|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Oct 26, 2021 3:06:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Oct 26, 2021 3:07:20 GMT -5
Latest On Collective Bargaining Negotiations
By Anthony Franco | October 25, 2021 at 7:58pm CDT
The current collective bargaining agreement is set to expire on December 1, and the general expectation is that this round of talks could be especially contentious. Ronald Blum of the Associated Press casts further doubt on the likelihood of a new deal being reached by the end of November, writing that neither MLB nor the MLB Players Association believes the other side has “made proposals that will lead toward an agreement” by December 1.
We’ve gotten glimpses of some ideas being kicked around in the early stages of bargaining over the past few months. In mid-August, Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic reported the league proposed a lowering of the first luxury tax threshold from this year’s $210MM mark to $180MM. That came with a $100MM salary floor ostensibly designed to limit tanking, although the lowered luxury tax thresholds seemed likely to be a non-starter for the MLBPA. Joel Sherman of the New York Post later added additional context on that proposal, writing that the league offered to eliminate service time considerations in favor of an age-based system that would see players hit free agency once they turned 29 1/2.
With a seemingly large gap to bridge, there’s been increasing speculation about how the potential CBA expiration could impact the offseason. As MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes covered in August, teams were permitted to make moves during the last work stoppage (the 1994-95 players’ strike). Blum writes that MLB may try institute a transactions freeze this winter if the CBA expires without a new agreement. Jeff Passan of ESPN wrote last month that speculation about a transactions freeze could increase the urgency for some players and teams to hammer out contract extensions before December 1. Since then, each of Michael A. Taylor (Royals), Antonio Senzatela (Rockies) and C.J. Cron (Rockies) signed multi-year deals, although Jon Gray rejected an extension offer from Colorado.
Further complicating matters is the ongoing dispute about last year’s pandemic-shortened season. The MLBPA filed a grievance against the league a few months ago, alleging that MLB didn’t make appropriate efforts to play as many games as possible during last year’s 60-game schedule. (Player pay was prorated in 2020, so fewer games meant lower salaries). Blum now reports that the hearing on that grievance began during the final week of September. A timetable for its resolution remains unclear.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Oct 26, 2021 3:47:30 GMT -5
Red Sox president Sam Kennedy: ‘There’s a will and desire’ for MLB, players’ union to agree to new CBA
By Steve Hewitt | stephen.hewitt@bostonherald.com | Boston Herald PUBLISHED: October 25, 2021 at 3:36 p.m. | UPDATED: October 25, 2021 at 5:04 p.m.
Major League Baseball appears headed toward a work stoppage this winter as the current collective bargaining agreement expires in December, but the Red Sox are confident a deal will get done.
The Associated Press reported Sunday that baseball’s first work stoppage “appears almost certain” to begin on Dec. 2, after the current deal expires at 11:59 p.m. EST on Dec. 1, as neither the league or players association think that the proposals made to this point will lead toward an agreement. But Monday, Red Sox president Sam Kennedy expressed optimism that the league will avoid a lockout and a potential delay of the 2022 season.
“I was really heartened by commissioner (Rob) Manfred’s comments, optimism, positivity, and confidence about getting a deal done,” Kennedy said. “We’re all operating business as usual. We had a chance in the postseason to spend a lot of time with players, with representatives from the union, down in Houston and Tampa and here in Boston.
“There is a will and a desire to get a deal done and keep building our industry back up. It’s no surprise we had a really difficult period and so I believe the will is there on both sides to get a deal done and I remain very optimistic we’ll be in a position to keep going.”
How the CBA situation unfolds will obviously have a direct impact on free agency this winter and how clubs operate financially, but Red Sox chief baseball officer Chaim Bloom is preparing like he normally would be.
“Obviously that’s going to be a topic this winter,” Bloom said. “From our standpoint, there are a lot of things about that that we don’t control. It will obviously dictate what we and the industry will do. But I think now as we’re making plans for the meat of the offseason once the World Series is over, we just need to be focused on those goals, of building a winning club next year and beyond. How the time of this is going to unfold is anyone’s guess. We have to make sure we’re ready.”
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Oct 26, 2021 8:34:01 GMT -5
MLB 'almost certain' to have first work stoppage in 26 years, per report Both sides are reportedly not optimistic that a new CBA can be agreed to before the current one expires Dayn Perry By Dayn Perry 14 hrs ago 1 min read
Major League Baseball appears headed for its first work stoppage since 1994-95 players' strike. A work stoppage beginning on Dec. 2 is "almost certain," Ronald Blum of the Associated Press writes.
The current collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the negotiated document that governs all aspects of the working relationship between players and teams, expires on Dec. 1. According to the veteran reporter Blum, neither side expects a new CBA to be hammered out before then. Blum writes:
"Negotiations have been taking place since last spring, and each side thinks the other has not made proposals that will lead toward an agreement replacing the five-year contract that expires at 11:59 p.m. EST on Dec. 1."
As well, Bill Madden tweets that those inside the game are indeed preparing for such a possibility:
billmadden1954 @bmadden1954 I’m hearing as a prelude to a likely lockout by the owners Dec. 1, the winter meetings in Orlando are being cancelled 2:43 PM · Oct 24, 2021
Labor stoppages have happened before once the current CBA expires as a lever to hasten negotiations. Given how far we are from spring training 2022, there's no reason at this point to fret over any kind of altered schedule or lost games. As well, the Dec. 1 expiration date is, at this writing, still more than a month away. A Dec. 1 lockout, however, would also in essence put a freeze on the free agency process, and if that lockout drags on then the offseason calendar could become all too compressed for a normal run-up to the 2022 season.
While as noted players and owners have enjoyed a long run of labor peace -- unprecedentedly long since the first CBA was hammered out in the late 1960s -- several complicated economic issues make another such offseason less likely. The players as represented by the Major League Baseball Players Association likely have an ambitious negotiating agenda designed to recapture a dwindling share of league revenues, push back against the "tanking" phenomenon that's seeing teams choose to be non-competitive, and address service time manipulation by clubs. That's hardly an exhaustive list, but it hints at the broad scope of the current talks.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Oct 26, 2021 8:39:08 GMT -5
MLB CBA negotiations: Seven important questions as baseball work stoppage appears likely this winter Like it or not, the business of baseball is going to be the main character of the coming offseason Dayn Perry By Dayn Perry 14 hrs ago 11 min read
Soon after the Astros or Braves are crowned World Series belt and title-holders for 2021, the focus of the baseball collective will shift to the labor negotiations that will be the catalyst for everything else that happens this coming offseason.
Said negotiations are predictably rife with minutiae and tedium, but they're an essential part of Major League Baseball. If you care about baseball at the highest level, then you should probably develop a working familiarity with the process of negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between players and owners. As always, we're here for those with nowhere left to turn.
What follows is a walking tour of the CBA and the fraught undertaking that will eventually lead to a new one. That new CBA will allow the game on the field to shift back into focus, but it could be a long and ugly time getting there.
Now let us gird ourselves with the necessary knowledge. We shall do so via the time-honored format of the FAQ, which has been reliable praxis since the era of the monastic scriptorium. Let us proceed with seven frequently asked questions, like it or not.
1. So what's the CBA, exactly?
The CBA is the negotiated agreement between players and clubs (i.e., the team owners) that governs the working relationship between the two parties. It covers things as mundane as players' meal allowances and travel protocols and as vital as minimum salaries, the structure of free agency, revenue-sharing specifics, and roster sizes.
In recent times, each CBA has covered a period of five years. The current one, for instance, was ratified in December of 2016 and governed the 2017-21 seasons. It expires at 11:59 p.m. ET on Dec. 1 of this year.
The first CBA covered the 1968 and 1969 seasons, and it was the first collective bargaining agreement in professional sports history. That was the handiwork of Marvin Miller, the pioneering head of the Players Association (i.e., the players union) and woefully belated Hall of Famer. It was Miller's organizing skills, foresight, and training as a union economist that allowed him to make the Players Association a viable and effective union, and he did so in defiance of the odds and history.
During Miller's time and beyond, each CBA negotiation has been a pitched battle between two powerful entities. While that power shifts by degrees between players and owners, it's no longer a case of owners ruling by fiat, which is largely how things were in the pre-Miller days. As such, the skirmishes over the CBA often result in labor stoppage, in the form of either owner lockout or players' strike.
Here's a brief history of those labor stoppages:
1972: Players strike over a pension dispute. Lasted about two weeks during the season. 1973: Owner lockout during spring training over salary arbitration. 1976: Owner lockout during spring training over the evolving issue of player free agency. 1980: Players strike during spring training, largely over the structure of free agency. 1981: Players strike over free-agent compensation. Almost two months' of games were lost during the season. 1985: Players strike over pension fund and salary arbitration. Lasted for two days in August. 1990: Owner lockout over salary arbitration and free agency. Began during spring training and pushed back Opening Day. 1994: Players strike largely over owners' desire to implement a salary cap. The entirety of the 1994 postseason was canceled, and the 1995 season was significantly abbreviated. Play resumed only after a federal judge reinstated terms of the previous CBA.
As you may have surmised, we've enjoyed a long run of labor peace, but for a long time labor stoppages were the norm. Many of those labor stoppages were the direct result of failed CBA negotiations. We'll soon examine why that may be the case this time around.
In relevant matters, the Associated Press reported Sunday that MLB is "almost certain" to have its first work stoppage since the 1994-95 strike starting on Dec. 2. 2. What are the major issues likely to come up in these negotiations?
Providing any sort of exhaustive list would be getting lost in a cornucopia, so we'll stick to the biggest ones. Not surprisingly, how the games revenues are split between labor and management underpins all of those leading matters.
From the players' standpoint, they'd presumably like to address their shrinking share of those league revenues (indicated in part by the declining average player salary), the occasional practice of service-time manipulation (i.e., when teams hold back a clearly ready prospect in order to delay his free agency or arbitration eligibility for a full year), and the "tanking" problem, among other matters.
Priority No. 1 will be increasing the players' share of the money the league takes in, but that will not be easily accomplished. Teams' increasing reliance on young, cost- and team-controlled talent has cascaded through other markets for talent and depressed all but the top-most wages. Given recent circumstances, the best way to lift all boats is probably to press to make younger players more fairly compensated. That means significantly raising the minimum salary (over and above the usual minimum salary increases that accompany a new CBA) and perhaps lowering the service-time threshold for arbitration and free agency. None of that happens without significant give-backs or a strike. The union, frankly, is running out of paths to give away the rights of draftees and minor leaguers, so perhaps their play -- cynical though it may be -- is to dangle approval of an international draft. If that's not enough to lead a package of exchange concessions, then a strike is the likely way forward.
Related to the drop in the players' share of revenues is that the competitive balance tax (CBT) -- or "luxury tax" -- on payrolls has come to serve as a soft cap. The owners aren't going to weaken it given how well it's accomplished the unstated objective, which is to reduce labor costs (it has nothing to do with promoting competitive balance). The form the CBT takes in the next CBA has the potential for another conflagration at the bargaining table. That's especially the case since the increase in the CBT threshold hasn't come close to keeping pace with revenue growth in MLB. 3. Any overarching concerns about how revenues are calculated?
The thoroughly contrived question is a reliable FAQ staple, and here's ours for this episode. Why, yes, there are overarching concerns about how revenues are calculated. Clubs and the MLBPA probably have different ideas about what these are. Increasingly, teams are part of diversified owner portfolios that also include things like ownership stakes in regional sports networks and real estate-development interests in areas surrounding ballparks. The owners generally wall off these kinds of revenues, and when there's any discussion about revenues to which players are entitled they try to narrow that down to gameday revenues only (i.e., ticket sales and parking and concession income) in addition to media contracts covering game broadcasts. The players, meantime, would likely argue that those accompanying revenue streams that owners see as independent would never exist without the baseball games they play. They of course have a good point about that.
The larger point is that before they can haggle over how revenues are divided, these two parties must haggle over what revenues even are. On top of all that, MLB teams almost without exception are not publicly traded entities, and owners are thus not obligated to disclose accurate financials. While the players likely have access to better numbers during the collective bargaining process than the public does, the numbers they see are very likely massaged to reflect the interests of team ownership. So that's another complication. 4. What happens if players and owners can't reach an agreement?
Then we're probably looking at a labor stoppage. An owner lockout is possible once the current agreement expires, as it would ramp up the pressure to get something done and also hit pause on free agency. Alternatively, owners could lock out the players at the start of spring training, or the players might stage a walkout of their own around that time. A players strike seems more likely to happen after the season has begun, given that their leverage will be higher then. That implicit threat is why we'd probably see an owner lockout to force the issue well before we ever get to that point. It's a fluid situation, but it seems unlikely that commissioner Rob Manfred and his bosses (i.e., team owners) will allow spring training to break ground without at least a preliminary, or not-yet-ratified, agreement in place.
There is precedent of both sides agreeing to extend the expiring agreement by one year in order to create a wider window for negotiations, but doing so back in late 1983 required a giveback to players on the part of owners.
The last CBA was set to expire on Dec. 1, 2016, and players and owners didn't reach a preliminary agreement until the day before that deadline. Very likely, we were within hours of a lockout. Finally, the two sides were able to reach an agreement on a variety of matters. That it came down to the wire and that a labor stoppage was very much in play is concerning given that the issues facing the two sides in 2021 are likely much more complicated.
In this particular instance an owner lockout is much more likely than a players' strike. That's because a lockout would very likely happen first -- soon after the agreement expires on Dec. 1 is looking like a distinct possibility -- which would thus obviate the union's need to strike. 5. Haven't the owners already made a solid offer?
No, they have not. The owners made an initial economic proposal during August discussions with the MLBPA, but it was not a compelling offer from the players' standpoint. According to Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic, the league's proposal would "lower the first luxury-tax threshold in the sport to $180 million" while upping the overage penalty. Additionally, the league would institute a "salary minimum of $100 million," with the "money collected from teams paying tax" going to certain teams to help them meet the minimum.
On the surface, this would seem to address the ongoing tanking problem, in which rebuilding teams in essence lose on purpose -- an exercise abetted by low payrolls. However, the luxury tax, which already functions as a soft cap, hardens under this proposal. The bottom line is that in terms of the players' share of revenues, this constitutes a loss for them measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So, no, it's not a serious offer.
Also during those August meetings, MLB per Joel Sherman of the New York Post proposed a revised service-time arrangement in which arbitration-eligible players split a $1 billion pool and all players would become eligible for free agency at the age of 29 1/2. This, too, is not serious. That pool is tantamount to a cap on arbitration salaries, and the players are highly unlikely ever to agree to such a thing (owners previously angled for a cap on arbitration awards in the mid-1980s to no avail). As for the free agency timeline, it would very likely hurt the best players -- i.e., those who arrive in the majors at very young ages (think Bryce Harper and Fernando Tatis Jr.) -- and thus put a drag on the top earners by pushing back their free agency eligibility. 6. Should we pay attention to press leaks during the process?
There's a reason we know the specifics of those proposals above, and that reason is the owners' side almost certainly leaked them to the press. Insofar as CBA negotiations go, this has been the approach since time immemorial. The owners seek to gin up support among fans and even media by such calculated and self-serving disclosures, while the union indulges in far less of this sort of thing. The good news from all this, though, is that face-to-face talks have been taking place, and that's the only sensible takeaway when the particulars of an owner-side proposal land in the press. 7. Which side is in a stronger bargaining position right now?
It's probably the owners. As noted above, the union has already used many leverage points, save for granting their approval for an international draft and expanded playoffs (expanded playoffs, however, may entail a sub-negotiation over how those particular revenues are split). Given what's likely an ambitious agenda for the MLBPA this time around, a strike may be the necessary path for them. Again, though, a lockout seems more likely to happen.
Worth noting is the players right now are likely more galvanized than they've been in some time. The long run of relative peace means that multiple generations of ballplayers could've entered this process without any first-hand knowledge of the strains of it. The negotiations during the run-up to the COVID-compromised 2020 season, however, gave those players a crash course in labor talks. As a result, there's a great deal of present solidarity among the ranks. On the other side, the split among owners between revenue-sharing payors and payees could compromise their unified front.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Oct 27, 2021 2:43:00 GMT -5
Latest On Collective Bargaining NegotiationsBy Anthony Franco | October 26, 2021 at 6:26pm CDT OCTOBER 26: Commissioner Rob Manfred continued to express optimism about the possibility of hammering out a new agreement by December 1. Speaking with reporters (including Chelsea Janes of the Washington Post) before tonight’s opening World Series contest, Manfred called agreeing to a pre-December CBA the “number one priority” for the league.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Oct 30, 2021 9:32:33 GMT -5
Answering some key questions as MLB’s collective bargaining agreement is set to expire By Michael Silverman Globe Staff,Updated October 30, 2021, 1 hour ago
With the collective bargaining agreement between MLB players and owners expiring in a month — at 11:59 p.m. EST on Dec. 1 — the threat of the first baseball labor stoppage in 28 years is real.
The free agent and trading bazaar that usually launches after the World Series could be scuttled, an owner-imposed lockout could be imposed as early as Dec. 2, and the annual Winter Meetings could be canceled, likely making for a winter’s worth of negotiation standoffs and sharp-elbowed rhetoric.
Here are some answers to questions about what’s at stake, how baseball reached this point, and who’s charged with striking or whiffing on a peace pact:
Is a lockout as bad as it sounds?
Not necessarily, although it’s certainly not a positive development. It’s a pressure tactic from the owners to get a deal done so next season can start on time and as usual — meaning teams can sell tickets and players can get paid.
What about a players’ strike or walkout?
That’s the players’ pressure tactic, although one they would not need to exercise before the start of spring training or the start of the regular season.
Would the players actually strike?
The success or failure of the negotiations may ultimately hinge on how seriously owners view the players’ unity and determination to forgo their paychecks to bring about change. Indications from the players point to them being far more determined than they were five years ago to walk out or strike.
If that happens, then what?
A wedge will emerge eventually in the owners’ or players’ unity, and it’s way too early to predict where the division will occur.
How will fans react?
That’s highly predictable. They will hate it, just like in 1994-95, during the last work stoppage.
Who is more susceptible to public pressure?
Give the nod here to owners, who are already ultra-concerned with the aging demographics of their fan base. The sport is trying hard and thinking creatively about how to reach younger fans. It’s too soon to say if it has hit on the right formula, especially with ongoing attempts at rule changes to shorten game lengths and increase offense. Piling a work stoppage on top of a pandemic year and subsequent recovery may be a tall order for 30 owners to accept.
What is the players’ biggest concern?
In short, players think their salaries are not keeping pace with owners’ revenues.
In an era where gross revenues of baseball were on a 16-year climb until the pandemic — topping out at $10.7 billion in 2019, according to Forbes — revenues devoted to player compensation at the major league level have flattened and dropped.
Teams tanking and underpaying younger players are a central concern, and players see the two as closely connected.
Thanks to real-life, analytics-inspired results, teams covet younger talent more than ever while they are shying away from expensive long-term contracts for older free agents. The amateur draft is the main source for that young talent, and teams with poorer records get first crack at the best of that talent pool. As those players blossom, sometimes well before they have played the six-year minimum to become a free agent, teams don’t have to pay free agent premiums. As a result, overall payroll spending goes down.
So, what will the players ask for?
They seek a reduction, likely two or three years, in the number of years it takes for a player to become a free agent. They want salary arbitration to begin after the second year, rather than the third. They want to close the loophole that allows teams to manipulate service time, a trick that essentially tacks an extra year of service before hitting free agency. They want to revise the draft rules that currently guarantee high picks for low-finishing teams.
They also want a higher competitive balance tax. In the last CBA, they were only able to negotiate an increase from $195 million in the first year to $210 million this year.
The players also want a universal DH. There’s more, but those are the main components.
What do the owners want in the next CBA?
What they’ve got, plus expanded playoffs and an international draft.
Seriously, is that it?
The owners are playing defense with the current CBA — the players want major changes, the owners want minor ones. The owners have proposed, according to The Athletic and New York Post, a lower CBT of $180 million with stiffer penalties plus a payroll floor of $100 million that also comes with penalties, automatic free agency when a player turns 29½ years old, and elimination of arbitration.
How do the players feel about expanded playoffs?
They’re not wild about them, since it gets back to their competition argument — if it’s easier to get into the playoffs than ever, a team doesn’t have to try as hard (and spend as much) to make the postseason. But there’s the potential for more revenue for players with more playoff games.
How much did the pandemic mess with these negotiations?
Like every other segment of everyone’s lives, a lot. Last summer’s public dispute over how many games to play arose from private negotiations held over Zoom, which could not have helped what are usually face-to-face negotiations. The players lost around 63 percent of their salaries, with the owners claiming roughly the same drop in gross revenues in 2020.
But that’s in the past, right?
It’s not. The union filed a grievance for $500 million, claiming the owners acted in “bad faith” by not agreeing to play more than 60 games. That case has yet to be heard by an arbitrator. A resolution one way or another before Dec. 1 will make one side happier than the other. A delay may turn the case into a bargaining chip for the players, since the owners won’t want to get stuck with that hefty bill.
Who are the key figures for MLB?
On the owners’ side, Rob Manfred will oversee his second CBA negotiation as commissioner, after helping out predecessor Bud Selig on this front since 1987. Directing all collective bargaining for MLB like Manfred once did is Dan Halem, deputy commissioner, baseball administration & chief legal officer.
Owners Dick Monfort of the Rockies and Ron Fowler of the Padres are among those actively involved on the Labor Policy Committee. John Henry, principal owner of the Red Sox (he owns the Globe, too), also sits on the labor committee.
The MLBPA?
For the players, former player Tony Clark serves as the executive director. The lead negotiator, Bruce Meyer, who was hired after the last CBA, serves as the association’s senior director, collective bargaining & legal. Assorted lawyers, economists, and staff lawyers will participate in sessions depending on the topic of the day.
Some of the player reps who might wind up playing a leading role include Andrew Miller, Max Scherzer, James Paxton, and Gerrit Cole. In addition to the 30 team representatives, the association has an eight-member executive committee of active players.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Oct 30, 2021 15:08:42 GMT -5
Fans should also be considered in baseball’s CBA negotiations By Peter Abraham Globe Staff,Updated October 30, 2021, 1 hour ago
ATLANTA — Major League Baseball and the Players Association publicly bickered over money during the height of the pandemic in 2020.
As thousands died and millions lost their jobs, they fought by proxy, both sides using anonymous sources to make their points through the media.
It was disgraceful, cringe-worthy behavior that people in both camps came to regret over time because it was such a bad look for the sport.
So let’s take it as a positive that negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement have been going on for months in what has largely been a news blackout.
That may not be great for people in my business, but if the league and the union can manage to conduct negotiations without creating a public spectacle, maybe they can strike a deal before the start of spring training.
That didn’t seem possible a year ago when the animus between the league and the union was worse than it had been in decades.
I’m probably naïve in believing the sides can avoid a lockout. But they surely must understand how damaging it would be to the sport.
A lockout or a strike won’t kill baseball. It has survived labor wars before and in recent years managed to overcome the steroid era, the Astros cheating scandal, and Alex Rodriguez becoming a television personality.
But a lockout or a strike would further define baseball as a regional sport, one popular in certain parts of the country but fading away in others.
When the Red Sox were in Houston for the ALCS, I stayed at a hotel across the street from Minute Maid Park. On the eve of Game 6, I had dinner in the bar with a colleague and we had to ask the server to put the NLCS game on one of the four televisions. Three were on football games and the other on a soccer game.
We were about 30 seconds away from Minute Maid Park and nobody thought to put on a baseball playoff game.
But baseball has a chance to regain some territory. Young stars such as Juan Soto, Fernando Tatis Jr., Vladimir Guerrero Jr., Rafael Devers, and others have NBA-type appeal if marketed properly.
This winter should be about the Red Sox working with Devers on an extension, the Blue Jays building a team to get over the top with Vladdy Jr., and wondering if Soto can win the Triple Crown.
If it’s lawyers arguing with other lawyers, everybody loses.
The money matters. Baseball is a big business, and the players are right to be diligent about getting their fair share. But the next CBA should be about more than how to divvy up television money and fixing the flawed arbitration process.
It’s a chance to improve the quality of the game by tweaking the rules to increase the action on the field and the pace of play.
One easy fix would be to put a cap on how many pitchers can be on a roster. That would force teams to develop starters who can pitch more than five innings.
A pitch clock needs to be tried at some point along with encouraging more stolen bases by limiting pickoff throws. That would push teams to draft more athletes as opposed to single-minded sluggers.
Starting extra innings with a runner on second base worked — although let’s wait for the 11th inning — and seven-inning doubleheaders are appealing. The universal DH makes perfect sense.
The aesthetic of the game matters. You should feel compelled to pay attention, not duty-bound to wait 25 seconds until the pitcher has checked under his cap to decide what pitch to throw.
The sides also should enact rules to discourage teams from aggressively tanking to accumulate high draft picks. No other sport tolerates this to the degree baseball does.
The owners and players need to balance their short-term financial concerns with how the game will look over the next five or 10 years. Adhering to tradition, once baseball’s strength, has become its biggest fault.
I want to believe Rob Manfred, Tony Clark, and all their lieutenants care more about the sport than winning the negotiations.
Everybody is going to get paid. But the fans are owed something, too.
|
|
|
Post by Kimmi on Nov 2, 2021 8:52:34 GMT -5
These CBA negotiations are going to drive me crazy. I already don't like the offseason with all the rumors and speculation.
Just get it done people.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 2, 2021 8:55:26 GMT -5
These CBA negotiations are going to drive me crazy. I already don't like the offseason with all the rumors and speculation.
Just get it done people. I renewed my library card picked up a few new hobbies this "lock out" has been brewing for years and is going to be a long one
|
|
|
Post by Kimmi on Nov 2, 2021 9:23:57 GMT -5
These CBA negotiations are going to drive me crazy. I already don't like the offseason with all the rumors and speculation.
Just get it done people. I renewed my library card picked up a few new hobbies this "lock out" has been brewing for years and is going to be a long one I tend to disagree with you, but we'll see how things play out.
I don't think they'll get anything done by December 1, but I do think they'll have everything in place for the 2022 season.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 3, 2021 3:10:40 GMT -5
Red Sox Stats @redsoxstats · 4h 29 shopping days until baseball's locked out.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 5, 2021 3:13:48 GMT -5
How baseball’s CBA negotiations could slow the offseason: Four key issues to watch By Alex Speier Globe Staff,Updated November 4, 2021, 1:02 p.m.
Every baseball offseason begins in a state of uncertainty, the market difficult to predict. But this year promises to be even more unsettled given that the rules governing the business of Major League Baseball are being renegotiated.
One day after the Atlanta Braves won the World Series, the offseason got under way Wednesday, with 160 players — including Red Sox Adam Ottavino, Hansel Robles, Eduardo Rodriguez, Danny Santana, and Travis Shaw — officially becoming free agents. On Sunday, they will be free to negotiate with other teams.
Sunday also will bring another round of decisions regarding player and team options. For the Sox, the 5 p.m. deadline will reveal whether J.D. Martinez opts out of the final year and $19.375 million of his contract, whether the Sox pick up their $7 million option on Christian Vázquez, and whether they extend a one-year, $18.4 million qualifying offer to Rodriguez, which would entitle the Sox to a draft pick if the lefthander heads elsewhere.
More obvious decisions also loom Sunday. Kyle Schwarber almost certainly will decline his side of a mutual $11.5 million option and become a free agent, and the Sox seem certain to decline their $10 million option on righthander Garrett Richards and $6 million option on Martín Pérez.
That flurry of decisions, however, is likely to give way to a crawl by mid-November. The industry is braced for another slow-moving offseason given that teams and agents are still waiting to see how the market conditions might change.
Foremost among the questions: Can owners and the Players Association agree to a new collective bargaining agreement by the time the current agreement expires at 11:59 p.m. Dec. 1? If not, a lockout by owners — with a resulting transactions freeze — seems likely. Related: Services to honor Red Sox icon Jerry Remy are set for Thursday
Yet even if there is an agreement, teams and players may need more clarity about what it includes before diving headlong into new contracts for free agents.
Some key issues that will affect how the market works:
▪ What will the luxury-tax threshold be? And what penalties will come to those who spend past it?
The 2017-21 CBA featured modest increases to the threshold, from $189 million in 2016 to $210 million in 2021. While a growing number of teams had accepted paying a luxury tax as an acceptable cost of business before 2017, the current CBA included significant penalties — up to 95 percent for every dollar spent over the threshold, along with the loss of potentially tens of millions of dollars in revenue sharing rebates — for going over the threshold repeatedly, along with penalties related to the draft and international amateur signings.
As a result, some teams treated the threshold as a salary cap. Those that were willing to spend past it still contorted themselves to get under it at least once every three years in order to reset tax rates.
MLB made an opening proposal to the players this year that featured the introduction of a salary floor, but perhaps more significantly the lowering of the tax threshold from $210 million in 2021 to $180 million in 2022. It’s impossible to imagine the players agreeing to any deal that lowers the threshold.
Meanwhile, a rise in the threshold — reasonable, given the massive revenue growth in the game, with owners nearing mountains of money in new TV and gambling deals — could encourage salary growth. As such, teams may wait for the new CBA before pursuing free agents to get more clarity about their budgets for 2022 and beyond. Players may want to wait for a new deal to try to get their biggest offers.
▪ Will there be a universal designated hitter?
The answer has significant implications for Martinez, who must make his decision about whether to opt out well before the CBA is resolved, as well as Schwarber. If the new deal includes a universal DH, the market for both players could be robust given that 15 National League teams will have to start planning for life without pitchers wasting at-bats.
One industry source called it a “foregone conclusion” that the new deal will include a universal DH. If there is, players such as Martinez and Schwarber — capable of playing other positions but ideally on a limited basis — may find the most active markets of their careers.
▪ Might there be limits on the size of pitching staffs?
If so, starters could see an uptick in activity. While Rodriguez is expected to generate interest regardless of whether the Red Sox make him a qualifying offer, that could increase if teams are unable to load up with 14-pitcher staffs.
▪ Will the penalties for signing top free agents change?
Currently, teams that (a) exceed the luxury-tax threshold and (b) sign players the following offseason who receive the qualifying offer to multiyear deals of at least $50 million, lose their second- and fifth-highest draft picks, along with $1 million in international bonus pool money.
Teams such as the Red Sox that (a) don’t receive revenue-sharing money, (b) don’t spend past the threshold, and (c) sign such a player, lose a second-round pick and $500,000 in international bonus pool money.
Such penalties represent at least a moderate deterrent to the pursuit of top free agents who receive qualifying offers, a group that will include Carlos Correa, Marcus Semien, and Trevor Story this winter. If the new CBA diminishes or eliminates those penalties, teams could be more inclined to pursue top free agents, something that may prompt players to wait to see what opportunities arise.
All of those factors point toward a slow-moving start to the offseason, with most of the movement to come after a new CBA is negotiated.
It’s possible that such a pace, even if there’s a lockout, will have only a negligible effect. After all, last November just five players were signed to major league deals as free agents, and all of those were one-year deals (including lefthander Robbie Ray re-signing with the Blue Jays and righthander Charlie Morton going to the Braves). Of the eight deals guaranteeing players at least $30 million, seven were signed in mid-January or later.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 6, 2021 2:52:29 GMT -5
MLBPA Makes Second Core Economics Proposal To MLB
By Anthony Franco | November 5, 2021 at 8:08pm CDT
Last week, the MLB Players Association made its second proposal on core economics in collective bargaining discussions with the league, report Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic. The new proposal contained only minor adjustments compared to the PA’s first offer, which was made back in May.
Drellich and Rosenthal reported in August that the MLBPA’s first offer included an emphasis on earlier arbitration for young players, but other details on their vision remained sparse. The Athletic now shines more light on that initial offer, suggesting that an alteration to the draft order, a higher league minimum salary, elevated luxury tax thresholds, alterations to the revenue sharing system, and an unspecified change in how service time is calculated were all included in that opening proposal. The union’s initial proposal also included scenarios where certain players could qualify for free agency without reaching a full six years of major league service. Whether all of those goals remained in the union’s second offer is not clear.
Major League Baseball made one counteroffer in August — a radically different setup that would’ve included lowered luxury tax thresholds with an accompanying salary floor, an age-based system in which players first reach free agency at 29.5 years old, and a revenue-based pool system to replace the current arbitration structure. Given the massive differences in what’s publicly known about each side’s offers, it’s no surprise the MLBPA reportedly considered the league’s offer a non-starter.
Drellich and Rosenthal also shed a bit more light on MLB’s first proposal. The league’s proposed salary floor, which was to be set at $100MM, was a “soft” floor, featuring unspecified penalties for teams that don’t reach that mark in annual payroll rather than a firm mandate to do so. To address players’ concerns about rebuilding teams, MLB’s offer included a provision that would prevent teams from picking in the top five of the amateur draft in three consecutive seasons.
MLB’s proposal also included a provision to overhaul the system for teams to acquire international amateur prospects, per Drellich and Rosenthal. Currently, teams are annually allotted a hard-capped bonus pool to sign amateur players from outside of the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico. While deals can’t formally be signed until the player turns 16 years old, teams and player representatives often come to verbal agreements a year or more in advance. According to the Athletic, MLB proposed to replace the current system with an international draft, the details of which remain unclear.
The potential for a collectively bargained international draft has long been bandied about. Were it to come to fruition, it’s generally expected that draft would be a separate entity from the current Rule 4 draft for acquiring domestic amateur talent. An international draft would foreclose the potential for advance verbal agreements for incredibly young players, but it’d also obviously restrict those players’ abilities to choose their preferred destination.
It’s clear that MLB and the MLBPA remain far apart on core economic concepts, but Drellich and Rosenthal report that the sides have made progress in ancillary bargaining areas and are slated for in-person talks at next week’s general managers meetings. The current CBA expires on December 1, and Drellich wrote earlier this week it’s expected that failure to agree on a new CBA by then would result in a lockout and accompanying transactions freeze. Commissioner Rob Manfred and MLBPA executive director Tony Clark have continued to express hope they’ll reach agreement before that point, but the general tenor on the situation has seemed to skew more pessimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Kimmi on Nov 6, 2021 7:20:17 GMT -5
MLBPA Makes Second Core Economics Proposal To MLBBy Anthony Franco | November 5, 2021 at 8:08pm CDT Last week, the MLB Players Association made its second proposal on core economics in collective bargaining discussions with the league, report Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic. The new proposal contained only minor adjustments compared to the PA’s first offer, which was made back in May. Drellich and Rosenthal reported in August that the MLBPA’s first offer included an emphasis on earlier arbitration for young players, but other details on their vision remained sparse. The Athletic now shines more light on that initial offer, suggesting that an alteration to the draft order, a higher league minimum salary, elevated luxury tax thresholds, alterations to the revenue sharing system, and an unspecified change in how service time is calculated were all included in that opening proposal. The union’s initial proposal also included scenarios where certain players could qualify for free agency without reaching a full six years of major league service. Whether all of those goals remained in the union’s second offer is not clear. Major League Baseball made one counteroffer in August — a radically different setup that would’ve included lowered luxury tax thresholds with an accompanying salary floor, an age-based system in which players first reach free agency at 29.5 years old, and a revenue-based pool system to replace the current arbitration structure. Given the massive differences in what’s publicly known about each side’s offers, it’s no surprise the MLBPA reportedly considered the league’s offer a non-starter.Drellich and Rosenthal also shed a bit more light on MLB’s first proposal. The league’s proposed salary floor, which was to be set at $100MM, was a “soft” floor, featuring unspecified penalties for teams that don’t reach that mark in annual payroll rather than a firm mandate to do so. To address players’ concerns about rebuilding teams, MLB’s offer included a provision that would prevent teams from picking in the top five of the amateur draft in three consecutive seasons.MLB’s proposal also included a provision to overhaul the system for teams to acquire international amateur prospects, per Drellich and Rosenthal. Currently, teams are annually allotted a hard-capped bonus pool to sign amateur players from outside of the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico. While deals can’t formally be signed until the player turns 16 years old, teams and player representatives often come to verbal agreements a year or more in advance. According to the Athletic, MLB proposed to replace the current system with an international draft, the details of which remain unclear. The potential for a collectively bargained international draft has long been bandied about. Were it to come to fruition, it’s generally expected that draft would be a separate entity from the current Rule 4 draft for acquiring domestic amateur talent. An international draft would foreclose the potential for advance verbal agreements for incredibly young players, but it’d also obviously restrict those players’ abilities to choose their preferred destination. It’s clear that MLB and the MLBPA remain far apart on core economic concepts, but Drellich and Rosenthal report that the sides have made progress in ancillary bargaining areas and are slated for in-person talks at next week’s general managers meetings. The current CBA expires on December 1, and Drellich wrote earlier this week it’s expected that failure to agree on a new CBA by then would result in a lockout and accompanying transactions freeze. Commissioner Rob Manfred and MLBPA executive director Tony Clark have continued to express hope they’ll reach agreement before that point, but the general tenor on the situation has seemed to skew more pessimistic. Not knowing all the details, it's hard to know for sure, but based off of what I've read here, it sounds to me like ownership is not bending very much. I usually tend to lean more toward ownership's side, a 'soft floor' of $100M and players first reaching FA at an age of 29.5 doesn't do anything for me. Both sides have more than enough money. Stop being so greedy and start making some concessions to appease the other side.
|
|