544 replies to this topic

[TwentyThirtyFive]

You cant have a 22 or 23 yr old college kid only available for 2 or 3 yrs with their drafting team. Not unless their team has a chance to franchise tag them or something like that for an extra year or two. Especially when things change quickly in baseball. A college senior could jump from a mid round pick to a top 20 pick. Also most of these guys have an adjustment period to pro ball. It isnt football or basketball where you can jump in and contribute immediatedly.

[Mackus]

If you're gonna set an age limit I'd agree 25 is a bit too young (though going too young is far more fair than going too old).  26 1/2 seems about right to me if an age limit is the new rule.  

 

Would be pretty easy for the league and MLBPA to determine the age players currently reach free agency for the first time on average.  Whatever that is, slide it a year or maybe even two left and that's probably the right threshold.  I definitely would prefer a player age or total years since acquisition limit rather than tracking days/years of service.  They already use "years since signing" to determine 40-man roster eligibility, so the hooks are in place.

[mweb08]

I'm fine with adjusting based on college experience vs high school or international as Bob said. The non college players should be free agents by 25 or so imo. I'd be cool with pushing 3 year college players back a year and 4 year college players back 2 years. But also, there's no need for the stay in college for 3 years rule imo.

Additionally, you could set it up like the NBA, which allows for early free agency, but gives the drafting team a significant edge in keeping the players they drafted/developed.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

All that could work. There certainly shouldnt be any restrictions on when a kid can enter the draft

[dude]

I'm not sure what problem everyone is solving.  Beyond that, I think if you did some of these things, we'd yearn for the 'old system'.

 

Get rid of guaranteed contracts and you can have whatever. 

 

You still have development and would have to decide how you do it.  You have lots of roster issues. Eliminate the minors leagues? Eliminate the draft?  ...what would be the point.

 

The absurdity that some of this would cause would be more of a strain on the fan relationship with MLB than anything and ultimately cost everyone more money.

 

I'm confident most software developers would love to get stuck in a less-than-totally-free-market system where they can compete with their peers and make $587,500 in their 4th year on the job.  You could sign them all up.  

[Mackus]

We're attempting to address the problem of players having no say over where they play until midway or later through their career.

 

A HS player doesn't need to be added to the 40-man roster until 5 years after they are drafted (signed).  Then they have 3 option seasons in which the team can send them down.  Then they need to accrue 6 years of MLB service.  So most 18 year-old kids have no say over who their employer will be or what their salary will be for up to 14 years.  19 and older have no say for up to 13 years (need to be added to 40-man within 4 years).  The players get to negotiate their signing bonus, but only with one team and the drawbacks for not agreeing are pretty steep.  The players then get a small amount of influence over, though not the ability to negotiate freely, their salary in the last 3 (possibly 4 if Super-2) years.  

 

I think that's a problem.  I'd like to see players have more control, sooner.  This is America, man.

[dude]

This is America, man.

 

We should talk about this sometime.

[dude]

We're attempting to address the problem of players having no say over where they play until midway or later through their career.

 

A HS player doesn't need to be added to the 40-man roster until 5 years after they are drafted (signed).  Then they have 3 option seasons in which the team can send them down.  Then they need to accrue 6 years of MLB service.  So most 18 year-old kids have no say over who their employer will be or what their salary will be for up to 14 years.  19 and older have no say for up to 13 years (need to be added to 40-man within 4 years).  The players get to negotiate their signing bonus, but only with one team and the drawbacks for not agreeing are pretty steep.  The players then get a small amount of influence over, though not the ability to negotiate freely, their salary in the last 3 (possibly 4 if Super-2) years.  

 

I think that's a problem.  I'd like to see players have more control, sooner.

 

OK, but you're building your perspective off a system that was built off of different structure.  You don't just get to change the things you think benefit one party. 

 

Dissolve the Players Union and the Rules for everyone.  You want to back down the whole system and just make it pure free market?  Do you really think that would advance the opportunity of MLB as a sport, and either the owners or the players.  You think anyone is going to bitch about "competitive balance" and how you fix it (because that would be a disaster).  How do teams develop players and players get development and professional care?  You blow out your elbow...hope you paid attention in school, not the Team's problem.  Do you really want a free-for-all....for the Owners too? ...or do the Owners have to operate within a set of Rules the Players decide.

 

So the Players realize that's an awful structure and Unionize (because it's America) and then want to negotiate some structure that benefits them...and...we're back, because it's America, where we are today. 

 

That 13/14 years you laid out was out of that garbage article about minor league housing.  Yeah, horrible, you only make 4M dollars over that timeframe and you get to play Baseball for a living.  Because it's America, nobody has to Play professional Baseball.  You can go into any industry you want.  Every Industry has rules.  You aren't owed a job.  You earn those opportunities and there's Rules and Structure in many industries.

 

...but if you want to break it completely down and go full free market, I think the Owners would be in.  Would be worse for everyone, but whatever, it is America. 

 

Like you said earlier, I really don't care either way, I'm not on either side and I think both sides are stupid.  I'd rather we just see good Baseball because the meritocracy, hard work and commitment in the face of difficult odds associated with the competition, the struggle where everyone doesn't get a trophy because they show up and the opportunity to fight in the Arena and see what happens, win or lose, is ultimately American.

[dude]

...and again, for the record, I think there's things that can be fixed and you're (Mackus) the only one here that has read Part 1, Guaranteed Salary Pool (GSP).  Go read it again, it addresses everything we talk about.  Part 2, Total Salary Floor (TSF), gets the other pieces that everyone wants changed.

[Mackus]

  Yeah, horrible, you only make 4M dollars over that timeframe and you get to play Baseball for a living.

 

Absolutely hate this argument.  The players have a skill that is highly valued, but they don't get paid fair market rates because MLB is a government-sanctioned monopoly with anti-trust exemptions and is therefore allowed to fix wages and control it's labor artificially.  That they do still get paid more than 99% of the country doesn't justify the means. Especially not when those means are in place to further enrichen even richer people.

 

Paramount and MGM and Universal and Disney can't come together and decide that they'll set limits on how much to pay certain actors for each movie even though the market rate would support 5 or 10 times the amount and put in place rules about which studios each actor must work for .  The movie industry doesn't have an anti-trust exemption.  If they did, even though Brad Pitt or Jennifer Lawrence would still be making an absurd amount of money, it'd be fundamentally unfair that they aren't allowed to make as much as they could in an open system.

 

I also absolutely disagree that baseball would be worse overall if players could decide where to sign and for how long at the outset of their careers.  

[Mike in STL]

I also absolutely disagree that baseball would be worse overall if players could decide where to sign and for how long at the outset of their careers.  

How many kids grow up wanting to play for the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs?

 

How many kids grow up wanting to play for the Orioles, Royals, Rays, Pirates?

 

I think you would end up with an english soccer model where the best teams with the most fans and most TV exposure get the best players, and the best 4-6 teams every year are largely unchanged for decades. 

[BSLMikeLowe]

How many kids grow up wanting to play for the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs?

 

How many kids grow up wanting to play for the Orioles, Royals, Rays, Pirates?

 

I think you would end up with an english soccer model where the best teams with the most fans and most TV exposure get the best players, and the best 4-6 teams every year are largely unchanged for decades. 

 

It would be college football, only the players get paid. But still, with very few exceptions most seasons would be the same small handful of teams, mostly from large markets, that can realistically compete.

[makoman]

Absolutely hate this argument. The players have a skill that is highly valued, but they don't get paid fair market rates because MLB is a government-sanctioned monopoly with anti-trust exemptions and is therefore allowed to fix wages and control it's labor artificially. That they do still get paid more than 99% of the country doesn't justify the means. Especially not when those means are in place to further enrichen even richer people.

Paramount and MGM and Universal and Disney can't come together and decide that they'll set limits on how much to pay certain actors for each movie even though the market rate would support 5 or 10 times the amount and put in place rules about which studios each actor must work for . The movie industry doesn't have an anti-trust exemption. If they did, even though Brad Pitt or Jennifer Lawrence would still be making an absurd amount of money, it'd be fundamentally unfair that they aren't allowed to make as much as they could in an open system.

I also absolutely disagree that baseball would be worse overall if players could decide where to sign and for how long at the outset of their careers.

Well, ok, but then why should Chris Davis get 161M to be the worst player in history? This is America man, the land of at will employment, we need to protect businesses. We should be able to fire him two months in just cause we don’t like how he looks, not to mention because he’s not performing.

You give up something to have all deals guaranteed. The union seemingly has decided to give up something on the front end for that return. If they want to give up guaranteed deals maybe the owners would be ok paying market rates to 23 year olds, I don’t know.

[dude]

Absolutely hate this argument.  The players have a skill that is highly valued, but they don't get paid fair market rates because MLB is a government-sanctioned monopoly with anti-trust exemptions and is therefore allowed to fix wages and control it's labor artificially.  That they do still get paid more than 99% of the country doesn't justify the means. Especially not when those means are in place to further enrichen even richer people.

 

OK, but you and I are both walking out on an extreme application that has effects exactly zero players.

 

You are sharing this 'perspective' from an article basically written by an agent trying to drum up sympathy (or marketing) for a player that has made choices that wrecked his opportunity.  He's a victim of his own decision making and that article is an attempt to build a platform for him.

 

There are zero teams that are trying to hold onto and ruin a guys life unfairly.  There's too much upward pressure in every system to burn space on non-performers.  He's not getting held back, he's actually holding onto opportunity that someone else desperately wants.  You speak of attrition (correctly) all of the time for the prospect/development map....if you aren't moving up, you get passed.  You won't have a spot on the 40, you'll be fighting for a minor-league contract with whatever team was willing to give you a chance because something in Baseball is better than whatever is next.  They aren't choosing from multi-million dollar opportunities, they are hoping they get someone to give them one more chance....because you're Mickey Jannis or Cesar Valdez.    

[Mackus]

I don't know what article you're talking about. These posts and thoughts are my own.

I totally understand why you and others are interested in discussing how the negotiations may go and what might an a fair compromise between the two sides given where things are now and where they may be moving.

I'm talking tangentially to that. I am well aware that what I'm suggesting isn't remotely plausible. I just think its the way things should be. Everything else could be figured out. Baseball as a sport may look a little different, but it'd still be great.

[dude]

I don't know what article you're talking about. These posts and thoughts are my own.

 

Sorry, it was the article on "minor league housing"....your words are almost verbatim what was being shared there.

[russsnyder]

Lots of interesting stuff in here.

The Players Union is not going to give up guaranteed contracts and I doubt they give up arbitration since it's really the only tool that non free agents have to negotiate with ownership.

I think a fair way of dealing with service time issues is by giving players on the 40 man at the end of ST credit for MLB service time for the time spent on the 40 man during said season. Also, if you are on the 40 man, you get paid the minimum major league salary even if you are in the minors.

Further, those salaries would all be counted against the team's total salary number.



While I am generally pro player in these situations. I think lowering the number for luxury tax and enhancing the penalties will serve as a soft cap. ( I doubt the players union will ever agree to hard cap in MLB.) A salary floor in MLB is past due.

I will be surprised if we do not see a work stoppage. The sides seem pretty far apart.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Hard salary cap and salary minimum. No luxury tax.

 

No draft. Players sign a contract anytime they want for as long as they want. But a contract is a contract. Don't sign if you don't like it.

 

Players will perform quickly or get moved out.

 

Players have control over their careers.

 

Product at the MLB level will be improved.

[dude]

Also, if you are on the 40 man, you get paid the minimum major league salary even if you are in the minors.

Further, those salaries would all be counted against the team's total salary number.

 

...so....these things are already in the current structure.

--------------------

 

This is actually one of the ways agents used to try and manipulate the draft.  They would demand that their client be placed on the 40-man as part of their signing (a "major league contract") which would force the team to begin burning options on them from their 1st year in the system so that they'd be required to be on the (then) 25-man by year 4.  Dylan Bundy was the last guy to get this and it likely negatively impacted his development, especially as a HS pitcher.  Draft slotting has eliminated the ability of agents to make outrageous demands (both salary and roster status) to try and get their clients to slide to the teams (read: Yankees) they would rather play for.

[dude]

Product at the MLB level will be improved.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by improved.

 

You rail against the impact of money constantly and your assertions of the current system are provably false.....

 

...yet you want to implement changes to the system that would likely consequent in the exact way that you think is terrible.

 

You are suggesting what you think is the worst version of The Game would be the "improved" version of The Game.

 

Others have mentioned Soccer League structures (classes of teams) and college football....that would be the likely consequence....handfuls of Super Teams and other places (like Baltimore) fighting the second tier.