New CBA Discussions - Service Time

[REDREAD]

Guys, I think this is a pretty good deal for the players if the arbitration system is not changed.
So if a player is called up before age 23.5, the teams get extra years of control.
But the team now has an incentive to call up players as soon as they are ready.
That kid that's called up at 20, he's in the big leagues maybe 2-3 years sooner than the current system.
So he's making MLB money and earning service time when the old system would still have him in the minors.
Under the current system, once you have 6 years experience, you can compare yourself to everyone on the market in arbitration. If players had that same right under the new system, a player that has 7 or 8 years of experience can go to arb and compare himself to free agents.
No more service time manipulation.
Not many players get called up before 23.5 years old anyhow.

[Crosley58]

1. The people complaining about how this would damage the Reds are quietly ignoring the damage to Reds players. Why should Winker lose $75M because we drafted him?
2. I feel sorry for the guys who get their first taste when they are 27 or 28 and prove themselves. They never get a big payday.
3. I feel sorry for the ordinary players who get released because they are going to get more in arbitration than the team thinks they're worth. Why pay a guy $5M when you can get 90% of that production for $600,000?
4. If it takes you nine years to get a guy ready to play in the majors, maybe your development system isn't that valuable and it's just the simple experience of playing a thousand professional games that got the guy ready.

I don't think 29.5 is the right answer but I've long thought that age should get a big weight in deciding when you're entitled to try to choose your own boss.

[Kc61]

1. The people complaining about how this would damage the Reds are quietly ignoring the damage to Reds players. Why should Winker lose $75M because we drafted him?
2. I feel sorry for the guys who get their first taste when they are 27 or 28 and prove themselves. They never get a big payday.
3. I feel sorry for the ordinary players who get released because they are going to get more in arbitration than the team thinks they're worth. Why pay a guy $5M when you can get 90% of that production for $600,000?
4. If it takes you nine years to get a guy ready to play in the majors, maybe your development system isn't that valuable and it's just the simple experience of playing a thousand professional games that got the guy ready.

I don't think 29.5 is the right answer but I've long thought that age should get a big weight in deciding when you're entitled to try to choose your own boss.

Winker is not losing money because of who drafted him. The first six years are slotted. First three pre-arb. Next three decided by arbitration or settlement in arb parameters. None of that is dependent on who drafted you.

If you want younger players, or second and third tier players, to get more, why not a cap on top salaries with a high team minimum? Other sports have caps that seem to work.

[757690]

This is wrong because of the absence of a salary cap.

The large markets will simply broaden their grasp. They will still compete for Bryce Harper. But they will now also compete for Jesse Winker and Jon India. There is no limit on their ability to bid, other than the luxury tax. And they can simply pay the luxury tax.

There will still be a market for the Reds. But only those players on whom the “big boys” decide to pass. Beginning, now, at ages 26-27.

MLB already has a salary cap. The luxury cap works just like one. Only the Dodgers have been willing to go over it and pay the price repeatedly, and even they have backed away from it at times.

The key is that mid market teams like the Reds can afford to compete with retaining their own players. They have done a good job of that, buying out player’s free agent years when they prove to be reliable and sometimes extending them when they get close to free agency. This will now actually be easier, since they won’t have to over pay for players during their decline years, which has been their big problem.

[Kc61]

D

MLB already has a salary cap. The luxury cap works just like one. Only the Dodgers have been willing to go over it and pay the price repeatedly, and even they have backed away from it at times.

The key is that mid market teams like the Reds can afford to compete with retaining their own players. They have done a good job of that, buying out player’s free agent years when they prove to be reliable and sometimes extending them when they get close to free agency. This will now actually be easier, since they won’t have to over pay for players during their decline years, which has been their big problem.

The lifeblood of small markets is the five to six years of control over drafted players who get to MLB. As distasteful as arbitration is, it’s a compromise to allow teams to retain drafted and developed MLB talent for that period.

Teams may trade or extend some - but they do so without the pressure of open market bidding within that period.

We’d be naive to think that introducing FA during that 5-6 year period of control helps the Reds. The large markets know the value of great young talent, like India, Hunter Greene. They will pounce.

[Bourgeois Zee]

We’d be naive to think that introducing FA during that 5-6 year period of control helps the Reds. The large markets know the value of great young talent, like India, Hunter Greene. They will pounce.

Yes, they might hypothetically look to sign India this off-season. A team like the Cubs could certainly use him.

So what?

He deserves that cash for his production, no?

It would force teams to get more creative in their use of young players-- and develop some guys far earlier than they might have otherwise.

Hunter Greene, for example, could be a bullpen arm right now, I suspect, and be one of the best 8 or 9 arms in Cincinnati. If another team gambled on that, the Reds could then match that contract. That'd start his clock earlier, sure. But other teams have to do the same thing too.

What you ignore is that the Reds could use that same cash to poach other teams' players they don't trust yet.

I'm guessing a team like Cincinnati could end up with more talent coming in than going out in this system-- especially if big market teams sign big money free agents to plug holes as they have since free agency began.

There just aren't enough starting major league roster spots for the Yankees or Dodgers to sign everyone and keep all their best prospects too.

[Wonderful Monds]

Yes, they might hypothetically look to sign India this off-season. A team like the Cubs could certainly use him.

So what?

He deserves that cash for his production, no?

It would force teams to get more creative in their use of young players-- and develop some guys far earlier than they might have otherwise.

Hunter Greene, for example, could be a bullpen arm right now, I suspect, and be one of the best 8 or 9 arms in Cincinnati. If another team gambled on that, the Reds could then match that contract. That'd start his clock earlier, sure. But other teams have to do the same thing too.

What you ignore is that the Reds could use that same cash to poach other teams' players they don't trust yet.

I'm guessing a team like Cincinnati could end up with more talent coming in than going out in this system-- especially if big market teams sign big money free agents to plug holes as they have since free agency began.

There just aren't enough starting major league roster spots for the Yankees or Dodgers to sign everyone and keep all their best prospects too.

I mean what you’re describing is more or less the Reds using their major league rosters to develop big market teams prospects, players that by all means probably aren’t major league ready, and then having to match a team like the Cubs salary wise as soon as those players are any good. That’d just turn teams like the Reds into even more of AAAA feeder clubs for the big markets than they’ve historically been.

Speaking as a fan, I’m not interested in that happening at all.

[Kc61]

Yes, they might hypothetically look to sign India this off-season. A team like the Cubs could certainly use him.

So what?

He deserves that cash for his production, no?

It would force teams to get more creative in their use of young players-- and develop some guys far earlier than they might have otherwise.

Hunter Greene, for example, could be a bullpen arm right now, I suspect, and be one of the best 8 or 9 arms in Cincinnati. If another team gambled on that, the Reds could then match that contract. That'd start his clock earlier, sure. But other teams have to do the same thing too.

What you ignore is that the Reds could use that same cash to poach other teams' players they don't trust yet.

I'm guessing a team like Cincinnati could end up with more talent coming in than going out in this system-- especially if big market teams sign big money free agents to plug holes as they have since free agency began.

There just aren't enough starting major league roster spots for the Yankees or Dodgers to sign everyone and keep all their best prospects too.

There are large market teams beyond the Yankees and Dodgers. All those teams have money that’s green and would be offering it to young Reds players after 2-3 years.

Small market teams already have to “get more creative.” RFA would just make it even harder. As for the Reds’ themselves as poachers, yes - for the secondary players big markets choose not to sign.

Jonathan India, under the current system, can earn quite a bit when he’s arbitration eligible and then even more in free agency. That’s why arbitration exists, to get relatively young players fair salaries.