MLB and MLBPA Agree to New CBA

tom81 2016-12-01 02:11:01 UTC #1

We will have baseball in 2017! http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/mlb-mlbpa-agree-to-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.html?fv-home=true&post-id=78632.

Non Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

Winter 2016-17 Trade Speculation and Wish List

julio 2016-12-01 03:23:34 UTC #2

Good news! Now I just have to wait until somebody (MLBPA?) makes the text available, so it can be linked in our Baseball Links section, and so I can print out a hard copy for my desk reference... (Yeah, I do that. It's the only way to be able to answer questions about it - ya can't refer to it if ya can't see it!)

bigegypt0417 2016-12-01 04:44:00 UTC #3

Every team will have a 5 million dollar allocation for international signings. Its a hard cap...

julio 2016-12-01 04:55:02 UTC #4

"Hard cap" meaning what, exactly? What happens if the Red Sox decide to ignore the cap, and spend $10 million?

julio 2016-12-01 05:11:55 UTC #5

Some details, as tweeted by various writers:

(The "threshold" Stark references appears to be the luxury tax threshold on total salary.)

LoneStarPhan 2016-12-01 05:34:06 UTC #6

Good news. I didn't think there was any way they would not get this done, but it is good to have the agreement by the deadline.

It will take a little while to digest the details as they come out and to understand the consequences of the changes.

I was somewhat surprised that they didn't make any changes to the 25 and 40 roster numbers. That was one thing that I heard mentioned on multiple reports.

Lawman 2016-12-01 13:32:28 UTC #7

Also, WS home field advantage no longer tied to All Star win.

Lawman 2016-12-01 13:35:38 UTC #8

bigegypt0417 2016-12-01 13:47:59 UTC #9

That's a good question...last night it was described as a hard cap but today...not so much.

The current system calls for bonus allotments, with penalties for going over the limit. It is unknown if this new system is a hard cap or not.

julio 2016-12-01 13:56:25 UTC #10

This is very good news.

fish 2016-12-01 14:24:29 UTC #11

Can anyone explain to me the significance of phasing out the A's from receiving revenue sharing?

Lawman 2016-12-01 14:37:12 UTC #12

schillingfan 2016-12-01 14:40:08 UTC #13

Are the A's finally getting their new stadium? That could explain.

Philsmania 2016-12-01 14:55:11 UTC #14

Things seem to be moving in a more positive direction in that regard. The Athletics' new controlling owners are now focused on building in Oakland (and not Fremont or San Jose or someplace else) and Oakland is eager to deal with them while giving up the ghost of keeping the Raiders (and the Warriors are also on the way out to San Francisco).

Philsmania 2016-12-01 14:56:08 UTC #15

I am beyond ecstatic about the hairbrained ASG-WS homefield advantage rule going by the wayside. I've yet to meet a single fan who actually liked that rule.

All in all, hearing about the details so far, it sounds like the owners got rolled.

bkeich 2016-12-01 15:04:12 UTC #16

One of the agreements is to eliminate Oakland's revenue sharing part, going down 25% per year for the next 4 years.

Just curious, why Oakland? They are still not a "big market" team really as they share a large city, but they are specifically in the much, much less affluent area. They really havent shown any signs of being a large market (high spending, etc.). Is this punitive for not spending the money? Just curious.

bkeich 2016-12-01 15:06:19 UTC #17

Re: All Star Game

Honestly, it didnt bother me. Something has to decide the home field advantage, this was better than the old method (simple rotation). To me the team with the better record should get the home field, but doing it by the All-Star game did at least add some element of interest to the All-Star game (of which I really had none). That said, it was a very, very minor thing as I don't think it made the players try and harder.

Philsmania 2016-12-01 15:11:47 UTC #18

No, they didn't. Bear in mind that players from the best teams and legitimate WS contenders tended to either start or play earlier in the game while the tokens from bad teams showed up in the later innings and they had no incentive to try to get their team HFA in the WS since they weren't going to the WS. The whole concept was an absolute folly.

bkeich 2016-12-01 15:20:42 UTC #19

Yea Philsmania, I just don't think it was that big a deal. I doubt the players really thought about it much other than the media bringing it up.

It is odd to me that it came up in the CBA, as I can't think of it as a labor issue in any way. I doubt the players cared, I can't imagine the owners cared much, it was just Bud Selig's reaction to a tie All Star game and the backlash from that (when the players didnt really want to go into extra innings because of pitching issues).

It was a bad idea and an overreaction to a bad press day, but to me it could have stayed and been just as minor an issue

julio 2016-12-01 15:50:07 UTC #20

I don't know about that. MLB is enormously profitable. The reason we're going on 30 years of labor peace (e.g., recurring CBA negotiations with no stoppages) is that MLB and the MLBPA figured out long ago - thanks to Marvin Miller - that quibbling over the specific size of slices of a very big pie is...well, just stupid. So both sides posture, and as the deadline approaches, they sit down and hammer out an agreement.

In my view, nobody "got rolled" here; nobody lost. Everybody won.

That said, I do have to say that I find the idea of an international "cap" interesting. Not that I think it's a particularly good idea...but rather, it will be interesting to see what creative ways certain wealthy, aggressive organizations find to work around such a cap - and you know that some organizations will find ways.

Quick example/idea: The signing bonus for International Prospect X is now limited by the cap in spending available to a club which we will hypothetically call the Rose Hose. So the Rose Hose offer Prospect X a $2 million bonus - well under the cap. Then they hire a "consultant" in the Dominican Republic, to advise them on possible future prospects from that nation. That "consultant" just happens to be Prospect X's buscone (or said buscone's mother, or brother, or son, etc.) - and the consultancy fee is $2 million.