2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion Thread

[connorp]

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.

 

I’m not thinking too much on this but why, is $1 not $1? So while the money would be the same (assuming a team would make the floor), the league parity would take a harder shift

[The_DH]

I’m not thinking too much on this but why, is $1 not $1? So while the money would be the same (assuming a team would make the floor), the league parity would take a harder shift

 

My guess is it could make some teams more competitive quicker. If you could send rookies or draft choices for floor space, then the floor challenged team could "spend its money", but not waste it when it isn't competitive. Also they could gain assets quicker from the ceiling teams that need to buy some space.

[Abomination]

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.

 

 

The problem for the players is if there's a salary floor, there's going to be a more stringent (or possibly hard) salary cap too. I don't think that's a trade they'll be willing to make when it's all said and done.

[Abomination]

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.

 

That would be terrible. It would encourage some of those teams to have even lower payrolls. You would literally be paying them MORE to be even less competitive. Now if you could sell some cap space (not below the min) for prospect capital at some predetermined rate, that could be interesting (or, even better, for draft picks and their slot value, with the requirement that the teams had to pay those picks slot value or greater).

[Eat My Shatkins]

They should allow players to reach free agency sooner, but then also make it so no player can sign a multi year contract that takes them past 35 years old.

 

That way players who are younger and in their prime get paid sooner, but teams won't be wasting money on past their prime 35+ year old players who aren't worth the contracts they signed when they were 30+ years old.

 

A free agent who is 31? You can sign a 4 year deal max. Then you can only sign 1 year deals from that point on.

A free agent who is 28? 7 years max. Then 1 year deals from that point on.

 

Probably need a limit on AAV too though, something like 20% of the luxury tax threshold or something like that.

[John_Havok]

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.

 

I have no doubts the union will be pushing for it like crazy, but the reality is that they have a lot of other things that can help out players salaries that they can get done easier than a floor.

 

We know a hard salary cap is a nonstarter for the PA. The hard floor is the same for the owners.

 

If a cap/floor system ever comes to MLB, the labour stoppage that preceded it will have been extremely long.

[The_DH]

That would be terrible. It would encourage some of those teams to have even lower payrolls. You would literally be paying them MORE to be even less competitive. Now if you could sell some cap space (not below the min) for prospect capital at some predetermined rate, that could be interesting (or, even better, for draft picks and their slot value, with the requirement that the teams had to pay those picks slot value or greater).

 

Sure, let them tank but they would acquire real assets for cap space. Acquire real assets and then get better and be competitive. The only way to force teams to fight for a position is to make their place in the major leagues dependent on their record. Imagine if teams like Baltimore got dropped from the major leagues due to a 2-3 year record.

[Spanky99]

Sure, let them tank but they would acquire real assets for cap space. Acquire real assets and then get better and be competitive. The only way to force teams to fight for a position is to make their place in the major leagues dependent on their record. Imagine if teams like Baltimore got dropped from the major leagues due to a 2-3 year record.

 

I understand what you're suggesting, but the PA will never go with anything like this, like at all. It'd be coercive to what they want. No way. You sound like an owner bro.

[The_DH]

I understand what you're suggesting, but the PA will never go with anything like this, like at all. It'd be coercive to what they want. No way. You sound like an owner bro.

 

Oh it will never happen, the owners wouldn't do it. But it would make teams work on being competitive if they were going to be dropped.

[glory]

The problem for the players is if there's a salary floor, there's going to be a more stringent (or possibly hard) salary cap too. I don't think that's a trade they'll be willing to make when it's all said and done.

 

Yeah, the owners have already offered a floor ($100m) that had a $180m luxury tax (with stricter penalties for going over), which is basically a salary cap without calling it one, and the MLBPA does not want a salary cap. The current luxury tax threshold acts as a soft cap now anyway and I'm sure the players are fighting to either eliminate that (unlikely) or increase it (more likely but without a floor).

 

I wish they'd just agree to a salary cap, split the revenue, have a floor/cap, and be done with it. The NFL and NBA are printing money with that model. The free market that the MLBPA desires so much benefits probably 2% of the players in the league. But as long as they are against a salary cap, I think what they end up agreeing to is a just a more player friendly version of the current system. Increased league minimum, arb after year 2, and incentives/bonuses for pre-arb players who have great seasons. Anything more complicated than that, and I would be surprised.

[Dick_Pole]

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.

 

No, no, no a million times no to the expanded rosters. Many of the problems related to baseball and all of these lame half assed fixes like runners on 2B in extra innings is related to teams churning through a million jobber relievers throughout a season. Under no circumstances do I want to facilitate that. Force teams to roster only 10 pitchers and limit the amount of pitchers they can call up and send down during the season and watch all of these issues with three outcome baseball magically disappear.

 

I would say my idea would get PA support because instead of a bunch of guys getting MLB minimum salaries for a few weeks and getting released before they hit arbitration, teams would actually have to draft, develop and PAY pitchers to have Rich Gossage roles.

[BTS]

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.

 

I hate both of these ideas.

[TheHurl]

Force teams to roster only 10 pitchers and limit the amount of pitchers they can call up and send down during the season and watch all of these issues with three outcome baseball magically disappear.

 

I

 

Baseball's issues will never "magically disappear" IMO. I mean 10 pitchers will mean more walks, more hits, and length of games will not be reduced but it's a better product. The other side is that the PA will never agree to this.

 

For me the biggest thing is that there has to be smarter people at the tables. People who are able to think, if you change this...the smartest front offices will respond by doing ___" Now lets establish how this effects baseball. In the end none of this matters because it's all about maximizing dollars.

 

The first change that should happen which improves the product (to non diehard fans), without effecting $$$ is reduce the game to 7 innings. And the traditional baseball fan shits all over everything. There is no magical solution but current baseball fans, should be removed from consideration. There is not a thing that baseball can do which stops me from watching...so why would I be a thought.

[The_DH]

No, no, no a million times no to the expanded rosters. Many of the problems related to baseball and all of these lame half assed fixes like runners on 2B in extra innings is related to teams churning through a million jobber relievers throughout a season. Under no circumstances do I want to facilitate that. Force teams to roster only 10 pitchers and limit the amount of pitchers they can call up and send down during the season and watch all of these issues with three outcome baseball magically disappear.

 

I would say my idea would get PA support because instead of a bunch of guys getting MLB minimum salaries for a few weeks and getting released before they hit arbitration, teams would actually have to draft, develop and PAY pitchers to have Rich Gossage roles.

 

While I agree with you on hump relievers, I would like to see more offensive players, pinch hitters, pinch runners, defensive substitutions and such. 5 starters, 12 relievers and 11 position players would blow.

[Dick_Pole]

While I agree with you on hump relievers, I would like to see more offensive players, pinch hitters, pinch runners, defensive substitutions and such. 5 starters, 12 relievers and 11 position players would blow.

 

I wouldn't mind the idea of more substitutions on the position player side, but we know that if rosters are expanded, teams are just going to pile more relievers. It would need to separate pitching from position player roster spots.

[BTS]

I don't understand the appeal of more positional substitutions. Force teams to acquire players who are competent at all facets of the game (or lose with players who don't have broad skill sets). Why would we want to see a parade of specialists make up for the shortcomings of the starting lineup?

[Dick_Pole]

Baseball's issues will never "magically disappear" IMO. I mean 10 pitchers will mean more walks, more hits, and length of games will not be reduced but it's a better product. The other side is that the PA will never agree to this.

 

For me the biggest thing is that there has to be smarter people at the tables. People who are able to think, if you change this...the smartest front offices will respond by doing ___" Now lets establish how this effects baseball. In the end none of this matters because it's all about maximizing dollars.

 

The first change that should happen which improves the product (to non diehard fans), without effecting $$$ is reduce the game to 7 innings. And the traditional baseball fan shits all over everything. There is no magical solution but current baseball fans, should be removed from consideration. There is not a thing that baseball can do which stops me from watching...so why would I be a thought.

 

I like the tone of your first paragraph. Let me rephrase it to the problems I perceive to be the worst problems would magically disappear. I'm fine with what you say in the second paragraph. A hard no to the third. I think you underestimate the value of a 9 inning game to TV deals. What you're suggesting is to take away four commercial breaks. 20% less ad time is not going to be a selling point.

[Dick_Pole]

I don't understand the appeal of more positional substitutions. Force teams to acquire players who are competent at all facets of the game (or lose with players who don't have broad skill sets). Why would we want to see a parade of specialists make up for the shortcomings of the starting lineup?

 

I suppose I should reword it and say I don't mind 80's level of positional replacements. Back when teams held 10-11 pitchers and 14-15 position players. Basically I want the game to return to how it was when I first saw it. Pitchers who could throw complete games once in a while and were good enough to get outs even in the *gasp* THIRD and FOURTH times around the order. In the later innings when games are close and the top relievers are in, teams try to combat that with pinch hitters. Lots and lots of stolen base attempts, potentially facilitated by pinch runners. And a bullpen where you could actually name all of the pitchers in it off the top of your head. I could deal without the bunt attempts.

[John_Havok]

Basically I want the game to return to how it was when I first saw it.

 

Congrats. You are now old. Welcome to the club

[Dick_Pole]

Congrats. You are now old. Welcome to the club

 

Hey I grew up in the perfect time. Old enough to know a life before the internet and smartphones, young enough to know how to use them. Old enough to be able to have bought a house and build wealth, young enough to have a good chance at being alive when significant life extension technologies start to kick in. Old enough to know that some of the climate change hysteria is ********, young enough to know that not all of the climate change hysteria is ********. Old enough to know what an actual good front office building a sustainable winner looks like - Gillick - and not fall for the crap the Rays are pulling.

[TheHurl]

I don't understand the appeal of more positional substitutions. Force teams to acquire players who are competent at all facets of the game (or lose with players who don't have broad skill sets). Why would we want to see a parade of specialists make up for the shortcomings of the starting lineup?

 

speedy defensive subs who can't hit a lick is what you end up with. Everyone loves a good defensive play...but those guys don't sell tickets or up viewership.

[John_Havok]

Hey I grew up in the perfect time. Old enough to know a life before the internet and smartphones, young enough to know how to use them. Old enough to be able to have bought a house and build wealth, young enough to have a good chance at being alive when significant life extension technologies start to kick in. Old enough to know that some of the climate change hysteria is ********, young enough to know that not all of the climate change hysteria is ********. Old enough to know what an actual good front office building a sustainable winner looks like - Gillick - and not fall for the crap the Rays are pulling.

 

I have a feeling we are very close to the same age. Way younger than Hurl though, thankfully.

[TheHurl]

I like the tone of your first paragraph. Let me rephrase it to the problems I perceive to be the worst problems would magically disappear. I'm fine with what you say in the second paragraph. A hard no to the third. I think you underestimate the value of a 9 inning game to TV deals. What you're suggesting is to take away four commercial breaks. 20% less ad time is not going to be a selling point.

 

It's a very interesting case study that someone smarter than me should do. I don't know what a standard ad contract looks like but I have had a conversation with one of the top guys at Sportsnet. There are a bunch of rates based on time, day of the week, but after a certain time they are "poker" rate. So if shortened to 7 inning games can generate more viewers (long term hope of doing it) and they can make more revenue in the shorter time it would still work. I do think the 7 inning game is many years away but will be experimented with somewhere soon.

[TheHurl]

I have a feeling we are very close to the same age. Way younger than Hurl though, thankfully.

 

Way is subjective. Plus I have a young heart

 

It is sitting in a child in a third world country waiting for when I need it.

[glory]

Baseball's issues will never "magically disappear" IMO. I mean 10 pitchers will mean more walks, more hits, and length of games will not be reduced but it's a better product. The other side is that the PA will never agree to this.

 

For me the biggest thing is that there has to be smarter people at the tables. People who are able to think, if you change this...the smartest front offices will respond by doing ___" Now lets establish how this effects baseball. In the end none of this matters because it's all about maximizing dollars.

 

The first change that should happen which improves the product (to non diehard fans), without effecting $$$ is reduce the game to 7 innings. And the traditional baseball fan shits all over everything. There is no magical solution but current baseball fans, should be removed from consideration. There is not a thing that baseball can do which stops me from watching...so why would I be a thought.

 

Agreed. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there even is one, but baseball fans are definitely last to accept change. Maybe it's because the fanbase tends to lean on the older side as a whole, but it's remarkable that a league like the NBA practically makes changes to their league every year (on and off court) and it's never seen as a big deal, but MLB wants to implement putting up 4 fingers to signify an intentional walk to speed the game up a tiny bit and fans lose their minds. I agree, for baseball to truly improve, they can't worry about offending the diehard fan. Most of this board hated the runner on 2nd rule, but it didn't stop them from watching. That's going to be the case for all existing fans. If you're a diehard, then you'll either grow to like or grow to accept any change made.

 

I would be fine with 7 innings being the new norm (those doubleheaders tended to fly by and less time for games would make a huge difference), but I'd like to see them exhaust all options for improving the pace of a 9 inning game. Maybe that's not possible, but implementing a pitch clock and limiting P's on the roster could shave enough dead time to a more manageable level where people aren't complaining about how long the games are. Most of the time I don't think it's the game length that bothers people but rather the pace of it. Since baseball doesn't have a clock, games could last 4 hours even if it had a lightning pace to it, but those 4 hours might breeze by in that scenario, at least compared to what we see now.

[John_Havok]

Way is subjective. Plus I have a young heart

 

It is sitting in a child in a third world country waiting for when I need it.

 

I nearly spit my tea all over my monitor with that one. That is gold sir.

[John_Havok]

It's a very interesting case study that someone smarter than me should do. I don't know what a standard ad contract looks like but I have had a conversation with one of the top guys at Sportsnet. There are a bunch of rates based on time, day of the week, but after a certain time they are "poker" rate. So if shortened to 7 inning games can generate more viewers (long term hope of doing it) and they can make more revenue in the shorter time it would still work. I do think the 7 inning game is many years away but will be experimented with somewhere soon.

 

I don't know the exact stuff either, but I do know they have different rates for times of day, days of the week and even the types of commercial breaks. Like, in a 9 inning they game, they know 100% there will be X amount of breaks during the pregame, and between each half inning. Those will all have varying rates depending on the time of the night they happen. Like a commerical in the 1st inning might cost more or less, because its's at 7:15 eastern, vs a commerical in the 7th that might be at 9:15 eastern. The rolling TV viewership numbers is what dictates the rates. Since those commerical blocks are guarantted to happen and they have a very solid idea of the time they will occur, those rates will be pretty much set in stone.

 

The varying rates will the extra breaks for possible injuries, in game delays, pitching changes, extra innings... those will have variable rates because they won't know exactly when they happen, nor exactly how many of them there will be. They'll have a pretty good idea with averages from previous years... so they will generally have a bunch of companies that sign up for the variable spots, and then they pay X amount for X # of commercials. When they run over their alotted number, they either stop running that companies ads, or get them to re-up.

[Abomination]

I do think the 7 inning game is many years away but will be experimented with somewhere soon.

 

I could see it making sense in the minors. After the 7 innings were official and the game was over, they could have an inning or two of AFL style work.

[Dick_Pole]

Agreed. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there even is one, but baseball fans are definitely last to accept change. Maybe it's because the fanbase tends to lean on the older side as a whole, but it's remarkable that a league like the NBA practically makes changes to their league every year (on and off court) and it's never seen as a big deal, but MLB wants to implement putting up 4 fingers to signify an intentional walk to speed the game up a tiny bit and fans lose their minds.

 

Really? The NBA? Silver outlined a few gimmicks last year that were all wildly scorned and were not adopted except that asinine play-in tournament to see who has the honour of getting trounced 4-0 or 4-1 by the top seed. The game has changed but that's due to smarter front offices/coaches, not rule changes itself. IIRC the last really major change was the addition of the three point line. NFL...same. Game has transitioned to a passing league but not thanks to any rule changes, other than the ones passed for obvious safety reasons. The only league which has really changed itself drastically has been the NHL - major divisional realignment, the shootout, the participation point at the end of regulation for ties, elimination of center ice offside, tinkering with what is and isn't a penalty both officially in the rule book and unofficially by telling the refs to back off or start calling something more.

 

I suppose all leagues adopted some form instant replay and coach challenges but that should be an obvious move facilitated by technology.

[glory]

Really? The NBA? Silver outlined a few gimmicks last year that were all wildly scorned and were not adopted except that asinine play-in tournament to see who has the honour of getting trounced 4-0 or 4-1 by the top seed. The game has changed but that's due to smarter front offices/coaches, not rule changes itself. IIRC the last really major change was the addition of the three point line. NFL...same. Game has transitioned to a passing league but not thanks to any rule changes, other than the ones passed for obvious safety reasons. The only league which has really changed itself drastically has been the NHL - major divisional realignment, the shootout, the participation point at the end of regulation for ties, elimination of center ice offside, tinkering with what is and isn't a penalty both officially in the rule book and unofficially by telling the refs to back off or start calling something more.

 

I suppose all leagues adopted some form instant replay and coach challenges but that should be an obvious move facilitated by technology.

 

The NBA seems to add incremental changes every so often. They added the play-in tournament. They changed the AS game format a number of times, from having the top vote getters get to draft their team and recently to implementing the Elam Ending for the actual game. They have also made some incremental changes with defenses, hand checking, flopping, etc, every so often. The game today is much different than it was 10-20 years ago. A lot of that is due to Curry and analytics, but it wasn't just front offices changing the game, the league had a hand in it as well. Yet the only real complaints about the NBA are from older fans who grew up on Jordan era. The younger demographic loves it. I'm not the biggest Adam Silver fan, but he's not afraid of making changes, whether big or small, and I think a large part of that is owed to a younger fanbase that isn't going to complain about something "ruining the sport". The play-in tournament is absolutely ridiculous, but I didn't see anywhere near as much hatred for it as I thought I would.

 

I can't speak on the NFL or NHL, as I don't follow either sport, but I think if Manfred takes a page out of Silver's book and starts experimenting with certain things, he won't get the type of leeway from baseball fans that Silver gets from basketball fans. The NBA has an old versus young problem. The "old heads" miss the game the way it was, while the younger kids love it. Baseball is in a weird spot where old and young don't particuarly care for the way the game is played now. At some point the league is going to have to make significant change, and if they are smart, they'll focus on trying to appease the younger fans rather than trying to appease the older ones that are probably going to stick around regardless.