The next collective bargaining agreement

[BrewCrewRising]

The next collective bargaining agreement came up in another thread about foreign born players. I hadn't thought much about the implications of the next CBA, so I thought I might open a new thread to ask questions and get a discussion going.

I'm wondering:

1) Based on what people know, what are the chances that type A and B comp picks are eliminated from the draft?

2) If the above happens, what are the implications for the Crew? It seems to me that the loss of those compensation picks can kind of screw smaller market clubs in a way. Otherwise you basically have to trade Prince Fielder in his final year of control. What happens if a player only signs a contract to buy out arbitration/first year of FA if he can have a no trade clause? Then a team like the Crew is really hamstrung. I can see on one level how it would also work against teams like Boston and New York who might have more type A's hitting the market though.

3) What other changes are possibily slated for the next CBA?

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

If the reason they eliminate compensation picks is in order to institute a hard slotting system for draft pick bonuses and contracts, the good of this for small market teams significantly outweighs the bad.

 

They should also allow teams to trade draft picks. That way, if your goal is to turn an impending free agent into a couple picks, it shouldn't be too hard.

[BrewCrewRising]

If the reason they eliminate compensation picks is in order to institute a hard slotting system for draft pick bonuses and contracts, the good of this for small market teams significantly outweighs the bad.

 

They should also allow teams to trade draft picks. That way, if your goal is to turn an impending free agent into a couple picks, it shouldn't be too hard.

 

What do you mean by "hard slotting" exactly, and how would the good outweigh the bad for small market teams with this in place?

 

Being able to trade draft picks for players is intriguing, but I wonder how it affects the trade market. For example, would having no compensation picks for CC have given DM pause in trading for him? Or does it simply mean you trade fewer prospects? Even if that were the case, the appeal of the compsensation picks is that you get another high round draft pick to compensate (in the CC example) to partially make up for the loss of the highly ranked prospect.

 

Also, I don't think draft picks in baseball would have the same weight as football draft picks. It seems (I have no stats to back this up right now) that a higher percentage of football draft picks contribute to their clubs than baseball draft picks ever do. With baseball, it seems advantageous to pick a heap of talent form the draft and see what sticks.

[bjkrautk]

Things I'd like to see in a new CBA:

- Worldwide draft, treating Japanese high-schoolers the same way we treat Canadian high schoolers. Professional baseball players in foreign leagues should still operate under the type of buyout system we've seen for players like Ichiro.

- Tradeable draft picks.

- If a draft pick is granted to another team in compensation for losing a Class A player, the granted pick should be transferrable if the receiving team signs someone else's Class A player. (e.g. The Brewers would have received the 29th overall pick from the Yankees in compensation for C.C. Sabathia, instead of the 73rd? pick) Sandwich picks are non-transferable / non-tradeable (like compensatory picks in the NFL).

[paul253]

I think they should keep the compensation picks, but adjust them. For instance, instead of a team losing their "first rounder" if they sign a certain player, they should lose their first pick. Same with "second rounder". They shouldn't lose their second rounder, they should lose their second pick. The Yankees (of course it would be them) really got a sweet deal out of that system.

 

I also like the idea of trading draft picks.

 

The two other changes I'd want to see most is a rookie salary cap and a world wide draft. I have never understood why someone from Canada has to get drafted but someone from Japan or Cuba is a free agent.

 

Baseball's draft is so screwed up its basically a joke. I remember when the Brewers had the #2 pick, another team that had made the playoffs, I wanna say the A's or Angels, got like 7 picks before the Brewers picked again. And the best players are getting passed over over "signability" concerns, which should never be the case in any sport. Fix the draft, and fix it entirely. Thats what I want to see.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

BrewCrewRising wrote:

 

What do you mean by "hard slotting" exactly, and how would the good outweigh the bad for small market teams with this in place?

 

Being able to trade draft picks for players is intriguing, but I wonder how it affects the trade market. For example, would having no compensation picks for CC have given DM pause in trading for him? Or does it simply mean you trade fewer prospects? Even if that were the case, the appeal of the compsensation picks is that you get another high round draft pick to compensate (in the CC example) to partially make up for the loss of the highly ranked prospect.

I'm not remotely as big a fan of NFL or NBA as I am a baseball fan, but it is my understanding that both of those leagues have arrangements where teams don't really negotiate with draft picks at all -- you're drafted where you're drafted, and that pick is due x dollars over y years this year. Something like this is what I'm talking about. The drafted player would presumably still retain the right to refuse to sign and re-enter the draft a year later. But the only calculus a player in this position needs to perform is "do I think I'll be picked higher next year or the year after that?" since next year's offer would similarly be irrevocably tied to where he was drafted.

 

"Signability" would be gone from draft lexicon immediately, except for HS guys who might want to go to college unless they go in the first couple of rounds. This would obviously help small market teams because, currently, they mostly adhere to MLB's recommended soft slots, and are therefore forced annually to pass on some of the draft's best players.

 

Scott Boras would become instantly irrelevant.

 

As for trading draft picks, I think you're spot on that the price for acquiring rental players would drop considerably. I also suspect that teams would often opt to pay in draft picks rather than current prospects, though selling teams will probably always prefer to get guys that are as major-league ready as possible. But the market would sort that out, and it's difficult to see an advantage in it either for small or large market teams over the system we currently have.

[Invader3K]

Doug Melvin had the idea a while ago that they should eliminate "rounds" and just have one continuous draft. That way if they kept free agent compensation picks, you'd just get the teams first or next pick, wherever that falls (kind of like someone else alluded to earlier).

[TheCrew07]

The compensation round should go by the order of the significance of the FA lost... for example this year the Angels and Brewers should have had the first 2 picks in the comp round.

 

There needs to be an international draft, no more of this silly FA bogus nonsense.

 

All players foreign and domestic must declare for the draft or they are ineligible to be drafted, the same goes for college eligible players, if you declare for the draft you lose your NCAA eligibility. Signability is no longer an issue, I don't see signability going away with slotting, I see slotting causing more players to go unsigned and picks rolling over to the following year. The only way to make signability a non issue is to remove the option of playing college ball anymore. If they don't like their slot they can go to school and play indy ball hoping to improve their status next round. If they go to college let them declare whenever they want, just like with college BB.

[colbyjack]

Worldwide draft, treating Japanese high-schoolers the same way we treat Canadian high schoolers. Professional baseball players in foreign leagues should still operate under the type of buyout system we've seen for players like Ichiro.

 

Canadian baseball is far from the profitable industry that professional baseball in Japan is though. You would never be able to get Japan to simply allow their amateur baseball players to be subject to the MLB draft.

 

Scott Boras would become instantly irrelevant.

 

First of all, Boras will never be irrelevant. He is one of the most savvy and powerful people in the game. Secondly, that is exactly why the proposed changes will never happen. Agents are involved with so many aspects of the game of baseball in todays game, from free agency to trades and the draft. When the next CBA rolls around, MLB better have a mighty big chip they're willing to trade in exchange for some of the ideas people are suggesting, because even if amateur players don't fall under the player's union, any changes to the draft are still subject to be bargained.

 

As I brought up in another thread, I really don't think people understand how difficult a true worldwide draft would be. Getting most of the world may be easier than trying to figure out how to get Japan and Cuba involved.

 

TheCrew07 brings up an interesting point that could put some bargaining power back into the teams' hands. Make players that declare themselves to be eligible for the draft lose their NCAA eligibility. This point somewhat came up over the past year when Oklahoma State's Andrew Oliver was suspended from the NCAA for his involvement coming out of high school with an agent. There would have to be some kind of reinstatement process, since some players are going to get screwed by teams in the draft, and they're too young to be held completely accountable for giving up their college plans, and basically, most of their negotiating power, if they declare for the draft.

[TheCrew07]

I don't see how an international draft that excludes Cuba and Japan would be a bid deal.. everyone has to file paperwork to declare for the draft...or you don't get drafted and don't play, it seems pretty equal all the way around. I'm not opposed to a case by exception process for a kid, but to make the system fair for all of the teams, money shouldn't make a difference, and players who haven't proven anything shouldn't be able to command large dollar amounts. To protect the players maybe HS kids taken in the top 30 rounds are guaranteed to have their college education paid for regardless what happens (so they have something to fall back on). If you're a college player and you declare, that should be it though, there should be no "I don't like my slot I'm going to back to school", they can go rot in the Indy league for a year or they can use the the perceived slight as motivation.

 

I have a similar complaint with the NFL draft right now, the guys at the top of the draft are getting paid way too much money without ever having to produce. Ryan Leaf started me on this path, I forget his exact quote but it was something along the lines of, "I got my 10 million, I'm set for life regardless what happens". The signability issue in baseball takes it to a whole different level though.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Scott Boras would become instantly irrelevant.

 

First of all, Boras will never be irrelevant. He is one of the most savvy and powerful people in the game. Secondly, that is exactly why the proposed changes will never happen. Agents are involved with so many aspects of the game of baseball in todays game, from free agency to trades and the draft. When the next CBA rolls around, MLB better have a mighty big chip they're willing to trade in exchange for some of the ideas people are suggesting, because even if amateur players don't fall under the player's union, any changes to the draft are still subject to be bargained.

Okay, that may have been hyperbole, but a guy can dream, can't he? Also, I thought the reason that they were kicking around getting rid of draft pick compensation is that its existence is the reason that changes to the draft have to be collectively bargained. My understanding is that with draft pick compensation for free agents eliminated, any changes the league wishes to make to the draft could be imposed unilaterally, since the MLBPA would no longer have any stake in it. I'll admit I'm not 100% sure that I'm right on this, but as I said, that was my understanding.

 

Now, it could be that the players would refuse to allow the owners to get rid of the existing compensation system because they like having a say about how the draft is conducted. Sort of doubt it though, since the current system acts as at least a slight artificial drag on free agent salaries (having to forfeit a draft pick is, after all, a disincentive to signing a free agent. Unless you're the Sabean-run Giants circa 2001. In which case, getting rid of the pick is apparently the reason to sign someone as terrible as Michael Tucker in the first place. But I digress...). And no matter how clever their agents are about trying to convince the players that draft pick compensation is a good thing, I'm pretty sure that the players (or at least their union) could figure out the aforementioned.

[Tbadder]

Count me as hyper-cynical about the next agreement. The loser will be the small market teams. It's going to be the players, the agents, and the big market teams against the small market teams (if the big market teams are smart). If I'm a big market team why do I want a hard slot? No, I want signability issues so I can pick off talented prospects that the small market teams won't draft. Why would I want an international draft if I was a big market team? I don't want one. Because I can simply pay more if I really want a player, or watch small market teams spend themselves into non-competitiveness signing players I don't think are going to make it.

 

 

If I'm a player, agent, or big market team I want to eliminate all compensation for signing free agents. And I want to see players under control of their original team for four years, not six. Arbitration should begin immediately after a player has logged one year service time.

 

 

Now, in a I'm-hoping-life-is beautiful-mood, what I'd like to see is a five year waiting period. That is players submit their names to MLB for the draft at any time. If they are drafted they have 1 year to hammer out a deal. If not signed the teams lose their rights to the player, and all future rights to that player, even on the major league level. The player on the other hand cannot apply for draft status for another five years. The draft would be a Western Hemisphere draft only. Players could submit their names for the draft beginning their Junior year in high school.

[endaround]

The PA signed off on a world wide draft at the last CBA. They basically said that if the owners came up with something fairly reasonable they'll sign off on it. Keep in mind the PA would love to have more talent in the draft and caps on draft slots because it frees up more money to spend on existing players. The owners never got a proposal together. One thing that keeps being overlooked is how much this isn't a union-ownership thing but a small revenue large revenue thing. Large market teams want to be able to run independent camps in Latin America because their money gives them an advantage. Same thing with draft slots. And baseball ownership rules are super majoritarian, basically you need 25 votes or so to get something down. When you already have the two New York teams, the Cubs, the Angels, and the Red Sox not wanting to give up anything you just need three more large market teams to block something.

[logan82]

I think the PA is going to make a big issue about Type A free agents not being able to sign very easily. I was thinking that they should protect all team's first round picks and take away picks starting with second round picks for signing Type A free agents. Compensation starts after the first round. Highest rated free agent gets the first sandwich pick 2nd rated free agent gets the 2nd pick ans so forth. Type B free agents net a pick after the first round of compensation picks. Type A's net a second pick each after the Type B compensation picks. Keep the limits on the number of picks that each team can sign.

 

As bad as we got hosed with our compensation pick for CC, the Jays got it much worse.

[TooLiveBrew]

They should also allow teams to trade draft picks. That way, if your goal is to turn an impending free agent into a couple picks, it shouldn't be too hard.

 

While I agree completely with the spirit of this, the reason MLB stopped allowing picks to be traded was to block draftees from dictating with which teams they would & wouldn't sign. Iirc it was Pete Incaviglia that either brought this on or was the 'straw that broke the camel's back.' If you want a more contemporary example (albeit a different sport), look back to the SDC/NYG Eli Manning/Philip Rivers scenario.

 

Not saying there can't be provisions made, I just think it's a relatively complicated issue.

[bjkrautk]

They should also allow teams to trade draft picks. That way, if your goal is to turn an impending free agent into a couple picks, it shouldn't be too hard.

 

While I agree completely with the spirit of this, the reason MLB stopped allowing picks to be traded was to block draftees from dictating with which teams they would & wouldn't sign. Iirc it was Pete Incaviglia that either brought this on or was the 'straw that broke the camel's back.' If you want a more contemporary example (albeit a different sport), look back to the SDC/NYG Eli Manning/Philip Rivers scenario.

 

Not saying there can't be provisions made, I just think it's a relatively complicated issue.

The reason 'signability' is such a big concern in MLB and not in the other sports is because in the case of an Eli Manning (or John Elway) scenario, the team with the top pick cannot be adequately compensated. They have two choices: make the player hold out, or pass on the "top player" and take someone who will sign.

 

The alternative to the Eli Manning scenario actually also involves the city of San Diego. In 2004, the Padres passed on Jared Weaver (7-2, 2.08 ERA; 74 SO / 90.2 IP this season) and Stephen Drew (.728 OPS) to select Matt Bush, who never came close to making the majors. The Padres were surprisingly open in admitting that signability was the reason for the pick. Justin Verlander (7-3, 3.39 ERA; 110 SO / 90.1 IP) went second to Detroit. Under the NFL rules, the Padres would have at least been able to accumulate additional picks by trading down, so that they could make a disasterous pick in the top 10 instead of #1 overall.