2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion Thread

[Ehjays]

Different than what you said yesterday.

 

Its only different for the slow people. Keep the talks going

[Jimcanuck]

Its only different for the slow people. Keep the talks going

 

Rude. Yesterday you said lock them in a room until they have an agreement, today you are amenable to 2022 going ahead without an agreement.

[jerb]

 

Bob Nightengale

@BNightengale

 

MLB and the union are expected to meet again soon, perhaps later this week, to at least discuss non-core economic issues.

[John_Havok]

"MLB agreed to accept parameters of a pre-arbitration bonus pool for top 30 WAR. MLBPA seeking $105M. League offered $10M."

 

Where does this bonus pool come from?

[Brownie19]

"MLB agreed to accept parameters of a pre-arbitration bonus pool for top 30 WAR. MLBPA seeking $105M. League offered $10M."

 

Where does this bonus pool come from?

 

more importantly - fWAR or bWAR?

[John_Havok]

more importantly - fWAR or bWAR?

 

Good question, especially for pitchers.

[Jimcanuck]

You would think the bonus pool would come out of some pool of shared revenue, tv deals or whatever.

[John_Havok]

You would think the bonus pool would come out of some pool of shared revenue, tv deals or whatever.

 

Yeah I guess, seems weird to give individual player bonuses out that way, but I guess the intent of revenue sharing is so that the smaller market teams spend more on players, so maybe not that weird. But that would have to be over and above the other revenue sharing already in place or it really would be just taking from one hand to give to another

 

Next question... would it apply only to those players that aren't already signed to guaranteed extensions? IE, would Wander Franco qualify for a piece of that pool next season? Or would it only apply to those going year to year like the vast majority do?

[Stangstag]

more importantly - fWAR or bWAR?

 

It would probably be easier to just payout the bonus pool based on MVP voting

[John_Havok]

It would probably be easier to just payout the bonus pool based on MVP voting

 

I like the idea, I'm just wondering as to the mechanism of payout. Some years there could be pretty big variance between the top guy with under 3 years of service time and the 30th best. There could also be years where the best guy has 7 WAR, other years the best might only have 4. Would they get a hard slot bonus for being on top or some sort of sliding scale like... dollars per WAR?

[jerb]

 

Ben Nicholson-Smith

@bnicholsonsmith

 

Some details on MLB’s proposal today: heard MLB proposed that teams would have the right to sell uniform patches & helmet decals.

 

If MLBPA accepts, MLB would agree to some of players’ pension & medical benefits proposals.

[John_Havok]

"The two sides already agreed to a universal DH with the elimination of draft pick compensation that penalizes teams for signing premier free-agent players. "

 

NIce

[Dick_Pole]

I'll hate the idea until one of the AMC investor retards spends some money to put a Wallstreetbets/GME/AMC decal on Mets helmets.

[John_Havok]

Meant to post sooner, but fangraphs did a pretty good analysis of what some of the proposals would mean economically to the players:

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-economic-impact-of-yesterdays-cba-proposals/

 

Some excerpts:

 

"First, both sides proposed instituting new salary minimums. The MLBPA suggested a new minimum salary of $775,000. The league countered with a tiered structure – $615,000 for players with less than one year of service time, $650,000 for players with between one and two years of time, and $700,000 for everyone else on a minimum salary.

 

“Players on a minimum salary” might not sound like a key part of the structure of baseball, but they absolutely are, as FanGraphs alum Travis Sawchik has covered. These players aren’t a huge part of the money, of course – “minimum” is a helpful word there. In 2021, teams spent roughly $3.842 billion on player salaries, per Spotrac. Minimum salaries accounted for roughly $289 million of that, or 7.5% of the total outlay.

 

On the other hand, those players accounted for roughly 47% of the service time accrued in 2021. That’s not quite the same as games played – you accrue service time while on the injured list or while on the 26-man roster but not appearing in games – but the player pool skews heavily towards pre-arbitration players no matter how you slice it. 58% of all players to appear on a 26-man roster in 2021 haven’t yet reached arbitration.

 

When you consider the composition of the major league player pool, these small-sounding changes in pre-arbitration salaries take on increased importance. The union’s proposal would move that outlay for minimum-salary players from roughly $289 million to roughly $386 million, a $97 million increase. That’s small potatoes in the business of baseball, of course – the league reportedly saw $10.7 billion in revenue in 2019, and even if you just compare it to the overall player salary pool, it’s only a 2.5% increase in the total salary pool. The league’s proposal is for an even smaller increase – it would have paid minimum-salary players roughly $319 million in 2021, a 0.7% increase in total player salaries."

 

"In 2017, the last time the CBA was re-negotiated, the minimum salary was set to $570,000. Since then, the CPI-U, the most commonly used measure of consumer price inflation in the US, has increased by 14.8%. If the minimum salary kept up with consumer inflation, it would be $654,000 today."

 

"In the 2016 season, 779 players accrued at least one day of service time while ending the season eligible to receive the minimum salary. 51% of those players still haven’t reached arbitration, which means they’re unlikely to – those are essentially players who got a cup of coffee but didn’t have a significant major league career. Of that group of 779, only 112 have reached free agency. Minimum-salary players are the biggest part of the MLBPA – and most of those players will never get the kind of gob-smacking payouts associated with premium players in free agency. In addition, most of them don’t play the full season in the majors, which makes their take-home pay significantly lower than the quoted minimum."

 

"It also hasn’t yet been reported how the bonus pool would be split. It would likely be tiered in some way, but at this early stage in the negotiation, there have been no public discussions of how that would work in practice. In addition, it’s unclear how these bonuses would affect competitive balance tax calculations, as the money would be paid from central revenues, not by individual teams. There’s time to work out those finer points, but there’s still quite a bit of uncertainty on the specifics of the proposal.

 

"In the league’s version, that work hardly seems worth it. They proposed to set aside $10 million out of central revenues to pay players who hit those bonuses. That’s, well … not enough. Using the top-30 WAR benchmark and assuming the pool is distributed evenly, that’s $333,333 per player using the league’s numbers, and while that’s nice, it’s just not enough money to move the needle when it comes to rewarding impactful early-career performances. The union proposed a $105 million pool, which feels like it goes too far the other way. The players who would receive these bonuses are likely to get large payouts eventually anyway, and having nearly a quarter of the pre-arb salary pool league-wide payable as bonuses (if both player proposals were applied to the 2021 season, minimum-salary players would make roughly $490 million in salary plus bonus) strikes me as a poor way to allocate money to minimum-salary players."

 

"At the moment, we project the Pirates for the lowest salary in baseball in 2022, at $39 million. They have seven players on their roster who are either free agents or qualify for arbitration. That leaves 19 pre-arb players. Under the union’s proposal, that’s an additional $3.8 million in payroll; under the league’s proposal, it’s closer to $1 million. Either would be a meaningful increase for Pittsburgh compared to their current payroll – and still leave the Pirates with the lowest salary in baseball, even if the minimum-salary change only affected them. The change won’t be earthshaking, is the point I’m trying to make here, even as it means a lot to individual players. Instead, it will be an incremental change, as those players get paid more without suddenly becoming better, which might actually make better players with higher salaries relatively more attractive."

[InsideThePark]

"The two sides already agreed to a universal DH with the elimination of draft pick compensation that penalizes teams for signing premier free-agent players. "

 

NIce

 

Does that mean teams losing free agents don't get any compensation anymore, or just that the signing team doesn't give up the pick the comp pick essentially comes out of thin air? I like teams losing guys getting picks, I just think those should be new picks added not have to be given up by the signing team.

 

I also assume this kicks in next year and doesn't affect this offseason which is already half complete?

[RustyTrombone]

Seems like it means the loss of a draft pick will be getting removed. Not the team losing the player getting a comp pick.

[glory]

Sounds like the QO will still exist, but the team that signs the FA doesn't lose anything anymore. My guess is they will keep the other part of the equation, meaning the player would get the choice of 1/18 (or whatever the QO is in that particular year) or test free agency. Team gets a pick if qualified FA signs elsewhere. I'm just assuming that's what it is, but I think the main point is that teams will no longer be penalized for signing free agents. I still can't believe the MLBPA agreed to that rule in the first place.

 

According to Passan the two sides are meeting again tomorrow. Looking more and more like ST will be delayed. Now it's just a matter if they are crazy enough to have this bleed into the regular season. If they are, then they deserve whatever consequences that come out of it.

[John_Havok]

Does that mean teams losing free agents don't get any compensation anymore, or just that the signing team doesn't give up the pick the comp pick essentially comes out of thin air? I like teams losing guys getting picks, I just think those should be new picks added not have to be given up by the signing team.

 

I also assume this kicks in next year and doesn't affect this offseason which is already half complete?

 

Not entirely sure about your first question but the way I read it, it just eliminates the loss of draft pick for the signing team. It doesnt mention the team losing the FA would also lose their compensatory pick - so my interpretation is that the team losing the free agent would still get a pick.

 

Second question - no it wouldnt impact anything from the current offseason signings

[John_Havok]

According to Passan the two sides are meeting again tomorrow. Looking more and more like ST will be delayed. Now it's just a matter if they are crazy enough to have this bleed into the regular season. If they are, then they deserve whatever consequences that come out of it.

 

Well, the owners have already stated they are "willing to lose games" to get what they want. Makes it even harder for me to even think of siding with them when they already had the better deal.

 

Put it this way, the owners would vote tomorrow to end the lockout if the players dropped all their demands. That's how skewed it is in the owners favour right now. They say they are willing to lose games... if I were the PA, I'd take advantage of that.

 

If the owners are willing to lose games, then as the PA I make sure I dont give anymore on mydemands. I make damn sure the missing games are worth not just a tiny insignificant win, but a meaningful one.

[Brownie19]

I would assume the "we're willing to lose games" talk is simply a leverage tactic / negotiation 101 ********. I can't imagine it really means much. As a flipside - if they said "we aren't willing to lose games" then that give the leverage to the PA.

[John_Havok]

I would assume the "we're willing to lose games" talk is simply a leverage tactic / negotiation 101 ********. I can't imagine it really means much. As a flipside - if they said "we aren't willing to lose games" then that give the leverage to the PA.

 

Of course, but its not a tactic that makes sense. It would actually have the opposite effect as what they want it to have.

 

My above statement is how I would be replying as the union. They're willing to miss games? Great! Then we're gonna hold out for more and make it worth it. The public seeing that statement already tilts the court of public opinion against the owners at least a little more, so take advantage of it.

Edited February 1, 2022 by John_Havok

[Brownie19]

Of course, but its not a tactic that makes sense. It would actually have the opposite effect as what they want it to have.

 

My above statement is how I would be replying as the union. They're willing to miss games? Great! Then we're gonna hold out for more and make it worth it. The public seeing that statement already tilts the court of public opinion against the owners at least a little more, so take advantage of it.

 

That approach assumes the players are actually willing to sit out games too...which they may not be.

[Ehjays]

That approach assumes the players are actually willing to sit out games too...which they may not be.

 

I think the later this goes, its Advantage Owners. And they know that as well because thats why they werent in a rush to get to the table.The players were pushing hard.

[Eat My Shatkins]

How many games of the Vladdy/Bo core are these f***tards going to rob us of this season?

 

Get a f***ing deal done you gigantic pieces of greedy s***.

[glory]

How many games of the Vladdy/Bo core are these f***tards going to rob us of this season?

 

Get a f***ing deal done you gigantic pieces of greedy s***.

 

2020: 60 game season, no fans, Buffalo

2021: Couldn’t play home games for 4 months, missed the playoffs by 1 game

2022: Lockout likely to cost games, and there will be little to no fans in attendance for home games at least to start the year

 

It’s straight BS.

[Brownie19]

2020: 60 game season, no fans, Buffalo

2021: Couldn’t play home games for 4 months, missed the playoffs by 1 game

2022: Lockout likely to cost games, and there will be little to no fans in attendance for home games at least to start the year

 

It’s straight BS.

 

We should start our own convoy! [insert Spanky's GIF of the Blue Jays trucks]

[Dick_Pole]

It's almost as if people have missed out on life events over the past two years for some reason...

 

I agree that the owners are at the advantage here. Not from a fan optics perspective (both sides will look terrible) but from a business perspective. The owners aren't in a rush to get back to the table thanks to the pandemic. I know how Ontario is, but are there any states that have severe capacity limits right now? I guess only Florida and Arizona matters for the next two months.

[Abomination]

It's almost as if people have missed out on life events over the past two years for some reason...

 

I agree that the owners are at the advantage here. Not from a fan optics perspective (both sides will look terrible) but from a business perspective. The owners aren't in a rush to get back to the table thanks to the pandemic. I know how Ontario is, but are there any states that have severe capacity limits right now? I guess only Florida and Arizona matters for the next two months.

 

Even if they don't have capacity limits, I'd imagine there would be a lot of people not willing to take additional risk regardless. Also, I don't know about anyone else, but watching the NBA and NHL over the past year has really sucked with so many people out of the lineups on a daily basis. I have not found it particularly enjoyable. It's like, wow this should be a great match. Wait, why is there a G League team out there?

 

I really don't see much motivation for the owners to have a full season this year. I think the players are going to have to give in if they want to play.

[John_Havok]

It's almost as if people have missed out on life events over the past two years for some reason...

 

I agree that the owners are at the advantage here. Not from a fan optics perspective (both sides will look terrible) but from a business perspective. The owners aren't in a rush to get back to the table thanks to the pandemic. I know how Ontario is, but are there any states that have severe capacity limits right now? I guess only Florida and Arizona matters for the next two months.

 

It's actually kinda weird when you go on message boards, or look at the comments on facebook posts about stuff like this. It actually seems like most people blame the players for being greedy and should just be greatful for whatever pay their ownership overlords deem worthy.

 

Granted, most of them probably have the IQ of a peanut, or may just be bots the owners signed up to fake post support for them but it'll still interesting how so many people at the bottom of the totem pole think that being at the bottom of the totem pole is a privilege, and dont truly understand how incredibly great the owners have it over the players right now.

[Brownie19]

It's actually kinda weird when you go on message boards, or look at the comments on facebook posts about stuff like this. It actually seems like most people blame the players for being greedy and should just be greatful for whatever pay their ownership overlords deem worthy.

 

Granted, most of them probably have the IQ of a peanut, or may just be bots the owners signed up to fake post support for them but it'll still interesting how so many people at the bottom of the totem pole think that being at the bottom of the totem pole is a privilege, and don't truly understand how incredibly great the owners have it over the players right now.

 

I think most see it as rich people arguing with rich people. Most just look at the 'top' players making millions of dollars a year to live out their childhood dream and can't comprehend how they could complain and strike in that situation. To be honest - that's true. Even the minimum contract players make more in a year than most do in 10-15 years at their careers, so it's hard for the general public to relate and sympathize with them.

 

Of course the reality is the Owners typically all make hand over fist also - but their numbers aren't truly public (and if they are, it's all skewed and doesn't really reflect the profit they made) and the general public just doesn't relate to them like they do the players.

 

I don't think that makes people stupid - perhaps just a little short sighted.

 

The exploitation of minor league players is REALLY something the general public could relate to and support. That's something that really pisses me off and I wish there was a way to fix that. And of course, as a fan, I'd love to see a world where neither the owners or the players become become quite as rich so they could lower the price to attend games so the average joe and his family could attend more often.