Article: How Will The New CBA Affect The Twins?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Under the old CBA, didn't teams get different international spending caps based on their record and now they get the same amount. So in the first year of the new CBA, the Twins would be hurt because their spending pool and competitive advantage will be smaller than it would have been.

 

Correct.

[sthpstm]

In regards to the international spending limits, will this open up these markets and players to other leagues (Japan, Korea, etc.)? If they do not have these strict limits, could teams over there start outbidding MLB clubs for the top under-25 prospects?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

In regards to the international spending limits, will this open up these markets and players to other leagues (Japan, Korea, etc.)? If they do not have these strict limits, could teams over there start outbidding MLB clubs for the top under-25 prospects?

Interesting question!  The next Moncada or Alvarez (20 year old Cuban stars) could sign a ~4 year deal in Japan, getting more money than any MLB team could offer, and then come to the USA at age 25 and sign a MLB deal with zero restrictions.

[Teflon]

The new CBA also banned smokeless tobacco for all new players coming into the MLB - this following Tony Gwynn's death in 2014 from salivary gland cancer brought on by his years of dipping tobacco.  

[chpettit19]

The luxury tax situation is actually good for the Twins in a way. It's the closest thing to a hard cap they could ask for. If you break the threshold in any meaningful way you end up paying a 92% tax. That means you're looking at a $400 mil payroll. No team is going to be willing to do that. So it will hold contracts in check a little bit. It's not a huge thing, and the interesting part will be seeing what it does in the future as inflation continues to grow contracts and how teams like the Yankees and Dodgers will conduct business with having Harper, Machado, etc. coming out as free agents after the 2018 season. You can't sign Harper for the $40 mil a year he's reportedly seeking and then have Kershaw at 30+ and Jansen at 20 and then build your team through other free agents. Having 40% of your payroll wrapped up in 3 guys makes life hard. Even if they're 3 of the best players in the game. It should theoretically open the market up to more teams when it comes to the big time free agents. And if this offseason is any indication the GMs around the league are learning the lesson that huge long term deals to vets are a terrible idea as they get old and become wasted money. Mixing that with the extreme penalties of the luxury tax should make it, at least minimally, easier for the Twins to resign a few homegrown studs. Once we have homegrown studs again that is.

[sthpstm]

 

Interesting question!  The next Moncada or Alvarez (20 year old Cuban stars) could sign a ~4 year deal in Japan, getting more money than any MLB team could offer, and then come to the USA at age 25 and sign a MLB deal with zero restrictions.

That was my thinking, but certainly the owners thought through that potential and either didn't think it would happen or that if it did, it would have minimal negative effect (this is more of a question than a phrase).

Edited December 14, 2016 by sthpstm

[Mr. Brooks]

The luxury tax situation is actually good for the Twins in a way. It's the closest thing to a hard cap they could ask for. If you break the threshold in any meaningful way you end up paying a 92% tax. That means you're looking at a $400 mil payroll. No team is going to be willing to do that. So it will hold contracts in check a little bit. It's not a huge thing, and the interesting part will be seeing what it does in the future as inflation continues to grow contracts and how teams like the Yankees and Dodgers will conduct business with having Harper, Machado, etc. coming out as free agents after the 2018 season. You can't sign Harper for the $40 mil a year he's reportedly seeking and then have Kershaw at 30+ and Jansen at 20 and then build your team through other free agents. Having 40% of your payroll wrapped up in 3 guys makes life hard. Even if they're 3 of the best players in the game. It should theoretically open the market up to more teams when it comes to the big time free agents. And if this offseason is any indication the GMs around the league are learning the lesson that huge long term deals to vets are a terrible idea as they get old and become wasted money. Mixing that with the extreme penalties of the luxury tax should make it, at least minimally, easier for the Twins to resign a few homegrown studs. Once we have homegrown studs again that is.

Is the luxury tax applied to the entire payroll, or only to the amount you went over the cap?

If it's the latter, then it doesn't really do much to restrict spending.

[Doomtints]

There has to be a documented medical reason for putting a player on the DL, so teams won't be able to stash a pitcher on the DL due to the shorter DL in an effort to be clever.

The CBA states that putting a player on the DL is a "request" and requires paperwork with a doctor's signature to be sent to the commissioner's office.  Within 20 days of the original request, the commissioner's office must receive a written second opinion for the team to avoid breaking the DL rules.  Similar forms have to be filled out to remove a player from the DL.

 

So really you are talking about 2 team doctors plus the commissioner's doctor all reviewing the documentation.  If any party asks for a second opinion on top of the automatic one, then there are more doctors involved. 

 

Teams have been accused by the union and the commissioner of abusing the DL in the past.  It's not easy to get away with it now. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Doomtints

[Nick Nelson]

I wasn't trying to say they'd game the system by putting a completely healthy pitcher on the disabled list. But MLB players are banged up to some extent at most times throughout the season. With the shorter DL minimum, I suspect players (esp pitchers) will be less opposed to going on it, while the commissioner's office will be less stringent about enforcing those rules you mentioned. Minor soreness, strains and aches are now more plausible causes for a DL trip since it only means missing a week and a half.

 

Also, how many times have we seen it where the Twins wait several days to disable a guy because they don't think he needs it, then end up doing it anyway, thus playing at a shorthanded disadvantage in the interim? Hopefully this will help eliminate those kinds of missteps because there will be less reluctance to make a roster move. 

[TRex]

 

Under the old CBA, didn't teams get different international spending caps based on their record and now they get the same amount. So in the first year of the new CBA, the Twins would be hurt because their spending pool and competitive advantage will be smaller than it would have been.

It is even worse than that, as the new system is based upon market size, with small market teams (8) getting $5.75 million, mid-market teams (6, including the Twins) getting $5.25 million, and large market teams (16) getting $4.75 million.

 

What a crappy year to have been the worst team in baseball! We lose money on the Rule 4 draft, and lose doubly in the international draft!

[Willihammer]

 

Is the luxury tax applied to the entire payroll, or only to the amount you went over the cap?
If it's the latter, then it doesn't really do much to restrict spending.

The amount over the cap. And the 92% rate would only apply to amounts that are 40 million or more over the cap a third time. Payrolls that are always north of $240m or so, ie. the Dodgers.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/76736/how-luxury-tax-penalties-would-work-on-baseballs-biggest-payrolls

Edited December 17, 2016 by Willihammer