MLB and MLBPA Agree to New CBA

Austinfan 2016-12-01 18:21:21 UTC #31

It's no different than the games some teams played (who got slapped down?) by paying smaller amounts to top prospects then signing their brother who's a non-prospect. I'm sure the league will be watching for these games and some team will get penalized and lose their allocation or draft picks.

julio 2016-12-01 18:23:06 UTC #32

I don't know the specific answer, Chris...but what's become obvious over the past couple of decades is that clubs with money to burn will find ways to use that money to gain a competitive advantage, whether by just paying penalties, or by finding ways to go around/circumvent rules and restrictions.

Not unique to baseball. Buyers with money who want things find ways to buy those things, whether there are market restrictions or not. That's why black markets exist. So clubs are going to cheat/get around the limits, if they can find ways to do so. Always have; always will.

andyb 2016-12-01 18:58:39 UTC #33

It looks like there are some nuances to the international limit to help lower revenue teams. I think there is an extra million in pool limit for the bottom 15 revenue teams.

No idea how this stops side deals other than MLB policing any expenditures like that.

This is a better system. It really does not help the larger market teams as much as in the past. The luxury cap in general looks a little harder with stricter penalties and some QO/bonus rules that impact teams over the cap line.

All that should help competitive balance a bit, though the huge missed opportunity for the Phillies is that they never abused any of these rules like on international spending when that was permissible. I'd like to think our scouts are generally pretty good, but it is not like we have evidence of them being better than most other clubs. So we revert to a system where all 30 teams are much closer to being equal and where the Phillies could no longer use their revenue as a large market team to add talent. Call it yet another missed opportunity.

Looking ahead to the 2017 draft

julio 2016-12-01 19:02:27 UTC #34

What we have to think about - and what Klentak and his staff have to think about! - is what new opportunities may be opened by the changed rules. I don't know, at this point, but it seems highly likely that there are some new possibilities, "unforeseen" loopholes or benefits available to those who figure them out - in particular, those who figure them out first. Rule changes always seem to come with unintended consequences/impacts.

bigegypt0417 2016-12-01 19:14:53 UTC #35

Passan...
.Int’l bonus $ depends strictly on market size. Teams can trade every $ of their int’l pool. Teams can trade for up to 75% of theirs.

julio 2016-12-01 20:46:44 UTC #36

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

julio 2016-12-01 19:55:35 UTC #37

But the counter-argument here is that, because they can spend only $5 million or so on international amateurs, it's more important than ever to identify the best opportunities - and one way clubs with more financial resources can out-compete other clubs is by doing a better job scouting in Latin America (e.g., spending more, paying more scouts, etc.). They spend a couple of $ million more on scouting, to improve the return from their $5 million investment in bonuses - as opposed to spending that couple of $ million more on bonuses...possibly for no better overall return than the new way.

julio 2016-12-01 20:41:31 UTC #38

Per Jon Heyman:

English:

When a club signs a Qualifed Free Agent:

If the club is over the luxury tax threshold, they forfeit 2nd and 5th round draft picks, and lose $1 million from international signing pool.
If the club is under the luxury tax threshold, and not receiving revenue sharing, they forfeit 2nd round pick, and lose $500k from international signing pool.
If the club is under the luxury tax threshold, and receiving revenue sharing money, they forfeit a 3rd round pick.

It's not clear to me what happens if a club is over the luxury tax threshold, AND receiving revenue sharing payments - but I'm not sure that ever happens (or could happen), so it may be a moot question.

julio 2016-12-01 20:44:04 UTC #40

And per Rosenthal:

bigegypt0417 2016-12-01 20:47:14 UTC #41

Deleted...

allentown 2016-12-01 21:58:33 UTC #42

The 'new' opportunity seems to be the only old opportunity: over-23 international players.

andyb 2016-12-01 22:13:58 UTC #43

It really seems kind of stupid to penalize U23 international dollars from clubs that sign a QO free agent. Why should 16-year-old international kids lose dollars over a signing that has nothing to do with them. The draft penalties in place previously really did not impact the kids because the 20th pick slot value was always the 20th pick slot value. The pool of money available to the top kids did not shrink.

Minor league players and amateur free agents are go to win some lawsuits at some point in the future.

schillingfan 2016-12-02 02:13:31 UTC #44

My take in this is that it will eliminate the sitting the player for a week, while still staying on the active roster because the team wasn't sure how soon the player will recover. This used to drive me crazy as it would leave the team a player short. With a 10 day DL, I think it will be easier for teams to DL injured players rather than sit them down without playing them.

LoneStarPhan 2016-12-02 05:13:52 UTC #45

It did at times seem that the Phillies had someone "not available for a few days" far too often.

I had hoped for the roster size to go to 26 or even 27. I grew up when the 25 man roster usually broke down to ten pitchers and fifteen position players. Of course, the norm now is 12 pitchers and sometimes even 13. I would like to see the bench expanded. A third catcher would allow teams to use the second catcher as a pinch hitter or to pinch hit for a weak hitting catcher in a key situation. Of course, when I heard some discussion on the 26 man active roster, the conventional wisdom was that teams would go to 13 man pitching staffs. In the end, the new CBA keeps the 25 man roster and allows call up of the full 40 man roster in September. Really not a big deal.

schillingfan 2016-12-02 17:41:45 UTC #46

With all due respect LSP, but back when we grew up the roster only had 24 men.

julio 2016-12-02 17:51:56 UTC #47

I think LSP is correct here. There was a period when the roster had 24 men - but that was an aberration. See this page at baseball-reference.com

The 25-player roster limit has a long history behind it. It has been in place since the 1920 season, having previously been limited to 21 players, although it was also at 25 for periods before World War I.
...
The normal roster limit has been 25 for most of the past decades with a few exceptions.
...
Major League teams decided to play with 24-man rosters during the first half of the 1978 season (i.e. until July 1st) and during the entire season - except for the period of expanded rosters - from 1986 to 1989, as a cost-cutting measure in the face of escalating player salaries. The settlement of the 1990 strike made the 25-man roster a part of the basic collective bargaining agreement and it has not been touched since.

Austinfan 2016-12-02 18:02:43 UTC #48

Given the lower value of the QO to the team offering it, I think we'll see more July trades, if the opportunity cost is one year of the player's services or a 1st rd pick, you might hold on to him, but unless you're a good team on a down season or have a lot of money (Phillies) and don't mind keeping the player, that 2nd or 3rd rd pick isn't worth as much as a decent prospect in a July trade.

Conversely, players are less likely to accept QOs because they cost less to sign, I don't think a team will care about losing a late 2nd rd or early 3rd round pick if they like a player.

Philsmania 2016-12-02 18:07:53 UTC #49

Officially, the ML rosters were still at 25 from 1986 to 1989. However, there was a loophole in the CBA which said that teams had to have at least 24 for each game and the owners drove a Mack truck through it.

julio 2016-12-02 18:19:04 UTC #50

I agree. If the potential return for hanging on to Jeremy Hellickson last July had been a comp pick after the second round (e.g., around #90) instead of what it was (e.g., around #25), the asking price in trade presumably would have been lower, and a deal might well have been made.

julio 2016-12-02 20:51:34 UTC #51

Long article on the CBA by Jeff Passan. One interesting nugget, far down in the article:

• High-school players can formally opt out of the amateur draft instead of just telling teams not to draft them.

Prior to this, there was no real mechanism for high school kids to either "enter" or "not enter" the draft - there has been no need for kids to "declare" for the draft. If they came to the attention of a major-league club, they could be drafted - even if they didn't know they were being considered.

Evidently, there is still no formal requirement for kids to "declare" for the draft - but there will be a formal process for them to exclude themselves, if they have no intention of signing a professional baseball contract (e.g., if they're dead-set on going to college).
What's not clear is what the real effect of a kid opting out will be over the longer term - he's presumably not eligible to be signed as a non-drafted free agent (if they didn't address this, certain agents will have a field day!), for at least some period of time. What happens if he doesn't matriculate at a college? Is he treated the same as a drafted player who fails to sign?