 Min progress by league.

2). Once signed, Team controls players for 6 years no exceptions. Arb process begins in yr 3 still. But First 3 years salary in ML pegged to games played and begins at a low number, say 30 days service.

3). Salary floor for teams starting somewhere around 60 Million and indexed.  

4). Payroll taxes for exceeding 150 million increasing to stiffer penalties above 200Mil Indexed.

Rough of course, but the emphasis should be on the people making no money not those making the most.  No limits, if you want to pay someone 400 Million.  Go for it.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, foxfield said:

If I were commish I would explore a push for these things.

1). Higher Salary minimums for Minor League Players ALL Levels $50,000 Min progress by league.

2). Once signed, Team controls players for 6 years no exceptions. Arb process begins in yr 3 still. But First 3 years salary in ML pegged to games played and begins at a low number, say 30 days service.

3). Salary floor for teams starting somewhere around 60 Million and indexed.  

4). Payroll taxes for exceeding 150 million increasing to stiffer penalties above 200Mil Indexed.

Rough of course, but the emphasis should be on the people making no money not those making the most.  No limits, if you want to pay someone 400 Million.  Go for it.

So a team signs a 16 year old kid from Curacao and he's a free agent in six years?

That can't be what you actually mean.

[DrungoHazewood]

20 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So a team signs a 16 year old kid from Curacao and he's a free agent in six years?

That can't be what you actually mean.

Why not?  Seems strange to me that a 22-year-old college junior/senior might spend a year in the minors and be a free agent seven years after signing.  But a 16-year-old might be tied to his original team for 10+ years.  To me team control should be whatever team and player negotiate.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Why not?  Seems strange to me that a 22-year-old college junior/senior might spend a year in the minors and be a free agent seven years after signing.  But a 16-year-old might be tied to his original team for 10+ years.  To me team control should be whatever team and player negotiate.

Because it would be stupid to spend money to sign them, spend years to develop them, then have them become free agents before they ever play a game in the majors for you.

It would kill the International market as we know it. 

[DrungoHazewood]

37 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because it would be stupid to spend money to sign them, spend years to develop them, then have them become free agents before they ever play a game in the majors for you.

It would kill the International market as we know it. 

Maybe the international market as we know it doesn't work very well. 

Most of the 16-year-olds a team signs they give a bonus of three magic beans, and then they pay them $8000 a year.  So you're not out that much.

Perhaps there should be a better system than each team signing 100 16-year-olds, paying most of them a pittance, and then spending the next decade-plus sorting them out to find the 5, 6, 10 of them who will have any MLB value at all.

The reason MLB contracted minor league teams is the realization that most minor leaguers have negative value to the higher organization.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Maybe the international market as we know it doesn't work very well. 

Most of the 16-year-olds a team signs they give a bonus of three magic beans, and then they pay them $8000 a year.  So you're not out that much.

Perhaps there should be a better system than each team signing 100 16-year-olds, paying most of them a pittance, and then spending the next decade-plus sorting them out to find the 5, 6, 10 of them who will have any MLB value at all.

The reason MLB contracted minor league teams is the realization that most minor leaguers have negative value to the higher organization.

Oddly enough 8K a year is approximately the income per capita of the Dominican Republic.

I'm sure a lot of them would rather forgo the current system and instead just find jobs in the regular workplace.  It's honestly shocking to me why they bother with playing baseball in the States when they can make that kind of money staying at home.

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Why not?  Seems strange to me that a 22-year-old college junior/senior might spend a year in the minors and be a free agent seven years after signing.  But a 16-year-old might be tied to his original team for 10+ years.  To me team control should be whatever team and player negotiate.

I think it would make more sense to say the time starts at the later of signing and 18th birthday, something like that

[foxfield]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

So a team signs a 16 year old kid from Curacao and he's a free agent in six years?

That can't be what you actually mean.

No, the international draft would have to be different in my opinion. That is not what I meant.  But 6 years from 18 would work for me.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, foxfield said:

No, the international draft would have to be different in my opinion. That is not what I meant.  But 6 years from 18 would work for me.

I'm down, I want to see more 19 year olds learning on the job.

You know Bobby Witt Jr would have been in the majors this year under that rule.