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

[MrTPlush]

I don't think we see the DH change this time around, but it is in the near future. Enough of the two leagues playing entirely different. Since there is no way they drop the DH its time to just adopt it in the NL. Its problematic for small markets, but it is what it is.

[torts]

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.

 

it doesn't really require it, but the league may use league expansion to negotiate other terms, same with the DH change. Players want it, owners can say you can have it if you give us xyz. I think its more likely to happen during a CBA negotiation than mid-stream for that reason.

[JDBrewCrew]

MLB Pushing for 10 round International Draft.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-reportedly-pushing-for-an-international-draft-in-collective-bargaining-agreement-talks/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[torts]

any noise around this? the less noise the better, usually means pretty smooth negotiations.. though its only been a week.

[jerichoholicninja]

any noise around this? the less noise the better, usually means pretty smooth negotiations.. though its only been a week.

 

I don't think there's any road blocks but the international draft, kicking Oakland out of revenue sharing, and changes to the QO have all been reported.

[Bombers]

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.

1. I am all in on the international draft. We have discussed it, but being born out of the US allows you to get paid more than being born in the US. Just seems like an irregularity that should be fixed. Could you imagine if the NBA only had a draft for US born players and international players were open to signing as a FA to any team?

2. Yes again. I like the format of the NFL and I think giving each team a 25% chance of making the playoffs is the best fit. I understand others will disagree, I just like the uniformity of 16 teams in each league.

3. I am in on expanding playoffs, but the season needs to go to 154. And the season should start March 31 and never go into November.

4. Agree on the September Rosters. However, teams that are not in the playoff race should have a way to bring up players to get them some big league experience. So they need an option to allow teams to bring guys up. Maybe each series they need to designate the 25 guys available.

5. I would say follow the NFL. They aware teams with sandwich picks who lose top players. I think that fits and doesn't hurt the FA from getting signed.

[Vgmastr]

If we go to 32 teams, I'd rather do two divisions of eight in each league. Having four divisions of four means you either have to eliminate the wild card, which MLB won't do, or go to an eight team playoff, as bye series don't really work in baseball, that's too long for a team to sit. With two divisions of eight, you have two division winners and then expand to four wild cards, with two wild card games in each league.

[nate82]

Rosters may expand to 26 players with restrictions on the expanded rosters in September.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2676693-mlb-reportedly-considering-expanding-team-roster-sizes-latest-details-reaction

[djoctagone]

to be fair, clubs should have known yesterday at the rule 5 draft protection deadline whether or not a 26th man rule would be in play in 2017. being able to bury a player as your 26th man (instead of 25th) may mean that more players are drafted and kept all season.

[jerichoholicninja]

to be fair, clubs should have known yesterday at the rule 5 draft protection deadline whether or not a 26th man rule would be in play in 2017. being able to bury a player as your 26th man (instead of 25th) may mean that more players are drafted and kept all season.

 

I would really be surprised if any changes involving the QO or roster sizes would be in effect immediately or this upcoming season.

[djoctagone]

to be fair, clubs should have known yesterday at the rule 5 draft protection deadline whether or not a 26th man rule would be in play in 2017. being able to bury a player as your 26th man (instead of 25th) may mean that more players are drafted and kept all season.

I would really be surprised if any changes involving the QO or roster sizes would be in effect immediately or this upcoming season.

while 2017 isn't explicitly stated in this baseball america article, it's certainly implied.

[JohnBriggs12]

They'll never go back to 154 games. Teams like Brewers who rely on gate receipts as a larger percentage of the revenue stream especially won't give up 4 home dates. That's significant revenue loss and why teams never play true doubleheaders any more.

[pacopete4]

I'd love to see a 11am & 6pm double header Sunday mixed into the schedule. What a great day for that and you could still have two gates to the games.

[pitchleague]

I know that this is not CBA-related, but count me in with the crowd of people that wished that an umpire (likely the crew chief) was mic'ed up for every game to tell the crowd what in the heck they are reviewing and explaining things a bit more. It works very well with football and I'm pretty sure it would solve a whole lot of "wha?" and "huh?" reactions from the in-stadium crowds and the television viewing audience (not to mention the broadcasters) because nobody knows what's going on with some reviews.

 

Notice that not ALL reviews would need this but there are a LOT of times that they review stuff and everyone is wondering what they are checking.

[jerichoholicninja]

I know that this is not CBA-related, but count me in with the crowd of people that wished that an umpire (likely the crew chief) was mic'ed up for every game to tell the crowd what in the heck they are reviewing and explaining things a bit more. It works very well with football and I'm pretty sure it would solve a whole lot of "wha?" and "huh?" reactions from the in-stadium crowds and the television viewing audience (not to mention the broadcasters) because nobody knows what's going on with some reviews.

 

Notice that not ALL reviews would need this but there are a LOT of times that they review stuff and everyone is wondering what they are checking.

 

I agree. They could also have someone from the replay center relay the information to the press box.

[Ennder]

To be honest 154 game schedule is awful, it should be more like 124 games. The game is way too bloated in games played. Either they will stick with 162 or they will make an actual meaningful change and go somewhere under 140.

[djoctagone]

to be fair, clubs should have known yesterday at the rule 5 draft protection deadline whether or not a 26th man rule would be in play in 2017. being able to bury a player as your 26th man (instead of 25th) may mean that more players are drafted and kept all season.

I would really be surprised if any changes involving the QO or roster sizes would be in effect immediately or this upcoming season.

while 2017 isn't explicitly stated in this baseball america article, it's certainly implied.

ken rosenthal confirms that if the cba is complete by 7 december and allows for 26-man rosters prior to the rule 5 draft on 8 december, then clubs can expect that a single rule 5 pick will be the 26th man on their roster all season. it's safe to assume that many more players will be drafted in the 2016 draft.

[Patrick425]

All a hard cap would do is screw the players out of money.

 

[sarcasm]Gee, you mean a slightly above average middle reliever would not make $7.5M/yr. Yeah..that would be a shame.[/sarcasm]

[pacopete4]

All a hard cap would do is screw the players out of money.

 

[sarcasm]Gee, you mean a slightly above average middle reliever would not make $7.5M/yr. Yeah..that would be a shame.[/sarcasm]

 

I'm okay with these guys making as much money as possible. The owners definitely do no need to be lining their pockets with even more money than they already are.

[MrTPlush]

it's safe to assume that many more players will be drafted in the 2016 draft.

 

Not sure it would be a lot more. Sure there is an extra spot, but most teams would probably take an extra bullpen arm or bench bat. There might be a notable increase in the amount taken, but the amount that actually make it halfway through the season will likely be pretty similar. Might take one now, but just drop them in spring training when you realize you don't want the wasted 26 man spot. Much like what happens now. Also got to remember you still have to use a 40 man roster spot on said draftee.

[rickh150]

All a hard cap would do is screw the players out of money.

 

[sarcasm]Gee, you mean a slightly above average middle reliever would not make $7.5M/yr. Yeah..that would be a shame.[/sarcasm]

 

I'm okay with these guys making as much money as possible. The owners definitely do no need to be lining their pockets with even more money than they already are.

 

So your worldview is......players, money, good alongside owners, money, bad?

 

On a related point....How about a smaller gap between the rich and poor teams in baseball? That is the issue that should be on the minds of small market teams. Since it takes two teams to make a game, sharing more revenue (especially tv money) seems logical and good for the game overall.

[pacopete4]

So your worldview is......players, money, good alongside owners, money, bad?

 

Nope. It's not. But for a long time the players were getting to small a piece of the pie. Don't try that BS putting words in peoples mouths. The owners have been fat cats for far too long paying little in salary, in building stadiums, etc...

[logan82]

All a hard cap would do is screw the players out of money.

 

[sarcasm]Gee, you mean a slightly above average middle reliever would not make $7.5M/yr. Yeah..that would be a shame.[/sarcasm]

It's better to put the money on owner's pockets?

[Jenkins5]

All a hard cap would do is screw the players out of money.

 

[sarcasm]Gee, you mean a slightly above average middle reliever would not make $7.5M/yr. Yeah..that would be a shame.[/sarcasm]

It's better to put the money on owner's pockets?

 

[sarcasm]Yeah, I know the NBA players are really struggling with a cap.... those owners are completely gutting the pockets of the players[/sarcasm]

 

It is possible to have a cap where both players and owners make money while kind of creating competitive balance. There are a lot smarter people than me to figure what the right numbers are to do that but not allowing some teams to blow 300+ million a year to get anyone they want giving the lower no chance to compete for top talent.... or retain their own talent. Even with 3 to 3.5 million attendance a year, Brewers would need to skyrocket prices for use to really be able to get in arm races with the big markets.

[logan82]

The difference between MLB and every other sport is the revenue sharing. Without more comprehensive revenue sharing all that happens is the money goes into the owner's pockets. A cap is the worst way to try make an even playing field in MLB.