544 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

Forbes: MLB’s Second Proposal To Players Shows Rob Manfred Is Out To Radically Alter Economics Of The Game

https://www.forbes.c...sh=2abdf3e4f606

[TwentyThirtyFive]

All in favor of a floor and a cap. Also in favor of getting these kids up as soon as possible when they are ready. Make the FA age 28. The thing is getting these kids paid at a young age when they are producing. That has to happen. But generally speaking Im with a lot of what MLB is trting to do here. At least in regards to a cap and a floor.

[dude]

Also in favor of getting these kids up as soon as possible when they are ready.

 

Tell me who determines "when they are ready".

[Mackus]

Tell me who determines "when they are ready".

 

The coaches and development people.  Those guys are of course currently involved but there is also another part of the decision for many players that is based not around baseball ability but around service time.  That part would go away if it were simply an age line that players had to reach before becoming free agents.  Teams would begin calling players up as soon as they think they could contribute and not hold them back for contractual reasons.

 

I think that would be a good thing, but I guess whether it's a good change overall depends on the exact details of that specific rule and what other rules get added.  Free agency for everyone at 29 1/2 is a very unfair proposal.  I think that would significantly delay free agency for most players, and especially so for the really good ones.  

[TwentyThirtyFive]

The coaches and development people.  Those guys are of course currently involved but there is also another part of the decision for many players that is based not around baseball ability but around service time.  That part would go away if it were simply an age line that players had to reach before becoming free agents.  Teams would begin calling players up as soon as they think they could contribute and not hold them back for contractual reasons.

 

I think that would be a good thing, but I guess whether it's a good change overall depends on the exact details of that specific rule and what other rules get added.  Free agency for everyone at 29 1/2 is a very unfair proposal.  I think that would significantly delay free agency for most players, and especially so for the really good ones.  

Yeah, the way to properly reward young players while also encouraging teams to not play service time games with the young players seems like one of the bigger hurdles IMO. 29.5 is def too old and not fair.

[dude]

The coaches and development people.  

 

That's not who Scott Boras thinks should be making the decision.

 

Personally, I don't really have an issue with an age-based FA line....but it's going to have issues like every other line you draw.  29.5 isn't the 'start point' to negotiate from.  Scott Boras wants it to be 19.5....no wait.12.5 years.  Teams want it to be 39.5 years....since now we're negotiating to some average.

 

...and guess what...as soon as that line is established, the next CBA will highlight the unfairness of whatever the last line was and work to draw it in their favor (both sides).  You aren't going to find a 'fair' number and whatever you settle on will only be framing  the next negotiating ploy.

 

FOR YEARS players have been robbing team through the guaranteed contract.  They are not only robbing the teams, but they are actually robbing the other players too...because every guaranteed dollar here is one that isn't available over here.

 

MLBPA wants 27.5 years as the FA line?  ...willing give up guaranteed contracts?  ...because the point of getting to FA sooner is so that you can sign a longer, bigger contract that guarantees you an amount regardless of how you perform.  

 

fwiw, players are routinely getting to FA before 6+ years of service and 29.5 years of age.  More and more in the current system.

[Mackus]

fwiw, players are routinely getting to FA before 6+ years of service and 29.5 years of age.  More and more in the current system.

 

I don't think it's non-tendered players that are the driving force of this proposal.  From either side.  It's always about the top of the market.

 

 

Agree that if they make it an age-line, the exact age will be what is argued over moving forward.  Whatever the limit is, there will be players who are one day too young and one day old enough that have wildly different opportunities to earn.  

[Mike in STL]

If they follow something similar to an NFL model it’s not that hard.

[dude]

Obviously I have failed to publish my site where my first articles (from 3 years ago) were designed to solve the current issues.

--------

 

The only real way to solve these issues is to create incentive for the player and the team to agree to a deal.  When you incentivize the relationship, both sides can win. 

 

Lines mean both sides are trying to figure out how to exploit the line.  Everyone does it, everywhere, MLB and other. Agents are a huge part of the problem because their most common intent is to create a sense of unfairness against ownership to exploit bigger paydays.  It used to work better than it does today.

 

Guaranteed Salary Pool and Total Salary Floor get to all of the issues that everyone wants to see 'solved'.

[dude]

If they follow something similar to an NFL model it’s not that hard.

 

MLBPA will not go to the NFL model.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Just shooting from the hip here, but how about starting the service clock when players are first added to the 40-man roster rather than when they get to the ML team? You can adjust the time-frame a bit to account for the fact that a player isn't necessarily ready for the big leagues once he has to be added, but it could remove the incentive to let a guy languish in the minor leagues just to manipulate service time.

[BobPhelan]

Just shooting from the hip here, but how about starting the service clock when players are first added to the 40-man roster rather than when they get to the ML team? You can adjust the time-frame a bit to account for the fact that a player isn't necessarily ready for the big leagues once he has to be added, but it could remove the incentive to let a guy languish in the minor leagues just to manipulate service time.

Or better yet from the time they are drafted. 3 years later for HS, 5 years later for international (there will be an international draft very soon). I think 28 is the right age to start free agency but even out the pay distribution pre-FA.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Or better yet from the time they are drafted. 3 years later for HS, 5 years later for international (there will be an international draft very soon). I think 28 is the right age to start free agency but even out the pay distribution pre-FA.

 

Yeah, a variation on that could potentially work, since the date when they have to be added to the 40-man is based on when, and what age, they began their pro careers. I guess basically it's pretty much along the lines of what we already have, it's just speeding up the timeline for when the club has to make the choice of whether to keep a prospect or risk losing him.

 

More hip-shooting: Along with what I mention above, also adjust the Rule 5 draft to basically combine the major/minor league portions all into one, and don't require selecting teams to keep a player on the ML roster, but do start that player's service clock the season he's selected (meaning he does have to go on the 40-man roster).

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Here's the problem with all of the above suggestions. They make sense. The owners and players don't give a shit about making sense. They want the most money they can get from the other side and don't care about the guys in the middle. You know us fans. 

[dude]

...., but it could remove the incentive to let a guy languish in the minor leagues just to manipulate service time.

 

I mean this as a serious question.  Can you give me examples of guys that teams let "languish" in the minors.

 

Maybe you could define "languish" for me.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I mean this as a serious question.  Can you give me examples of guys that teams let "languish" in the minors.

 

Maybe you could define "languish" for me.

Slow-playing his ML debut for the sole purpose of delaying his opportunity to maximize his earning potential.

 

As for examples, too many to list. I’m sure you can look them up.

[dude]

Slow-playing his ML debut for the sole purpose of delaying his opportunity to maximize his earning potential.

 

As for examples, too many to list. I’m sure you can look them up.

 

For something that's this big a deal, we should know the names of dozens of guys just in first thought.

 

The routine intent, based on the rules, is to extend the Service opportunity to a Team, not delay a players opportunity to maximize their earning potential.  That could certainly be what the agent says or the player feels, but Teams invest in a guy and want to maximize what they get out of him, which is reasonable and certainly within the current Rules.  You would be using the term 'languish' to describe 3-5 weeks (currently).

 

Players don't give back Service Time when they suck.  They don't give back salary when they don't or can't perform.

 

Again, we're going to come back to "who gets to decide when I guy is ready".  ...but there's some notion that guys are going broke while they are waiting for FA.  They aren't.  In fact, you see from the owners most recent consideration that they'd rather pay for performance, not arbitration.  Arbitration has been the biggest salary escalator in MLB history which is why many guys are now getting to FA sooner since Teams don't want to get into Arbitration prices for specific profiles.

 

It's still a zero balance system.  Players don't take a job away from the owner, they take it from another player.  Every guy that you want to argue needs a better seat at the table costs a guy that didn't want to lose his seat.  When does the new guy guy you want to see have to lose his job so you can see the new guy you want to see.  That new guy wants to be the old guy - on a guaranteed contract where he got to maximize his earning potential - the new new guy can't take away.

[Mackus]

I mean this as a serious question.  Can you give me examples of guys that teams let "languish" in the minors.

 

Maybe you could define "languish" for me.

 

The Orioles very clearly did it with Mountcastle in 2020 and are far more clearly still doing it with Rutschman.

 

Those guys would've been up sooner if not for the current service time rules.  If they were each due to become a free agent prior to their Age 28 season regardless of when they were called up, Mountcastle would've been up at the end of 2019 and Rutschman sometime in 2020.  You'd also see tons of pitching prospects debut sooner, often as bullpen arms, much like Weaver used to break guys in back before service time and free agency was a major contractual concern.

[Mackus]

I have an opinion but ultimately don't really care about how the players and owners choose to divy up the pie.  If the players get 61% or 38% or 52%...it's the same system so we're just arguing over the finer details.  It's largely inconsequential.

 

But I do care about the free agency rules especially as they relate to team control over players employment and limiting of wages to individual players.  Frankly I think any sort of controlled labor or price-fixing is downright un-American.  I realize we're not going to go back to a draftless sport where everyone is free to sign with any team that'll pay them, but that's what it should be.  As much freedom and control that can go in the direction of the players is a good thing, IMO.   

 

A 22 y/o college student is free to sign with any team to become an assistant trainer or software developer without any restrictions over how much money they can make aside from what they can negotiate with their employer, no fixed commitment for how long they have to work for the franchise, and the ability to leave the job whenever they want and go take another.  It seems clearly unfair and possibly un-Constitutional that a 22 y/o college student who happens to be a left-handed pitcher or a first baseman doesn't have the same rights.

[mweb08]

I certainly agree that players should have more ability to determine their own destiny.

However, assuming the system doesn't get blown up, I'd like to see players become free agents much earlier than typical, like at age 25. That's certainly better for them and it makes free agency much more exciting and interesting.