Master Index of Archived Threads


Collective Bargaining Agreement

Yancy Street Gang Oct 21 2006 01:42 PM

This looks like good news: ]Negotiators meet into evening October 20, 2006 NEW YORK (AP) -- Lawyers for baseball players and owners met into Friday evening as they pushed to reach a labor deal. Player agents and management officials have said all week that the sides were closing in on an agreement. The current contract expires Dec. 19, and the negotiations have been held without public acrimony for the first time in more than three decades. Owners and players agreed to a contract in August 2002 hours before players were set to strike. It was the first time since 1970 that players and owners reached a new collective bargaining agreement without a work stoppage.

MFS62 Oct 21 2006 06:05 PM

One of the clauses in the new agreement will be the elimination of losing draft picks when signing a free agent. Thoughts? Later

Nymr83 Oct 22 2006 12:43 AM

i can see why the players want that in there, they think a team will pay more if they dont lose a first round pick. personally i care more about competitive balance than i do about the rich players getting a few more dollars so i don't like it. a possible solution would be to grant the teams LOSING these players a supplemental pick between the 1st and 2nd rounds without taking a pick away from anyone.

Edgy DC Oct 22 2006 12:45 AM

Personally, I think the draft should be abolished.

Iubitul Oct 22 2006 06:45 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/464202p-390624c.html ]Players, owners set to reveal a new deal Baseball owners and players have reached a tentative agreement on a new labor deal that is expected to be announced during the World Series, as the Daily News first reported last Sunday. The deal, when completed, will give baseball 16 straight years of labor peace, a far cry from the old days of unrest, when a strike wiped out the end of the 1994 season, including the World Series, and wasn't settled until the eve of Opening Day 1995. Commissioner Bud Selig is expected to announce the new deal when the Series moves to St. Louis this week. The current agreement was reworked twice last year to strengthen baseball's drug-testing policy.

Nymr83 Oct 22 2006 11:11 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Personally, I think the draft should be abolished. so that the small market teams not only cant sign the big players, but cant draft the big prospects? what should really happen is all the international guys should be tossed into the draft too and there should be slotted salaries like the NBA has so that everyone drafts for talent not "signability"

Yancy Street Gang Oct 22 2006 11:19 AM

I agree with Namor. There should be more draft, not less.

Iubitul Oct 22 2006 11:44 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ="Edgy DC"]Personally, I think the draft should be abolished. so that the small market teams not only cant sign the big players, but cant draft the big prospects? what should really happen is all the international guys should be tossed into the draft too and there should be slotted salaries like the NBA has so that everyone drafts for talent not "signability" Oh man - this is too good of a suggestion to actually happen...

Edgy DC Oct 22 2006 12:49 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ="Edgy DC"]Personally, I think the draft should be abolished. so that the small market teams not only cant sign the big players, but cant draft the big prospects? what should really happen is all the international guys should be tossed into the draft too and there should be slotted salaries like the NBA has so that everyone drafts for talent not "signability" Which would screw a whole new world of players out of the marketing leverage that is their American right to retain. I think the anti-trust exemption should be abolished also, so we don't have to continually re-write the code to artifically restore to disadvantaged teams some semblance of the competitive equality they've been unfairly denied. I think it's been persuasively argued that the draft does as much to create a floor on bonuses as to create a cap. Slotted salaries are such an un-American notion that it makes me want to cry.

Elster88 Oct 22 2006 01:17 PM

]Slotted salaries are such an un-American notion that it makes me want to cry. Of course the other extreme gives you the Yankees.

Nymr83 Oct 22 2006 01:56 PM

you cant have the yankees/mets without having someone for them to play. stop treating baseball like 30 individual businesses and start realizing that the game (and probably everyone but steinbrenner individually) is better off when they act in concert and cooperate. just look at what the NFL has accomplished. i dont want to hear about antitrust exemptions and players "rights" i have no sympathy for the "rights" of people making upwards of $200,000 or of those receiving signing bonuses larger than the annual income of people with twice their education. sports need to be treated more as a public trust, whats good for the GAME is what matters.

Willets Point Oct 22 2006 02:19 PM

Nymr, why do you hate America?

Edgy DC Oct 22 2006 03:03 PM

]you cant have the yankees/mets without having someone for them to play. I neither said nor suggested.that. ]stop treating baseball like 30 individual businesses and start realizing that the game (and probably everyone but steinbrenner individually) is better off when they act in concert and cooperate. I think history shows otherwise. I think Steinbrenner has done very well for himself in a cooperative atmosphere. ]just look at what the NFL has accomplished. The NFL doesn't interest me in the least. ]i dont want to hear about antitrust exemptions and players "rights" i have no sympathy for the "rights" of people making upwards of $200,000 or of those receiving signing bonuses larger than the annual income of people with twice their education. Then don't read. Why is the hostility with amateur prospects, a small percentage of whom will one day be milllionaires, but not with the billionaires who screw them? Who have a special right to conspire to set prices that other industries aren't allowed? Do you know that minor leaguers make less in real dollars than they did in the sixties? ]sports need to be treated more as a public trust, whats good for the GAME is what matters. Government is not about to succeed in taking over a multi-billion dollar industry, but you're welcome to lobby governments to launch a parallel league. You've suggested otherwise. And what is so threatening the "GAME" about amateurs having an honest right to negotiate?

Nymr83 Oct 22 2006 06:58 PM

Willets Point wrote: Nymr, why do you hate America? i love America, so instead of taking away baseball's antitrust exemption why don't we take away those communist antitrust laws along with the minimum wage and any other labor laws you can think of as for baseball, if the players should be free to bargain then so should the owners, they should be free to go to Argentina or wherever and sign a guy to play for $6.50 an hour (or whatever the federal minimum wage is now.)

Elster88 Oct 22 2006 07:06 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ="Edgy DC"]Personally, I think the draft should be abolished. so that the small market teams not only cant sign the big players, but cant draft the big prospects? what should really happen is all the international guys should be tossed into the draft too and there should be slotted salaries like the NBA has so that everyone drafts for talent not "signability" Nymr and I are rarely in agreement. We are here especially on the international players. Does anyone really think it's fair that only about 5 teams have a shot at signing that Japanese pitcher who's a hot item? Edgy, I'm looking at you.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 22 2006 07:08 PM

Actually, I think both Edgy and Namor make good points. Allowing a draft pick to only negotiate with one team is unfair. But so is allowing big market teams to hoard all of the best young talent. So, here's what I'd do if I was the absolute dictator of baseball: I'd revise the draft so that each player can be drafted by up to three teams, and he'd be free to negotiate with the all three teams and he could strike the best deal that he can. If a player is only drafted by one or two teams, then he'd be free to negotiate with everyone.

Nymr83 Oct 22 2006 07:17 PM

i dont think i'm crazy about that idea. slotted salaries would solve the problem, just make them based on previous years signings. the international guys piss me off more than anything. i'm not even talking about the guys who put in 7 years in the japanese league but the 17 year old kids in south america who get 5 million dollars while the american kids go into the draft. an international draft would benefit americans (and i dont give a rats ass about anyone else, nor should any american legislature passing laws dealing with baseball)

Edgy DC Oct 22 2006 09:17 PM

="Elster88"] ="Nymr83"] ="Edgy DC"]Personally, I think the draft should be abolished. so that the small market teams not only cant sign the big players, but cant draft the big prospects? what should really happen is all the international guys should be tossed into the draft too and there should be slotted salaries like the NBA has so that everyone drafts for talent not "signability" Nymr and I are rarely in agreement. We are here especially on the international players. Does anyone really think it's fair that only about 5 teams have a shot at signing that Japanese pitcher who's a hot item? Edgy, I'm looking at you. No, but that unfairness is an issue that shouldn't be solved by creating new unfair rules. The unfairness is a byproduct of rules that lock teams into their markets, long after market disparitties have become much more powerful than they were before. In a fair marketplace, the answer would be for franchises to flood into the large markets, giving them a fair crack at the Yankees/Mets/RedSox/Dodgers revenue streams, and lessening the advantage over teams that are remain in the smaller markets. That's the way it works in Japanese baseball, and British football. The issue isn't that players have rights. And the answer shouldn't be to compromise or deny them through unfair uncompetitive practices that would be deemed illegal in other sectors. It should be to liberalize expansion and franchise movement restrictions. It might be messy for the first ten years, as alphabet soup franchises and vagabond franchises sprout up and move about trying to find roots, but probably not so much, and it would be a light enough penance. The New York area could support six teams,. probably quite easily.

Edgy DC Oct 22 2006 09:23 PM

Nymr83 wrote: i'm not even talking about the guys who put in 7 years in the japanese league but the 17 year old kids in south america who get 5 million dollars while the american kids go into the draft. I don't know why you care a bit, especially as this has never happened. And your patriotism falls short when what you're proposing is a further infringement on the rights of American ballplayers.

Frayed Knot Oct 22 2006 10:41 PM

Coupla things: * MLB wants to eliminate tying draft picks to FA rules so it can 'de-link' the draft from coming under the scrutiny of the player's association. As long as picks are tied in somehow to player compensation, the PA gets a say in how the draft is conducted. * Bonus money for most picks are already subject to some sort of "slotting" arrangements. There's nothing mandatory and exceptions are made but few picks are able to determine their draft positions. * Those favoring the inclusion of Int'l players in the amateur draft often do so in the name of smaller-market teams, but it's those same SM-teams who are quite adamant about not wanting your "help". They see those undraftable territories as prime real estate that can be ripe for a team with a bit of entreprenurial know-how. With a draft, there'd be no incentive to go into those countries, beat the bushes for un-tapped talent, and build acadamies to teach them if there is then only a 1-in-30 chance of getting these players you uncover. Sure, there are teams who will miss out on the occasional high-ticket Int'l player, but the smaller teams are willing to pass on the supposed quality (most haven't worked anyway) in favor of getting the quantity. Many think that including Puerto Rico in the draft (late '80s) helped turn off the flow of talent from that island for similar reasons

Edgy DC Oct 22 2006 10:55 PM

Nymr83 wrote: and i dont give a rats ass about anyone else, nor should any american legislature passing laws dealing with baseball You actually want Congress to institute new laws regarding the baseball draft and player salaries?

metsmarathon Oct 22 2006 11:00 PM

wouldn't it be cool if teams could buy draft picks? like, if team A pays double what team B pays, then team A gets twice as many picks. and then that money gets spread equitably amongst the draftees. wouldn't that be cool? yeah, its been a long day, and i think my brain is starting to hallucinate.

Nymr83 Oct 22 2006 11:35 PM

Edgy DC wrote: ="Nymr83"]and i dont give a rats ass about anyone else, nor should any american legislature passing laws dealing with baseball You actually want Congress to institute new laws regarding the baseball draft and player salaries? no, i really meant with regards to reviewing the old ones, Congress has no reason to care what baseball does or doesn't do to the international free agents.

Edgy DC Oct 22 2006 11:57 PM

This discussion is full of red herrings.

duan Oct 23 2006 07:44 AM

"Does anyone really think it's fair that only about 5 teams have a shot at signing that Japanese pitcher who's a hot item? Edgy, I'm looking at you." Maybe the Japanese pitcher does. Seriously I can't understand how people can be in favour of things like salary caps et al that only serve to increase the profit margin for the members of a non-meritocratic** bunch of people called baseball owners. The reality is, people who play major league baseball are EXTREMELY talented being in the very top echelon of their profession they should be able to extract market rates for their talent. There's a LONG standing argument that 'the clubs develop players etc ...' but that's covered by the 6 years of NON MARKET value service that they give to the club. I'd argue that THAT in itself is way too much, but that's me. In football, players sign contracts, if they're over 23 and the contract's over, it's over and they're free to do whatever they like. If they're 23 or under they can move to whomever they like but the club whom they are with will get a level of compensation (based on development time at club and market value), but only if that club has offered them another contract at the same or greater salary. Similarly clubs have no right to 'trade' a player. Player's can be transferred but only with their agreement. Now, players generally feel that if a club doesn't want you, you're better to move on, but if you want to stay and fight for your place that's up to you. I'm not saying it's perfect, indeed the problems that agents The reality is, players are people earning a living, sure they're highly paid, but they're just like you and me in lots of ways. ** My point here is this, owners are given a guaranteed revenue stream from MLB just for being owners. As has been shown by (in it's most extreme case) Florida this year, the Pirates and most d is possible to invest very little money in the 'on-field product', receive that money and have no 'penalty for it'. In other words there's no punishment for your team performing badly and you can simply continue to cash the cheques. This is the BIG problem with the absence of promotion/relegation.

Iubitul Oct 23 2006 09:45 AM

The way things are set up regarding international players, the rich only get richer. 1. International players should have to apply for the draft - this system would be the most equitable way to insure that the best players don't continually go to the wealthiest teams. Posting to try to sign a Japanese league semi-free agent will stop with this agreement. I stopped trusting this closed bid process since the Ichiro signing. 2. Each draft position should have a salary/bonus slot to be set by the previous years signings, and should go up at an agreed rate each year.

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 09:56 AM

Agreed by whom? This is shocking. The rich getting richer? They're all rich. Richer than any of us can believe. And we're supposed to support protecting them from players wanting to negotiate a fair price for their skills?

duan Oct 23 2006 10:07 AM

Iubitul wrote: The way things are set up regarding international players, the rich only get richer. 1. International players should have to apply for the draft - this system would be the most equitable way to insure that the best players don't continually go to the wealthiest teams. Posting to try to sign a Japanese league semi-free agent will stop with this agreement. I stopped trusting this closed bid process since the Ichiro signing. 2. Each draft position should have a salary/bonus slot to be set by the previous years signings, and should go up at an agreed rate each year. Ok, posting is nothing to do with Major League Baseball, but to do with how the Japanese system works. They're basically offering a tender to buy out the rights that the japanese club has to the player for the next X years. How can you decide that this isn't fair, but that forcing them to accept below market value for their services is. At what point do people not get, that this is a system [the mlb system] set up for the benefit of 30 people or oganisations, who are in effect an cartel based oligarchy designed to make money for themselves.

Johnny Dickshot Oct 23 2006 10:08 AM

The draft wasn't set up to assure an equitable distribution of talent, it was implemented by owners who couldn't trust themselves not to bankrupt one another chasing talent in an actual free market. It's ridiculously unfair to players and only stands to become more so by implementing rigid caps. It's only a matter of time before an agent representing an amateur player has the stones to challenge the legality of the draft. It would bring the whole shebang crashing down. Nobody is stopping owners from sharing their own revenues more equitably: It's just that they'd prefer to make it work economically on the backs of their employees.

Vic Sage Oct 23 2006 10:15 AM

edgy, duan, dickshot... ditto. i hope my insight has been useful.

Iubitul Oct 23 2006 10:43 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Agreed by whom? This is shocking. The rich getting richer? They're all rich. Richer than any of us can believe. And we're supposed to support protecting them from players wanting to negotiate a fair price for their skills? I'm talking about baseball talent-wise, not money-wise.

Iubitul Oct 23 2006 10:45 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: The draft wasn't set up to assure an equitable distribution of talent, it was implemented by owners who couldn't trust themselves not to bankrupt one another chasing talent in an actual free market. It's ridiculously unfair to players and only stands to become more so by implementing rigid caps. So the system that allowed teams like the Cardinals to stock up on talent through numerous minor league teams is more fair?

Valadius Oct 23 2006 10:50 AM

Eliminating draft pick compensation when you lose a free agent? Thank GOD we got David Wright before they did that!

Johnny Dickshot Oct 23 2006 10:54 AM

iubit-- They don't have anything to do with one another.

Iubitul Oct 23 2006 11:02 AM

I always thought they went hand in hand - if the draft is eliminated, what's to stop the Yankees from hording most of the top amature talent?

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 11:21 AM

The Rule V draft, liberating players stuck in the minor leagues, among other things. The draft doesn't stop the Yankees from hording the most talent. The Yankees haven't been about hording minor-league talent since they fired George Weiss in 1960. Even in those pre-draft days, Weiss didn't outspend the other teams, but actually lowballed amateur prospects by telling them they'd get their due when they made the big-league club and collected post-seaosn money. Naturally few ever saw that money. The Cardinals building a broad minor-league base was fair, because it they were rewarded for Branch Rickey's initiative, not for Annie-Busch having a bigger guaranteed revenue stream. The real scandal of that era (besides, you know, institutional racism, another byproduct of anti-competitive behavior) was Rickey abusing prospects by taking advantage of their ignorance and signing hordes of them to conditional contracts and then sending the non-starters home without a penny for bus fare.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 23 2006 11:25 AM

Let's rephrase the question then: If the draft were to go away, what's to stop the Yankees from hoarding minor league talent over the next decade? If a young kid just out of high school is being courted by the Brewers and the Yankees, who is he going to choose?

duan Oct 23 2006 11:32 AM

well, because most of the "top amateur talent" would rather play in the majors then faff about at the columbus clippers; you could legitmately argue that someone may be able to get 26/27 man roster through constructive dl'ing, but baseball has a fairly aggressive set of roster rules to stop the hoarding of talent. but go back to my central premise; who deserves to make money out of their talent; the players or the owners?

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 11:34 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 23 2006 11:36 AM

Among other things, a prospect may realize the Yankees are hording him into a talent pool where they are set and invested at his position for ten years. That's part of how it used to work. This may be surprising, but sometimes, despite all their revenue, the Yankees make the wrong choices. The real issue is the Yankees (and Mets) having protected access to all that revenue. And as long as that persists, nothing about the draft has stopped the Yankees. The problem being "solved" at the players' expense is so sad that it makes me want to holler. Talk about the rich getting richer, who the fuck are you --- be you the Yankees, Padres, or Hanshin Carp --- to draft exclusive rights to my services? Look around, how well has the draft done so far in protecting teams from big-market dominance?

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 11:36 AM

duan not only beat me to the punch, but he used the phrase "faff about."

Frayed Knot Oct 23 2006 11:48 AM

]If the draft were to go away, what's to stop the Yankees from hoarding minor league talent over the next decade? One answer would be to look at the present distribution of all this un-draftable int'l talent and see if it's concentrated onto a select few teams. I think it's clear that that's not at all the case. Even the small handful of high-priced talent that came fully matured and ready-made from Japan or Cuba has have spotty track records at best and, as I said before, the smaller revenue clubs are quite willing to pass up those big budget items and would prefer to do without the "help" being offered them in the form of internationalizing the draft.

Nymr83 Oct 23 2006 01:09 PM

]but go back to my central premise; who deserves to make money out of their talent; the players or the owners? the owners deserve a large amount of that money, they set up and run a league without which the players "talent" is meaningless (except maybe to impress people at the school yard) there are thousands of "talented" professional baseball players in united states, but what separates them (in terms of their earning power) from someone talented at archery or swimming? the demand that the owners through their marketing have created. the 500th most talented baseball player in the country probably makes over $200,000. without the owners these "talented" players would be working in the same place where the 500th most talented archer works- the supermarket.

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 01:15 PM

Players deserve to make exactly as much money as they are able to fairly negotiate in an open marketplace.

Nymr83 Oct 23 2006 01:18 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Players deserve to make exactly as much money as they are able to fairly negotiate in an open marketplace. not according to our elected representatives. oh yeah you don't have one... :)

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 01:20 PM

Your point is what? Dickshot's correct. The draft system will come smashing down soon enough.

MFS62 Oct 23 2006 01:24 PM

Hasn't the NFL Draft been upheld in the courts, most recently from a challenge by that running back from Ohio State? But I'm not sure if baseball's exemption from anti-trust laws would make a difference. Later

Iubitul Oct 23 2006 02:01 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that eliminating the draft would be a bad thing?

Yancy Street Gang Oct 23 2006 02:02 PM

No.

Valadius Oct 23 2006 02:03 PM

Certainly not.

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 02:18 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 23 2006 02:21 PM

Obviously not, but the case that the Yankees would further dominate the market doesn't hold up. Nor is it worth denying young men their rights. The most amazing assertion in this thread is the notion that using anti-trust legislation to keep the industry from price-fixing is Communist. Sherman (the author of the original legislation) was freaking anti-Communitst firebrand.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 23 2006 02:19 PM

That's why I like my idea of letting players be drafted by more than one team. (Page 1 of this thread.)

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 02:24 PM

The second most amazing assertion is the notion that owners are somehow denied leverage in negotiating with players from "Argentina or wherever," that owners aren't "free to bargain."

Nymr83 Oct 23 2006 04:18 PM

Edgy DC wrote: The second most amazing assertion is the notion that owners are somehow denied leverage in negotiating with players from "Argentina or wherever," that owners aren't "free to bargain." you're telling me there'd be nothing stopping an owner from paying a guy minimum wage to play major league baseball? oh, and while we're at it, the minimum wage laws stifle the free market as well. so basically you only favor regulation when that regulation helps labor?

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 04:28 PM

I haven't opined on minimum wage law so stop making things up. I'm telling you exactly what I'm telling you. Last I checked, first year players made $850 a month. Do you really think the difference between that and minimum wage* is what's at issue here? Or are we just going back and forth on another red herring? *MJ knows what that is.

Nymr83 Oct 23 2006 06:07 PM

the guys making $850 a month are probably 18 year olds in short-season ball. i didnt make that when i had a summer job at 18, did you? and do you really think abolishing the draft would change things for guys that low on the totem pole? i don't.

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 06:43 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 23 2006 06:57 PM

Nymr83 wrote: the guys making $850 a month are probably 18 year olds in short-season ball. i didnt make that when i had a summer job at 18, did you? I don't really care. What are you on about? Nymr83 wrote: and do you really think abolishing the draft would change things for guys that low on the totem pole? i don't. It'd change bonuses, which currently are only large for the players in the first two rounds, and shrink rapidly. Now please answer a few questions from earlier in the thread. Or drop it. This is really unpleasant with you making up facts and misdirecting the conversation.

Nymr83 Oct 23 2006 06:57 PM

i don't think it would change anything for the guys you were just reffering to, the bottom of the ladder barely drafted guys. if the whole league passed on you for 30 rounds what makes you think they are chomping at the bit to offer you more than whatever their organization's "standard rate" is? what question specifically would you like answered? i, like mostly everyone else, will choose to answer what i feel like answering when i see a ton of questions. pose (or copy+paste) one or two that you'd like answered

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 07:15 PM

Questions un-answered: Why is the hostility with amateur prospects, a small percentage of whom will one day be milllionaires, but not with the billionaires who screw them? Who have a special right to conspire to set prices that other industries aren't allowed? Do you know that minor leaguers make less in real dollars than they did in the sixties? And what is so threatening the "GAME" about amateurs having an honest right to negotiate? Your point is what? What are you on about? But really what should make me give up and walk away is your choosing to make things up ($5-million bonuses to foreign amateurs, calling the Sherman Antitrust Law Communist) to suit your predisposition. In addition to picking and choosing which questions are worth answering, you're picking and choosing facts, and I'm still not sure what your issue is.

Nymr83 Oct 23 2006 07:27 PM

="Edgy DC"]Questions un-answered: Why is the hostility with amateur prospects, a small percentage of whom will one day be milllionaires, but not with the billionaires who screw them? Who have a special right to conspire to set prices that other industries aren't allowed? i'm somewhat 'hostile' to antitrust law in general, thats probably why i see exceptions to it as a good thing, but beyond that my hostility in the baseball context is to anything bad for the GAME, because i care about the GAME not the business Do you know that minor leaguers make less in real dollars than they did in the sixties? perhaps thats because the major leaguers make a ton more and the market had to adjust somewhere? And what is so threatening the "GAME" about amateurs having an honest right to negotiate? the teams with more revenue getting better players because of that revenue is anti-competittive (and i'm talking about competition in the game not competititon in business/labor) Your point is what? not sure what this was in regard too What are you on about? not sure what you mean by this or what its about But really what should make me give up and walk away is your choosing to make things up ($5-million bonuses to foreign amateurs, calling the Sherman Antitrust Law Communist) to suit your predisposition. In addition to picking and choosing which questions are worth answering, you're picking and choosing facts, and I'm still not sure what your issue is. i'll go look for a large signing bonus to a foreign amateur, the $5 million figure was made up but i'm sure there have been huge ones. the communist comment was because antitrust laws inherently restrict the market, i wasnt being completely serious there

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 08:21 PM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Oct 23 2006 11:24 PM

No, the cabals working in concert that the laws were aimed at restrict the market. Every proposal you've made --- drafting foreigners, price fixing on salaries, government takeover a multi-billion dollar industry --- resticts the market. Just... just forget it.

Nymr83 Oct 23 2006 08:32 PM

Edgy DC wrote: No, the cabals working in concert that the laws were aimed at restrict the market. labor unions restrict the market just as much, but i sense no hostility to them...

Edgy DC Oct 23 2006 09:13 PM

Try harder to forget it.

MFS62 Oct 25 2006 08:31 AM

Looks like the draft pick compensation for signing free agents hasn't been eliminated, just modified. From today's Daily News: ]In terms of draft-pick compensation for free agents lost, there will no longer be "Type C" free agents and the top 20% - instead of the top 30% - of available players will be classified as "Type A" while the next 30% will be labeled "Type B." A team that loses a "Type A" player will continue to get a draft pick directly from the team that signs him, in addition to a supplemental or "sandwich" pick (a pick between rounds). A team that loses a "Type B" free agent, however, will get only a "sandwich" pick, meaning the team that signs him does not have to give up a pick. Later

Yancy Street Gang Oct 25 2006 08:41 AM

This is from an article by Claire Smith in The Philadelphia Inquirer: ="Claire Smith"]One of the more notable changes involved free agency, with the elimination of various signing deadlines, including the one that prohibited teams from talking to former-players-turned-free-agents until May 1. The minimum salary will increase from $327,000 this year to $380,000 next season. Among the new deal's declarations: no "contraction" (elimination of teams) during the term of the agreement. Also, the home-field advantage for the World Series will still be awarded to the league that wins the All-Star Game. So May 1 is eliminated? How about January 8? Do the changes apply to this current offseason, or does it kick in after the 2007 season. (I'm guessing the latter.) And if those dates are eliminated, what does it mean?

metsmarathon Oct 25 2006 09:02 AM

does that mean that there's no longer any restriction on talking to players turned free agents, or that there's no longer any way to bring back a player turned free agent for the following season? i'm sure it can;t be the latter, but for the former, what then is the point of offering arbitration? or did that somehow go away as well? actually, wait.. did they abolish the whole draft compensation thing? if so, what does that do to the free agent arbitration thing? clearly, there's just not enough meat in that clipping, and i'm way too easily confused.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 25 2006 09:27 AM

Yes, those paragraphs from Claire Smith's article raise more questions than they answer. We'll have to find a more comprehensive account of the new agreement.

Edgy DC Oct 25 2006 09:43 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 25 2006 10:05 AM

I'd love there to be an easier way to bring back a fading yet still productive player --- Piazza of Floyd, for instance --- that could still have a value to the team but clearly deserves more than a 20% pay cut.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 25 2006 09:47 AM

I agree. I hope that the elimination of May 1 hints at other changes that will make that possible.

Frayed Knot Oct 25 2006 09:48 AM

Well cutting him loose and then re-signing him on the open market is a way to do that and this agreement appears to make doing that easier by eliminating the cut-off point where teams not offering arbitration could no longer talk to their former player. The 20% rule would still remain (I presume) for teams retaining their own guy w/o ever exposing him to outside bidding.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 25 2006 09:49 AM

So if May 1 is eliminated, then January 8 probably is, too. Unless I'm overlooking something, the key thing about January 8 was that if you didn't offer arbitration by then, you'd lose rights until May 1.

Iubitul Oct 25 2006 09:49 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Yes, those paragraphs from Claire Smith's article raise more questions than they answer. We'll have to find a more comprehensive account of the new agreement. [url=http://blogs.nydailynews.com/mets/archives/2006/10/new_labor_deal.php]Adam Rubin's Blog[/url] to the rescue: ]Summary of MLBPA-Major League Baseball Labor Agreement Term 1. Five-year labor contract. 2. Termination date - December 11, 2011. Revenue Sharing 1. Net transfer of revenue sharing plan will be the same as the current plan ($326 million in 2006). Net transfer amounts will continue to grow with revenue and changes in disparity. 2. Marginal tax rates for all recipients are reduced significantly through the use of a new central fund redistribution mechanism. Rates reduced to 31% from 40% (high revenue Clubs) and 48% (low revenue Clubs) under old agreement. 3. All Clubs face the same marginal rate for first time. 4. Commissioner’s Discretionary Fund will continue at $10 million per year, with cap of $3 million per Club per year. 5. Provision requiring revenue sharing recipients to spend receipts to improve on-field performance retained with modifications. Competitive Balance Tax 1. Competitive Balance Tax structure from 2002 agreement is continued. 2. Rates will continue at 22 ½ % for Clubs over the threshold the first time, 30% for Clubs over the threshold the second time and 40% for Clubs over threshold the third time. 3. Clubs that paid 40% in 2006 will face 40% rate in 2007. 4. Thresholds reset to $148 million in 2007, $155 million in 2008, $162 million in 2009, $170 million in 2010 and $178 million in 2011. The Debt Service Rule 1. The Debt Service Rule from 2002 agreement retained with modifications. Amateur Draft 1. Clubs that fail to sign first or second round draft pick will receive the same pick in the subsequent draft as compensation. Club that fails to sign a third round pick will receive a sandwich pick between rounds three and four in the subsequent draft as compensation. 2. Period of time before a Player must be protected from the Rule 5 Draft is changed from three or four years from first minor league season to four or five years from year of signing. 3. Signing deadline of August 15 for draft picks other than college seniors. Draft Choice Compensation 1. Type C free agents eliminated in 2006 2. Also in 2006, compensation for type B players becomes indirect (sandwich pick) as opposed to direct compensation from signing Club. 3. Effective 2007, Type A players limited to top 20 percent of each position (down from 30 percent) and Type B players become 21 percent – 40 percent at each position (rather than 31 percent - 50 percent). 4. Salary arbitration offer and acceptance dates move to December 1 and December 7. Benefit Plan 1. Players Benefit Plan continued with maximum allowable benefit under IRS rules. 2. $154.5 million average annual contribution. 3. Improved benefits for some retired players. Minimum Salary 1. Major League: $380,000 in 2007, $390,000 in 2008 and $400,000 in 2009, COLA in 2011. 2. Minor League: $60,000 in 2007, $62,500 in 2008, $65,000 in 2009. 3. New minimum for first time roster players of 50% of minor league minimum. 4. Maximum cut rule applicable to split contracts reduced to 60% from 80%. Free Agency 1. Eliminate December 7, December 19, January 8 and May 1 deadlines for free agents. 2. Tender Date – December 12 3. Eliminate right to demand a trade for all new multi-year contracts. Other 1. Home-field advantage in World Series to League that wins the All-Star Game. 2. Drug program continues. 3. Settlement of 40 plus grievances and disputes. 4. No contraction during term of agreement.

Frayed Knot Oct 25 2006 10:04 AM

Just looking at the draft part of things: ]1. Clubs that fail to sign first or second round draft pick will receive the same pick in the subsequent draft as compensation. Club that fails to sign a third round pick will receive a sandwich pick between rounds three and four in the subsequent draft as compensation. This has been stepped up. Prior, teams failing to sign a 1st round pick were "compensated" by being given a supplemental pick in the following year's draft; ie. if the #10 pick chooses a college scholarship the drafting team would only get a 30-something pick to make up for it the next year. Now, it seems like you'd grab the 10th pick the following year - I assume in addition to whoever already has that pick (picks 10 & 10A?). Makes it easier for teams to walk away from a pick making high demands. ]2. Period of time before a Player must be protected from the Rule 5 Draft is changed from three or four years from first minor league season to four or five years from year of signing. Were teams really complaining that they were losing too many guys via 'Rule 5' drafts? I guess this makes 40-man roster mgmt easier. ]3. Signing deadline of August 15 for draft picks other than college seniors. Sounds like this eliminates all "Draft & Follow" guys and sets a concrete date for the end of eligibility instead of doing the dance where it stopped when said student attended his first day of classes.

Edgy DC Oct 25 2006 10:09 AM

Most of those (obviously, since FK culled them from the section labeled "Amateur Draft") have less to do with the league's relationship to big league players and more to do with them having more control over amateur and minor-league players.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 25 2006 10:13 AM

]Free Agency 1. Eliminate December 7, December 19, January 8 and May 1 deadlines for free agents. 2. Tender Date – December 12 3. Eliminate right to demand a trade for all new multi-year contracts. This stuff is interesting too. I take it that number 3 means that if Carlos Delgado had signed his contract under these terms, he wouldn't currently have the right to demand a trade this winter. I'm still not clear on what this means for a departing free agent. Let's take Cliff Floyd for example. If there's no deadline by which the Mets would have to offer him arbitration, does this mean that they'd be entitled to compensation anyway? I know the Mets didn't get compensated for Piazza because they didn't want to risk him accepting arbitration. And if they don't offer him arbitration, they can still resign him. Is the 20% maximim pay cut only applicable for players who can go to arbitration? In other words, can the Mets sign Floyd to an $800,000 contract, and if so, when can they do it and how could they make it happen? (I'm not saying he would sign for that; this is just a hypothetical example.)

Johnny Dickshot Oct 25 2006 10:22 AM

Good to see the compensation schedule for Free Agents become more exclusive. In the past teams were overcompensated for losing a fringe guy to a free agent deal with another club, and/or undercompensated for losing a good one, and/or too willing to collect the booty for parting with a guy they had no intention of keeping anyway.

Centerfield Oct 25 2006 10:24 AM

I had the same questions as Yancy.

Frayed Knot Oct 25 2006 10:46 AM

I'd have to be reminded about what all those dates were for. In the meantime, [url=http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/news/262720.html]Baseball America[/url] gives a more complete (and, of course, better written) over-view of the changes to the draft portion of the agreement. Among questions we were discussing here earlier: - Clubs have for years wanted a system of prescribed, slotted bonuses for every high pick but learned early in the negotiations that the union would not accept it, so instead focused on stronger compensation rules. - Several ideas that have been discussed over the years, such as the trading of draft picks and an either supplemental or combined draft of all players worldwide, were not adopted. Also, the draft will continue to be held in June rather than be moved to July.

Nymr83 Oct 25 2006 11:06 AM

Edgy DC wrote: I'd love there to be an easier way to bring back a fading yet still productive player --- Piazza of Floyd, for instance --- that could still have a value to the team but clearly deserves more than a 20% pay cut. ]One of the more notable changes involved free agency, with the elimination of various signing deadlines, including the one that prohibited teams from talking to former-players-turned-free-agents until May 1. this is a positive change for sure, the deadline, and the the rule that you cant talk to a guy who you didnt offer arbitration, were both probably designed to protect salaries (you'd better offer arbtration or you wont be able to sign him at all!) but in recent years they seem to have had the effect of seperating fading veterans from their adoring fans. you can't blame the owners- they dont want to risk paying 80% of a huge salary to someone who is clearly no longer worth it, and you can't blame the players- they want to give the market one more (perhaps last) shot. that the Mets couldnt negotiate with Piazza last offseason benefits neither the players, the owners, or the fans, so why would anyone want to keep the rule? also why do they want to move the draft to July? that would (potentially) spell the death of short-season leagues like the NY-Penn league that are mostly stocked with recent draftees. Are the Cyclone not profittable enough?

Nymr83 Oct 25 2006 11:11 AM

now THIS is a bad idea: (fromthat same BA article) ]Teams that fail to sign a first-round pick no longer receive an extra pick after the first round as compensation, but instead a virtually identical pick the following year; for example, a team that fails to sign the No. 5 pick one year will receive the No. 6 pick the next, rather than one in the 30s or 40s. The same compensation also now exists for unsigned second-round picks, while a team that fails to sign a third-round pick will receive a sandwich pick between the third and fourth rounds. does this take effect this year or next: ? ]The major league portion of the Rule 5 draft will be affected by giving teams one extra year to protect players from it. Rather than teams being allowed three years (for players signed at age 19 or older) or four years (for players 18 and younger) before leaving them off the 40-man roster subjects them to the Rule 5 draft, those periods have been lengthened to four and five. Ownership considered this a significant boost in their efforts to operate their minor league systems more effectively. not sure what effect this will have other than letting you wait a little longer before you give up on a formerly well regarded prospect gone bad.

Frayed Knot Oct 25 2006 03:28 PM

"does this take effect this year or next: ?" Starting with the next draft. And those 'replacement for unsigned picks' rules already existed. They're just changed and expanded somewhat. "not sure what effect this [Rule 5 changes] will have other than letting you wait a little longer before you give up on a formerly well regarded prospect gone bad." It doesn't have anything to do with "giving up" on players. What it does is allow teams an extra year before they have to protect players by putting them on the 40-man. In the long run it'll probably make fewer 'Rule 5' players available, although the ones who are might be closer to ready and more likely to be picked.

metsmarathon Oct 25 2006 03:38 PM

Nymr83 wrote: now THIS is a bad idea: (fromthat same BA article) ]Teams that fail to sign a first-round pick no longer receive an extra pick after the first round as compensation, but instead a virtually identical pick the following year; for example, a team that fails to sign the No. 5 pick one year will receive the No. 6 pick the next, rather than one in the 30s or 40s. The same compensation also now exists for unsigned second-round picks, while a team that fails to sign a third-round pick will receive a sandwich pick between the third and fourth rounds. see, i like that one. i see that as giving teams more leverage to sign players in a given draft. of course, a way to game it would be that some team could conceivably keep on taking away perfectly good high draft picks from other teams, consistently fail to sign said player, and keep on getting multiple picks in the top of the draft. and then, after so many iterations, could totally clean house in a given draft by selecting 6 guys in the first round. of course, their upper levels of the farm system would be barren, but then they'd have a tremendous influx of top talent a few years later. i don't think there's a team out there that thinks long term enough to make that scenario work, but it could happen. and that this new CBA allows for such a possibility makes it so much cooler. i really don't think that's a realistic concern, mind you, and the possibility and subsequent calamity, of that happening really in no way overrides the added leverage teams would now have in being able to sign top draft picks.

metirish Oct 25 2006 03:39 PM

New deal helps Yankees. ] Players Union to Yankees: No New Taxes By MURRAY CHASS Published: October 25, 2006 ST. LOUIS In the negotiations that culminated in a new labor agreement that was announced yesterday, the union had the best interests of George Steinbrenner’s checkbook in mind. Whereas the other clubs are out to get the Yankees’ money and inhibit them from spending what is left, the union tried to help the Yankees. The union proposed that the rate schedule for the tax on payrolls above designated thresholds start over in the new five-year agreement that was announced yesterday at Busch Stadium before Game 3 of the Word Series. As a club that has exceeded the threshold and paid the tax each of the four years of the existing agreement, the Yankees pay at a rate of 40 percent. Last year they paid $34 million; this year they will pay nearly $26 million. The union wanted the Yankees to be able to go back next year to a rate of 22.5 percent, which they have not paid since 2003, the first year of the expiring agreement. Why was the union looking out for the Yankees’ welfare? The Yankees are, as everyone knows, baseball’s biggest spenders. Not only do they have the largest payroll — by far — but their expenditures force other teams to pay more than they otherwise would, both to sign free agents and to retain their own players. Yankees salaries even affect other teams in salary arbitration. The luxury tax, or competitive balance tax as it is formally known, has worked, even on the Yankees. Teams that have flirted with the tax threshold have made sure they stayed under it to avoid paying any tax. The few teams besides the Yankees that have exceeded the threshold have not strayed too far over it. The whole purpose of the tax was to restrict payrolls. The owners would have preferred a payroll cap, as other sports have, but the union always fiercely resisted it. The owners’ demand for a cap prompted the players to strike in 1994 and forced cancellation of the World Series for the first time. So the owners settled for a tax and hoped that it would have the desired effect, not holding their collective breath where the Yankees were concerned. But two years ago the Yankees surprisingly passed up signing a free agent because of what the contract would have done to their tax payment. Carlos Beltrán’s agent, Scott Boras, offered him as a free agent to the Yankees at a discount — $100 million — compared with the Mets’ $119 million offer. But the Yankees pulled out their calculator and figured out that the average annual value, on which luxury tax payrolls are based, of the Beltrán discount would be $16.67 million, but the 40 percent tax meant it would actually cost the Yankees $23.34 million. As a result, the Yankees politely declined Boras’s offer, and Beltrán signed with the Mets, helping change the culture of Mets baseball and helping take them one step from the World Series this year. All right, so he struck out with two out and the bases loaded in the ninth inning of Game 7 of the National League Championship Series. Are Mets fans going to hold that failure against him forever? • The Yankees may be the only team to pay the luxury tax this year. Payroll computations have not been completed, but the Red Sox are expected to come in just under or just over the $136.5 million threshold. Under terms of the expiring agreement, only teams that paid the tax last year were subject to the tax this year. The Yankees and Red Sox were the only teams affected. The Yankees’ payroll will finish at about $201 million, creating a tax of $25.8 million. That, in turn, would mean the Yankees’ profligate spending will have cost them $96.6 million over the life of the expiring agreement. Just as the Yankees’ tax is falling this year from last, it should continue to drop as the tax threshold rises. The threshold in the new agreement will start at $148 million next year and rise to $155 million, $162 million, $170 million and $178 million. • The Yankees’ payroll presumably will not rise to keep pace with the increasing thresholds. They won’t stop signing players for lots of money, but it is unlikely that the contracts will match the magnitude of the Alex Rodriguez-Manny Ramírez-Derek Jeter deals. This may be naïve, but the Yankees will continue to be the highest-paying team but at numbers below $200 million. Oh yes. As hard as the union tried to scale back the Yankees’ tax rate for 2007 and subsequent seasons, the clubs’ negotiators wouldn’t go for it. But Steinbrenner should at least send Donald Fehr, the union chief, a thank-you note acknowledging the union effort. Who else does anything nice these days for poor old George?

Frayed Knot Oct 25 2006 03:49 PM

] ... of course, a way to game it would be that some team could conceivably keep on taking away perfectly good high draft picks from other teams, consistently fail to sign said player, and keep on getting multiple picks in the top of the draft. and then, after so many iterations, could totally clean house in a given draft by selecting 6 guys in the first round. Nope, can't happen ... that "make-up pick" only carries for one year. So say you have a lousy year and get slotted in the 3rd pick a year after failing to sign the 7th overall pick. Sure, you'd then have both the #3 AND #7 the following year (although the #7 doesn't take one away from any team, it merely bounces everyone down the line one slot). But then if you don't sign the 7th pick this year you're S.O.L. - it can't carry over a 2nd year. Interesting scenario though.

metsmarathon Oct 25 2006 04:14 PM

well, by selecting a player and not signing him so as to horde the pick, you would be keeping the player away from other teams. and the one-year carry over really strikes a nail in the coffin of my grand scheme. rats.

Nymr83 Oct 25 2006 04:20 PM

i still don't like it. i like the draft as a means of fairly dispersing talent, but i dont like giving the owners the added leverage of being able to tell the players "take it or leave it, but if you leave it theres no loss to me." the failure to sign a pick should be a penalty to BOTH sides for their failure to agree, the owners got too much here.

metirish Oct 25 2006 04:26 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 25 2006 04:29 PM

So the drug testing policy stays the same,no surprise I suppose.

Nymr83 Oct 25 2006 04:29 PM

yeah i saw in the Post today that the union-head called additional drug-testing "unreliable" and said he'd have agreed to it if there was "reliable" testing available. I guess the olympics don't know what they are doing according to him

metsmarathon Oct 25 2006 04:34 PM

over the long term, there's minimal net loss to the owner, true. but in the short term, he loses a year of development of a top prospect. to a GM, trying to build a team, or trying down the road to trade a prospect or two for a star, that's pretty big. in the old system, he also lost the quality of that top prospect in addition to the year, which i guess was too much. if i own the worst team in the league, i get screwed by the old system if a player decides "hell with that, i ain't playing for no damned tampa bay devil rays" i lose that top pick, and in his place, i would only get the 31st best available player, the next year, right? that's a heck of a hit, imo.

Nymr83 Oct 25 2006 06:05 PM

well i suppose an Eli manning-type ass hole comes along every now and then with his "i won't play for the Chargers" crap, but in baseball it always seemed to me that the guys who drop drop because of perceived bonus demands and that nobody has ever come out saying htey refuse to play for a team.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 25 2006 06:19 PM

I remember many years ago Pete Incaviglia refusing to play for the Expos, who drafted him. He somehow forced a trade to Texas. I think he made his signing contingent on being traded immediately.

Nymr83 Oct 25 2006 07:40 PM

yeah, those situations are pretty sad, i hadn't remembered that happening, fortunately its rare. i suppose you could have a complicated system designed to make everyone happy/happier where a player nwilling to play for a team could go elsewhere, but the team gets fair compensation (say the pick of the team that he goes to plus a sandwhich pick the following year) basically something similiar to the "restricted free agents" in the NFL. but adding more and more layers to this thing may not be the way to go either.

metirish Oct 26 2006 02:01 PM

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54496

MFS62 Oct 26 2006 02:05 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I remember many years ago Pete Incaviglia refusing to play for the Expos, who drafted him. He somehow forced a trade to Texas. I think he made his signing contingent on being traded immediately. And third baseman Matt Williams went back to school rether than sign with the Mets (who had drafted him) because he didn't want to play in New York. It wasn't a matter of money. Later, when he was in the major leagues, he had a very specific no-trade to New York in every one of his contracts. Later

Centerfield Oct 26 2006 02:14 PM

I just want it to be clear that I am willing to play for any major league team.

MFS62 Oct 26 2006 02:17 PM

Centerfield wrote: I just want it to be clear that I am willing to play for any major league team. If you're a LOOGY, you might show up on a major league roster real soon. Later

Willets Point Oct 26 2006 02:23 PM

MFS62 wrote: ="Centerfield"]I just want it to be clear that I am willing to play for any major league team. If you're a LOOGY, you might show up on a major league roster real soon. Later Sounds like a Jeff Foxworthy routine. "You might be a LOOGY..."

Centerfield Oct 26 2006 02:29 PM

If you're twenty years older than everyone else on your team, you might be a LOOGY. If your work day is shorter than your commute, you might be a LOOGY.

MFS62 Oct 26 2006 02:32 PM

If you get a tired arm after throwing five pitches, you might be a LOOGY. Later

Yancy Street Gang Oct 29 2006 03:32 PM

From the Associated Press, on MLB.com: Associated Press wrote: Under new rules this offseason, free agents do not face any deadlines to re-sign with their former teams. In the past, players had to re-sign by Dec. 7 (or Jan. 8 if offered salary arbitration) or else could not return to their former teams until May 1. The deadlines were eliminated in baseball's new labor contract.