Is the emerging CBA the right one?

[Game7-91]

Tom Verducci posted a provocative article yesterday in SI addressing MLB's issues, those addressed in the CBA negotiations, and those that are not. https://www.si.com/mlb/2022/02/22/baseballs-greatest-threat?utm_source=recommendations&utm_medium=in-article&utm_campaign=end-of-story

An exec summary can be summed up with this quote: "The players are now fighting to recover from a system they didn’t see coming in 2016: an analytics-driven, risk-averse, youth-leaning game that is built on keeping the ball out of play. Their beef should be framed less against “greedy owners” and more against the front-office efficiency experts who over the length of this CBA usurped from field personnel the power to determine how baseball is played.

And later,  "A CBA that began with 2,111 more hits than strikeouts ended with 2,661 more strikeouts than hits. Active yielded to passive. Players should care because it is about more than aesthetics. It is also about jobs and pay. Analytics conspired against older players, left-handed pull hitters, veteran bench players, pitchers with options and speed players without power."

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, although not with every conclusion Verducci draws from it. But the trajectory of his argument strikes home for me. A look back at the effects of the last CBA gives us reason to anticipate what comes from the CBA apparently, hopefully,  emerging today. Not wanting to count the chickens before the hatch, but the question is begged in light of these developments: What;s next for MLB? Imho much remains open about the quality of the game itself beyond the distribution of dollars.

Wondering what TD readers think, and hope for when MLB resumes. At the end of the day, it remains a very good thing that we can anticipate the resumption of baseball activities.

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I haven't looked too closely, but personally I'm more concerned about competitive balance issues and minor league pay. It doesn't look like either of these have been adequately addressed thus far. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

No, this is definitely not the CBA we need but it's probably the one baseball deserves.

[farmerguychris]

The game changes.  The referred statistic regarding the hit to strikeout ratio I would expect will swing back the other way eventually as banned substances are enforced more closely, and batters catch up to the changes pitchers make.  The most important things to me in this next CBA are ensure the future of baseball is in good hands long term and promotion of parity where any team could win the pennant any given year - like the NFL.

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, diehardtwinsfan said:

I haven't looked too closely, but personally I'm more concerned about competitive balance issues and minor league pay. It doesn't look like either of these have been adequately addressed thus far. 

Honest question, why would the union care about minor league pay? Most of those guys will never pay into the union and the union's sole job is to get the absolute most it can for it union members.

As far as competitive balance, baseball seems like it has the most parity of of all the sports, I could be wrong, but the NBA has about 4 - 8 teams that you know will win the title. In the NFL most teams repeat being in the playoffs, minus a couple of new ones.

IMO Tom Verducci is close to 100% correct on everything but the pitch clock and shifts. I don't seeing the pitch clock doing much if anything to help the fans experience, and I think instead of eliminating the shift there needs to be some rules on the extent of the shifts. For example the SS or 2B has to be within a arm length of second base, and maybe have a line put in the outfield that a infielder can't start the play behind. Just tossing out ideas.

But as I mentioned before, the players need to be worrying about how the lower revenue teams seemly won't touch a multiple year contract of players over 30, basically threaten the end of middle tier starting pitchers, because why pay big money for a pitcher that only pitches 5 innings? Finally the idea that starting pitchers can be kept in the minors until they are 23/24/25 years old, almost eliminating completely a large multiple year FA contract. IMO the players looking for a floor or the share of more money, means the stars will just get bigger contracts, wouldn't smart teams still try to keep costs down for say 23 players of the roster, and players 24-26 get the huge contracts?

 

[Mike Sixel]

Given that the majority of players don't sniff free agency, no, this is not the right CBA .....

[Trov]

I agree with much of what you talk about.  Where the biggest issue came in is the FO started to change the way the game was played using the rules that the CBA allowed.  This led to huge divide between the two groups.  It leads to even more mistrust between the two when it comes to writing a contract.  As someone who is going through similar contract talks with a union and management, the union remembers when terms got twisted against what the intent may have been against you.  The players remember and give little to no trust with the owners.

The players, in my opinion may a huge mistake many years ago when they drew the line in the sand with no cap, but said a luxury tax would be fine.  Even though most teams never come close to that line, it has become a defacto cap, but no floor.  The players now want a floor, but no cap still.  

The owners hide and claim they cannot afford more, but not willing to open the books and prove it.  The players do not believe them, which I get that I would not either.  All other major sports leagues have a cap and a floor that is based on the money the sport brings in, mostly based on the national TV deals.  If the players would agree to a cap, but demanded a higher floor I think it will fix many of the issues they have.  However, they have long had stance of no cap.  

Well, no cap means no floor, and you are full open market.  Owners can limit what they pay players and players have little recourse, other than not play.  I hope something can be done, but both side have many reasons to point to themselves about how we got here.  Both sides stopped working together to help the sport, but worked against each other.  Once the FO made it a game within themselves to do the best with less, I swear GM's that can win with less money they feel like they are winning even more than a GM that has full open checkbook. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

3 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Honest question, why would the union care about minor league pay? Most of those guys will never pay into the union and the union's sole job is to get the absolute most it can for it union members.

 

 

Well, the MLBPA does represent them, even though they have no vote. So they do have a responsibility to negotiate for them and they have not. I have to think that's a legal issue and possibly an anti-trust issue. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that a good case could be made that the MLBPA is in breach of their duty. I would think they could all go after MLB for anti-trust given that they aren't represented and MLB decides who they get to play for. 

Setting it aside, minor leaguers are getting sub minimum wage for their services which is just wrong. It's a fixable problem too for the cost of a typical utility player. 

[DJL44]

6 hours ago, diehardtwinsfan said:

I haven't looked too closely, but personally I'm more concerned about competitive balance issues and minor league pay. It doesn't look like either of these have been adequately addressed thus far. 

If they get 14 playoff teams you'll never need to worry about competitive balance again.

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Given that the majority of players don't sniff free agency

In the fullness of time, they all do...

[TwinsDr2021]

47 minutes ago, diehardtwinsfan said:

Well, the MLBPA does represent them, even though they have no vote. So they do have a responsibility to negotiate for them and they have not. I have to think that's a legal issue and possibly an anti-trust issue. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that a good case could be made that the MLBPA is in breach of their duty. I would think they could all go after MLB for anti-trust given that they aren't represented and MLB decides who they get to play for. 

Setting it aside, minor leaguers are getting sub minimum wage for their services which is just wrong. It's a fixable problem too for the cost of a typical utility player. 

Good to know, I assumed they only represented the players on the 40 man roster. It would seem like a conflict of interest of the union to negotiating on their behalf, knowing the extra money that goes to the minor league players would be coming out of the union members money, when in reality most will never see the majors.

I agree that minor league players are way under paid, but moving ~200 minor leagues salary close to 50K, would cost each team around 8 million, and you know that will be coming out of the players payroll and not the owners profit.

[chpettit19]

Sounds like nothing is emerging now. But I think the player's strategy of higher minimum salary and higher CBT is bad for the game. In theory it forces the lower payroll teams to pay more while allowing the big payroll teams to spend more so theoretically there's more money going to players, but what I think would happen in practice is the lower payroll teams would spend even less on veterans as they're forced to spend more on the young guys while the big payroll teams would sign even more of the veterans since they can go even higher before hitting the CBT. The only way to actually force the low payroll teams to spend more on payroll is an actual floor. And that isn't coming anytime soon.

[DJL44]

Why do minor league baseball players need $50,000 a year? They only play 6 months, isn't $3000 a month enough? Double-A players are already making $2400/month plus housing. That's probably where single-A should start with Double-A and Triple-A at $3000/month plus housing but $8300/month seems excessive.

[DJL44]

17 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The only way to actually force the low payroll teams to spend more on payroll is an actual floor. 

The minimum salary sets the floor. If anything MLBPA started too low.

[chpettit19]

11 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The minimum salary sets the floor. If anything MLBPA started too low.

Yes, but that floor is 26 rookies. That's not helping anything. The floor I'm talking about isn't 18.2M (700k*26 players). I'm talking 100+ million. That means you have to sign major league veterans or agree to pay your young guys way more than the minimum.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Well, the best we can hope for at this point is for the media to accurately report what the owners did here and rightfully blast the **** out of them for it.

It won't be hard to spot the owners' lapdogs over the next few days.

[tony&rodney]

3 hours ago, Trov said:

Well, no cap means no floor, and you are full open market.  Owners can limit what they pay players and players have little recourse, other than not play.  I hope something can be done, but both side have many reasons to point to themselves about how we got here.  Both sides stopped working together to help the sport, but worked against each other.  Once the FO made it a game within themselves to do the best with less, I swear GM's that can win with less money they feel like they are winning even more than a GM that has full open checkbook. 

Your comment is right on imho. It is a real travesty for the sport to miss games. I also think something simple, modest, could have been proposed by the PA for milb as suggested by diehardtwinsfan above.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Everything we should need to know about the owners' position is the fact their lead negotiator is Dick Monfort, owner of the Colorado Rockies, perhaps the most obviously incompetent organization in all of baseball.

[Jham]

13 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Everything we should need to know about the owners' position is the fact their lead negotiator is Dick Monfort, owner of the Colorado Rockies, perhaps the most obviously incompetent organization in all of baseball.

This is a big part of the problem, IMHO. We lump all owners together despite the fact that many do spend money and try to win.

We lump all players together despite the fact that some are in much better position to take advantage of the CBA than others.

It's easy to say owners are greedy. Because they are. They are competitors or they wouldn't be in the game. But players are greedy competitors too. 

Baseball economics is driven by the fans, in the end. By and large, the best economic model to generate fan interest is a cap and floor. It's not fair to the top few players at each position, but it's better for the fans. 

I'm not supporting the owners, per se, but it isn't ownership that refuses to negotiate a cap. #forthefans

[Riverbrian]

From what is being reported. This CBA fixes nothing, changes nothing. It has been reduced to a simple allocation of dollars. The money will change from the last CBA but the mechanism will not.

As fans, we really shouldn't care about the results at this point nor should we select a hero or villain of the process. It baffles me that fans actually choose sides but clearly we are all exposed to manipulation and frequent victims. 

All the posturing, all the vitriol, all the threats, all the tweets, all the marketing, all the attempts at influencing our opinions (apparently successful)... after this complete waste of an off-season and now cancellations of games... it turns out that both sides are staring across the table and in full disagreement over money... and money only. 

Go ahead... care... choose a side and care as hard as you want.

I won't.

I only know that I am losing baseball and it isn't my fault.  

[Number3]

What gets me about all of the whining in general by pro athletes is that they act like they are indentured servants. If you don't like the deal where you are, quit and do something else. If you are jealous of the owners, become a CEO and buy a team yourself. Instead its boo hoo hoo.  I have to play a game for a living and its just not fair. Go sell real estate.

Its the average fan who should lock out the whole realm including sporst casters, media, owners and players whose combined exorbitant compensation has made attending games out of reach for average families, buying advertiser's products and watching games on TV expensive and unbearable due to 5 minute commercial breaks. If you are a so called fan, just check the standings every day and wait for the playoffs.

[Number3]

Oh, I forgot....don't forget those wonderful agents. And players complain about the owners?

[diehardtwinsfan]

18 hours ago, DJL44 said:

If they get 14 playoff teams you'll never need to worry about competitive balance again.

I fail to see how adding extra teams that will almost always be eliminated in round 1 will somehow solve this. There's already a huge advantage for large market teams. Yes, I know that occasionally one of these lower seeded teams will break through, but that's not going to be the norm. 

[DJL44]

32 minutes ago, diehardtwinsfan said:

I fail to see how adding extra teams that will almost always be eliminated in round 1 will somehow solve this. There's already a huge advantage for large market teams. Yes, I know that occasionally one of these lower seeded teams will break through, but that's not going to be the norm. 

Baseball teams have much more parity than you think. This isn't like the NBA. Bad teams routinely win 3 game series against good teams. .500 teams routinely win season series against the best teams. The biggest advantage you'll see is about a 60% chance to win a playoff series.

A 14 game playoff will have the top 2 teams making it to the World Series about as often as that happens in the NCAA tournament.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Number3 said:

If you are jealous of the owners, become a CEO and buy a team yourself.

Yes, it is exactly that simple. I think I'll buy a team tomorrow. 

[nicksaviking]

19 hours ago, DJL44 said:

The minimum salary sets the floor. If anything MLBPA started too low.

You don't think the Pirates would gladly just field a roster of minimum pay players?

[nicksaviking]

20 hours ago, DJL44 said:

If they get 14 playoff teams you'll never need to worry about competitive balance again.

I'm about 20 years past caring about making the playoffs. I only care about winning the playoffs.

[DJL44]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

You don't think the Pirates would gladly just field a roster of minimum pay players?

They probably would. That's why the players wanted less revenue sharing and a higher luxury tax. Some teams will spend money and others are content to suck and make money. Nothing is going to convince Pittsburgh to spend money. If there is a minimum payroll they'll fill the roster with other team's bad contracts (if they're injured even better) and get paid by the rich teams to do that.

[DJL44]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm about 20 years past caring about making the playoffs. I only care about winning the playoffs.

Then you should want a lot fewer teams. Expanded playoffs means nobody has a good chance of winning. In a 14 team playoff the favorite ends up at around 10% chance to win it all. The worst playoff teams would have about a 5% chance to win. Play 162 games, win 90 and your reward is a 1 in 14 chance to win it all (7%). That's about the same chance as any NCAA team that makes the Sweet Sixteen.

For the NCAA in the past 32 years

8 times had two #1 seeds in the championship game (25%) [equivalent to MLB division winners]

5 times the #1 ranked overall team won the championship (15%)

2 times had no #1 seed in the Final 4 (7%) [equivalent to MLB all wild-cards]

[nicksaviking]

15 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Then you should want a lot fewer teams. Expanded playoffs means nobody has a good chance of winning. In a 14 team playoff the favorite ends up at around 10% chance to win it all. The worst playoff teams would have about a 5% chance to win. Play 162 games, win 90 and your reward is a 1 in 14 chance to win it all (7%). That's about the same chance as any NCAA team that makes the Sweet Sixteen.

For the NCAA in the past 32 years

8 times had two #1 seeds in the championship game (25%) [equivalent to MLB division winners]

5 times the #1 ranked overall team won the championship (15%)

2 times had no #1 seed in the Final 4 (7%) [equivalent to MLB all wild-cards]

What does the NCAA have to do with baseball playoffs? I've watched the Twins go into the playoffs as the better of the two teams maybe once this century. Their playoff record pretty much tells the same story too.