Any major changes coming in the new CBA? [CBA agreed upon: post 59]

[adambr2]

Does anyone think there will be significant changes under the new CBA? I certainly hope the competitive balance lottery maintains as is. I think most can agree that an international draft would be fantastic.

 

On the negative side (for us), I can't help but wonder if something will be put in place to prevent teams from manipulating service time with minor league assignments to keep salaries low or buy an extra year of service time, and how and if that would be applied retroactively. I know the MLBPA is pretty unsatisfied with the current system.

[monty57]

I'm expecting a hard salary cap and/or equally shared TV revenue among all the teams [/wishful thinking]

 

In reality, I'm sure the players would like to get the draft pick compensation taken out of the qualifying offer, as that has hurt some "2nd tier" veteran FAs get deals. They'd probably have to give up a lot to get that, so I don't know what the owners would get in return.

[adambr2]

I'm expecting a hard salary cap and/or equally shared TV revenue among all the teams [/wishful thinking]

 

In reality, I'm sure the players would like to get the draft pick compensation taken out of the qualifying offer, as that has hurt some "2nd tier" veteran FAs get deals. They'd probably have to give up a lot to get that, so I don't know what the owners would get in return.

 

Yeah, I don't know what the point would be for the team though then, no reason to make a QO to anyone if there's no compensation if they decline.

 

Maybe they could just award the team a 'sandwich' pick after the first round without actually taking a pick from the signing team. Or protect all 1st round picks. I don't think a 2nd round pick will scare off many teams from signing a QO player.

[1992casey]

In reality, I'm sure the players would like to get the draft pick compensation taken out of the qualifying offer, as that has hurt some "2nd tier" veteran FAs get deals. They'd probably have to give up a lot to get that, so I don't know what the owners would get in return.

The last time around, when draft pick compensation was made to apply to fewer players, more players were allowed to qualify for super-two.

[Ennder]

I'm expecting a hard salary cap and/or equally shared TV revenue among all the teams [/wishful thinking]

 

 

This wouldn't work at all, in fact it would hurt the Brewers. It is the only sport with a real minor league system which makes the idea not tenable regardless.

[Roderick]

I'm expecting a hard salary cap and/or equally shared TV revenue among all the teams [/wishful thinking]

 

 

This wouldn't work at all, in fact it would hurt the Brewers. It is the only sport with a real minor league system which makes the idea not tenable regardless.

 

If you have a hard cap, then there has to be a hard floor - as the union is going to bargain based on total wage spending. You would have to give away quite a bit even with a floor that is high, to get that language, as wage inflation has been crazy, and they won't want to stop that trend.

 

As for shared TV revenue, assuming you are talking about the local broadcasts, which are the big dollars - that is a total non-starter. There is no way the Dodgers are going to give the Brewers a share of their local tv money and give up all their advantages. I don't think the owners would even agree to put even 1% of their local tv revenue into a sharing formula. It would have change too much. Budgets and franchise values and debt , etc, etc are based off from current agreements. Plus I don't think owners would give 1% even after agreements were over and renegotiated as then some would want 2% and then 3%.....

[MrTPlush]

We already do share TV contracts(among other sources of revenue) indirectly through revenue sharing. Last time I checked it is actually a pretty big chunk of money.

[Roderick]

We already do share TV contracts(among other sources of revenue) indirectly through revenue sharing. Last time I checked it is actually a pretty big chunk of money.

 

 

http://www.csnbayarea.com/athletics/mlb-revenue-sharing-problem-raiders

 

I thought the revenue sharing was from the mlb.com, channel and internet. But I was wrong, 34% of the net local revenue. I stress net, as that could pretty much mean anything with good bookkeeping. I assume it is basically the gross local revenue though.

[MrTPlush]

We already do share TV contracts(among other sources of revenue) indirectly through revenue sharing. Last time I checked it is actually a pretty big chunk of money.

 

 

http://www.csnbayarea.com/athletics/mlb-revenue-sharing-problem-raiders

 

I thought the revenue sharing was from the mlb.com, channel and internet. But I was wrong, 34% of the net local revenue. I stress net, as that could pretty much mean anything with good bookkeeping. I assume it is basically the gross local revenue though.

 

It's hard to find good info on it, but the Top 5 teams getting the most revenue sharing are bringing in $30mil+. I know there was a big issue when the Marlins tore down because their revenue sharing ended up at $60mil+ and their payroll wasn't even that. That's when their owner really got railed for just trying to make money and not trying to win.

[monty57]

I'm expecting a hard salary cap and/or equally shared TV revenue among all the teams [/wishful thinking]

 

 

This wouldn't work at all, in fact it would hurt the Brewers. It is the only sport with a real minor league system which makes the idea not tenable regardless.

 

I was going to keep out the salary cap part, as it's really unnecessary. If all TV revenue was shared equally (i.e. the money was pooled and doled out equally to all teams, so no one got more TV revenue than anyone else), there would be no Large market / Small market concerns. The difference in ticket sales, merchandise, etc is miniscule compared to the difference in TV deals.

 

I still think Selig was on to something when he made all internet revenue shared equally. Eventually, I hope local TV deals are a thing of the past, as we eventually move to everything being viewed online. But this is probably all better served for another thread.

[logan82]

Yeah a hard cap is not a good idea unless you are going to share all tv revenue equally. All a hard cap would do is screw the players out of money.

 

These negotiations always come down to large vs small market teams.

[nate82]

International Draft might happen but it probably won't be implemented for another 4 years if at all. The shortening of the season to 152 games or less looks like it has gotten a lot of traction along with changes to the expanded roster rules in September.

[Ennder]

Even if they shared revenue completely on all levels you would have players going to big markets for endorsement deals and avoiding Milwaukee because it isn't considered a good social/weather destination. I don't know why people think the salary cap works in football but it really doesn't. Teams that have a history of being good, that are big markets or that are popular have huge advantages over other teams that are considered poor destinations. The same teams are in the running for the playoffs every year barring injuries.

 

The Brewers would not improve their lot in life with a salary cap. They would have to overpay to get players to come play for them and would be like the Packers and be forced to build almost exclusively through the draft, just like how it is now.

 

But with the minor league system the way it is I don't know how a salary cap could possibly work in the first place.

[logan82]

Even if they shared revenue completely on all levels you would have players going to big markets for endorsement deals and avoiding Milwaukee because it isn't considered a good social/weather destination. I don't know why people think the salary cap works in football but it really doesn't. Teams that have a history of being good, that are big markets or that are popular have huge advantages over other teams that are considered poor destinations. The same teams are in the running for the playoffs every year barring injuries.

 

The Brewers would not improve their lot in life with a salary cap. They would have to overpay to get players to come play for them and would be like the Packers and be forced to build almost exclusively through the draft, just like how it is now.

 

But with the minor league system the way it is I don't know how a salary cap could possibly work in the first place.

The advantage would come from being able to keep our own players for a couple more years here and there. You can't build through free agency even in the NFL.

[reillymcshane]

I'm going to take a stab at suggesting the following things as getting heavily considered in the next CBA:

 

1. International draft.

2. Expansion of two teams, making for 32 teams. Eight divisions of four teams.

3. Expansion of playoffs. Division winners, plus wild card teams. How exactly thing work out would need to be determined. A couple of teams in each league would probably get a bye series.

4. Something is done to rein in the massive rosters in September.

5. Probably some tweaks in free agency. Losing the qualifying offer would be big for the players. Just a guess, but I bet it happens in some fashion. Perhaps have a way to rank players (like in the old Elias rankings), and if a team loses one of the top players (let's say 15, for example), that team gets a sandwich pick between the 1st and 2nd rounds (unless they sign a top 15 player, then they forfeit the extra pick). I think this will be a sacrifice on the owner's part to get something they want (like the international draft).

 

With expanded playoffs (more teams, longer playoff time frame), you may end up with a shorter season. But that's hard to do. Let's say you drop back to 154 games - that's eight games less for teams to get revenue and for players to make money. But again, with the extra playoff money, plus the 50 extra major league jobs, something might be worked out.

 

The salary cap stuff is pretty daunting. I imagine there will be some tweaks, but how much is anyone's guess.

[502 to Right]

The QO isn't the problem and should be kept. The problem is the signing team losing a pick. Just award a sandwich pick to the losing team and call it a day.

[torts]

Length of season to 154

Expansion of league to 32

Expansion of roster to 30

International draft

[AKCheesehead]

This would never happen, but I've always thought it would be neat if teams below a certain salary threshold were allowed an extra roster spot or two.

[pacopete4]

Length of season to 154

Expansion of league to 32

Expansion of roster to 30

International draft

 

 

Not enough talent in the league now for 30 teams with 25 man rosters

[1992casey]

Expansion doesn't really require a new CBA to happen. Players generally like it. I could see it as a remedy if the DH were eliminated in the American League, but roster expansion would seem to be more likely.

 

Actually, regarding the DH, I think it's very possible that it could be expanded to include the National League, but again, that can be done mid-stream.

[MadThinker88]

DH is not going away. It's now engrained in the game.

I realize there are fans of pitchers having to hit but that is a smaller segment than those that like having the DH.

 

For every pitcher we note is a good hitter, there is player that is a primary DH whose career is extended so people can enjoy him (Molitor, Frank Thomas, David Ortiz, Edgar Martinez, Victor Martinez, etc)

[MrTPlush]

Expansion won't happen in the new CBA. They refuse to go in depth with it until the A's and Rays get new stadiums.

[Ennder]

Both leagues will have DH within 10 years, it is more or less a given. Too many pitchers getting hurt hitting and running the bases and too unfair having the leagues different now that interleague is such a big part of the game.

[monty57]

Both leagues will have DH within 10 years, it is more or less a given. Too many pitchers getting hurt hitting and running the bases and too unfair having the leagues different now that interleague is such a big part of the game.

 

I agree. I'm expecting it to happen in the next couple of years.

 

I figure I enjoyed watching the Brewers when they were in the AL with the DH, and I've enjoyed watching them in the NL without the DH. That they are "my team," and are playing baseball is what matters. Whether or not there is a DH is pretty much irrelevant to my being a fan.

 

As to whether it will happen:

 

1) The players' union wants it, as it extends expensive players' careers. Keeping vets with ten figure salaries on the roster and limiting arby guys with six figure salaries puts a lot of money in the union's pocket.

 

2) Owners of big AL teams hate that their pitchers have the risk of injury when they play in NL parks. Losing your ace could be the difference between winning the World Series and missing the playoffs.

 

3) NL owners should hate being at a disadvantage in interleague play. We have a big enough W/L sample to show that AL teams have the advantage.

 

That gives good reason for all parties involved to accept the DH across baseball.

[Oldcity]

I don't expect it because I haven't seen much traction on it anywhere else, but I would love to see the division-heavy scheduling evened out some. We don't need ten series against the Reds or whatever it is.

 

Hoping for an international draft but not holding my breath there either.