PDA

View Full Version : MLB Labor Deal Close



WVRed
11-16-2011, 12:12 AM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7239006/sides-close-major-league-baseball-labor-deal-sources-say


This deal, however, figures to be especially historic, as baseball positions itself for the 21st century. Among other things, it will pave the way for realignment of the sport into two 15-team leagues, adding a second wild-card team in each league, spreading interleague play throughout all six months of the regular season and making significant changes to the draft, free agency and the so-called "Competitive Balance Tax."

corkedbat
11-16-2011, 07:18 PM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7239006/sides-close-major-league-baseball-labor-deal-sources-say

OK, if they are talking about season-long interleague play, you would think that they will standardize the DH rule (either establish it fully or get rid of it completely). If they make it universal that is pretty self-explanitory. If they choose to abolish it though, I can't see the MLBPA giving up the jobs of the DHs without a roster bone in return.

If the DH were to be abolished, do you think active 25-man rosters will be expanded to 26 or 27 guys?

savafan
11-17-2011, 08:22 PM
Done deal

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/33355427

Redhook
11-17-2011, 09:10 PM
For the Reds, this is good. One less team in their division and another playoff spot. Win-win.

corkedbat
11-18-2011, 05:19 AM
For the Reds, this is good. One less team in their division and another playoff spot. Win-win.

This is just one step closer to one league with two conferences ratherr than two distinct leagues. I don't mind the DH and I'm fine with abolishing it also (although I slightly lean toward making it universal). What I detest is going to season-long interleague play with two seperate sets of rules. Keep it...fine...get rid of it...fine...just standarize play! :thumbdown:

Redhook
11-18-2011, 09:58 AM
This is just one step closer to one league with two conferences ratherr than two distinct leagues. I don't mind the DH and I'm fine with abolishing it also (although I slightly lean toward making it universal). What I detest is going to season-long interleague play with two seperate sets of rules. Keep it...fine...get rid of it...fine...just standarize play! :thumbdown:

I wouldn't mind seeing them standardize play too.

I'm not much of a fan of interleague play either, but anything that helps the Reds chances of reaching the playoffs is a good thing in my book.

Sea Ray
11-18-2011, 10:44 AM
If they didn't address the DH rule then I'm underwhelmed by this agreement. They merely went for the low hanging fruit and left the rest

SirFelixCat
11-19-2011, 04:55 PM
Regardless of the DH issue (and I'll agree that it's a legit issue), I'm very impressed by both the MLBPA and owners that they got this done, completely under-the-radar, and in an agreeable manner.

When you look at what the NBA and NFL have/are going thru this year, it's a refreshing thing to see, esp. when you consider the damage 1994 did to the sport. :thumbup:

savafan
11-21-2011, 09:26 PM
http://www.nj.com/yankees/index.ssf/2011/11/mlb_labor_deal_includes_hgh_te.html


As part of the deal, baseball's minimum salary will go from $414,000 this year to $480,000 in 2012 and $500,000 later in the deal — matching what the average salary was in 1989.

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 10:34 AM
I thought I would bump this up since the press conference is today at 1 p.m. Here's a piece from a Philly TV station (careful, it automatically starts a video ad, so if you're at work, hit your mute button).

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillies_zone/134202693.html

The provisions about free agent compensation are reported to be changing. I've wondered whether there will be a change about offering arbitration and whether that will be required to receive the compensation, particularly if these become sandwich picks and not a pick taken from the signing club. I understand the logic that would argue that a club should have to take that risk to "earn" that pick, I'm beginning to wonder whether such might not be the case. Of course, we'll know by this afternoon.

Anyway, I figured again it would be good to bump this general posting up to talk about the new CBA once it's announced, rather than having the piecemeal items elsewhere on the board.

Tony Cloninger
11-22-2011, 11:00 AM
Who cares about the DH rule. Big deal if one has it and one does not? I would rather have a good agreement in place then having some hold up over a DH rule that most teams can adjust to and deal with if they know it will be part of the equation more than before.

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 11:20 AM
Here's a more thorough article about possible changes in the CBA:

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5515:mlb-labor-deal-update-increased-minimum-salary-hgh-testing-additional-players-in-salary-arb&catid=30:mlb-news&Itemid=42

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 02:37 PM
Here's a report on the details. I can't review them all now, but there's some very interesting pieces to this agreement. I have to get some work done before heading out of town tomorrow.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/baseball/mlb/11/22/cba.labor.deal.ap/index.html

Homer Bailey
11-22-2011, 02:38 PM
Reading all of these tweets on the new deal, and its pretty heartbreaking for Reds fans. Amazingly, the new rules are going to benefit the big market teams even more.

Gallen5862
11-22-2011, 02:43 PM
So is the new agreement saying that if the Reds drafted a highly ranked player in the first 10 rounds and overpaid them then Reds could lose their first round pick the following year? What does anyone think about the new draft rules?

AmarilloRed
11-22-2011, 02:51 PM
No more MLB deals for drafted players-only minor league deals for draftees-wow.

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 02:53 PM
So is the new agreement saying that if the Reds drafted a highly ranked player in the first 10 rounds and overpaid them then Reds could lose their first round pick the following year? What does anyone think about the new draft rules?

I think it's hard to say without know the specific numbers and, for that matter, the full language in the agreement. On one hand, I think it will be good to have hard numbers to work from, as opposed to an recommended slotting system that had never been agreed to. But I would guess it's possible. Again, anyone have any idea what the mythical slot amounts were in previous years and how we did on being above those?

It does make me wonder about some drafting we've done recently have taking highly touted young players who dropped over signing questions who we've gotten to sign well above slot for that level of the draft.

savafan
11-22-2011, 03:00 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-new-draft-rules-dont-hurt-thrifty-white-sox-20111122,0,1194910.story


Under the new agreement, teams that exceed the recommended bonus money for an entire draft by five percent or more will lose a first round pick in the ensuing year. If a team exceeds the recommended bonuses for a draft by 10 percent or more, they will lose a first and second-round pick the following year.

Should a team exceed the recommended bonus money by 15 percent or more, they will lose their next two first round picks. Teams that exceed the recommended bonus money by up to five percent face a tax of up to 75 percent.

Also, the deadline for signing draft picks will be moved from Aug. 15 to mid-July, although the Sox haven't gone to the wire with a first round pick since Gordon Beckham in 2008.

savafan
11-22-2011, 03:20 PM
I think we're going to see the best amateur talent go to the larger market clubs the same as the best major league talent, ultimately crushing teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City from even being able to obtain top amateur talent. The draft will be based on signability, marking a huge victory for Scott Boras and his ilk in the long run. Why would it matter to the large market clubs to have to give up draft picks for paying large bonuses when they're the only teams that will be able to sign the top players anyway?

Or am I looking at this completely wrong?

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 03:30 PM
Here's another piece from the WaPo blog

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/baseball-insider/post/new-collective-bargaining-agreement-ensures-labor-peace-for-major-league-baseball-mlb-players-association/2011/11/22/gIQAp00ZlN_blog.html

757690
11-22-2011, 03:30 PM
I think we're going to see the best amateur talent go to the larger market clubs the same as the best major league talent, ultimately crushing teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City from even being able to obtain top amateur talent. The draft will be based on signability, marking a huge victory for Scott Boras and his ilk in the long run. Why would it matter to the large market clubs to have to give up draft picks for paying large bonuses when they're the only teams that will be able to sign the top players anyway?

Or am I looking at this completely wrong?

If a small market team drafts a player who wants a big bonus, they can offer him one within the limits and he won't have many options.

Before, he could hold out and wait till the next draft. But big market teams will either not want to go over the limits themselves, or will have lost their first two round picks, meaning this player, who is now out of leverage, will likely be drafted again by a small market team, before they have a chance to get to a big market team in the third round.

That's how I see it.

757690
11-22-2011, 03:34 PM
Bill Shaikin
@BillShaikin
Teams in 10 smallest markets and with 10 lowest revenues get entry into lottery for 6 additional draft picks between 1st and 2nd round.


This interests me the most as a Reds fan.

11larkin11
11-22-2011, 03:42 PM
According to Ken Rosenthal, Ramon and Cordero are both now Type B Free Agents. Reds get a supplemental pick if they're signed away, but signing team doesn't lose a pick.

Benihana
11-22-2011, 03:52 PM
This interests me the most as a Reds fan.

Me too. I'm assuming Reds definitely qualify for that?

Depending on what happens with Ramon and Cordero, I guess the Reds could have as many as four picks before the beginning of the second round next year. For those of us who follow the minor leagues closely, that would make for Christmas in June.

IslandRed
11-22-2011, 03:54 PM
If a small market team drafts a player who wants a big bonus, they can offer him one within the limits and he won't have many options.

Before, he could hold out and wait till the next draft. But big market teams will either not want to go over the limits themselves, or will have lost their first two round picks, meaning this player, who is now out of leverage, will likely be drafted again by a small market team, before they have a chance to get to a big market team in the third round.

That's how I see it.

Agreed. The whole idea is to keep players from pricing themselves out of reach. "We took you, we only are allowed to spend so much, so we can only offer you this much. And no one else can offer you more, unless they're going to give up their top pick next year." Which, unless the player is a Harper or Strasburg level player, he probably isn't worth that kind of penalty... and if he is, the small-market team has the same option to say "the heck with next year's pick."

Benihana
11-22-2011, 03:56 PM
According to Ken Rosenthal, Ramon and Cordero are both now Type B Free Agents. Reds get a supplemental pick if they're signed away, but signing team doesn't lose a pick.

Well that sucks. Does that make the Reds more or less likely to offer Ramon arb?

One could argue more because teams will be more inclined to bid for them if they know they won't lose a pick. But one could also argue less because the potential reward for the Reds if he declines is not as good as it was while the risk that he accepts (arguably) remains the same.

I guess we'll know in 24 hours.

mdccclxix
11-22-2011, 04:06 PM
In a change, teams will be allowed to have 26 active players for day-night doubleheaders, provided they are scheduled with a day's notice in order to give clubs time to bring up someone from the minor leagues.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/baseball/mlb/11/22/cba.labor.deal.ap/index.html#ixzz1eSy1Fc3w


I like this rule as well.

mdccclxix
11-22-2011, 04:11 PM
I think the fact that the tax is so high will prevent almost any team (the Yankees) from overpaying for almost any player (Strasburg). HOWEVER, I can see where Strasburg's demands might have scared the Nats away, and everyone else, until someone like the Yankees decided that a 10 million dollar bonus + 100% on an additional 8 million over the cap would be worth it and no one else would dare try. That would only happen if no team decided they'd risk taking a player like Strasburg and getting an additional pick the next year if he didn't sign. In all, I think Bud got what he wanted, a harder slot system with stringent taxes. I'm quite happy with the new rule.

Gallen5862
11-22-2011, 04:18 PM
According to Ken Rosenthal, Ramon and Cordero are both now Type B Free Agents. Reds get a supplemental pick if they're signed away, but signing team doesn't lose a pick.

Ken Rosenthal said we did not have to offer them Arbitration to get the draft picks. This was because they were lower type a. The middle group teams had to offer arbitration for a first and sandwhich pick. This would mean Reds get picks for ramon Hernandez and for COCO without risking arbitration. That is great news.

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 04:25 PM
Ken Rosenthal said we did not have to offer them Arbitration to get the draft picks. This was because they were lower type a. The middle group teams had to offer arbitration for a first and sandwhich pick. This would mean Reds get picks for ramon Hernandez and for COCO without risking arbitration. That is great news.

This is what I suggested might be the case. This is good news. I also think we'll benefit from the small market club draft picks, although the "lottery" seemingly doesn't make it a sure thing.

I'm glad to see the final signing date moved up and the elimination of major league deals. We were hampered in some years with having to carry guys like Alonso and Grandel on the 40 man roster when we could have protected other players.

mdccclxix
11-22-2011, 04:29 PM
The sport also made significant changes to how teams can acquire international players. Teams will have a pool of money to spend on international, with teams in smaller markets and that finish with the worst records receiving bigger pools. Starting in 2014, teams will be able to trade as much as half of the money in their international pools.

Does anyone know where this money pool will come from? Revenue sharing? This control over international signings is exciting as well. So far I give a big thumbs up to the new agreement!

lollipopcurve
11-22-2011, 04:33 PM
Ken Rosenthal said we did not have to offer them Arbitration to get the draft picks. This was because they were lower type a. The middle group teams had to offer arbitration for a first and sandwhich pick. This would mean Reds get picks for ramon Hernandez and for COCO without risking arbitration. That is great news.

If true, this is good news. Reds will get 4 picks inside the top 65-70 if Hernandez and Cordero sign elsewhere.

Benihana
11-22-2011, 04:42 PM
Ken Rosenthal said we did not have to offer them Arbitration to get the draft picks. This was because they were lower type a. The middle group teams had to offer arbitration for a first and sandwhich pick. This would mean Reds get picks for ramon Hernandez and for COCO without risking arbitration. That is great news.

If true, this is phenomenal news. Definitely 4 and possibly 5 picks in the top 80, depending on whether the Reds win the small market lottery and whether Coco/Hernandez sign with other teams (I would definitely let them both walk now).

mdccclxix
11-22-2011, 04:43 PM
Ken Rosenthal said we did not have to offer them Arbitration to get the draft picks. This was because they were lower type a. The middle group teams had to offer arbitration for a first and sandwhich pick. This would mean Reds get picks for ramon Hernandez and for COCO without risking arbitration. That is great news.

Is this because the Reds are who they are or the players are ranked where they are? Or both?

Gallen5862
11-22-2011, 04:54 PM
Is this because the Reds are who they are or the players are ranked where they are? Or both? Ken Rosenthal said they are basically type b players now. each player is worth a sandwich pick. So Reds could get a supplemental first round pick for Ramon Hernandez and for COCO. This for no aritration risk is a great deal.

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 04:56 PM
Here's the actual CBA http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/2011_CBA.pdf

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 05:04 PM
Way down in one of the last items in the CBA:

"Instant Replay will be expanded to include fair/foul and “trapped” ball plays, subject to the Office of the Commissioner’s discussions with the World Umpires Association."

And this final piece: "The parties agreed to an improved process for challenging official scorer decisions."

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 05:07 PM
Does anyone know where this money pool will come from? Revenue sharing? This control over international signings is exciting as well. So far I give a big thumbs up to the new agreement!

I think they're using the word "pool" in the sense that each team will have a set amount to spend. It will be each team's money. They use the same word with regard to the amateur draft too. See the actual document at the link I posted. It makes it a bit clearer.

Benihana
11-22-2011, 05:09 PM
Ken Rosenthal said they are basically type b players now. each player is worth a sandwich pick. So Reds could get a supplemental first round pick for Ramon Hernandez and for COCO. This for no aritration risk is a great deal.

Still haven't seen where they said the Reds are not required to offer arbitration to these players in exchange for draft picks?

I(heart)Freel
11-22-2011, 05:21 PM
Still haven't seen where they said the Reds are not required to offer arbitration to these players in exchange for draft picks?

Looks like they do, based only on this interpretation.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/modified-procedure-for-type-a-free-agents.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

So for the Reds, offering Coco arb remains unlikely, but Ramon just became very likely. I think. Still sorting this out.

Kc61
11-22-2011, 05:51 PM
[QUOTE=I(heart)Freel;2504321]Looks like they do, based only on this interpretation.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/modified-procedure-for-type-a-free-agents.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

This is unclear. The question is whether the Reds must offer Coco and Ramon arbitration to get compensation.

If the Reds still must offer arbitration, they will likely lose Coco and Ramon for nothing. They won't offer arb.

If the Reds don't have to offer arbitration, then they definitely will get compensation if Coco and Ramon sign elsewhere.

Still reading to see which it is. I've read conflicting reports on the internet.

REDREAD
11-22-2011, 05:53 PM
I think we're going to see the best amateur talent go to the larger market clubs the same as the best major league talent, ultimately crushing teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City from even being able to obtain top amateur talent. The draft will be based on signability, marking a huge victory for Scott Boras and his ilk in the long run. Why would it matter to the large market clubs to have to give up draft picks for paying large bonuses when they're the only teams that will be able to sign the top players anyway?

Or am I looking at this completely wrong?

That's an excellent point.
The Yankees can give out excessive signing bonuses.
If they lose first round picks in the following year, it doesn't really matter, since they can load up and overpay in later rounds the following year.
Just seems that the Boras bonus babies may all slide to the second round.
Teams like NY may never get a first round pick again, but it won't really matter or stiffle spending.

lollipopcurve
11-22-2011, 05:58 PM
The Twins will benefit from the new agreement as Matt Capps goes from a Type A to a modified Type B and they can receive compensation for him without offering arbitration, writes Joe Christensen of the Star Tribune.

From mlbtraderumors.com.

If this beat writer is correct, the Reds do not have to offer Hernandez or Cordero arbitration in order to get supplemental picks. They're in the same class as Capps.

Benihana
11-22-2011, 06:00 PM
That's an excellent point.
The Yankees can give out excessive signing bonuses.
If they lose first round picks in the following year, it doesn't really matter, since they can load up and overpay in later rounds the following year.
Just seems that the Boras bonus babies may all slide to the second round.
Teams like NY may never get a first round pick again, but it won't really matter or stiffle spending.

I disagree with this interpretation. It's not like the Yankees have been signing every high-priced draft-eligible player out there the past few years. I don't see why they would be violating slotting recommendations any more than most teams, it hasn't been a trend before. It's not the luxury tax we're talking about here.

Kc61
11-22-2011, 06:01 PM
From mlbtraderumors.com.

If this beat writer is correct, the Reds do not have to offer Hernandez or Cordero arbitration in order to get supplemental picks. They're in the same class as Capps.

Correct. But MLB Trade rumors itself seems to say that teams ARE required to offer arbitration to this group to get compensation.

There are conflicting reports.

This is very important for the Reds. I don't think they want to offer either free agent arbitration.

But compensation without an arbitration offer would be a great pickup for them.

Benihana
11-22-2011, 06:05 PM
This is an interesting wrinkle:


Some draft picks can be traded - If a team wins a pick in the competitive balance lottery, it can assign the selection to another club under some circumstances.

I wonder why they don't allow all picks to be traded. Would make trades so much more interesting and IMO would help the competitive balance (think deadline deals).

I(heart)Freel
11-22-2011, 06:08 PM
From Sheldon... who clearly states that Reds don't have to offer arb to get compensation.

http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/2011/11/22/cordero-now-type-b-free-agent/

Wow.

757690
11-22-2011, 06:09 PM
Correct. But MLB Trade rumors itself says that teams ARE required to offer arbitration to this group to get compensation.

There are conflicting reports.

This is very important for the Reds. I don't think they want to offer either free agent arbitration.

But compensation without an arbitration offer would be a great pickup for them.

MLBtraderumors is often wrong on matters like this. They are not reporters. I would go with what actual reporters say on the matter.

Benihana
11-22-2011, 06:14 PM
From Sheldon... who clearly states that Reds don't have to offer arb to get compensation.

http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/2011/11/22/cordero-now-type-b-free-agent/

Wow.

Fantastic! Unfortunately I have a feeling the Reds will find a way to screw this up and bring back Cordero.

Kc61
11-22-2011, 06:17 PM
From Sheldon... who clearly states that Reds don't have to offer arb to get compensation.

http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/2011/11/22/cordero-now-type-b-free-agent/

Wow.

I've now read this in a few places.

So the Reds will get supplemental first picks in the draft for losing Ramon and Coco, without any arbitration offers to them.

If this is true, as it seems, that's very good news for the Reds.

And it makes it more likely that the Reds will just say goodbye to these two free agents.

mdccclxix
11-22-2011, 06:30 PM
Between losing first round picks, to paying double for an already expensive draft pick, to injury risk, to the failure rate of prospects, I just don't see the Yankees, or any team, flirting too heavily with all the risk now involved. If Strasburg were to fall to the Yankees due to this new system, it would be amazing. Then they'd have to sign him for a bunch and then double it. Then he has Tommy John. Then they have no first round picks for 2 years. I guess they could keep ridin' dirty, but damn that's some blatant disregard for the system. Not many GM's will have that much risk tolorance. In fact, I think none will. I think Strasburg would still be taken #1 by the Nats in this system and if they fail to sign him, he's going back to amateur ball and they get the #2 pick the next year. He's almost never going to end up with a big market successful team, and if he does, they will hurt for it. In all, I think teams will be shocked and stung into the slot. Works for me. That means teams like the 2006 Reds don't pass on Lincecum, etc.

IslandRed
11-22-2011, 06:55 PM
What mdccclxix said -- I haven't read anything that says the rules have changed with respect to a team failing to sign a first-rounder getting that same pick back the next year. Players can demand huge bonuses if they want, but the system now gives the leverage to the clubs. I don't remember any real premium talent falling out of the first round in the last couple of drafts based solely on signability.

mdccclxix
11-22-2011, 07:25 PM
So if the player doesn't sign, the team that drafts them holds their rights, ala Carson Palmer?

757690
11-22-2011, 08:42 PM
One caveat.

The team who goes over, may not have to pay that much in a penalty. There is a certain amount allotted for the first 10 rounds, and the penalty is on the amount that the team goes over that whole amount.

So a team could have say $7M for the first 10 rounds, and give $7M to it's first round pick, and then sign everyone else for $1M total. They would only pay an additional $1M.

If it was by slot, and the 1st round slot for that pick was $4M, they would have to pay $3M in penalties.

Basically, there's a lot of ways around paying the cash penalty, depending on the situation.

The real penalties are the draft picks. I can't see teams wanting to lose those, especially when there's no guarantee that the guy you sign will even make it in the bigs. Even the Yankees and Red Sox need to develop their own players to contend.

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 08:51 PM
So if the player doesn't sign, the team that drafts them holds their rights, ala Carson Palmer?

I'm assuming until the next year's draft, not for perpetuity.

dougdirt
11-22-2011, 09:42 PM
While we have to wait to see how much money will be allowed for the draft, this is just another way for owners to keep more money in their pockets and keep kids from getting paid because they have no representation in the deal that decides their monetary future.

It is even worse for the international kids. This year, every team can spend up to $2.9M. Last year alone, the Texas Rangers spent $17.6M.

UKFlounder
11-22-2011, 11:04 PM
Here is Jayson Stark's column on this deal

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7270203/baseball-new-labor-deal-truly-historic-one

757690
11-22-2011, 11:38 PM
Here is Jayson Stark's column on this deal

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7270203/baseball-new-labor-deal-truly-historic-one


the bonus pool will be based on where a team picks, how many picks it has and how much was spent in the previous year's draft. So the Astros, who draft first next June, will have an $11.5-million pool to work with, while the teams that pick last in each round only get $4.5 million in their pool.

This really makes a big difference. The smaller market teams will have much more money to play with than the bigger market teams.

757690
11-22-2011, 11:48 PM
But that is the point, the Red Sox and Yankees DON'T need their top picks to compete. It helps when they do, but can you name one first rounder on the Yankees that they drafted who is performing a vital part on their team? You can't, because that guy doesn't exist. Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain are the only two first rounders on their team. Chamberlain is a reliever and Hughes is their Homer Bailey.

And I think you missed my point about them taking advantage of the draft. I am not saying that they will go over their limit, but that the large market teams can pay a lot more for guys in the first round who have bigger demands and then punt on picks further down the draft because they don't need the types of players you usually get out of rounds 3-10, bullpenners and bench guys, because they have the cash to fill their bench up without them coming from their system.

I've moved this discussion to the Labor deal thread, so as not to hijack the rumor thread if that's okay with you.

I'll give you the Yankees, but is there really a way to equal things out for them besides a hard salary cap? Their payroll is more than double other big market teams payrolls and three or four times as big as true small market team's payroll.

But the other big market teams that have succeeded, have done so because of the draft, especially first round picks, either using them or trading them for productive players.

First round picks that have been productive since 2000:

Red Sox: Ellsbury, Buckholtz, Bard, Dan Murphy, Murton, Casey Kelly, Hanson
Tigers: Verlander, Maybin, A. Miller, Porcello
Phillies: Utley, G. Floyd, Hamels, Drabeck, d'Arnaud
Mets: Wright, Kazmir, Milledge, Humber, Pelfry
Dodgers: Lowery, Billingsly, Kershaw
Giants: Cain, Lincecum, Bumgarner, Posey
Angels: Kotchman, Saunders, Weaver, Trout

And many of these guys fell to their teams because of signing issues.

dougdirt
11-23-2011, 02:24 AM
I don't think Casey Kotchman counts for the Angels. He produced 3.7 WAR (BR - I had it open) in over 2 full seasons worth of playing time for them. The Tigers drafted Maybin, but he has been traded three times in his career. Casey Kelly hasn't even thrown a pitch in AAA yet. Andrew Miller has had one season with an ERA under 5.00 in his career. Kyle Drabek has a career ERA over 5.00. Travis d'Arnaud has not played above AA. Lasting Milledge has -2.0 WAR (BR). Philip Humber threw more than 30 innings in a season, finally, at age 28, with his 3rd team. They were good innings though.

Lots of really questionable calls there. Some guys are still young, but they are hardly a good group of guys who were "productive picks".

And no, there really isn't a way to equal things out without a salary cap (and floor). The NFL has things right. Revenue sharing. Salary cap. Salary floor. Baseball is still pretending its 1940 and hogging their individual tv money rather than brokering the entire package as an "MLB" package. It keeps the big teams rolling in cash and the small teams chasing their behinds.

757690
11-23-2011, 03:03 AM
I don't think Casey Kotchman counts for the Angels. He produced 3.7 WAR (BR - I had it open) in over 2 full seasons worth of playing time for them. The Tigers drafted Maybin, but he has been traded three times in his career. Casey Kelly hasn't even thrown a pitch in AAA yet. Andrew Miller has had one season with an ERA under 5.00 in his career. Kyle Drabek has a career ERA over 5.00. Travis d'Arnaud has not played above AA. Lasting Milledge has -2.0 WAR (BR). Philip Humber threw more than 30 innings in a season, finally, at age 28, with his 3rd team. They were good innings though.

Lots of really questionable calls there. Some guys are still young, but they are hardly a good group of guys who were "productive picks".

And no, there really isn't a way to equal things out without a salary cap (and floor). The NFL has things right. Revenue sharing. Salary cap. Salary floor. Baseball is still pretending its 1940 and hogging their individual tv money rather than brokering the entire package as an "MLB" package. It keeps the big teams rolling in cash and the small teams chasing their behinds.

All those guys you mentioned were used in trades to acquire key talent:

Kotchman - Tex
Maybin/Miller - M Cabrera
Kelly - A. Gonzalez
Humber - Santana
d'Arnaud/Drabek - Halladay
Milledge - Schneider/Church (okay, not so much with this guy, but he was later traded for Nyjer Morgan lol)

The point is that teams need their first round draft picks either to fill holes themselves or be trade bait for veteran's to fill those holes.

I agree that the cash penalties won't be much of a deterrence, but the lost of the draft picks will.

corkedbat
11-23-2011, 05:32 AM
So if the player doesn't sign, the team that drafts them holds their rights, ala Carson Palmer?

If Palmer were a tookie and had not chosen to sign he would be eligible to return to the draft pool the next year (same in baseball).

Palmer was not a rookie though, he was a veteran with a multi-year deal. The reason that the Bengals could control him beyond one year was that multi-ear deal which had him signed through 2014 or 15

mdccclxix
11-23-2011, 10:30 AM
If Palmer were a tookie and had not chosen to sign he would be eligible to return to the draft pool the next year (same in baseball).

Palmer was not a rookie though, he was a veteran with a multi-year deal. The reason that the Bengals could control him beyond one year was that multi-ear deal which had him signed through 2014 or 15

Right, OK, I thought IslandRed was saying it might not be the case that an unsignable pick in the MLB draft would result in a comp pick the next year and figured that was so unfair that the drafting team that didn't sign their pick could just hold onto his rights forever. BUT, none of that's the case, sorry for the confusion.

Here's what I believe will happen with the Strasburg's and Harper's and all early first round picks: The teams that need them, will pick them. I think the players and agents will be herded into the direction of lower payouts to these draft prospects. It's the players that will have to adjust their expectations for what they can get.

The owners, by handcuffing the GM's, have made sure spending doesn't continue to raise out of control. The MLB draft has very high risk and some low, delayed reward. I can see why they wanted to reign in spending.

In the case of Strasburg, His bonus was 7.5 million. I think the slot for the #1 pick is right about that, 7 million. Strasburg also got another 7.5 guaranteed over the next 4 years, creating a situation where he's potentially being paid more than league minimum guys like Votto for pitching in the minors. I can see where the MLB players don't agree with that. So that second 7.5 million is not part of the picture. Strasburg could go back to school, sure. But, if he did and came back as the number 5 pick, or a 2nd round pick, he'd get so much less, and he'd have to sign. I think the pressure is on the players now more than ever to sign, and now for a reduced rate.

I haven't seen where the whole slotting system is laid out to look at, so I can't say whether there will be significant impact on players later in the draft.

dougdirt
11-23-2011, 10:37 AM
The point is that teams need their first round draft picks either to fill holes themselves or be trade bait for veteran's to fill those holes.

I agree that the cash penalties won't be much of a deterrence, but the lost of the draft picks will.

The point is that teams aren't going to lose draft picks. Big market teams will just exploit the system by spending a ton on the first and second round guys, then punt their 3rd-10th round picks with cheap, signability guys to make the cut. They still get elite talent and don't have to worry about the other guys filling out their bench in 3-5 years like small market teams have to because they can afford to spend $20M on their bench, unlike small market teams.

757690
11-23-2011, 11:50 AM
The point is that teams aren't going to lose draft picks. Big market teams will just exploit the system by spending a ton on the first and second round guys, then punt their 3rd-10th round picks with cheap, signability guys to make the cut. They still get elite talent and don't have to worry about the other guys filling out their bench in 3-5 years like small market teams have to because they can afford to spend $20M on their bench, unlike small market teams.

I made the same point in an earlier thread. Then I read this:


the bonus pool will be based on where a team picks, how many picks it has and how much was spent in the previous year's draft. So the Astros, who draft first next June, will have an $11.5-million pool to work with, while the teams that pick last in each round only get $4.5 million in their pool.

Hard to sign elite talent with only $5-6M overall, no matter what tactic you take.

What this means is that players with high demands won't slip down, as the further they slip down, the harder it will be to get a big bonus.

I have no idea if this will really work, only time will tell, but it looks like a plan that should work.

savafan
11-23-2011, 03:01 PM
More interesting bits of information:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/mlb-all-star-game-attendance-mandatory-shot-yankees-derek-jeter-article-1.981605?localLinksEnabled=false



starting in 2012, all major league players elected to the All-Star Game will be required to play in the Midsummer Classic, unless they are injured or are excused by the commissioner’s office. The rule is part of MLB’s new collective bargaining agreement.



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mlb-collective-bargaining-agreement-add-sexual-orientation-discrimination-clause-article-1.981161



Article XV, Section A of MLB’s expiring Basic Agreement, in effect from 2006-2011, states: “The provisions of this Agreement shall be applied to all Players covered by this Agreement without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.”

In the new agreement, the words “sexual orientation” were added to Article XV. Michael Weiner, the union’s executive director, said that the decision was not motivated by requests from his membership, but by “the lawyers on both sides just recognizing that it should be there.”

dougdirt
11-23-2011, 03:19 PM
I made the same point in an earlier thread. Then I read this:



Hard to sign elite talent with only $5-6M overall, no matter what tactic you take.

What this means is that players with high demands won't slip down, as the further they slip down, the harder it will be to get a big bonus.

I have no idea if this will really work, only time will tell, but it looks like a plan that should work.

Only the top 5 guys get that much money. Theoretically the Yankess could land a Top 10 talent for $5M at #26 and still have $2M to spend.

757690
11-23-2011, 04:23 PM
Only the top 5 guys get that much money. Theoretically the Yankess could land a Top 10 talent for $5M at #26 and still have $2M to spend.

Do the Yankees get $7M in their pool? I haven't seen any numbers for them specifically.

Anyway, guys won't drop to the Yankees because there will be teams ahead of them that can and will spend more money on picks. If the Yankees can spend $5M on their first pick and have $2M for the rest of their draft, then the Pirates or Royals can probably spend $7 and have even more money to spend on the rest of their draft.

If you're a player wanting a big bonus, you don't want to drop in the draft, because the lower you drop, the less money the team has to sign you.

All this does get rid of the extreme over slots bonuses.

Gallen5862
11-23-2011, 04:31 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Free Agent Arbitration Offer Tracker
By Tim Dierkes [November 23 at 12:46pm CST]

Please note that in the tracker I have marked Matt Capps, Francisco Cordero, Octavio Dotel, Ramon Hernandez, and Darren Oliver as having received arbitration offers even though they technically will not. As part of the new CBA, MLB and the players association agreed that these five players will change from Type A to B and the clubs will not have to offer arbitration to receive compensation. For the purposes of the tracker, I consider that an automatic arbitration offer, since compensation will still happen.

mdccclxix
11-23-2011, 07:35 PM
The comp picks lottery that go to lower revenue or smaller market teams could serve to compound their money squeeze that year. Sort of an ironic twist. Add in a FA type A comp, 4 picks in the top 100 could get difficult.

757690
11-23-2011, 08:14 PM
The comp picks lottery that go to lower revenue or smaller market teams could serve to compound their money squeeze that year. Sort of an ironic twist. Add in a FA type A comp, 4 picks in the top 100 could get difficult.

Good point, but I think they already addressed that.


the bonus pool will be based on where a team picks, how many picks it has...

RED VAN HOT
11-23-2011, 10:40 PM
It looks to me as if there could be a mad scramble at the signing deadline. A small market team that does not want to exceed its allowance could have money tied up in a first round pick that is holding out for even more money. Does it go ahead and sign its other draft choices? If so, it could lose its first round choice if the offer on the table is not accepted and the offer cannot be increased? If it holds money back to negotiate further with their number 1, there is no assurance that they will be successful. They could fail to sign some of their other choices as well and it could be a completely busted draft.

I suspect that elite players will let their price be known. Small market teams will opt for signable first round choices in order to plan their draft more safely. The elites will go to the large market teams who will not hesitate to spend the full amount or lose a choice next year.

This deal looks good for the elite players, their agents, and the rich teams that no longer have to wait six years to get these top talents, but not for the small market teams.

Jpup
11-24-2011, 12:28 AM
MLB Network was discussing the CBA and said that players are not allowed to carry dip or other tobacco products in their pockets any more. Guess they will have to load up before the go on the field each inning.

IslandRed
11-24-2011, 12:08 PM
I suspect that elite players will let their price be known. Small market teams will opt for signable first round choices in order to plan their draft more safely. The elites will go to the large market teams who will not hesitate to spend the full amount or lose a choice next year.

This deal looks good for the elite players, their agents, and the rich teams that no longer have to wait six years to get these top talents, but not for the small market teams.

It could play out that way but I have my doubts. I could be wrong, but it seems to me like the rule change a couple of years ago about compensation for unsigned picks has had the intended effect so far. That will be the key to how things play out in the future. If teams have the willpower to use that leverage and the Boras-etc. elite clients realize they can't unreasonably-demand their way down to the Yankees because someone is going to take a stab at signing them to a take-it-or-leave-it deal, pretty soon players will realize their best chance at a big bonus is to be drafted as highly as possible and take what's there.

I fully expect the agents to try exactly what you said, mind you. But clubs have the means at their disposal to prevent that from being a successful strategy. It all depends on whether they're willing to do it.

BCubb2003
11-24-2011, 12:16 PM
I wonder if the Yankees will offer a draft pick a modest amount to sign plus $10 million for the "Nuke Laloosh Hour" on the YES Network.

RED VAN HOT
11-24-2011, 01:53 PM
It could play out that way but I have my doubts. I could be wrong, but it seems to me like the rule change a couple of years ago about compensation for unsigned picks has had the intended effect so far. That will be the key to how things play out in the future. If teams have the willpower to use that leverage and the Boras-etc. elite clients realize they can't unreasonably-demand their way down to the Yankees because someone is going to take a stab at signing them to a take-it-or-leave-it deal, pretty soon players will realize their best chance at a big bonus is to be drafted as highly as possible and take what's there.

I fully expect the agents to try exactly what you said, mind you. But clubs have the means at their disposal to prevent that from being a successful strategy. It all depends on whether they're willing to do it.

You may be correct. It will also depend on how the small market teams prevent it from happening without opening themselves up to collusion charges. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I suspect that the teams drafting early, presumably small market teams, will decide in advance of draft day how to allocate their fixed amount. Their decision will be based on the quality of the elite players, the likely cost of signing one of them, the overall depth of the draft class, and the state of their farm system. In other words, it will be more of a quality vs quantity decision than it is today.

Strengthening the slotting system and permitting teams to spend freely on the draft would have helped the disadvantaged teams more.

redsmetz
11-29-2011, 07:11 AM
Here's a piece on the pool for the draft. Apparently if you don't sign a draft pick, you have the slot amount deducted from your pool instead of being able to move it towards another pick. Not sure I understand the intricacies of this, but we'll have to see how it plays out, I think, before we fully understand it.

http://minors.mlblogs.com/2011/11/28/more-cba-goodies/

IslandRed
11-29-2011, 01:47 PM
I think it clearly foresees the temptation to leave other picks unsigned for the sake of meeting the top pick's demands without tripping the draft cap. Just part and parcel of the overall objective to reduce bargaining leverage for those who would try to price themselves out of reach.

mdccclxix
12-09-2011, 11:22 AM
jorgearangure Jorge Arangure
Angels spend 325m on 2 players. meanwhile some Dominican kid will be getting squeezed for 10k because off the new spending caps
22 hours ago

Dougdirt retweeted this. Pretty damn crazy.

Reds Fanatic
12-14-2011, 12:35 AM
More details are coming out about many changes coming with the new labor deal:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7349915/new-mlb-labor-deal-more-replay-longer-all-star-break

Some of the changes include:

Teams from the same division will now be able to meet in the playoffs before the LCS.

A longer all star break (4 days instead of 3)

Expanded replay to include fair or foul calls, whether a ball was trapped and fan interference calls

REDREAD
12-14-2011, 02:10 PM
Here's a piece on the pool for the draft. Apparently if you don't sign a draft pick, you have the slot amount deducted from your pool instead of being able to move it towards another pick. Not sure I understand the intricacies of this, but we'll have to see how it plays out, I think, before we fully understand it.

http://minors.mlblogs.com/2011/11/28/more-cba-goodies/

That sounds like a good idea.
The whole point of this "pooling" strategy is to reduce the leverage the draftees have.
I know some will disagree, but IMO, any strategy that encourages teams to draft the best player available when their pick comes up is good for the game.