Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, December 08, 2021

Rosenthal: What a new collective bargaining agreement should look like

Sub required. Summary:

Increase luxury tax thresholds, decrease penalties

Keep the revenue sharing formula the same, but require recipients to spend on major-league payroll.

Free agency after six years of service time except for players who have at least five at age 30; elimination of direct draft-pick compensation; creation of system to help low-revenue teams keep franchise-type players before they hit the open market.

Increase the percentage of players who qualify for Super Two eligibility; increase the minimum salary from $570,500 to at least $800,000.

A draft lottery for low-revenue teams with the top 10 picks, giving weighted advantages to those with the best records; additional selections for low-revenue teams that make the playoffs.

An increase from 10 to 14 playoff teams, with proper incentives for teams that attain best overall records in each league, other division winners and wild-card teams with the highest win totals — pretty much the owners’ plan.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 08, 2021 at 11:56 AM | 47 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: labor issues

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. JJ1986 Posted: December 08, 2021 at 12:05 PM (#6056648)
An increase from 10 to 14 playoff teams, with proper incentives for teams that attain best overall records in each league, other division winners and wild-card teams with the highest win totals — pretty much the owners’ plan.
Lost me entirely.
   2. DL from MN Posted: December 08, 2021 at 12:08 PM (#6056649)
I also am not interested in playoffs with .500 teams.
   3. DL from MN Posted: December 08, 2021 at 12:09 PM (#6056650)
Isn't the baseball draft already a lottery in the sense that it requires a lot of luck to even get the #1 overall pick to pan out?
   4. I Am Not a Number Posted: December 08, 2021 at 12:33 PM (#6056655)
except for players who have at least five at age 30

This is a strange rider. How many players would this effect? Is there anyone noteworthy that I am not immediately thinking of who would have greatly benefited from this?
   5. Nasty Nate Posted: December 08, 2021 at 12:59 PM (#6056661)
except for players who have at least five at age 30


This is a strange rider. How many players would this effect? Is there anyone noteworthy that I am not immediately thinking of who would have greatly benefited from this?
It's probably more common than you think. I believe Leury Garcia, Chris Taylor, and Yimi Garcia would have been free agents last year instead of this year under such a rule.
   6. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 08, 2021 at 01:01 PM (#6056662)


This is a strange rider. How many players would this effect? Is there anyone noteworthy that I am not immediately thinking of who would have greatly benefited from this?


Late bloomers. Whit Merrifield was in this boat.
   7. Stevey Posted: December 08, 2021 at 01:22 PM (#6056665)
Seems like big "gets" for the owners - expanded playoffs is huge for them, and I doubt even Bud Selig could have suggested with a straight face that teams should be allowed to prevent their star player from hitting the open market.

And in return? Increased luxury tax thresholds, decreased penalties, and a higher minimum wage. All things the league is already including in their offer. Maybe not to the extent that Rosenthal wants, but unless those numbers are blatantly in the players' favor, not worth nearly as much as what the owners get.
   8. Stevey Posted: December 08, 2021 at 01:24 PM (#6056666)
It's probably more common than you think. I believe Leury Garcia, Chris Taylor, and Yimi Garcia would have been free agents last year instead of this year under such a rule.


But how many players would it have affected if that rule was already in place? Owners, here and with any altered super two qualification, will simply adjust their tactics to skirt around the rules in place as they do now.
   9. sanny manguillen Posted: December 08, 2021 at 01:25 PM (#6056667)
that it requires a lot of luck to even get the #1 overall pick to pan out?


It's not just the pick, it's the bonus pool.
   10. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 08, 2021 at 01:36 PM (#6056668)

Seems like big "gets" for the owners - expanded playoffs is huge for them, and I doubt even Bud Selig could have suggested with a straight face that teams should be allowed to prevent their star player from hitting the open market.

And in return? Increased luxury tax thresholds, decreased penalties, and a higher minimum wage. All things the league is already including in their offer. Maybe not to the extent that Rosenthal wants, but unless those numbers are blatantly in the players' favor, not worth nearly as much as what the owners get.


I don't think I've heard anyone in any negotiations suggest a "franchise tag" type system, something the NFLPA absolutely hates.
   11. Stevey Posted: December 08, 2021 at 01:45 PM (#6056670)
I don't think I've heard anyone in any negotiations suggest a "franchise tag" type system, something the NFLPA absolutely hates.


Rosenthal introduces it following the phrase "Some club officials have discussed a concept". He's just regurgitating a dream talking point straight from management.
   12. cookiedabookie Posted: December 08, 2021 at 01:57 PM (#6056672)
I think half of the revenue sharing pool should only be available for clubs to sign homegrown players to long term extensions. So a team like Cleveland can keep and re-sign Lindor, and even at $350 million, they'd be responsible for $17.5 million per year. It could be capped at $50 million/year to be used among multiple players. That would essentially let smaller market teams run a $100 million payroll for $50 million.
   13. Nasty Nate Posted: December 08, 2021 at 01:58 PM (#6056674)
It's probably more common than you think. I believe Leury Garcia, Chris Taylor, and Yimi Garcia would have been free agents last year instead of this year under such a rule.


But how many players would it have affected if that rule was already in place? Owners, here and with any altered super two qualification, will simply adjust their tactics to skirt around the rules in place as they do now.
In this case, there would be only limited skirting around the rules. The types of players who hit 5 years service time at age 30 generally don't inspire much concern earlier in their career about their future free agency.
   14. Karl from NY Posted: December 08, 2021 at 02:50 PM (#6056685)
a "franchise tag" type system, something the NFLPA absolutely hates.

Do they? I think most of them would like it. It only affects one player per team per year, so maybe 3-5 players per team at a time on multi-year contracts. The franchise tag does suppress salaries for those players since they can't compete on the open market, but in a tightly capped league, those dollars would be spread among the other 40-42 players.

If we're told the NFLPA hates it, I think that's only if you're looking from the POV of the stars, not the rank and file who won't ever be anywhere near the tag.
   15. Tom is a Doofwongle Posted: December 08, 2021 at 02:56 PM (#6056687)
Raising the minimum salary is an absolute, but I think they should address arb and free agency eligibility by reducing the time needed for each to 2 and 4 years unless the team pays the player at least double the (new) minimum salary for each of those years. A team can either have control or a cheap player, not both.
   16. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 08, 2021 at 03:45 PM (#6056694)

If we're told the NFLPA hates it, I think that's only if you're looking from the POV of the stars, not the rank and file who won't ever be anywhere near the tag.


Rank and file hate it for the same reason poor people don't like tax increases on the rich - they think they'll be part of the 1 percent someday.
   17. DL from MN Posted: December 08, 2021 at 04:04 PM (#6056699)
The types of players who hit 5 years service time at age 30 generally don't inspire much concern earlier in their career about their future free agency.


I doubt anyone would hold back a 25 year old hoping to get their age 31 season. If anything this will encourage teams to bring up 24 year old prospects since they'll lose them at 30 either way.
   18. Walt Davis Posted: December 08, 2021 at 04:16 PM (#6056704)
One tool at the lower levels is to have service-based raises and they take effect whenever the threshold is passed. So let's say the min salary is $800 K (Rosenthal's number) but it goes up to $1.2 then $1.6 after 1 and 2 years of service time. To avoid teams manipulating service time (or reduce its benefit), these raises take place whenever the player passes the threshold whether that's game #8 of season 2 (Bryant) or sometime around game 50 (guys held back to the super-2 deadline). Add a big raise for when a player passes 3 years mid-season (or make it negotiable). Conceivably you could extend it into the arb years -- for a guy with 3 years 50 days service time, the arb system and negotiated contracts are set up as "here's what you get for the rest of your 4th year of service time plus 50 days of what we'd give you if you had 4 years of service time."

The truly fringe player potentially gets screwed in that system -- i.e. he's got 2 years service but nobody wants to pay him $1.6. That's where the tender system comes in ... if his team won't pay him $1.6 then they have to make him available to all other teams. If nobody claims him then he's free to sign for whatever he can get (which might just be a minor-league contract). Still some details in there around 40-man, rule 5, DFA, etc.

You still have some form of super-2 etc.

Somebody who's been Bryanted: gets $800 K for 171 days in year 1; $800 for 1-9 days of year 2 then $1.2; $1.2 for 1-9 days of year 3 then $1.6; super-2 on 2.171 days.

Somebody held back for super-2: gets $800 K for 110 days in year 1; gets $800 K for 70 days then $1.2; gets $1.2 for 70 days then $1.6; gets $1.6 for 70 days then $3 for 110 days; full arb on 3.110 days

We're still not talking big sums of money and these guys are still grossly overpaid. It adds only a fairly small cost for manipulating PT -- even in Bryant's case, the "penalty" is only about $1 M. The "penalty" is larger for the guy held back past the super-2 deadline but he's getting screwed worse so it probably still makes financial sense to hold him back.

Still, the only way the players can win "big" is via a major reduction in arb/FA service-time requirements. I don't think they have the leverage, not sure they have the unity either.
   19. Walt Davis Posted: December 08, 2021 at 04:30 PM (#6056706)
On draft lotteries: I assume somebody must have analyzed the NBA to see if it had any susbstantial effect on tanking (or perceived tanking or generic super-suckiness or competitiveness or whatever). Seems to me the Clippers still sucked for a very long time.

The Marlins haven't had the #1 overall pick since 2000 -- they've won a WS more recently than that. Over the last 10 years, they've had a top 10 pick just 6 times; top 5 3 times. In all those picks (including 2000), they've found 3 awesome players (AGon who they traded, Yelich and Jose Fernandez) and a whole lot of dreck. (Trevor Rogers might be a 4th awesome pick.) Whatever the Marlins are up to, it's not gaming the system to land top picks.

What they are presumably up to is "you're going to give us $210 M and we get to keep half our local revenue? Deal. We're never gonna do better than that on our own. Now let's try to find some optimal mix of wins, costs and local revenue that maximizes our profits each year."
   20. McCoy Posted: December 08, 2021 at 04:31 PM (#6056707)
How about we just slightly tweak what we had before? Which is basically what both sides want.
   21. Walt Davis Posted: December 08, 2021 at 05:52 PM (#6056731)
I'm not sure that's what the players want -- which isn't to say that's what they're going to have to accept. I think they failed to recognize what the seemingly minor tweaks of the last couple of CBAs would do. Or maybe it's just that in the last decade the owners have finally recognized how to game the system in terms of service time and pitting aging vets against cheap kids.

Anyway, I think the players/union are in a "bad" spot these days. The stars at the very top are still doing great but most of the rest are increasingly precarious. They long ago made a deal to vastly underpay the young guys, believing that the older guys would reap the extra cash. The owners have wised up and would rather pocket the extra cash. That also creates a more stratified players union where it will be even harder to maintain unity by holding out the promise of the big FA payday to their younger members.

But sure, the guy who just signed for 4/$40 isn't strongly motivated to upset the whole apple cart just because, under a different system, maybe he'd have gotten 4/$50. The fringe reliever making over half a million a year is very content and will be thrilled with a jump to $650 or whatever. And the owners are sitting pretty comfortably and don't seem to have any major issues that they are fighting for. So status quo would satisfy a whole lot of people.

And I will say that, with covid's impact on 2020-21 revenue and who knows what impact on future revenues, none of us outsiders have any real idea of how big a pool of money they are fighting over. Given the contracts handed out this offseason so far, it sure seems like the owners are not overly worried about future revenues but I wouldn't blame them if they were.
   22. Astroenteritis Posted: December 08, 2021 at 11:17 PM (#6056753)
Draft lotteries are idiotic and should not exist in any sport, but it makes no sense whatsoever in baseball.
   23. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 09, 2021 at 08:01 AM (#6056762)

Draft lotteries are idiotic and should not exist in any sport, but it makes no sense whatsoever in baseball.


I don't really care for a lottery one way or the other, but the idea that it's tied to revenue of the team is absolutely insane.
   24. DL from MN Posted: December 09, 2021 at 10:02 AM (#6056772)
I like the progressively increasing salary tied to service time idea. You have to make the yearly raise large enough to be meaningful but not so large that everyone gets non-tendered. $100,000 would be a good number. Teams are probably going to pay an extra $100,000 just to avoid the cost of making changes. If they don't want the player at minimum plus $200k then they probably don't want him at the minimum.
   25. sanny manguillen Posted: December 09, 2021 at 10:21 AM (#6056777)
OT but business-related: the Nutting family sold interests in Pennsylvania ski resorts, while retaining some adjoining properties. I've seen speculation that the resorts would be more valuable to someone else because MLB rules still prohibit a team owner from owning a casino. Is that correct? It seems impossible they could be so enmeshed with gambling interests while prohibiting licensed ownership. Is the sticking point specifically that casinos run sports books now?
   26. dejarouehg Posted: December 09, 2021 at 11:33 AM (#6056787)
The playoff expansion just might the personal dagger in my fandom.

For all of the hand-wringing about Bryant, given his performance, he may have done better by getting the extra year of arbitration.

The system really works against players who stay in college. I'd like to see every player receive FA eligibility but the time they are 28 or once they have 5 years in the league.

Also love the many of the suggestions I've heard of ab$olute performance benefits to young players for certain benchmarks.
   27. DL from MN Posted: December 09, 2021 at 12:21 PM (#6056792)
The system really works against players who stay in college.


Which explains why the teams really want to get rid of the low level minor leagues and force kids to go to college instead.
   28. Karl from NY Posted: December 09, 2021 at 02:55 PM (#6056812)
As I always remind in these threads: There will be no big gains for year 1-5 players, because the majority of the union's membership is already past that and would have no reason to vote for benefiting future union members rather than themselves.

CBAs aren't some objective standard of fairness, they are what the union membership agrees to.
   29. Walt Davis Posted: December 09, 2021 at 03:47 PM (#6056823)
the majority of the union's membership is already past that

That's not true. In 2021, there were (at least**) 876 players still in the first 5 years of their career plus anybody on the 40-man who didn't play in 2021. There were only 497 in their 6th-plus year and some number of those would have less than 5 years service time. I assume DFA'd players remain in the union but anybody with 6+ service time who's been recently DFA'd knows the days of big contracts are behind them.

** b-r "batting" registers seem to include any pitcher that appeared in a game whether they got a PA or not but I don't know if that's true plus there would be a tiny handful who never made it into a game.
   30. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: December 09, 2021 at 03:49 PM (#6056824)
Teams are probably going to pay an extra $100,000 just to avoid the cost of making changes.

"Challenge accepted!" -- Stu Sternberg.
   31. Karl from NY Posted: December 09, 2021 at 04:41 PM (#6056829)
Walt, you'd really be looking at 2021 year 1-4 players for that, since they'd be the year 2-5 players once the 2022 CBA starts.

At any rate, whatever the details of the numbers are, the broader point holds: there is some service time threshold that the majority of the union is beyond, such that they have no interest in raising benefits for players who haven't reached that. It doesn't matter what we or anyone think is somehow fair to younger players, what matters is what the negotiating parties will approve.
   32. kcgard2 Posted: December 09, 2021 at 06:21 PM (#6056838)
Service time based raises are a decent idea. But I would angle for appearing in a season equals an effective year of service time, if I were the players. That way, teams have every incentive to call players up at the start of the year (assuming readiness), and they can't manipulate service time except by holding a player down for an entire year, shooting themselves in the foot in most cases, essentially. There is literally no way to gain extra years of control this way by service time manipulation, which is the huge, huge penalty that players have to suck up under the current system. Combine that with FA at 30 (if 4+ years of service). Another concept: if a player is in the minor leagues for more than four seasons, it starts counting towards his MLB service time related to team control. He'd stay on the same arbitration rules and such, but become a FA after arb 2 instead of arb 3, for example, if the team kept him in the minors for five years instead of four or fewer. Adjust the rule to be equitable to HS vs college draftees, but something along these lines.
   33. Walt Davis Posted: December 09, 2021 at 06:48 PM (#6056839)
Most players with 5 "years" in their career have less than 5 years service time. But sure there's some median service time ... it's probably around 3 years.

The consequences are twofold. First, if half the union is pre-arb and the other half of the union votes against the interests of the young half, you end up with a divided union. Second, this is exactly the point the union seems to have been ignoring for the last decade-plus. The teams are clearly shifting production from expensive fringe vets to cheap pre-arb labor, costing those 6+-service guys money and jobs. Teams are also clearly shifting production from expensive starters to fungible relievers. Teams are also clearly reducing the number of "qualified" batters. Those trends hurt their current vet members, will hurt their current young members who survive into arb and FA and will hurt future members. One of the tools the union potentially has to counteract some of those trends is to at least reduce the financial incentives teams have to follow those trends.**

# qualified batters, total then age>=30

2001 157 67
2006 162 79
2011 145 56
2016 146 62
2017 144 57
2018 141 46
2019 135 40
2021 132 50

# pitchers >= 125 IP, total then age 30+ (pitchers are less affected by an age boundary)

2001 119 43
2006 109 42
2011 128 44
2016 111 40
2017 109 42
2018 108 43
2019 99 40
2021 86 35 (let that first number sink in in baseball terms -- an average of 3 guys per team hit the 125 IP mark)

A union that lets those 50 batters and 35 pitchers run the show is a union without a future. Those 85 players are slightly less than 20% of those aged 30+ and only about 6% of total members. There are also some big-time, highly paid relievers who should be counted along with those 85 but I have no idea how many (probably about 60 ... so maybe 1/3 of the age 30+ membership are "starting" players). Near as I can tell, the union is something like 1/3 pre-arb (probably more with all the relievers on the shuttle), 1/3 arb and 1/3 6+. Of the 1/3 who are 6+, more than half of them are fringe-y/fungible types some of whom are being replaced by cheaper kids.

Making those kids substantially more expensive seems to me to be the only way to make it a sustainable union ... or at least a sustainably successful union. (the union will of course always exist in some form.) It might be too late and/or it might not be very likely that the union could achieve and maintain solidarity behind that approach. But making kids more expensive benefits the current kids, helps older fringe guys keep their jobs, helps raise the barrier to entry (benefiting current members at the expense of future ones). That's like 80% or more of the membership.

The current system works great for the approximately 10% who are older and full-time (incl "full-time" relievers). It works OK but in decline for the 25% of older part=timers/fringe-y/fungible. It kinds works OK (but possibly in decline given all the non-tenders last year) for the 1/3 who are in arb -- and it may simply be too late to do anything to materially help them. It works like crap for the 1/3 pre-arb members.

The game of baseball is not played the same way in 2020 as it was in 1996. Those changes have consequences for labor. Management also has a better grip on the financial side than they did 25 years ago -- more consequences for labor. The "wait, you'll get your money" approach is not as good a fit as it was. The union needs to adapt.

** Teams are doing what they're doing mainly for performance reasons but replacing expensive vets with cheap kids is a nice bonus.
   34. The Duke Posted: December 09, 2021 at 08:48 PM (#6056851)
I think Walt has it mostly right - I don’t know what the players actually want. I think what they should want is revenue sharing but for some reason they don’t seem to want that. The owners keep developing huge revenue streams and the players are stuck trying to get 4% increase in salaries every year.

Assuming that’s a no-go, they should want MUCH higher entry level salaries. After year 1, they should want something like 3 million in year two and 5 million in year 3. The goal here has to be to prevent players from signing away free agent years, if you knew you’d go 750K, 3M, 5M and then three years of increasing arb awards players would not easily give up free agent years. It would also drive teams to non-tender earlier which creates many more marginal players getting to free agency earlier. If the first six years cost $20 million OR you get non-tendered in year 3/4 — either answer is great for average players.

Why the union continues to pursue a stars and scrubs approach is beyond me.
   35. Ron J Posted: December 09, 2021 at 09:57 PM (#6056859)
#34 I think for revenue sharing to be viable there has to be some level of trust between the two sides. And that's just not present.

EDIT: And the stars and scrubs approach is perfectly understandable. Few athletes are objective about where they stand.

I mean the worst major leaguer is amazingly good and this close to being good enough to make serious money.
   36. The Duke Posted: December 09, 2021 at 10:49 PM (#6056866)
Revenue sharing creates trust over time because of the work Both sides have to do in perpetuity to agree on the definition of revenue. It’s never going to happen though.
   37. Stevey Posted: December 10, 2021 at 08:35 AM (#6056876)
I think what they should want is revenue sharing but for some reason they don’t seem to want that.



Because the owners' behavior over the last decade-plus has shown they aren't to be remotely trusted when it comes to this kind of stuff.


I have no idea how this gets resolved. I'm not suggesting that we'll miss a large (or any) portion of the season, but the owners have discovered that they can generate tons of revenue regardless of their win totals, so why in the hell would they pay more for labor? And they've gotten fat and happy on that in the last couple CBAs, and certainly are thinking more along the line of "we're almost there, lets finish them off" than "we've had it way too good for a long time, let's not risk long-term damage to the game".
   38. The Duke Posted: December 10, 2021 at 02:22 PM (#6056905)
I’ll just play devils advocate here. The single easiest thing to track and audit on a P & L is revenue. All publicly traded companies have auditors crawling all over the topic of “revenue recognition” because some companies try to pull it forward or push it back. But it’s relatively easy to track and understand. Auditing here would not be about what date the revenue should be recognized but what items are revenue and how much revenue did each of these items generate. That should be easy (relative to any other auditing activity). What’s hard is agreeing “what is revenue “. Ticket sales, concessions, parking, licensing, tv contracts, memorabilia all easy to understand and track. Less easy is ballpark village revenue, gambling revenue, local govt concessions, etc

It’s much easier to find revenue fraud than proving collusion or service clock manipulations etc. in addition it would give the players a much better sense of profits because they would generally know the profit margins of each line of revenue so if a mix shift happens and there is much higher gambling revenue vs ticket sales then the union knows the owners are profiting more and the players can ask for a higher percentage of revenue (as an example ).
   39. Karl from NY Posted: December 10, 2021 at 02:31 PM (#6056908)
The players don't want revenue sharing because that reduces the marginal financial value of a player and thus their salary. If Mike Trout produces 10 WAR and the team earns $8M/marginal win, the team makes $80M so Trout is worth $80M salary. If the team only keeps 50M of that because the other 30M gets shared, Trout is worth and gets offered only 50M salary.

Assuming that’s a no-go, they should want MUCH higher entry level salaries.


They don't because the current voters aren't entry level. Current voters don't care about benefiting future union members.
   40. Stevey Posted: December 10, 2021 at 03:42 PM (#6056917)
Less easy is ballpark village revenue, gambling revenue, local govt concessions, etc


"Less easy" is a helluva undersell. Are we going to ask the MLBPA to hire teams of forensic accountants to try to uncover every last entity and shell company tied to a MLB owner and figure out how much revenue that owner made from those entities due to operating a baseball franchise? And then, the moment a certain form of revenue is determined baseball-related, owners will assuredly pivot away from that to ones that were determined to be non-baseball-related.

These aren't publicly traded companies, and the owners have been extremely loathe to open the books regarding their teams. They're not going to come to the table with neatly prepared spreadsheets detailing to everyone every last dollar they make.
   41. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: December 10, 2021 at 04:38 PM (#6056928)
Because the owners' behavior over the last decade century-plus has shown they aren't to be remotely trusted when it comes to this kind of stuff.
   42. The Duke Posted: December 10, 2021 at 04:39 PM (#6056929)
39. Just to be clear my comments are about players post year 1 of service. I agree they in theory don’t want money being re-allocated to AAA players who are about to become MLB players but there are scads of year 1-6 players in the union who should want this.
   43. The Duke Posted: December 10, 2021 at 04:42 PM (#6056930)
49. There are two teams that trade publicly so the roadmap to “what is revenue” is already there. Second, most things that generate revenue have an MLB tag on them. It’s easy to trace.

What is hard to audit is profit. To audit profit you have to dig through hundreds of line items of costs which can be quite subjective. Teams have a much easier time hiding profit than revenue.
   44. DL from MN Posted: December 10, 2021 at 05:17 PM (#6056933)
scads of year 1-6 players in the union who should want this


A raise in the minimum is essentially a raise to every player who doesn't already have a guaranteed contract. They're paid based on contribution above the minimum.
   45. Karl from NY Posted: December 10, 2021 at 05:32 PM (#6056935)
but there are scads of year 1-6 players in the union who should want this.

But year 1-6 players don't stay at year 1-6. They advance in service time. Year 6's benefit for one year, and then lose out during the entire rest of the CBA that assigns more money to younger players rather than the now-free agents.

What matters isn't the average service length of the voters at the time the CBA is signed, what matters is the average service length throughout the duration of the CBA.
   46. Zach Posted: December 10, 2021 at 08:01 PM (#6056942)
Teams have a much easier time hiding profit than revenue.

True, but for whatever reason the players' union hates the idea of tying payroll to revenue.
   47. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: December 19, 2021 at 07:26 PM (#6058025)
So the WS will end around Veteran's Day now? A WS game will get snowed out in my lifetime if they do this.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Hombre Brotani
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2022-23 NBA Kick-Off Thread
(666 - 1:42am, Dec 07)
Last: aberg

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2573 - 1:38am, Dec 07)
Last: aberg

NewsblogFormer MVP Bellinger agrees to deal with Cubs
(19 - 1:29am, Dec 07)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMajor League Baseball used two balls again this year, and evidence points to a third
(6 - 12:42am, Dec 07)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogSources: Phillies, RHP Taijuan Walker reach 4-year, $72M deal
(6 - 12:28am, Dec 07)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogGuardians, Josh Bell agree on a two-year, $33 million deal
(32 - 12:25am, Dec 07)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogCardinals announcer Dan McLaughlin charged with felony Persistent DWI
(21 - 10:46pm, Dec 06)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogPirates land #1 pick in first-ever MLB draft lottery
(4 - 10:02pm, Dec 06)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2022 Ballot
(11 - 10:01pm, Dec 06)
Last: reech

NewsblogOrix Buffaloes Officially Post Masataka Yoshida
(6 - 9:51pm, Dec 06)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

Hall of MeritMock Hall of Fame Ballot 2023
(5 - 8:23pm, Dec 06)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogPhillies, Trea Turner agree to 11-year deal (source)
(45 - 7:52pm, Dec 06)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogTIME 2022 Athlete of the Year: Aaron Judge
(12 - 7:30pm, Dec 06)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogCubs need to go big at Winter Meetings or go home
(4 - 7:03pm, Dec 06)
Last: salvomania

NewsblogJustin Verlander heading to Mets (source)
(29 - 6:30pm, Dec 06)
Last: Conor

Page rendered in 0.4983 seconds
46 querie(s) executed