Maztek as a free agent would be a bad outcome for the braves.
Points out something that isn't discussed a lot - that the MLBPA is guided much more by the one percenters (stars) than it's actually concerned about advancing things for the Average Joes, regardless of who the team representatives are from year to year.
I'm willing to bet Matzek is on the opposite end of the spectrum of this particular issue now than he was when he was a hotshot prospect on the rise several years ago. At the end of the day, there are probably far more late-bloomers who would benefit from being automatically declared free-agents at a younger age than there are guys whose earning power is significantly curbed the way the system currently stands. If I were a player, I'd be much more interested in having that automatic free-agency number moved up to 28 than I would care about altering service-time or Super Two status.
Think about it - now that management realizes how bad an investment paying players into their mid-to-late thirties is, becoming a free-agent at 28 at least gives the better than league-average players a much better shot at landing a 3-4 year guaranteed deal. This doesn't seem like that big a deal from a fans' perspective, but it makes a huge impact for a LOT of players that aren't "stars". The game has been getting "younger", but the typical player still doesn't get called up until he's 24-26 years old. If you come up at 24 - and STAY UP - you'd be a free-agent at 30-31 under the current deal. There were exactly
seven players over the age of 30 that got deals longer than two seasons last winter. If you take out the Bauer, Lemahieu, and Ozuna deals none of those guys got more than $40.6 million.
Where getting that automatic free-agent number down would make a HUGE difference for players is in their pensions. (The only reason I feel like I know anything about this is because I know a little about the situation Greg Holland is in.) Players have to have ten FULL seasons of service-time to become fully-vested in the MLBPA pension program. That's one of the reasons the former player analysts made such a big deal about Tomlin crossing the 10 year mark last season. If a player becomes fully-vested, he's eligible to start drawing a minimum of $68K per year at age 45, and if he waits until he's 62 to start drawing he'll make $220,000 per year at that point. I realize that seems like peanuts when looking at the millions players make during their primes, but it's becoming next-to-impossible for them to get there now that teams aren't paying "average" players into their mid-30s. A couple of notable recent players who didn't get there are Tim Lincecum and Josh Hamilton. That shouldn't be a problem for those guys considering the money they made during their primes - assuming they invested well - but how many players ever get to make that kind of money? Once vested, a player also receives full LIFETIME medical benefits. Greg had 8.163 years of service-time at the beginning of 2021, and after the season he had there's little chance he gets signed by anyone this winter. There are a *elluva lot more guys like Greg Holland than there are like Josh Hamilton and Tim Lincecum.
Don't misunderstand - Greg's not going to wind up in the poor house because he's been incredibly careful with the money he's made, but that extra $68,000 a year plus benefits sure would come in awfully handy when it comes time to pay for the kids to go to college.
If a player gets called up at 22 and plays under his rookie contract until he becomes a free-agent at 28, then signs a 4 year deal at that point - even at middling money by today's standards - he'd be fully-vested by the end of that deal at 32 years old. If he doesn't come up until he's 24 or 25, the chance he ever gets there is becoming smaller and smaller almost every day. The chances a player gets a 4 year deal after the age of 30 are almost nonexistent for all but the biggest stars.
