2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion Thread

[Jimcanuck]

lol, you guys win

 

So politics is back on?

[connorp]

So politics is back on?

 

Maybe not yet but give it a month or two of a lockout and there is going to be some kind of filler needed.

[Laika]

So politics is back on?

 

Yes but only Jim and connorp are allowed to talk politics and we can put an end to it whenever we want. have fun.

 

you guys can even make your own thread, "jim and connorps's political bants", if you want.

[connorp]

Yes but only Jim and connorp are allowed to talk politics and we can put an end to it whenever we want. have fun.

 

you guys can even make your own thread, "jim and connorps's political bants", if you want.

 

I’ll take it. Let’s him them a lesson in civics Jim.

[Spanky99]

Rosenthal on the lockout...

 

By Ken Rosenthal Dec 3, 2021 223

I’ll have much more to say on the labor dispute in the days, weeks and (gulp) months ahead, but for now know this:

 

The dispute is not about competitive balance, competitive integrity or any other high-minded concept the owners and players might use to justify their intentions.

 

It’s about money.

 

The late union leader Michael Weiner used to tell colleagues that the owners are not bad people just because they want to pay players less, and the players are not bad people just because they want to earn more. It’s America, it’s capitalism, it’s labor-management relations. And for all commissioner Rob Manfred’s talk in his letter to fans about how players have it so good – When we began negotiations over a new agreement, the Players Association already had a contract that they wouldn’t trade for any other in sports – the players clearly do not agree, knowing their income has gone backward in the only context that matters to them, their own sport.

 

A study by the Associated Press in April revealed that the average major league salary dropped 4.8 percent to just under $4.17 million on opening day from the start of the previous full season in 2019, and 6.4 percent since the start of the 2017 season, when it peaked at $4.45 million. There were qualifiers: The ’21 figures did not include the salaries of three well-paid players who were not on Opening Day rosters for procedural reasons, and the average likely fell slightly because of the expansion of rosters from 25 to 26 and the additions of minimum-salary players in the extra slots. But to players, the message was clear. Their salaries were not keeping pace with the sport’s revenues.

 

We don’t know exactly what those revenues are because only two of the 30 teams, the Atlanta Braves and Toronto Blue Jays, are publicly owned and required to open their books. We also don’t know the extent of the money the owners are earning from ancillary business ventures related to baseball. We do know the players’ salaries, and surely they are not suffering. But that doesn’t mean they’re getting their fair share.

 

Manfred mentioned in his letter that teams committed $1.7 billion in November to free agents, breaking the prior record by nearly four times. He also said that by the end of the offseason, teams will have committed more money to players than in any offseason in the league’s history.

 

Well, the money spent early is partly a reflection of the quality of this year’s free-agent class, and partly a reflection of the urgency teams and players showed with the lockout looming. Six players (Corey Seager, Marcus Semien, Javier Báez, Max Scherzer, Robbie Ray and Kevin Gausman) accounted for nearly 60 percent of the $1.7 billion. Just because the system worked for those players does not mean it is working as a whole.

 

Get ready for days, weeks and (gulp) months of this, both parties presenting their versions of the truth and blaming each other for all that ails the sport. As The Athletic’s Jayson Stark wrote, the players and owners are not even talking about the one issue that might matter most to fans, rules adjustments intended to improve the on-field product. Nope, sorry. It’s about money. It’s always about money. No matter how anyone frames it, no matter what anyone says.

[Boxcar]

Here are some other unacceptable words and phrases from the article:

 

Blackmail

Brainstorm

Dumb

Totem pole

Grandfathered in

Blind spot

Black sheep

Inner city

Tone deaf

 

In essence, anything that uses the word black is offensive because that is the colour of some people's skin. It is also offensive to reference any kind of disability. It's all pretty lame.

 

Those racists missed "chink in the armor"

[Dick_Pole]

Well, the lockout is basically just politics. The Republican owners versus the Labour Party players. Each side has their leader, except instead of it being Trump versus Clinton or Trump versus Biden it's just Trump versus another Trump. That being said, I have come to appreciate that this has turned into one of the very few places completely devoid of politics. Everywhere else on the net has become Let's Go Brandonized. Social media, sports websites, stock market websites, porn websites....I think that covers all my browsing.

[TwistedLogic]

Well, the lockout is basically just politics. The Republican owners versus the Labour Party players.

 

And the Minor Leaguers in this scenario represent the people. In that nobody actually gives a f*** about them.

Edited December 5, 2021 by TwistedLogic

[philly30]

Those racists missed "chink in the armor"

 

If i chug a beer after eating a banana I am really a racist bastard especially if it is right after voting for delaware Senator Chris coons

 

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_ethnic_slurs

[Olerud363]

Well, the lockout is basically just politics. The Republican owners versus the Labour Party players. Each side has their leader, except instead of it being Trump versus Clinton or Trump versus Biden it's just Trump versus another Trump. That being said, I have come to appreciate that this has turned into one of the very few places completely devoid of politics. Everywhere else on the net has become Let's Go Brandonized. Social media, sports websites, stock market websites, porn websites....I think that covers all my browsing.

 

I think it is more complicated than that. Let's look at it from the Perspective of a Blue Jays fan. I'd personally want free agency held off longer, keep players longer, make it easier to resign your own players, Salary cap to restrain the Yankees, and I'd be fine with a salary floor and earlier arbitration to compensate, also fine with raising the minimum quite a bit. I'd be fine with a system that paid players more on average but restrained the top teams and high level free agents, while paying young players more, and forcing small market teams to spend more.

 

However neither the Yankees nor Tampa Bay would want that. Yankees just want to be able to make playoffs 28 of the next 30 years and use their financial might to their full advantage, Tampa would hate a salary floor or increased minimum salary, because they just want to use their brains to their full advantage while keeping a 50 million payroll.

 

Basically it's not just players vs owners, every owner probably wants something different.

[John_Havok]

I think it is more complicated than that. Let's look at it from the Perspective of a Blue Jays fan. I'd personally want free agency held off longer, keep players longer, make it easier to resign your own players, Salary cap to restrain the Yankees, and I'd be fine with a salary floor and earlier arbitration to compensate, also fine with raising the minimum quite a bit. I'd be fine with a system that paid players more on average but restrained the top teams and high level free agents, while paying young players more, and forcing small market teams to spend more.

 

However neither the Yankees nor Tampa Bay would want that. Yankees just want to be able to make playoffs 28 of the next 30 years and use their financial might to their full advantage, Tampa would hate a salary floor or increased minimum salary, because they just want to use their brains to their full advantage while keeping a 50 million payroll.

 

Basically it's not just players vs owners, every owner probably wants something different.

 

That's a very narrow lens you're looking through though. Look at it this way.

 

Teams valuations have skyrockets in the past 25 years. Player's paychecks have also increased, but nowhere near the same rate. Owners are enjoying every benefit of their teams being worth billions of dollars, while players are still fighting to get a proportionate piece of that pie. Owner's will take every upside they can, but then when some form of revenue dries up, they expect that downswing to be shared by the players. Capitalists when the value rises, socialists when the value drops.

 

There used to be tons of guys in their mid 30's that were still contributing to their team's successes and were also getting "rewarded" for their production and value from earlier in their career. With analytics (and the steroid era being gone), we don't see early to mid 30's guys getting massive paydays like they used to. Owners have realized they shouldn't be paying someone in their mid30s for something they did 5 years ago. So, while very few exceptions still exist, the money that used to go to the upper age bracket guys, gets floated... back.... to.... nobody. The owners aren't bound to pay the young stars anything more than their league minimums for the first 3 years, then slow incremental increases through arbitration until they become a free agent somewhere in the range of 30-32 for the most part, unless they offer long extensions that generally fall below market value because of risk hedging. Superstar players of course get to FA earlier, but the system isn't failing them to begin with. The truly elite will always get their high AAVs, now its just a matter of how long the deals will be.

 

Another main point of the players is that all the revenue sharing that takes place from the massive media market teams that gets shared to the have-nots, doesn't seem to be being put back on the field. Markets like Tampa and many others don't seem to be able to increase payrolls, despite receiving 7 figures in revenue sharing every year. The Yankee's don't care about that really... yeah the owners there would likely prefer to not give away money to other teams because it's still money... but when they see those teams not using it against them... yeah, they're more cool with it than it would seem. It's the players union that is far more pissed off about the money not being spent than the Yankees are.

 

Essentially, this current stoppage is all about the owners not wanting to inject all that money they are saving on older players into the younger players. They want to keep it and watch their franchise valuations keep ballooning. The players union wants that money to be put back into the rest of the players, whether it's through a floor/increased luxury tax threshold, earlier arbitration, free agency etc.

 

All the stuff about the universal DH and some other things.. that's all the minor ******** they throw to the media to make the other side look like pedantic f***s.

 

Also, consider that the relative labour "peace" between the two sides since 1994 is 100% due to the fact the players would NOT accept a salary cap. The owners wanted one back then with no floor, and the player's knew they had to strike and never bend on a straight cap. They didn't, there was no cap, and the owners knew that a salary cap was a non-starter ever since then.

Edited December 6, 2021 by John_Havok

[TwistedLogic]

I think it is more complicated than that. Let's look at it from the Perspective of a Blue Jays fan. I'd personally want free agency held off longer, keep players longer, make it easier to resign your own players, Salary cap to restrain the Yankees, and I'd be fine with a salary floor and earlier arbitration to compensate, also fine with raising the minimum quite a bit. I'd be fine with a system that paid players more on average but restrained the top teams and high level free agents, while paying young players more, and forcing small market teams to spend more.

 

However neither the Yankees nor Tampa Bay would want that. Yankees just want to be able to make playoffs 28 of the next 30 years and use their financial might to their full advantage, Tampa would hate a salary floor or increased minimum salary, because they just want to use their brains to their full advantage while keeping a 50 million payroll.

 

Basically it's not just players vs owners, every owner probably wants something different.

 

lmao, if you suppressed high-level free agent salaries and lowered the luxury tax, the Blue Jays would never get a blue chip free agent again. You'd have the exact same situation you have with the Raptors in the NBA. If players can only make a certain amount, they will have way more options and will always pick a warmer, lower tax, American city. The only way the Jays can get premium free agents is under the current system, where they can overpay for them.

 

You'd also have a much harder time acquiring players like Donaldson and Berrios under your proposed system. If smaller market teams are forced to spend more, they're going to choose to use those dollars on players like that instead of trading them away.

[saskjayfan]

lmao, if you suppressed high-level free agent salaries and lowered the luxury tax, the Blue Jays would never get a blue chip free agent again. You'd have the exact same situation you have with the Raptors in the NBA. If players can only make a certain amount, they will have way more options and will always pick a warmer, lower tax, American city. The only way the Jays can get premium free agents is under the current system, where they can overpay for them.

 

You'd also have a much harder time acquiring players like Donaldson and Berrios under your proposed system. If smaller market teams are forced to spend more, they're going to choose to use those dollars on players like that instead of trading them away.

 

Didn't gausman just take less money to play in a cold climate with high taxes?

[Stangstag]

Didn't gausman just take less money to play in a cold climate with high taxes?

 

Reportedly more money, but who knows what the term was. Could’ve been 120 for 6 years vs Jays 110 for 5.

[Grant77]

Those racists missed "chink in the armor"

 

You're just overly sensitive to it because you're Asian.

[Olerud363]

lmao, if you suppressed high-level free agent salaries and lowered the luxury tax, the Blue Jays would never get a blue chip free agent again. You'd have the exact same situation you have with the Raptors in the NBA. If players can only make a certain amount, they will have way more options and will always pick a warmer, lower tax, American city. The only way the Jays can get premium free agents is under the current system, where they can overpay for them.

 

You'd also have a much harder time acquiring players like Donaldson and Berrios under your proposed system. If smaller market teams are forced to spend more, they're going to choose to use those dollars on players like that instead of trading them away.

 

The Raptors have had far more success then the Jays the last decade. Sign me up for the NBA system if it leads to the Jays having Raptors level success.

 

If the system is designed properly it gives teams an advantage in keeping their own players, and also an advantage if they have 'payroll' room. The Jays as constructed would have even more of an advantage signing guys like Springer, Ryu, and Gaussman, if they had extra payroll room

 

High level free agents are now getting almost 45 million short term, or 300+ million long term and Jays have played in that market anyway. So suppressing those salaries won't change much for the Jays.

[saskjayfan]

The fact that the owners offered a Salary floor and fee agency at 29.5 and we don't have a deal is concerning. Catching the late bloomers like Josh Donaldson and making them free agents earlier and forcing cheap teams to spend more seems like 2 massive wins. You'd think they could have negotiated around those 2 sticking points and got everything else done.

[Grant77]

The fact that the owners offered a Salary floor and fee agency at 29.5 and we don't have a deal is concerning. Catching the late bloomers like Josh Donaldson and making them free agents earlier and forcing cheap teams to spend more seems like 2 massive wins. You'd think they could have negotiated around those 2 sticking points and got everything else done.

 

I'd be wary of basing my opinions off of media leaks. Were those things actually offered? What else was attached to them?

[glory]

The fact that the owners offered a Salary floor and fee agency at 29.5 and we don't have a deal is concerning. Catching the late bloomers like Josh Donaldson and making them free agents earlier and forcing cheap teams to spend more seems like 2 massive wins. You'd think they could have negotiated around those 2 sticking points and got everything else done.

 

If I'm remembering correctly, I believe MLB's proposal was a floor of $100m and the luxury tax threshold at $180m, which was effectively a salary cap without calling it one by name, and MLBPA for some reason would rather the sport die than accept a salary cap. Free agency at age 29.5 is nice for college draft picks who come up at age 24-25, or late bloomers, but someone like Vlad would be a free agent after the 2028 season, which would give the Jays 10 years of control over him. I would imagine the arbitration years in that scenario would be the equivalent to FA money anyway, but no chance players are going to agree to a deal where teams get more than the 6 years of control they already get.

 

My guess is owners won't budge on 6 years of control, and the players won't accept a floor with a low CBT threshold, which means they'll have to figure out a way for players to make more during years 0-6 within the current framework. Increase the minimum, arb after year 2, and bonuses/incentives for minimum earners who perform at a high level seems to be the only real solutions. I would imagine that's what the next CBA will look like for the most part.

[saskjayfan]

If I'm remembering correctly, I believe MLB's proposal was a floor of $100m and the luxury tax threshold at $180m, which was effectively a salary cap without calling it one by name, and MLBPA for some reason would rather the sport die than accept a salary cap. Free agency at age 29.5 is nice for college draft picks who come up at age 24-25, or late bloomers, but someone like Vlad would be a free agent after the 2028 season, which would give the Jays 10 years of control over him. I would imagine the arbitration years in that scenario would be the equivalent to FA money anyway, but no chance players are going to agree to a deal where teams get more than the 6 years of control they already get.

 

My guess is owners won't budge on 6 years of control, and the players won't accept a floor with a low CBT threshold, which means they'll have to figure out a way for players to make more during years 0-6 within the current framework. Increase the minimum, arb after year 2, and bonuses/incentives for minimum earners who perform at a high level seems to be the only real solutions. I would imagine that's what the next CBA will look like for the most part.

 

The free agency wasn't 29.5 for all players. It was 6 years of control or 29.5, whichever comes first.

[glory]

The free agency wasn't 29.5 for all players. It was 6 years of control or 29.5, whichever comes first.

 

The MLB proposal was apparently universal free agency at age 29.5. Service time was not factored in. If it was factored in, then I'm guessing the MLBPA would have actually liked it.

[Jimcanuck]

The free agency wasn't 29.5 for all players. It was 6 years of control or 29.5, whichever comes first.

 

That would increase, not decrease service time manipulation.

 

I'm not keen on a universal age 29.5 FA age. Rather than use an arbitrary number, the better approach would be to reduce the incentive for service time manipulation. This can be done by reducing the delta between arbitration awards and a player's market value.

[Dick_Pole]

Isn't the 29.5 thing a bit of a red herring? I don't see too many teams performing service time manipulation on 24 year olds. It's the age 27-30 years that teams want the most control over on their top prospects. Players who are presumably under the age of 23 when they make their MLB debut. How many Donaldson examples are there really?

[John_Havok]

Isn't the 29.5 thing a bit of a red herring? I don't see too many teams performing service time manipulation on 24 year olds. It's the age 27-30 years that teams want the most control over on their top prospects. Players who are presumably under the age of 23 when they make their MLB debut. How many Donaldson examples are there really?

 

I think the 29.5 age was chosen as the arbitrary age because the average age of rookies is right around 23, so... 6 years of service time would mean free agency right around 29-30.

 

The problem with their proposal is there was no other threshold, such as service time that players could hit to get to free agency sooner if they were called up before 23, and no way to address service time manipulation that they would still be able to do if they called up guys at 20 to ensure they still have them on the team when they're 29.5.

 

Gotta have both in there, unless we think it's totally cool for a team to be 100% in charge of a player for up to 12 seasons with no way for them to shop around.

[Ryu In My House]

What are the chances the things I want in the new CBA happen?

 

1. Expanded playoffs

2. Robo-umps

3. Division re-alignment

4. Universal DH

5. A hard payroll minimum, and soft maximum cap (with luxury tax after X).

[John_Havok]

What are the chances the things I want in the new CBA happen?

 

1. Expanded playoffs

2. Robo-umps

3. Division re-alignment

4. Universal DH

5. A hard payroll minimum, and soft maximum cap (with luxury tax after X).

 

1. Guaranteed

2. Nope

3. Probably

4. Guaranteed

5. Can't see a salary floor, but I can see an increase in the luxury tax threshold to 230ish million or so. The salary floor will be thing that I think the players will give up on in order to get minimum salary increases and some sort of better deal for younger players, arbitration, years of control etc.

[glory]

Expanded playoffs and universal DH are probably the only two things that are guaranteed to come out of this. Everything else is just who bargains better (and judging by history, I'll bet on the side that doesn't have Tony Clark on it to get the better deal).

[Ryu In My House]

1. Guaranteed

2. Nope

3. Probably

4. Guaranteed

5. Can't see a salary floor, but I can see an increase in the luxury tax threshold to 230ish million or so. The salary floor will be thing that I think the players will give up on in order to get minimum salary increases and some sort of better deal for younger players, arbitration, years of control etc.

 

I don't have an economics degree, but you would think the union would push for a salary floor pretty hard. Some teams seem intent to get rich of the TV contract, and do little else than provide top talent to the have teams. I would love to force the stingy teams to pay > $60M a year in payroll. Presumably that means more $$$ in the players' pockets, a healthier free agency situation, and the AAV for players to go up. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Ryu In My House]

I would also like to see expanded active rosters, maybe to 28 players, and a shorted regular season so 4-6 more playoff teams can be added.

 

The players should be hard core on increasing the number of players on the roster. It starts more service times, gets more AAA players the league minimum, would allow for more bat-only vets to stay in the game on the bench, more specialized defense only players, etc.

[The_DH]

I don't have an economics degree, but you would think the union would push for a salary floor pretty hard. Some teams seem intent to get rich of the TV contract, and do little else than provide top talent to the have teams. I would love to force the stingy teams to pay > $60M a year in payroll. Presumably that means more $$$ in the players' pockets, a healthier free agency situation, and the AAV for players to go up. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

What would make sense is a salary floor where the teams that are below the floor could sell that space to the teams pushing the top levels. it would be better all around for the MLBPA.