Search the Community

There was never expected to be a deal struck yesterday, but it is unfortunate to see the parameters of Major League Baseball’s proposal. As ESPN’s Jeff Passan outlined, the highlights were a slight raise in the minimum salary, draft pick incentivization to teams that don’t manipulate service time, and tweaks to a proposed draft lottery. The universal designated hitter remained part of the current language and there was also the proposal of an expanded Postseason going to 14 teams from the current 12. Lots of good nuggets were thrown out on Twitter yesterday and each of them is worthy of being addressed. Let’s get into those: On minimum salary - That's a decent start, but a substantial amount of Major Leaguers make the league minimum. After being underpaid as minor leaguers a $30,000 jump might not be seen as much of a needle mover. On the Luxury Tax- This is arguably the most notable area of contention for players. While Major League Baseball does not have a salary cap, many organizations act as though there is one. Few ever venture into the Luxury Tax, and plenty more come right up next to it while avoiding additional spending. The owners willing to move just $4 million while the players are hoping for $35 million is an inconsequential concession. The little bit of movement also suggests that owners don't want spending power for their teams to go up as they'd then be expected to allocate those funds. Obviously this was met with frustration by the players. Apparently the owners viewed this proposal as far from complete, and despite the lack of urgency, will tackle only certain issues at a time. On service time manipulation- From the moment I saw this included I wondered how it would be applied. Service time manipulation has been beyond evident at times and yet players still are told to deal with it. As Eugene notes in the tweet above, tying service time manipulation to outcomes driven from outside sources, the issue is no longer being handled by the parties involved. It'd be great for teams to promote players when they are ready, but the most beneficial thing to an organization is how long they can control a player at less than market value. On free agency- Keeping a player away from free agency remains of the utmost importance to owners. While being paid through arbitration the wages are significantly diminished and contracts are handled on a yearly basis. The idea of small or mid-market teams stems from owners wanting a fanbase to believe they are not able to spend with larger geographical locations. There are certainly more desirable places to play, but players don't leave teams for those reasons as much as they go to where the payday will come. Most small and mid-market teams look to flip their stars before paying them, and that's a much greater issue regarding competitive balance than any decision a player will make on their own. Again, there was never a belief that yesterday would mark a deal getting done, but the state of negotiations as they stand now isn't a promising one. The owners took over a month to propose a deal with many non-starters for players and have took the stance that they were only focused on parts of the puzzle. At the end of the day Spring Training is looking more and more in question. Players skipping games is really the only want owners feel it in their pocketbooks, and we're rolling towards that reality. As the calendar turns day by day, the greatest indicator of progress will be how quickly counter-proposals are set forth. If we're continuing to do this weeks at a time, baseball by May might be a longshot. MORE FROM TWINS DAILY — Latest Twins coverage from our writers — Recent Twins discussion in our forums — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook, or email

As we’ve discussed for weeks, the basic premise is that all Major League Baseball functions relating to teams and players at the highest level have ceased. Ownership and Rob Manfred are an entity, while the players and their union are the other. Everything else hangs in the balance. Despite the free-agent frenzy we’ve had the past week, or so, team sites are desolate wastelands giving nods only to Manfred's statement and players of yesteryear. Rosters are all but wiped out, and it’s as if the players do not exist (unless, of course, MLB can profit off of their likenesses through the official shop). There’s plenty of talking points to go over from the last week, and while free agency took most of the headlines, each of these subjects should be touched on. In no particular order, let’s get into it. The Ball Problem All year long, Major League Baseball was working through issues with the chief instrument in play during a game, the ball. First looking to rid the use of sticky substances and then going through in-game checks to verify compliance, new instructions had been introduced to the playing field. The only problem was that the league itself was playing unfairly. Thanks to research from astrophysicist Meredith Wills, a story broke regarding baseball using two different balls during the 2021 season. We had no-hitters popping off like crazy, and then all of a sudden, they were gone. In Bradford William Davis’ piece for Insider, he talks about the distrust the implications surrounding the ball have brought for players. MLB could be incentivized to create more offense in high-profile games. The league has many gambling partnerships, and changing the chief implement could also work to their benefit. With a lockout looming, cheating players out of a level of consistency when their entire earning power comes from statistical performance seems disingenuous at best. Everyone should be operating on a level playing field, but the league itself decided to tamper with the main component. CBA Adjustments In a piece filed to ESPN by Jesse Rogers, we are given a general idea of the negotiations regarding a new CBA center around. Major League Baseball has proposed expanded playoffs, going to 14 teams, which would benefit ownership with increased opportunities for revenue. The expanded playoffs would allow for division winners to pick their Wild Card opponents. With 14 teams making the Postseason, players are worried about a lack of competitive drive for organizations. Half of the league making the final tournament could depress a reason to spend in the offseason and further stifle wages for players. Another proposal from the league is to add a lottery system, giving each non-playoff organization a shot at the number one pick. The top three selections would become a part of this lottery with the hopes of removing a desire to tank and generate a beneficial draft standing. Evan Drellich’s piece at The Athletic talks about the issues creating the most discourse between the two sides. For the players, things are focused on the years it takes to reach free agency and revenue sharing implications. The owners are concerned about the luxury tax and raising the minimum salary thresholds. Proposals are often presented in a give-and-take scenario. The players will need to get creative regarding free agency and compensation as ownership has dug in on their stance regarding those topics. Understanding the Lockout With baseball currently shelved, there are some principles to understand as we move forward. The Athletic’s Evan Drellich put together an excellent primer earlier this week. By definition, a lockout is the work of ownership or the league. Those in charge have effectively told players, or their workers, that they are unwilling to work together unless the players accept their deal. On the flip side, a strike would be the players suggesting their services are no longer available until an agreement favors their position. Up until games are missed, a strike is not on the table. Because of the lockout, we will not see traditional offseason events take place. The Winter Meetings have been canceled, and that at least temporarily includes a postponement of the Rule 5 draft. Pitchers and catchers are set to report for Spring Training beginning on February 14, 2022. If we are still in this holding pattern come mid-to-late January, that’s when worry will start to feel real. This lockout is the first work stoppage in 26 years, going back to the 1994-95 strike. Lockouts, rather than strikes, are more capable of being overcome. To the average fan, anything missed in the offseason generally flies under the radar. Bud Selig needed Cal Ripken Jr.’s Iron Man streak and the Home Run chase between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa to save his sport last time. Rob Manfred would need something similar to draw fans’ interest back in should a strike commence, and it would be in the best interest of both parties to avoid that outcome. While locked out, the intention of collective bargaining must be to negotiate in good faith. This will be interesting as Major League Baseball is coming off a Covid-shortened season in which both sides put many of their concerns and qualms out in public. It was evident that there was a wide gap and plenty of distrust between the two parties during Spring 2020, and that was before the CBA had expired. What About the FA Frenzy As the lockout loomed, Major League Baseball and the MLBPA decided to move the non-tender deadline to November 30. With the December 1 deadline for a work stoppage effectively implemented, we saw free agents signing at a blistering pace. This is something baseball has often lagged behind the NBA and NFL. With free agency becoming an event this season, The Athletic’s Britt Ghiroli wondered if a transaction deadline isn’t necessary. Yankees general manager Brian Cashman told her, “When you have an ending, it forces decisions, like the trade deadline. Nothing ever gets done until that last week, and then it’s a flurry of deals the last two days because people know it’s game over, so they are forced to make a decision. I like that, it makes people just finally get in the game and pick a spot. Pick a lane to drive in. You are either in it or not in it, you are either in for a penny or a pound or whatever it is. I like that aspect of it.” Players have previously shot down the idea that a deadline would be a good thing as it would force them into decisions when time is the only thing on their side. One key difference between baseball and other sports is that MLB doesn’t have a salary cap. The piece highlighted agents and executives' stances, providing many different ways to think about a deadline. At its core, though, we are left with this parting thought, “It gets talked about a lot, but it’s never been something that seemingly has momentum,” (Ross) Atkins said. “So, what is the reason for that?” What’s On the Other Side? We’ve seen a busy couple of weeks with the lockout looming, but it could very well pale in comparison to what happens following the resumption of work. Travis Sawchik went back in time to look at what took place following the 1994 work stoppage. Although we’ve had a glut of free-agent signings in recent days, the reality is that there’s still so much yet to do. Arbitration figures must be exchanged, and hundreds of players are still looking for new homes in 2022. All of that must be completed, and we have no idea how long this lockout process will take. The calendar should be what we look to when trying to understand what’s to come. January is a crucial month, and where the divide lies then will likely determine future action for the sport. Spring Training games are the most reasonable to miss, and players would probably welcome that situation. Should business not commence until February, though, fans will likely experience one of the busiest months in history should the league look to start on time. Teams that have shopping yet to do, or transactions needing to be made, could be in for complete chaos with hopes of getting everything accomplished. As Twins fans, that’s potentially exciting with a payroll sitting at just $91 million and a roster yet to be filled out. We’re just getting started in this process, and so much more will be publicly available through the coming weeks and months. It will be challenging to determine what’s tactic and what has merit, but make no mistake that the league is set to use its platform as their megaphone. With MLB Network becoming an ownership talk show, MLB.com removing the workers, and teams disassociating from their talent, the players union will need to sway public perception with a much smaller outlet. MORE FROM TWINS DAILY — Latest Twins coverage from our writers — Recent Twins discussion in our forums — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook, or email

For months, and maybe most of the past season, it has been assumed that ugly labor negotiations would commence this offseason. During the Covid shutdown, owners attempted to blame the players while the athletes themselves looked for equitable financial conditions. That set the stage for a large amount of discourse when actual CBA discussions needed to be held. We’re now less than a month away from the expiration of the current CBA, and both sides must agree before the 2022 season can commence. A lot has taken place in the past week. Here is what you need to know: It’s obvious there’s conflicting information within the industry. Obviously, reporters have sources whose water they carry (we saw that recently with Adam Schefter in the NFL). Both Nightengale and Heyman are well-respected journalists, but the outcome of these two reports couldn’t be further from agreement. Again, Rob Manfred represents the owners, and his goal is to get them the most significant chunk of money for their product. While he oversees the product consumed by the fans, his bottom line is not necessarily aligned with that of MLBPA President Tony Clark. The likely situation here is sources on opposing sides looking to strike fear in one another. Service time was the focal point of MLB’s initial proposal to the players. The suggestion is that free agency would commence in the season following 29 1/2 years of age instead of six years of MLB service. Arbitration would also be directly correlated to MLB revenues, and a pool of funds would be allocated to the players. That was sharply denied. This week’s proposal, as reported by The Athletic’s Evan Drellich, focused on the same free agency threshold but noted that pay before reaching free agency would directly correlate to WAR (Wins Above Replacement) valuation. Specifically, the number generated from Fangraphs’ calculation. An algorithm to determine pre-free agency pay has also been reported upon, but there’s little belief that players will view this idea favorably. Nothing about this current proposal seems promising for inclusion in a future agreed-upon deal. First and foremost, tying players to teams until 29.5-years-old would be detrimental to those reaching the big leagues quickly. Both Carlos Correa and Corey Seager have yet to hit that age. Juan Soto would be tied to the Nationals longer; as would players like Vladimir Guerreo Jr. and Ronald Acuna Jr. As stars reach the big leagues quicker, their goal is to be compensated earlier in their prime, not after it has begun. An age closer to 27 may tilt the scales more fairly. Speaking as someone who is a fan of advanced analytics and the application of WAR (specifically fWAR), there are challenges here. Valuation isn’t static, and it would be difficult to quantify all players equally. Franchises that embrace analytics on the defensive side will put athletes in a better position to capitalize upon their value. Relievers are not adequately valued solely by looking at WAR, either. On top of that, WAR adjusts on a game-by-game basis. As Jeremy Frank pointed out on Twitter, imagine the guy that gets shelled and released now being negatively valued and therefore owing a former organization money. It is interesting to note that there’s a belief some of the top free agents will sign before the December 1st expiration of the current CBA. The best players will get their money regardless, but seeing how those in the middle tiers are impacted could drag this offseason to a rapid halt. I hope we don’t see a lockout that requires missed games, Spring Training, or otherwise. I’d bet heavily on a work stoppage coming effective December 1, however. MORE FROM TWINS DAILY — Latest Twins coverage from our writers — Recent Twins discussion in our forums — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook, or email

A couple of weeks ago, it was announced that Fanatics would become the exclusive licensee for baseball cards. It wasn’t there where things stopped, though. The NBA and NFL also joined in the venture. That means over the next few years, it will no longer be Topps or Panini that produces sports cards, but instead this new brand entering into a completely new venture. Specifically looking at baseball, Topps is the only player to be considered. Their current deal with Major League Baseball runs through 2025, but the license with the MLB Players Association expires following the 2022 season. Whereas Panini can produce unlicensed cards with big-league players, Topps would no longer have rights to major leaguers for their cards. The lone SKU they’d be able to make in 2023 would be the Bowman line featuring minor leaguers. The blow to Topps is substantial, and the impending public merger with Mudrick Capital was called off following the news. Also notably, Alex Rodriguez’s intentions to buy Topps’ competitor Panini were also called off. For the New York-based card company, the exit from MLB leaves Topps holding only soccer as their notable sport-based license. Rob Manfred is looking out for the almighty dollar here. Fanatics' purchase price is reportedly ten times larger than any previous deal agreed to by the union. It also directly benefits Major League Baseball and those within the MLBPA. The league owns equity in Fanatics and effectively allows all parties to further capitalize from one another. A recent report from CNBC suggests that Fanatics' interests span far more than just cardboard. The retail giant is looking to create a whole new pillar within its company. From grading to selling, the company wants to have avenues for every aspect of the lifecycle of card collecting. Based on the report, it appears that the new giant entrant will explore any potential opportunity within the hobby. The rub is that Fanatics and the leagues themselves seem to be betting on the popularity and collectibility residing with the product rather than the brand. Topps and Panini have done themselves no favors over the years. Poor customer service, slow redemption turnarounds, and dated websites are just touching the surface of current problems. What they do have, however, is an established identity. Topps is celebrating 70 years of baseball cards this season, and the iconic offerings being paid handsomely for are as much because of the subject as they are the established desire rooted in the brand. Vintage cards have soared due to their scarcity. Key rookies have experienced a boom because of the sets Topps included them in. Lesser competitors such as Leaf and Onyx have seen little success in driving desire to the same levels despite similar subjects and chase offerings. Fanatics will have to buck that trend. We’re still months, and potentially years, from understanding how this all will look. For the sake of Topps and Panini, being bought and allowing their brands to be used under the Fanatics umbrella seems like a promising avenue to pursue. Maybe that’s not one the new head honcho will be agreeable to. I find it hard to get excited about an entirely new offering from my collecting seat, no matter how much of a draw the shiny feeling may bring. Topps is iconic with baseball cards, and while I enjoy the hobby, it’s an unnecessary venture into disposable income. Years down the road, some may consider this era vintage, so maybe I just shifted my focus. I’d love to be surprised by Fanatics and find myself drawn in, but for now, I’m more than comfortable sitting on the sidelines and working through the bewilderment of what just took place. MORE FROM TWINS DAILY — Latest Twins coverage from our writers — Recent Twins discussion in our forums — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email

Here’s the thing, baseball is a business for the 30 groups that lay claim to an organization. While that’s a worthwhile reality, there’s also little shred of fandom in regards to those groups as well. By and large, Major League Baseball owners are not representative of the Dallas Mavericks Mark Cuban per say. In fact, Cuban was actively campaigned against when trying to break into the ownership ranks for this sport. Why does that matter? An owner like Cuban is also an active participant in the on-field excitement of his investment. While looking to turn a profit, it’s not just another vehicle to generate revenue for an owner like that. Many across baseball have a team as part of a much larger portfolio, and it’s something they simply count dollars from as a hobby. What’s problematic is that viewpoint is where these labor negotiations break down and the sport suffers unrepairable damage. Though there are some hardcore fans that could be dismayed by all of this, it’s more the casual fan that Major League Baseball should be worried about. If you live, breathe, and sleep the sport you’ll also be aware that labor strife is part of it, and ownership digging in has long been part of the problem. When the rosin bag is flipped again and the pill is tossed across the dish, you’ll be there for it. The fan that tunes in because it’s a lovely Saturday afternoon however, well, they’ve now found new hobbies. https://twitter.com/jjcoop36/status/1270351426636484608 For the past few seasons, we’ve seen Rob Manfred actively seek ways to change the game in hopes of capturing the casual onlooker. How do we make it more exciting, quicker, or quirkier? Those questions have resulted in some significant shifts throughout the 27 outs we’re given, and there’s been ever more off-the-wall proposals that we haven’t seen come to fruition (yet). It’s long been noted that Manfred was brought in because of his labor and employment law background. He was to be an advocate for the owners, which is understandable as it’s the group he reports to, but he’s failed miserably to connect with players and the union. While attempting to do the latter and leaning heavily towards the former, a massive chasm has been created between the two sides and it’s likely one he’s over his skis when trying to fix. Despite these 2020 restart discussions having gone on for weeks at this point, it’s very clear that none of this is a result of the global pandemic wreaking havoc on the world. No, this was a jumpstart for ownership to posture in relation to the expiring CBA in 2021. Cities that are supposedly set to host games have no idea what the health protocols will actually be, and it’s been noted multiple times that health related issues (the reason we aren’t playing right now in the first place) won’t be the cause of a season without liftoff. https://twitter.com/mikeaxisa/status/1270007214208679936 So, what happens from here? It’s pretty clear that no matter how many proposals MLB ownership provides they’ll continue to offer the players the same $20 value cut up in different forms of payment. Whether it’s one $20, two $10’s, or twenty $1’s, there’s been little to no progress made. All of that trends towards owners’ eventual goal of a season mandated by the commissioner. Neither side comes to an agreement, owners pay out the lowest possible amount of prorated dollars, they rake in the benefits of Postseason play, and somehow their books stay closed through all of this. If, and more than likely when, Manfred must mandate a season be played we’ll be no better off than when baseball was shelved. The sides weren’t able to come to an agreement, and a year from now there won’t be a CBA to enact any sort of action at all. A global pandemic was used to truncate what could have been, and a lockout will take the damage a new step further. No matter what date and time the best Twins team in recent history takes the field, or the greatest player to ever step on a diamond digs in, your die-hard fan will be there. No number of Yankees and Red Sox on Sunday Night Baseball is going to be appointment viewing for the fan this sport has yearned to capture though, and the door could be closed on that ever happening again. In 2020 those who have invested the most dollars in baseball are killing the sport for anyone but those that have invested the most time. It’s a disappointing and catastrophic reality, but it’s where we are at. MORE FROM TWINS DAILY — Latest Twins coverage from our writers — Recent Twins discussion in our forums — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email

Ever since Major League Baseball was halted on March 12, we could have surmised that whatever season took place in 2020 would be drastically different. Despite their being an initial desire to still get all 162 games in, that never seemed like a logical ask. Now that we are months separated from the original start date, it’s about fitting in as much as realistically possible. Continuing to claim vast financial losses, owners are looking for ways to shed financial commitments. By playing a shorter season, and one of substantial measures, prorated salaries are significantly diminished. Initially suggested to be at the 50-game mark, which is permissible under rule of the Commissioner, reality would lean towards a schedule closer to 60 or 70 games. Being at 82 games when discussions began, that would seem like a total that owners would come in shy of. So, if the season is just 60 games long, what can we learn from the 2019 Twins that may translate to 2020? Baseball being the marathon it is during a traditional year; 60 games is going to produce an incredibly small sample size. Luis Arraez owned a .346 batting average through that many contests a year ago, and eventual American League title winner Tim Anderson finished with a .335 mark. Minnesota was 40-20 at the 60-game mark in 2019, and that came with a 9.5 game lead over the Cleveland Indians. The Chicago White Sox had a losing record through their first 60 games, and Cleveland sat exactly at .500. Knowing this type of schedule would be a sprint, there’s a level of comfort in seeing Minnesota start and end strong last season. Their first 50 games produced a 34-16 record while the final 50 were played to the tune of a 31-19 mark. The toughest part about a condensed schedule is that there’s little time for normalcy to establish itself. The Washington Nationals were 19-31 at one point during 2019 and went on to win the World Series. Rocco Baldelli needs the Twins to jump on the division from the get-go and not look back. Assuming a reshuffling of the opponents is also a logical bet. With expanded playoffs and a desire to keep travel more regionally focused, the Twins could be in for a four-way split of their AL Central Division foes. Playing the Indians and White Sox well, and then getting a substantial helping of both the Tigers and Royals is nothing short of favorable. Last year Minnesota went a combined 28-10 against Kansas City and Detroit, so padding any overall total with those two should be looked at as a big plus. There are so many questions that remain in terms of logistics, but there should be some assumed certainties we’re already dealing with. A shortened season does not help a favorite’s chances, but Minnesota having the best roster in the Division is an absolute benefit. There isn’t time for slow starts, and we don’t know what reinforcements (either by promotion or trade) will look like. Everyone is chomping at the bit for baseball, and when it resumes each club will need to be shot out of the gate like a horse at the Kentucky Derby. It’s going to be a baseball season like none other, and while it will always be difficult to hold in comparison among the rest of the yearly accomplishments, this outlier should be one we remember for quite some time. MORE FROM TWINS DAILY — Latest Twins coverage from our writers — Recent Twins discussion in our forums — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email

Since publicly asking players to consider a revenue split and going back on the already agreed upon prorated pay for 2020, Major League Baseball ownership had yet to put forth any concrete proposal. Tony Clark and the Major League Baseball Players Association were given that proposal this afternoon. Clark publicly stated that contracts would not be renegotiated, and that ownership needed to figure out a way forward for 2020. Despite turning annual revenues near $10 billion, it was suggested today that Major League Baseball would still bring in around $3 billion in 2020 should an 80-game slate with no fans be the route taken. There's a possibility that net revenues could still dip into the red, but baseball has opportunity to at least break even as well. https://twitter.com/Todd_Rosiak/status/1265334135226281984 With the afternoon meeting coming to a close reports of the proposal began to leak. New York Post writer Joel Sherman outlined what can be described as a sliding scale. In this structure the players making the most money would be paid the smallest percentage of their agreed upon contract. Those players who are set to make less money would retain a higher portion of the prorated dollars. Defining it as simply and most straightforward as possible, the owners are looking for their highly compensated players to provide them relief. Gerrit Cole inked a deal with the Yankees this winter and was expecting a $36 million annual paycheck. Instead of getting that, he’d be taking a substantial cut in order for lower compensated players to receive a higher amount of their annual expected take home. Jeff Passan of ESPN relayed some specific details of the plan on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1265422054880358402 In a season where expanded rosters will increase the number of players making closer to the league minimum, Major League owners would get the benefit of savings from high dollar contracts while handing out minimal sums to a few more players. It’s the exact reason why service time manipulation exists, in that ownership is able to keep lower payrolls by owning a player’s low dollar years. Getting a discount on the highest contracts, having those well compensated players foot the bill, and paying a bunch of minimum salaries sounds like nothing but roses for the owners. At the end of the day this argument is always going to be between millionaires and billionaires. For some fans, the economics will never present an opportunity for logic. While it’s difficult to insert yourself into the situation, the total sum of money shouldn’t change the optics of what is going on here. Imagine a situation in which the CEO of a company asks a manager to take a substantial cut in pay so that the intern can receive their full wages. There’s a morality issue here too, but logic doesn’t hold up across the entire example. Also noted in Sherman’s breakdown of MLB’s proposal is what could be an underlying desire to cause cracks within the union. Most teams are represented by veteran players, many of which would fall into the highly compensated category. The group of lesser compensated players is far larger and would have no reason to oppose this deal. Those taking the hit, however, are often vocal decision makers and have earned the contracts to which they have been signed. It should have been expected a storm was brewing between MLB and the MLBPA. With CBA expiration on the horizon, a lockout was thought potential in the not-so-distant-future. Now we have MLB ownership using the time constraints of a global pandemic as a negotiation tactic in hopes that players act quickly on a less than advantageous deal. https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1265381642849353728 Suppose that Harold Steinbrenner wanted to leverage Gerrit Cole’s contract and defer the money he’ll lose to a future time, I’d imagine that would be met begrudgingly but fine. Asking players of that ilk to simply foot the bill and then pitting them against guys in the same clubhouse, I certainly can’t see it going over well. While this is just the first proposal, it doesn't seem like a good foot to start on. Maybe the first week of June isn't a hard and fast deadline. Maybe a goal of dividing the players is of further importance. Maybe any cash flow relief is the greatest goal for ownership. We're dealing with lots of maybes here, but in unprecedented times we're likely in store for more unprecedented measures than we can imagine. MORE FROM TWINS DAILY — Latest Twins coverage from our writers — Recent Twins discussion in our forums — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email

Major League Baseball and the players’ union (MLBPA) are about to begin hammering out a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the result is likely to have a direct or indirect effect on just about every aspect of professional baseball that any of us care about in the least. Yes, this is going to be that big. http://knuckleballsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mlb-and-union600-600x412.jpg The thing is, we already know which side is going to win. It will be the players. We just don’t know the final score, yet. There will also be more than one loser. It won’t be just the owners, though they will certainly be losers, some of them much more than others (that would be you, Minnesota Twins). Owners/operators of some minor league teams are also possible losers (some of them potentially big losers). Minor league players will be losers (as they always are in these CBAs). Amateur ballplayers, in the United States and elsewhere, will be losers. On the other hand, I’ve looked into my crystal ball and the future looks very, very bright – if you’re Mike Trout. In fact, the future also looks pretty good if you’re swimming anywhere in the top half of the MLB player talent pool. For the rest of us, though, it could be a very bumpy ride. In the early 2000s, estimates placed the percentage of MLB revenues paid out in Major League salaries at about 55%. Current estimates have been reported at something close to 43%. The players are clearly going to want to see those numbers project closer to 50% in the new CBA and they have enough leverage this time to get what they want. You always want to be cautious about speaking ill of the dead, but the former head of the players union, Michael Weiner, who passed away in 2013, arguably gave away the farm to Bud Selig and the owners in his first, and only, CBA negotiation back in 2011. In his defense, he wasn’t exactly dealt a strong hand going into those negotiations. Players’ reputations were continuing to be tarnished by the image among fans that they had all built their careers on performance enhancing drugs, making it certain that any work stoppage resulting from a failed CBA negotiation would be blamed on the players. Regardless of the reasons, though, the final result was a contract in which the owners got most everything they wanted. Current MLBPA Executive Director Tony Clark, the first former player to lead the union, should carry a much stronger bargaining position into this round of negotiations. As a group, baseball’s owners are making money by the boatload, thanks to incredible increases in local television revenues in many markets. That’s a double-edged sword, however, when it comes to negotiating a new CBA. It makes it impossible for baseball to contend that they can’t afford to give a bigger share of the financial pie to the players, yet those revenues are anything but evenly distributed. As a result, increasing salaries across the board would adversely affect the competitiveness of teams who have not been able to cash in on the local TV bonanza (see: Twins, Minnesota). On top of that, the owners with those huge TV deals stand to lose a lot of money in the event of a strike or lockout that results in games not being played, as do owners who rely on revenue sharing from those teams. Wide public awareness of the enormous revenues also makes it likely that ownership will be viewed by fans as being primarily at fault for any such work stoppage, should it occur. The result is a players’ union with a very strong negotiating position and plenty of motivation to take advantage of it. Here’s how the union could attempt to go about increasing the share of revenues that go to players’ salaries: Significantly increase the minimum salary for Major League players The minimum player's salary was $507,500 in 2015. That may not immediately increase to $1 million in 2017, but it won't be surprising if it's closer to that number than where it currently sits. This is important to the union because significantly increasing the minimum would potentially result in fewer players signing early team-friendly extensions that buy out arbitration years and, in some cases, free agency years. These extensions are viewed by the union as a drag on average player salaries. Elimination of the Qualifying Offer/draft pick compensation system for teams that stand to lose free agents Despite changes that have been made to lessen the market-dampening effect for many free agents, the players still hate this system. It’s seen as being particularly hard on the union’s “upper-middle class” of players – those who aren’t in the elite category, but for whom having to settle for merely $15 million or so on a one year contract is “unfair.” Significantly reducing the number of years a player is “under team control” This refers to the total number of years that a club can restrict a player’s ability to shop his services to the highest bidder on the free agent market. It consists of a three-year (usually) period of essential “serfdom,” during which the player has no alternative but to accept whatever salary (subject to the Major League minimum) the team offers and another three-year period of years during which the team must decide whether to offer the player binding arbitration or grant him unconditional release. The result is a total of six years (in most cases) of team control before a player can become a free agent, meaning that currently a player who makes his MLB debut on or after turning 24 years old will be at least 30 by the time he’s eligible to file for free agency if his team exercises every year of control they have over the player. In combination with the increased minimum salary, reducing the number of years of team control could make it far more likely that players would forego the additional security of an early team-friendly contract extension, in favor of playing out their arbitration years to reach free agency as soon as possible. It could also make it much more likely that young superstars hit free agency right at their peak, in terms of productivity, rather than somewhere at the beginning of the downside of that curve. More time off for players The MLB schedule is a gauntlet. Between the day games after night games and, perhaps worse, the night games followed by cross-country overnight travel to begin another series the next day, the 162-game schedule is more than merely grueling and players want more than the three or so days off each month they currently get. The problem is that, with the extra postseason games resulting from the Wild Card era, the season already is starting and finishing during time periods where no sane person should be trying to play meaningful baseball in many northern big league cities. One idea often floated to address this problem is to cut the schedule back to the 154 game levels that existed before the leagues expanded from eight to ten teams in the early 1960s. This would result in each team losing four home dates, however, and that would cut into revenues, not only with regard to attendance, but also in programming for those local TV partners that are shelling out big bucks to show the games. Another possibility would be to expand active rosters. If you have 27 players, for example, instead of 25, it would be easier to give everyone an extra day off occasionally. It probably sounds better in theory than it would work in practice, however. Still, it would increase union membership by 8%, so don’t be shocked if the union pushes the idea pretty hard. In a worst case scenario, it gives them something they can “give up” when it comes time to finding a way to allow the owners to save some face. Each of these would have the net effect of increasing the share of MLB revenues that go into the pockets of the players, collectively. Since the owners really cannot afford a work stoppage, if the MLBPA is willing to play hardball, we shouldn't bet money against the players' chances of getting some version of these changes. All of them. What the owners will get Of course, the owners won’t just cave on those issues while getting nothing in return – and that’s where things can turn bad for the rest of us. The owners might get more drug testing. After all, the union has gone down this path already, so what’s the big deal about going a bit further? On the other hand, this “give” doesn’t put even a dime in the pockets of the owners, so they aren’t likely to push too hard for it. The owners want an international draft, to further dampen costs of acquiring new talent. Since giving in on this issue costs the union membership absolutely nothing, they may posture about how unfair it is, but they will capitulate to the owners. If the owners want further restrictions on bonuses paid to players subject to the draft, both foreign and domestic, the union can give on that issue, too. Again, it doesn’t cost their membership anything, so why not? Of course, at a time when fewer parents are allowing their sons to play football, giving MLB an ideal opportunity to come up with ways to attract kids back to baseball, this is exactly the time when MLB should be adopting a system that encourages the best athletes in this country and around the world to choose baseball as a potential career over other sports, not discourage it. But that might cost money and owners, by the time this subject gets addressed at the negotiating table, are probably going to be ticked off about the extra money they’re having to shell out to players already in the big leagues, so we shouldn't expect logic to win the day. Indirect side effects on the rest of us Unfortunately, none of the ownership "wins" are going to even come close to making up for the money the owners are going to lose to their players in this deal, so they’re going to end up looking elsewhere to recoup some of those bucks. This is where minor league players, teams and fans should start feeling nervous. Minor league players, you can forget about seeing your pay go up to anything close to a living wage. Consider yourselves lucky if they don’t lower your base pay. After all, neither the union nor the owners are looking out for your interests in this negotiation. You might find yourself with less competition for that low paying minor league roster spot you’ve got, though. The number of minor league teams with MLB affiliations hasn’t changed significantly in decades. The current working agreement between MLB and MiLB assures owners of current affiliated minor league teams of having a MLB affiliation every year, but that agreement expires after 2020. Renegotiation of that agreement is just one of many things that is waiting for the completion of the new CBA. If owners decide they have been terribly abused under the new CBA, it shouldn't be too surprising to see them propose elimination of some affiliated minor leagues. That would mean fewer communities with affiliated minor league teams, fewer jobs for minor league staff, fewer spots for minor league players and fewer games for minor league fans to attend. Is this a Doomsday scenario that can’t possibly happen? Maybe. But neither MLB nor the players' union has ever been shy about screwing over minor leaguers in CBA negotiations. After all, minor league teams and players are not represented in those negotiating sessions, making it easy for both sides to sacrifice minor league interests if it means getting something of even moderate value in return. It's not unlikely that minor league baseball could look a little bit different in 2021 than it does today if Major League owners determine it's in their best financial interests to impose significant changes. A year from now, we’ll likely know a lot more about the changes coming for professional baseball going forward. Unless you happen to be a big league ballplayer today, you have a right to feel very uneasy about those changes. (This article was originally posted at Knuckleballsblog.com)