Official CBA Negotiation Thread

DirkPiggler said:
He's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

He complains about a sub-.500 team "buying a championship in 60 days", then simultaneously bïtches about teams being out of contention and selling off all their players for better draft position.
Click to expand...

His statement is just ridiculous. The only thing he's concerned about is saying things that will put his free agent players in the best position to get as much money as possible.
 
NYCBrave said:
His statement is just ridiculous. The only thing he's concerned about is saying things that will put his free agent players in the best position to get as much money as possible.
Click to expand...

Of course. There is no doubt that in Scott's perfect world the teams that stock their rosters with high dollar free agents would win every year, thus encouraging the remaining franchises to follow that model.

Unfortunately for him and some of his clients, front offices have figured out that the presence of aging vets on long-term, high AAV contracts generally makes it less likely to win championships.
 
DirkPiggler said:
Of course. There is no doubt that in Scott's perfect world the teams that stock their rosters with high dollar free agents would win every year, thus encouraging the remaining franchises to follow that model.

Unfortunately for him and some of his clients, front offices have figured out that the presence of aging vets on long-term, high AAV contracts generally makes it less likely to win championships.
Click to expand...

The other thing that makes his statement ridiculous is that the players that AA acquired mid season were all not exactly setting the world on fire at the time of the trades. They were available and available cheap to any team, for that reason. The fact that they upped their performance after arriving in Atlanta is kind of irrelevant here.
 
NYCBrave said:
His statement is just ridiculous. The only thing he's concerned about is saying things that will put his free agent players in the best position to get as much money as possible.
Click to expand...

I'm far from being a Borass defender/apologist, but at the end of the day that's his job description to the letter.

It's not his job to say things that owners, GMs, or fans like - nor should he worry about that as long as his clients are making piles of money.
 
clvclv said:
I'm far from being a Borass defender/apologist, but at the end of the day that's his job description to the letter.

It's not his job to say things that owners, GMs, or fans like - nor should he worry about that as long as his clients are making piles of money.
Click to expand...

And I get that. But it's extremely self centered and is not at all to the benefit of the sport itself. The man has no class and will do whatever it takes to benefit himself and his clients while tearing down others in the process.
 
NYCBrave said:
And I get that. But it's extremely self centered and is not at all to the benefit of the sport itself. The man has no class and will do whatever it takes to benefit himself and his clients while tearing down others in the process.
Click to expand...

Again, not something he should be held responsible for.

If he's so self-centered and not trying to benefit the sport, what should fans and teammates think of Freeman for turning down $130 million (assuming that's true)???
 
clvclv said:
Again, not something he should be held responsible for.

If he's so self-centered and not trying to benefit the sport, what should fans and teammates think of Freeman for turning down $130 million (assuming that's true)???
Click to expand...

Freeman is entitled to hold out for what his market will pay him. He doesn't need to tear down the sport in the process with outlandish statements and rightfully isn't.
 
NYCBrave said:
Freeman is entitled to hold out for what his market will pay him. He doesn't need to tear down the sport in the process with outlandish statements and rightfully isn't.
Click to expand...

At what point has Borass EVER said something that remotely "tears down the sport"?

He's an agent and his only concern is his client base - much like the Union's only concern is the players getting the most for themselves. It's the owners' and Commissioner's job to "look after the sport" - let's not confuse jobs and responsibilities here. Borass is only concerned about the players he represents - and as much as that sucks, that's exactly as it should be and people involved in running the game don't give two *hits when he opens his mouth. That's the way that should be too - it's only reporters and fans that pay attention when he rambles on.

As fans we all wish every one of them were more concerned about the greater good - but there's a point where we have to be realistic about things. It's not Freeman's job to worry about whether everyone gets treated "fairly" and whether the team wins any more than it's Borass' job - if it was, you'd think he'd have said something about Acuna and Albies being drastically underpaid rather than passing on below-market extension offers and that he'd be more concerned about keeping the band together to try to defend their Title.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
MLB just proposed basing arbitration salary on a players WAR, particularly fWAR.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021...ith-salaries-based-off-player-war-totals.html

That’s remarkable. What started out as a site for fantasy baseball nerds has been proposed as the ultimate player valuation algorithm that will directly determine player salaries.

Simply remarkable.
Click to expand...

For as much sense as it would make on the surface, there's no way that gets accepted. That should have been a talking point, but including it in a proposal seems pretty stupid.

If accepted, Austin Riley becomes a $36 million player for 2022. Even if you use his projections, he becomes a $29 million player. In what world does that happen?
 
clvclv said:
For as much sense as it would make on the surface, there's no way that gets accepted. That should have been a talking point, but including it in a proposal seems pretty stupid.

If accepted, Austin Riley becomes a $36 million player for 2022. Even if you use his projections, he becomes a $29 million player. In what world does that happen?
Click to expand...

I think you are assuming a $ per WAR figure that’s not stated.
 
clvclv said:
For as much sense as it would make on the surface, there's no way that gets accepted. That should have been a talking point, but including it in a proposal seems pretty stupid.

If accepted, Austin Riley becomes a $36 million player for 2022. Even if you use his projections, he becomes a $29 million player. In what world does that happen?
Click to expand...

What? Are they still not capping first year arb players at like 20% of market value in this proposal?
 
I'm guessing the biggest things the players want is scrapping the current QO system, and shortening the service time limits for free agency. It's kind of ridiculous that a player like Adam Duvall is still under arbitration. Perhaps they'll propose an age limit, like 28, to help the late-bloomers.
 
thewupk said:
What? Are they still not capping first year arb players at like 20% of market value in this proposal?
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I see mention of any $/WAR figures, but the point I found fascinating was the proposed usage of a public player valuation to determine salary by MLB.

That's a far cry from dum dums on forums saying things like "these stats mean nothing, I know a guy is good because he has 100 RBI".
 
Enscheff said:
Nowhere did I see mention of any $/WAR figures, but the point I found fascinating was the proposed usage of a public player valuation to determine salary by MLB.

That's a far cry from dum dums on forums saying things like "these stats mean nothing, I know a guy is good because he has 100 RBI".
Click to expand...

Agreed. Teams are usually playing players based on some form of WAR. Makes sense that arbitration should somewhat follow that model.

I doubt this ever gets approved. But if it did. I would assume the $/WAR figure that arbitration is based on would be that seasons market rate. Hearings are usually in the first of February. So they simply would need to figure out what teams paid per WAR on the market and go from there.

Still, arbitration has generally followed a 20/30/60 model and I doubt that sliding scale is going to be abandoned if arbitration stays.
 
thewupk said:
Agreed. Teams are usually playing players based on some form of WAR. Makes sense that arbitration should somewhat follow that model.

I doubt this ever gets approved. But if it did. I would assume the $/WAR figure that arbitration is based on would be that seasons market rate. Hearings are usually in the first of February. So they simply would need to figure out what teams paid per WAR on the market and go from there.

Still, arbitration has generally followed a 20/30/60 model and I doubt that sliding scale is going to be abandoned if arbitration stays.
Click to expand...

That's ONE of the problems with the idea IMO. Are the players really willing to die on a hill that supports arb-eligible players being paid based on even a percentage of market-based WAR values?

Not just no, but *ell no. Are the young players going to be willing to take a huge pay CUT in their second or third time through arbitration after having had a breakthrough 2-3 win season their first time through only to be replaced by the hotshot prospect that was only a year or two behind them that got promoted? Or a veteran free-agent that was signed now that the team has emerged from its rebuild mode? Of course not.

If owners were to agree to some version of this, it would make sense for them to say "OK, we'll do it that way - but only if you waive rules surrounding guaranteed contracts." No more rules that say players can't be given pay cuts - you wanted pay to be entirely based on performance, and that kid who was our #3 or #4 SP or starting CF last season when we were still rebuilding is now in the pen or on the bench since we signed Greinke and Marte. This would open the door to doing away with ALL long-term contracts - including those for free-agents who have been around for years and years. No reason for owners and GMs to offer 5-10 year contracts, just offer 2-3 year deals at high AAVs when players are still in their primes and revisit what they're worth when the player is another year or two older.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing when you're in the position the Braves are with Freeman, but basing salaries on performance will NEVER be good for the vast majority of players - and I mean VAST.
 
thewupk said:
What? Are they still not capping first year arb players at like 20% of market value in this proposal?
Click to expand...

Haven't had a chance to read all the way through it yet, but I'm assuming not - not sure when the last time we saw something proposed from the players' side was that actually made sense for anyone other than the select few best players. They sell it to the rest of them by saying "Look at what Freddie Freeman would have made if this would have been in place when HE played?" They conveniently leave out the fact that 99 of 100 player voters don't have a chance in *ell of putting up the kind of numbers Freeman has.
 
Last edited:
thewupk said:
Still, arbitration has generally followed a 20/30/60 model and I doubt that sliding scale is going to be abandoned if arbitration stays.
Click to expand...

As I understand the players side, their desire is to get money to more players at earlier ages, so those lower salaries for younger players may very well go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top