CBA Musings (12/10): What’s Happening and What’s Next?

[Ted Schwerzler]

It’s been eight days since our last update, which not coincidentally came at the commencement of Major League Baseball deciding to lock out its players. After a flurry of moves in the leadup, we’ve now experienced the darkness of a league conducting no business.

We’re now over a week into the lockout, and there hasn’t been a slew of developments. What is maybe most notable is that the league isn’t trying either. That’s not exactly shocking, given the owners have nothing to lose until games are lost, and with so much time before that reality, their incentive to negotiate likely is at an all-time low.

Although talks about working through a new CBA have not yet taken place, there have been a couple of notes surrounding the sport. Let’s get into those.

Rule Changes Disappear

Over the past few years, we’ve heard plenty from Rob Manfred regarding the pace of play. Baseball is consistently suggested as a dying sport, and the need to create action has been one of Manfred’s chief concerns. Everything from pitch clocks to banning the shift has been suggested, and most of it appeared to be a matter of when not if. As of right now, all of that is off the table. 

According to The Athletic’s Jayson Stark, Manfred publicly stated that Major League Baseball has not made “any specific rule-change proposals” to the players. Whether that changes in future rounds of negotiations remains to be seen. It is odd that a year in which rules were implemented across many different leagues with an aim at the highest level, none are currently planned to see the light of day.

Apparently, the belief by Manfred is that rule changes would be a point of contention to players and, therefore, something the league is trying to avoid. It’s a weird stance, given that any rule changes would need to be collectively bargained. Not allowing the players to discuss them in a formal setting is counter-productive to them ever being applied.

A Laid Out Plan

Of course, this is just one man’s opinion, but Ken Rosenthal is among the best in the business. He penned a piece for The Athletic that outlines what a new CBA could (or, by his estimation, should) look like. Everything from the luxury tax to free agency is discussed. Rosenthal does an excellent job expanding on each topic and viewing the outcome through the lens of both parties. Without giving up too much of the meat and potatoes, I appreciate his conclusion that expanded playoffs would be less than ideal. However, that’s something the owners want, and he notes it would be beneficial for the players to bend on that point.

If nothing else, the concluding point that “reasonable people working off an existing framework should not find it so difficult to reach an agreement” hits right in the sweet spot.

That’s it for this week; not much. Pretty expected, though, considering the lack of effort put in from both sides to this point. Let’s hope for some positive developments in the week ahead.

MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
— Latest Twins coverage from our writers
— Recent Twins discussion in our forums
— Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook, or email

View full article

[old nurse]

Article behind a paywall 

[AceWrigley]

“Reasonable people working off an existing framework should not find it so difficult to reach an agreement”. As if that statement isn't the kiss of death to a quick agreement.

[AceWrigley]

In reference to the picture above:

You have Rob Manfred on the right asking Master Magician Ricky Jay on the left if he could teach him some masterful slight of hand so he can pull a quickie over the Players Union and the owners can rule the baseball universe. The almost innocent bystander in the middle is musing, "I think he's serious." And so it goes.

[mikelink45]

Tough to care when neither side demonstrates that they do.

[adjacent]

  On 12/11/2021 at 2:10 AM, mikelink45 said:

Tough to care when neither side demonstrates that they do.

Expand  

True, but since the owners declared the lockout (not the players), shouldn't be reasonable to expect that they iniciatethe proposals again?

[mikelink45]

  On 12/11/2021 at 4:05 AM, adjacent said:

True, but since the owners declared the lockout (not the players), shouldn't be reasonable to expect that they iniciatethe proposals again?

Expand  

Yes - Manfred is really trying to control the messages rather than delivery real compromise.

[Whitey333]

It's ridiculous that there is a lockout.  Both players and owners had plenty of time to reach a deal months ago.  The owners pushed for this for a long time.  Are they concerned about the game?  No just their money.  The players on the other hand had the best CBA in all of pro sports.  Yes tweaking could help.  The average MLB salary fell to under 4 mil per season.  The average career lasts a little under 4 years.  Where is it written or mandated that that they should make a whole lifetime and much more for salary for just a few short years work?  Most of us normal working people would jump at that chance.  If the players cannot stand their pampered jobs, with great benefits, then do what normal people do.  Find a new job.  I've been a MLB fan for decades and hate to see it dying.  But life will go on even if the players and owners won't.

[Karbo]

I'm sure a lockout/strike really helps revive a "dying" sport.

[twinsfansd]

How about this:

For revenue sharing teams that fall into the bottom third of the standings, in the subsequent year if they lower their payroll, the amount of the reduction is subtracted from their revenue sharing. I would think that would entice them to spend that money, and maybe more to keep from falling into the bottom third again the next season.

 

 

 

[twinsfansd]

How about this to try to keep teams from totally tanking like Houston, Baltimore, Detroit:

If a team finishes in the bottom 5 in the standings, they would not qualify for the number 1 pick if they finish in the bottom 5 the next season. If they continue in the bottom 5 in subsequent seasons, they would loose 2 more potential spots in the draft, the 2nd and 3rd spots the next season, the the 4th and 5th. Also, if the finish in the bottom 10 after finishing in the bottom third for 3 seasons, they would loose out on one more spot in the draft, the first being the 6th pick and the following season being the 7th.  Eventually, the will be forced to spend enough money to compete so they don't force themselves out of all the best draft positions. I think this allows a team to right it's ship over a short period of time to limit the damage, but not allow them to lose for years on end.

[twinsfansd]

I don't like the idea of players getting to get out of the 6th year of club control just because they are older. The club still has just as much invested in that player as they do in other players. And those players are able to negotiate longer term extentions with the club if they feel that is in their best interest. And I do think that scenario could actually backfire on most players that will be thrust into free agency with others.

I have no problem with increasing the wages of the first 3 years of service. Say $600,000, then 700,000 then 800,000. And with some form of incentive so that the top 20% of performers get an extra 100,000 in year 2 and 3. Any player making it past 3 years of service would then have earned at least $2.1 million, which is quite frankly more than most of us will earn in our lifetime. And they will still be left with arbitration years if they are good enough.

 

[mikelink45]

  On 12/11/2021 at 5:26 PM, twinsfansd said:

How about this:

For revenue sharing teams that fall into the bottom third of the standings, in the subsequent year if they lower their payroll, the amount of the reduction is subtracted from their revenue sharing. I would think that would entice them to spend that money, and maybe more to keep from falling into the bottom third again the next season.

 

 

 

Expand  

My problem with all of this is the out of control spending, payrolls, and everything about the greed.  I do not like forcing teams to spend money if they have poor players - sometimes it isn't tanking, it is just a bad roster, so does that roster deserve more money? 

I like revenue sharing the way it is done in the NFL.  

But I also know that it is possible for a team to be the almost good, but not really bad category for decades and I do not want to be part of that.  Tear it down and build it back up is not a bad formula.  But perhaps a timeline - when you sink to the bottom you have 3 years and then you start losing your position in the draft order?

I do not have a really great solution.  I like to see minor leaguers play and I am glad they are starting to address housing, but with all the money both sides are squabbling about I would like to see the price of tickets dropped to a scale of $1 - $10 and award the fans with a little of that extra wealth.  That would get fans back in the seats where we can all spend too much on hot dogs, beer, and other concessions.

[tim5189]

Maybe MLB and MLBPA need to go to binding arbitration. But then again, I don't think either one would want to do that. I do know that I love baseball, but the prices have gotten out of my price range. And I don't have cable to watch them do to the cost as a result of the cost of the rights. I see the whole problem being that the billion and millionaires are out of touch with the fans.

[Major League Ready]

  On 12/11/2021 at 6:10 PM, twinsfansd said:

I don't like the idea of players getting to get out of the 6th year of club control just because they are older. The club still has just as much invested in that player as they do in other players. And those players are able to negotiate longer term extentions with the club if they feel that is in their best interest. And I do think that scenario could actually backfire on most players that will be thrust into free agency with others.

I have no problem with increasing the wages of the first 3 years of service. Say $600,000, then 700,000 then 800,000. And with some form of incentive so that the top 20% of performers get an extra 100,000 in year 2 and 3. Any player making it past 3 years of service would then have earned at least $2.1 million, which is quite frankly more than most of us will earn in our lifetime. And they will still be left with arbitration years if they are good enough.

 

Expand  

I hear ya ... Top players have been and will continue to be paid an absurd amount of money.  The prearb compensation should not be $600K while top players are making 50X that amount.  The union talks about getting players more in the early years of their career but their actions are focused on the top paid players.  They could raise the minimum to at least 800K/900K/1M.  I would like to see $800K / 1.M / 1.2M.  That would be almost 2X for prearb players somewhere in the neighborhood of $150M.  It's also certain the money will be spent.  Owners don't have to spend on free agents.  Increasing the minimum assures the dollars spent, and rebuilding teams not only are not immune, they are the teams with the most prearb players a greater portion of the $150M would be spent by rebuilding teams.  

These changes would have virtually no impact on competitive balance.  It’s also not going to appreciably change the careers earnings for players that are every day players.  It will help wing some dollars to the marginal players and those whose careers end early.  It would also help (just a little) in increasing the spending of rebuilding teams.

Decreasing team control means increasing competitive disparity.  Therefore, I would leave it just as it is.  However, the 29 1/2 clause offered by the owners is further than I expected to bend but it is a reasonable compromise.  It basically assures anyone good enough to stick around as a regular will get a chance at a big payday.  This would provide even more advantage to the largest markets but not to the scale of what the players have demanded.