Official CBA Negotiation Thread

This article does a good job explaining the issue with the minimum salary:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021...nion's stated goal,in their most recent offer.

Due to the massive revenue growth of baseball, minimum salaries have historically increased by 15%-50%.

Then, all of a sudden for reasons only the poorly run MLBPA understands, it was allowed to increase by 5.4% in 2017 when Clark handled the negotiations and got the players silly things like travel considerations. Now as a result, the players are likely to dig in and try to make up for those terrible negotiations.

The newest proposed raise to $600k is another anemic 5% bump, and the players will rightly not stand for it.

I suspect the minimum salary will be around $700k, and if I were the players I would make sure it increases as pre-arb players accrue service time. Something like:

0-1 year = $700k
1-2 years = $750k
2-3 years = $800k

Then, when a player making the $800k minimum salary hits arbitration, his arbitration numbers increase as well (all Arb1 guys will be making $1M+). And that is precisely what the players want....to get more cash to younger players sooner. All achieved simply by increasing the minimum salary at a rate commensurate with pre-2017 raises, and rejecting this absurd 5% raise.
 
Enscheff said:
This article does a good job explaining the issue with the minimum salary:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021...nion's stated goal,in their most recent offer.

Due to the massive revenue growth of baseball, minimum salaries have historically increased by 15%-50%.

Then, all of a sudden for reasons only the poorly run MLBPA understands, it was allowed to increase by 5.4% in 2017 when Clark handled the negotiations and got the players silly things like travel considerations. Now as a result, the players are likely to dig in and try to make up for those terrible negotiations.

The newest proposed raise to $600k is another anemic 5% bump, and the players will rightly not stand for it.

I suspect the minimum salary will be around $700k, and if I were the players I would make sure it increases as pre-arb players accrue service time. Something like:

0-1 year = $700k
1-2 years = $750k
2-3 years = $800k

Then, when a player making the $800k minimum salary hits arbitration, his arbitration numbers increase as well (all Arb1 guys will be making $1M+). And that is precisely what the players want....to get more cash to younger players sooner. All achieved simply by increasing the minimum salary at a rate commensurate with pre-2017 raises, and rejecting this absurd 5% raise.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Most people make the mistake of working from the high- or low-end. A large number of players who actually make it to the majors don't have "careers" that last for more than a cup of coffee (or a year or two). As bad as it sounds, I don't think EITHER side is particularly worried about those players "getting paid". 5th OFs and utility IFs like Heredia and Adrianza ought to be thrilled when someone's willing to give them a million dollars if they can hold down a roster spot for an entire season. Would it stunt the potential development of guys like the Riley Delgados and Justin Deans of the world if they're called up to be the 25th or 26th guy on the roster? Certainly. But does anyone honestly expect those guys to become good enough to actually stick around on a roster for 3-4 years even if they spend another season getting reps in the minors? Purely emergency defensive replacements like them would save the Braves $1.2 million in 2022 - EVEN IF the league minimum was $700K.

I haven't yet seen any details on the part of the proposal that said players with 2+ years could get performance-based bonuses, but it would seem to me that THOSE guys are the ones that both the MLBPA and the owners should want to see get more money - younger guys that are less-likely to get injured that have proven they can actually contribute something when called on rather than just wearing a uniform and playing a couple innings in the event someone gets hurt. You'd much rather keep guys like Touki around because there's a much better chance he can get hitters out than someone like Tomlin. The problem with that is that Touki is now out of options - even if he's the last guy out of the pen he'll start making 2-3 times what Tomlin was making as early as next season if he's kept around. The problem with the current arbitration system is that it rewards ALL PLAYERS - whether they're productive or not. With Ynoa, Webb, Touki, Davidson, Muller, Strider, Lee, Tarnok, Rangel, Woods, and Wilson on the 40-Man roster, it's pretty easy to make the argument that spending $900K on Newcomb is a pretty big waste when AA could go out and find a veteran arm off the scrap heap who has had more success that would be thrilled to fill that role for the same amount of money.
 
Last edited:
What I understood based on what I read...somewhere, is that the players with 2+ years of service could opt out of the Super-2 arb model and into some metric based compensation model.

Would that model be available to all players with 2+ years of service, or just the guys eligible to be Super-2 players? I'm not sure about those details. However, if it is a mechanic to boost salaries of all players with 2+ years of service, they may be close to common ground on the "get younger players more money sooner" topic.
 
Russ2dollas said:
How does that work? Not to be too much of a conspiracy guy but if you have a Bryce Harper guy sitting out there will teams stand pat at the deadline and try to get the number one pick instead of going for the playoffs?

Very interested in the other externalities decisions like these will bring upon us.
Click to expand...


Its a lot harder to tank to try to be the best team to not make the playoffs than to just outright lose as many games as possible. Beyond that any team that makes the playoffs has a decent chance to win the WS. Baseball playoffs are an entirely different animal than the regular season so low seeds can often be better playoff teams. There would be a lot less trading to begin with because the worst teams are likely to only trade rental players because they need to win to get better draft picks.
 
A few things I would like to see. Raising minimum salary to at least 1 million, limit guaranteed contracts to 5 years, and a mechanism to prevent holdouts. If teams can't void players contracts for underperformance the players shouldn't be able to leverage teams by refusing to play for the contract they signed.
 
I'm glad universal DH is likely to happen. I hope they make the draft order like the NBA where it's randomized and you cant tank. Eliminating the QO would probably help too.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Its a lot harder to tank to try to be the best team to not make the playoffs than to just outright lose as many games as possible. Beyond that any team that makes the playoffs has a decent chance to win the WS. Baseball playoffs are an entirely different animal than the regular season so low seeds can often be better playoff teams. There would be a lot less trading to begin with because the worst teams are likely to only trade rental players because they need to win to get better draft picks.
Click to expand...

Braves pick 20th and won the WS. Best record team SF picks 31st. In NFL, draft order is determined by how the playoffs end up going and not the record. That helps the Braves this year though. Hope they figure out something in the next 2-3 weeks with ST happening in March.
 
cajunrevenge said:
A few things I would like to see. Raising minimum salary to at least 1 million, limit guaranteed contracts to 5 years, and a mechanism to prevent holdouts. If teams can't void players contracts for underperformance the players shouldn't be able to leverage teams by refusing to play for the contract they signed.
Click to expand...

Having a hard time remembering the last player to be considered a "holdout".

Happens plenty in the other sports, but not baseball. Maybe you mean something different than what I'm thinking of - don't personally remember the last player on a guaranteed MLB deal that actually missed time because he wanted his contract renegotiated. Acuna and Ozzie would certainly be candidates to do so, but I've always had the feeling that that's always been part of the CBAs (and in standard contract language) - that one of the concessions the players had to give to make sure that ALL contracts are guaranteed (regardless of injury, situations like Ozuna's, PED suspensions, etc.) was that they honor the deal they signed no matter how bad it looks down the road.

I could be completely wrong, but my understanding was that if a player threatens to not honor his side of a contract the team is completely within its rights if it chooses to simply void the rest of the deal and it's off the hook for any remaining money. They'd no longer control the player, but wouldn't be responsible for paying him a dime if he chose not to perform either.
 
Last edited:
clvclv said:
Having a hard time remembering the last player to be considered a "holdout".

Happens plenty in the other sports, but not baseball. Maybe you mean something different than what I'm thinking of - don't personally remember the last player on a guaranteed MLB deal that actually missed time because he wanted his contract renegotiated. Acuna and Ozzie would certainly be candidates to do so, but I've always had the feeling that that's always been part of the CBAs (and in standard contract language) - that one of the concessions the players had to give to make sure that ALL contracts are guaranteed (regardless of injury, situations like Ozuna's, PED suspensions, etc.) was that they honor the deal they signed no matter how bad it looks down the road.

I could be completely wrong, but my understanding was that if a player threatens to not honor his side of a contract the team is completely within its rights if it chooses to simply void the rest of the deal and it's off the hook for any remaining money. They'd no longer control the player, but wouldn't be responsible for paying him a dime if he chose not to perform either.
Click to expand...


It goes with my proposal to limit guaranteed contracts to 5 years. I think some players/agents would hold out to leverage adding another guaranteed year after they play the first year or two of their contract.
 
cajunrevenge said:
It goes with my proposal to limit guaranteed contracts to 5 years. I think some players/agents would hold out to leverage adding another guaranteed year after they play the first year or two of their contract.
Click to expand...

Afraid there's about as much chance of getting players to agree to that as there is getting owners to allow everyone to become a free-agent after 3 years.

Think about it - that 3 years would be half as much control over players as they have now. Capping contracts at 5 years would be half the length of Seager's deal.
 
clvclv said:
Afraid there's about as much chance of getting players to agree to that as there is getting owners to allow everyone to become a free-agent after 3 years.

Think about it - that 3 years would be half as much control over players as they have now. Capping contracts at 5 years would be half the length of Seager's deal.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's saying cap contracts at 5 years...just to only guarantee them for that long.

If the owners are going to give any meaningful concessions the players need to give ownership a way to at least get out of the Chris Davis, BJ Upton-type terrible deals.
 
I'm not a salary cap guy.

But there are some issues brought on by the fact that costs are not tied to revenue. In the cap leagues salaries go up if the revenue goes up. They argue about percentages and what counts as income, but they are partnered on bringing in more revenue.

With MLB it will likely be much harder to say the salary is X and it will increase by Y percentage b/c the owners are always terrified of revenue going down. Apparently they do not bank any profits and have to make money every year.

I'd really like to see what would happen if the owners came back and said:
1 million minimum.
1.2 million year two
1.5 million year 3
Teams get a pick if they lose a QO FA. Teams do not lose a pick.
Luxury tax is 222 million.
DH
Draft stays the same EXCEPT if you lose 100 games you get moved back 5 spots from where you would be on record.

In return:
Expand the playoffs-----I hate this. But this is where they will see more money for their increase in cost.
Keep revenue sharing
Keep getting to manipulate service time
Keep getting 6-7 years control
 
^I know the numbers I put forward are way too high. Higher than the union is asking for now.
Point is I wonder if you went big with some round numbers you could get everything else you want. Most young guys are still going to outperform that contract if they stay on the MLB roster.
 
I like the union idea of a bonus pool that is awarded to controlled players if they perform well.

I'd love to see the ability to write contracts with performance incentives, not just counting stats and media voted honors. If you could sign a guy for X million and then reward him for a really high WAR, I like that.
 
get as much money to players and out of the hands of owners and give me the dh in the nl and let's play some baseball


that they aren't meeting every single day is insane
 
The owners proposed a minimum salary of $600k. The players just countered with $775k. This seems like a number that can be negotiated to around my suggested $700k value.

Owners want a salary cap around $214M Players want a salary cap at $245M. This is another easy figure to negotiate.

The players have dropped their demands for hitting FA at less than 6 years, and it seems like the owners are willing to allow players to become FAs at age 29.5. This seems like a fair compromise.

The players are insisting on being arb eligible after 2 years. I doubt that is going to happen.

The players want an 8 team draft lottery as a way to disincentivize tanking. This seems like a no-brainer concession for the owners to make.

The players also want to reduce the amount of revenue sharing going to small market clubs. They claim small market teams will be forced to try to win more if they aren’t being subsidized by the large market teams. I find that logic to be a reach, and I think they should be pushing some sort of rule that forces revenue sharing money to be spent on player salaries. The owners don’t seem willing to budge on the revenue sharing model, but they may be willing to use it as a means to implement some type of salary floor.

All in all, it seems like these are all areas reasonable people can find a point of agreement.
 
8 team lottery seems like it would only incentives tanking. Get in the bottom 8 and you can possibly get the 1st overall pick. I would prefer a 16 team lottery and the ability to trade draft picks.
 
Enscheff said:
The owners proposed a minimum salary of $600k. The players just countered with $775k. This seems like a number that can be negotiated to around my suggested $700k value.

Owners want a salary cap around $214M Players want a salary cap at $245M. This is another easy figure to negotiate.

The players have dropped their demands for hitting FA at less than 6 years, and it seems like the owners are willing to allow players to become FAs at age 29.5. This seems like a fair compromise.

The players are insisting on being arb eligible after 2 years. I doubt that is going to happen.

The players want an 8 team draft lottery as a way to disincentivize tanking. This seems like a no-brainer concession for the owners to make.

The players also want to reduce the amount of revenue sharing going to small market clubs. They claim small market teams will be forced to try to win more if they aren’t being subsidized by the large market teams. I find that logic to be a reach, and I think they should be pushing some sort of rule that forces revenue sharing money to be spent on player salaries. The owners don’t seem willing to budge on the revenue sharing model, but they may be willing to use it as a means to implement some type of salary floor.

All in all, it seems like these are all areas reasonable people can find a point of agreement.
Click to expand...

If these are all the obstacles I think they should be able to come to agreement very quickly..... put a 20 year expiration on this bitch and let’s get to Florida.
 
Enscheff said:
The owners proposed a minimum salary of $600k. The players just countered with $775k. This seems like a number that can be negotiated to around my suggested $700k value.

Owners want a salary cap around $214M Players want a salary cap at $245M. This is another easy figure to negotiate.

The players have dropped their demands for hitting FA at less than 6 years, and it seems like the owners are willing to allow players to become FAs at age 29.5. This seems like a fair compromise.

The players are insisting on being arb eligible after 2 years. I doubt that is going to happen.

The players want an 8 team draft lottery as a way to disincentivize tanking. This seems like a no-brainer concession for the owners to make.

The players also want to reduce the amount of revenue sharing going to small market clubs. They claim small market teams will be forced to try to win more if they aren’t being subsidized by the large market teams. I find that logic to be a reach, and I think they should be pushing some sort of rule that forces revenue sharing money to be spent on player salaries. The owners don’t seem willing to budge on the revenue sharing model, but they may be willing to use it as a means to implement some type of salary floor.

All in all, it seems like these are all areas reasonable people can find a point of agreement.
Click to expand...

Split the difference on all the salary items.

Accept the 29.5 free agency.

Make it slightly easier for players to reach Super Two status.

Go with the lottery.

Mandate that teams that receive revenue sharing must increase annual payroll by at least 75% of the previous year's sharing amount or forfeit the following year's payment.

Add a universal DH. Go to the 2020 playoff model. Give me four season tickets for life in the all-inclusive area of Truist closest to the field behind home plate as compensation for my work in bridging the gap between the two sides. You're welcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top