Collective Bargaining Agreementâ?¦ Latest: agreement announced (reply #109)

[Kelbysdaddy]

apparently the owners are meeting in milwaukee on thursday......... anyone know where?

[Paul77]

The Pfister Hotel.

[adamb100]

You havent heard anything about a potential lockout in the media, unlike with the NBA and NFL when those dates loomed. They must be really close to a deal.

[Invader3K]

Buster Olney with an update. Sounds like things are almost a done deal.

 

Nothing finalized, but it appears MLB will get a system that tamps down draft cost; veteran FAs won't have to deal with compensation issue.

[NievesNoNO]

Great to hear a deal is almost complete!

 

I've changed my tone on the whole salary cap debate over the years. I don't think there's a question on weather or not the large market teams start off with a bigger advantage, they do. However, I don't think the NFL model (salary cap) model will work. To institute a cap, you'll most likely need to institute a floor meaning if a team can't lure the best free agent they'll be forced to over spend money on their own crappy talent or mid-level free agents. Many of the smaller clubs can't afford an NFL style salary floor as the revenue streams aren't the same. I actually don't mind the structure as it is. It could use some tweaks, maybe with a revamped FA compensation and world draft but all in all the system works OK. The teams just need talent in the front office and owners who are willing to reinvest some money. Easier said than done I guess.

[Patrick425]

I had to chime in after watching the Packer game last night and some stats they threw up. It was something like 46 out of the 53 players on the Packers had never played for another team. I believe this was the highest ratio in the NFL, but still this is an unbelievable ratio and something you would never see in baseball.

 

My original argument that baseball system is broken was based on the fact that every year there seems to be 2-5 top FA players that more than half the teams have no realistic shot at. Others have made the argument that this does not bother them because these FA's usually end up getting over paid by some big market team. Ok, I agree, but overpaid or not, it doesn't change the fact that these FA's are not available to all teams. They should be called restricted agents, not Free agents. I'd rather see them get paid what they are worth and have every team have a shot at them. Last night during the Packer game they were also talking about Rogers and his contract and how it will probably double in the near future. At no point did they make any comment about Green Bay, probably the smallest market in all of sports, not being able to afford him.

 

I grew up watching Yount, Molitor, and Gantner all play together on the same small market team for 15 years. Two Hall of Famers and a very solid second baseman. What do you think it would cost a team today to keep those three players for 15 straight years? Do you think the Brewers could afford it? I would guess no, nor could probably over half the teams in baseball. Today, a small or mid market team in baseball might be fortunate (and skilled) enough to go out and makes a string of good draft picks (like the Brewers did with Braun, Weeks, Fielder, Gallardo, etc). As a fan of these teams you watch this and you cross your fingers hoping that they can strike paydirt before some of these players go off to look for greener pastures.

 

I still enjoy the game, but for me it was more fun when most of the player movement was done through trades and not an unbalanced free agency system where some teams belly up to the table with two or three times as many chips as others. I prefer a system that would allow me the enjoyment as a fan to watch Braun, Fielder, and Weeks play for many years together. However, I guess I'm in the minority with this sentiment.

[paul253]

If the draft was set up properly I could get away from the idea that large market, higher spending teams have the advantage. But the draft favors higher spending teams too. Everything from bonuses to compensation picks favors teams like Boston and New York. Teams like the Pirates, Brewers, and Royals have much less room for error than teams like NY, LAA, and Boston and because of that can't take as many chances. Think of it like investing money. If I have $10,000,000 I can afford to invest more and make riskier investments because even if an investment turns out badly, I still have enough money to make up for it. If I only have $10,000, I have to be really careful with how I invest it. One bad investment that loses money and I'm done for about two or three years. The person with $10,000,000 will always have the advantage over the person with $10,000. He may have more negative investments and may even lose money every now and then, but in the end, he's got it much easier.

 

The draft needs to change. Big time. I'd say that even completely dropping the compensation rounds would be a step up. It was set up with good intentions but it doesn't work the way it's should. A compensation rounds needs to be based on the entirety off the off-season, not based on individual moves. If Boston loses a type A and signs a type A, why do they come out ahead a pick?

[DHonks]

Patrick, as you said, the Packers are a fluke. Throw in that free agency doesn't work in the NFL (and it does in MLB), and I'd say that the Rays are actually similar to the Packers.

[Patrick425]

DHonks[/b]]Patrick, as you said, the Packers are a fluke. Throw in that free agency doesn't work in the NFL (and it does in MLB), and I'd say that the Rays are actually similar to the Packers.

Not sure when I ever said the Packers were a fluke? I agree that free agency doesn't work in the NFL as it does in MLB and I think this is a benefit to NFL fans. To me free agency doesn't work in the NFL because players are aware that they really can't make much more money by going to another team. As I pointed out in a previous post the gap between the lowest and highest payrolls in the NFL is not nearly as great as the gap in MLB. In the NFL the majority of teams payrolls fall in between $100 million and $130 million with the top payroll around the $145 million mark. There are no "Yankees" to drive up the salaries to a point where they become unaffordable to two thirds of the teams in the league. To me, this is the way it should be. Players play for the teams they want to play for and not for the teams that offer them the most money. How many times have you heard Fielder say how much he and his wife enjoy Milwaukee and how much they would enjoy staying here?

 

 

 

 

[Invader3K]

Free agency in the NFL seems to be more like how it used to be in MLB: Aging players who are starting to decline, and their current team doesn't really have room for them anymore.

[Ennder]

You forget the part where almost all of those Packer players are still under their initial contract, I wouldn't use them as a prime example of how the sport is 'supposed' to work. You just can't compare the sports the way people are, players get drafted in the NFL and make an impact the same year, that kind of thing just doesn't happen in baseball. It is much harder to live with just your own players. the flame out rate is also much higher in baseball. To use the Brewers as an example though a couple years ago they put a lineup on the field that was 7 home grown players, it isn't like baseball teams never keep their own guys either.

 

Baseball can do plenty of things to help competitive balance without adding a cap, that is just putting a bandaid on things. A salary cap is not going to suddenly make the league 'fair' for the Yankees, they will have a large advantage no matter what, just like the east coast teams in the NFL have an advantage since players will sign there for less because they get extra money under the table. A big part of the reason the Packers have so many home grown players is nobody wants to come to Green Bay as a free agent, they just do a great job of working around it.

[endaround]

Also most players never survive to free agency in the NFL and so there is a huge incentive to take the money when offered to you giving the current team a large advantage.

[Patrick425]

Regardless of whether or not you think comparing the NFL to MLB is fair or if you think it's an apples and oranges comparison, no one will ever convince me that a system where payrolls range from $40 million to $210 million is a fair system. I does appear that everyone agrees that the larger payroll do represent an advantage for those teams, but I think it's a question of how big of an advantage. I think it's a huge advantage and others think it's small. Not sure how $150 million could be considered small or even $100 million or $75million. There is a lot that can be done with that kind of money. A lot more flexibility.

 

I will agree that even if there were complete revenue sharing and each team had the exact same payroll, the Yankees would still probably have an advantage in the FA market because they are the Yankees. That, I would have no problem with, because A) If players want to play there because that is really where they want to play and not because of money, that's great and B) There would be no overpayment effect of FA's that trickle down to other clubs.

 

If you guys want to continue to be excited about free agents like Barmes and Furcal (and Suppan!), that's great. I'm getting tired of it year after year. It was great getting Marcum and Grienke last year, but it stunk that we had to mortgage our farm system to do it.

[NievesNoNO]

Pat I don't disagree with you but I think it would take a lot of work to get things to even out. Just slapping a hard cap in place isn't going to work (not that I'm implying that's what you're suggesting).

 

MLB would likely have to take control of all teams TV deals. Players are simply not just going to agree to a cap unless there's a floor in place. My question is what would that number be, 60 mil, 80, mil, 100 mill ? The NFL has the luxury of being able to sell out just about every game, but no matter how you work the system inevitably there will be bad teams that are out of contention by Aug/Sept. Those games will not be filled up. So as an example, the Brewer fans that fill up Miller Park this year in essence would be helping other teams who are only drawing 10-15,000 a game instead of knowing their money at least has the opportunity to be reinvested into the team.

 

I'm not saying it's not possible or wouldn't work just that there's a lot to consider.

[Patrick425]

I'm not sure what the solution is either. I just scratch my head at those who suggest that a payroll gap of $150+ million between the largest and smallest payrolls (and the large standard deviation of all the team payrolls) does not create a substantial competitive balance issue.

 

I agree that the descrepancy between TV deals in different markets is a large part of it. Also, remember that If the Brewers and Yankees each draw 3 million fans the Yankees will take in an extra $150 million (concessions, parking, etc) just because they can charge more money per ticket in their market (at least based on this information: MLB Ticket Market Prices Higher in 2011. And that's before concessions, parking, etc which I'm assuming also all costs more at a Yankee game.

 

 

(fixed link --1992)

[kramnoj]

I just scratch my head at those who suggest that a payroll gap of $150+ million between the largest and smallest payrolls (and the large standard deviation of all the team payrolls) does not create a substantial competitive balance issue.

 

The Rays have made the playoffs as many times as the Yankees in the last 4 years despite a massive payroll difference. It's easy to think that it's a problem, it's hard to demonstrate that it actually is a problem.

[paul253]

The Rays have made the playoffs as many times as the Yankees in the

last 4 years despite a massive payroll difference.

 

What about the ten years before that?

 

It's easy to think that it's a problem, it's hard to demonstrate that it actually is a problem.

 

The Yankee have made the playoffs every year except one since the playoffs expanded. I think you're in serious denial if you don't think money has a major affect on success. It's not the only thing that affects it obviously, as the Cubs have shown us, but it certainly helps. It takes years of good drafting and good personnel moves for a team with a payroll like TB to have sustained success. They have drafted well, but they've also had some very high draft choices. From 1999 to 2008, the lowest they picked was 8th. And that includes four #1 overall picks ('99, '03, '07, '08). Those were some pretty bad teams they had. Meanwhile they Yankees were in the playoffs all of those years except 2008 because they didn't need to rely on drafting.

[kramnoj]

What about the ten years before that?

 

I think you are in serious denial if you don't acknowledge that Tampa was an expansion team and was not managed well for years.

I think you're in serious denial if you don't think money has a major affect on success

 

That's not what was stated though. It was stated that there is a substantial competitive balance issue. So, if one were to state that the game is broken and that teams that don't spend massive amounts of money can't compete, how would one support that?

[paul253]

I think you are in serious denial if you don't acknowledge that Tampa was an expansion team and was not managed well for years.

 

I think you're missing my point. You can't just take a four year period and say "see everything is great". You have to look at the entire picture. The entire picture shows the Yankees and Red Sox with the highest payrolls most of the last decade and the Yankees and Red Sox generally making the playoffs. Sure every now and then one of them will miss it, and every now and then someone like the Brewers or Rays will make it. But you have to acknowledge their window of opportunity is much shorter. Who do you realistically expect to maintain their success more, year in year out? The Yankees or the Rays?

[Patrick425]

kramnoj[/b]]What about the ten years before that?

 

I think you are in serious denial if you don't acknowledge that Tampa was an expansion team and was not managed well for years.

I think you're in serious denial if you don't think money has a major affect on success

 

That's not what was stated though. It was stated that there is a substantial competitive balance issue. So, if one were to state that the game is broken and that teams that don't spend massive amounts of money can't compete, how would one support that?

I never stated that teams that spend money will ALWAYS win and teams that don't will ALWAYS lose. You are always going to have some exceptions in some years like TB, Milwaukee, etc. Regardless of whether TB is an expansion team or not, 4 years is way too short of a sample period.

 

My point is that there is something seriously wrong with a system that has a gap of $150+ million between the largest and smallest payrolls and has a free agent system that all teams cannot afford to participate in on an equal basis.

 

Even when teams like the Brewers start tasting success, they are forced to choose which players that helped them achieve that success they will keep. The rules for them are you can keep either Braun or Fielder, but you can't keep both. Or, you can keep both but then you can't keep your current starting rotation together beyond next year. So you better pray that those two top pitching draft picks that you had last year come through for you and that neither Braun or Fielder suffer any setbacks or injuries. In other words, there is absolutely no room for error if you want to continue to be competitive. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox don't play under these same rules. That to me is what I define as a "substantial competitive balance issue"

[Ennder]

There are competitive balance issues, but there are competitive balance issues in the NBA, NFL and NHL as well. Just throwing a cap on things doesn't make it go away and there are other ways to go about fixing it. I prefer revenue sharing type methods and salary floors rather than a salary cap. I'd rather a team like the Brewers be able to go 'over' the cap for a few years when they think they have a window to be good. The large market teams are always going to have an advantage no matter what, what you want to target is the low and mid market teams being competitive with each other.

 

If they are going to set a cap I'd hope it is a cap where most teams don't live at the cap and have to constantly fight with it. The cap would really be there just to curb the top 5 or 6 teams, that I could live with in baseball.

[kramnoj]

You can't just take a four year period and say "see everything is great"

 

Why not, because it doesn't fit well with your beliefs?

 

Sure every now and then one of them will miss it, and every now and then someone like the Brewers or Rays will make it.

 

50% and 75% out of a given timeframe doesn't equate to every now and then.

 

Who do you realistically expect to maintain their success more, year in year out? The Yankees or the Rays?

 

Are you talking the near future? The Yankees have players that are being vastly overpaid for a number of years and it's not a guarantee they will have even a league average rotation next year. If the Rays make good decisions, there's no reason they can't extend their success.

 

The rules for them are you can keep either Braun or Fielder, but you can't keep both.

 

That's not a rule at all. The Brewers have the flexibility to afford Fielder for his production. He is seeking a contract that exceeds his production. The Brewers not keeping Fielder is a good decision, not something that should be lamented.

 

Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox don't play under these same rules. That to me is what I define as a "substantial competitive balance issue"

 

The Yankees and Red Sox are successful when they make good choices. That's the biggest thing that separates them from the Mets and other teams that spend without success.

[Patrick425]

Ennder[/b]]There are competitive balance issues, but there are competitive balance issues in the NBA, NFL and NHL as well. Just throwing a cap on things doesn't make it go away and there are other ways to go about fixing it. I prefer revenue sharing type methods and salary floors rather than a salary cap. I'd rather a team like the Brewers be able to go 'over' the cap for a few years when they think they have a window to be good. The large market teams are always going to have an advantage no matter what, what you want to target is the low and mid market teams being competitive with each other.

 

If they are going to set a cap I'd hope it is a cap where most teams don't live at the cap and have to constantly fight with it. The cap would really be there just to curb the top 5 or 6 teams, that I could live with in baseball.

Seems like it would have to be a pretty low cap for the Brewers to "be able to go 'over' the cap". Right now their payroll is at around $90 million and I get the feeling that they can't go much higher than that. If there ever was a cap in MLB I would think it would be around $150 (at this point anyways). I don't know enough about why caps do or don't work in other sports to make an educated argument for or agains them. Seems like there are caps in place in other sports, but there are ways around them. To me a cap should be a cap, no loopholes.

 

I will never accept the argument that "the large market teams are always going to have an advantage, no matter what". It seems like this is the general sentiment of today's baseball fans. They have just grown to accept this current state of things.

[Patrick425]

You can't just take a four year period and say "see everything is great"

 

Why not, because it doesn't fit well with your beliefs?

 

Sure every now and then one of them will miss it, and every now and then someone like the Brewers or Rays will make it.

 

50% and 75% out of a given timeframe doesn't equate to every now and then.

 

 

Has nothing to do with "fitting beliefs" Did you ever hear of something called "small sample sizes" and how they generally don't tell the entire story? This is a widely accepted idea.

 

The rules for them are you can keep either Braun or Fielder, but you can't keep both.

 

That's not a rule at all. The Brewers have the flexibility to afford Fielder for his production. He is seeking a contract that exceeds his production. The Brewers not keeping Fielder is a good decision, not something that should be lamented.

 

 

Well, you must know something about the Brewers finances that the rest of us don't. Everything that I have read states that the Brewers can not go to much over $90million. Adding Fielder at $20/mil per year or whatever it ends up being would pretty much mean they would have to trade someone like Hart, Weeks, or Gallardo.

 

Also, yes I agree, he is seeking a contract that exceeds his production. He can do that because of teams like the Yankees and Red Sox or any other team that seems to have endless streams of money to spend that dictate the market and what every player will be paid. This is basically what I have a problem with.

 

As I stated in another thread, getting excited about guys like Barmes year after year is getting old. Well, at least they can trade some of there prospects for....oh wait..they spent pretty much all those chips last year. Oh well, I'm sure Gamel will give us the same production that Fielder did.

[owbc]

Based on TH's twitter, it looks like Selig is getting almost everything he wanted in the new CBA. Extra wildcard one-game playoff, realignment, and draft reform. What a way to go out as commissioner.