MLB Lockout 2022

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

I feel like I have been very anti MLBPA lately, which probably isn’t a popular take. It just seems they never propose anything to improve the game, only to get more money for the veteran players. The owners at least usually have a mild interest in improving the game and therefore their business.

 

I certainly agree that MLBPA has done a bad job of representing it's "middle and lower" tier members and has done a reprehensible job of advocating for minor leaguers (who I know they don't technically represent).

 

I'll differ with your assessment of most ownership groups, but this is a massively complex issue before you even start to consider competitive balance. Certainly lots of room for nuanced and simultaneously overlapping and opposing takes.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

I'm not sure I buy MLBPA as a strong union. That was maybe the case a while back, but the last labor deal was terrible for them. Their players are being vastly underpaid for their early years of production to the point that guys like Albies are signing bargain deals for security. I suppose we can argue about whether that's the "smart" call (I think it probably is given the economic climate), but the Dodgers, Cubs, and Yankees are not baseball teams. They are massive media conglomerates that don't even have to report to shareholders.

 

For me, it seems like the commissioner's office and big-market owners care very little about actual baseball. Their teams are assets they expect to exponentially increase in value. Maybe it's like that in all sports, but it's bad for fans.

 

Service time manipulation is not good. Reduced share of revenue is not good. The analytics revolution has (despite a lot of cool things) instantiated a system where the whole, explicit goal is to pay as little as possible for the most production. The goal is to exploit your employees. Now, they aren't being sent into coal mines, and they're still getting lots of money, but it's way less than what teams are turning in profit. And, we know every player's salary. We have no idea what these teams' books look like. No one will show us. It's hard for me to see how MLB cares about its players or the game.

 

I think it is correct to say that some teams have become media conglomerates that can spend their way to consistent post-season appearances. Others have to scrape their way to a competitive 40-man roster. I worry I am watching the ONLY time in Brewers history they will put together 3+ consecutive post-season appearances. Not to mention, MLBPA has let the minor-league players - future members of that union - deal with some awful conditions. That, to me, is a huge failure.

 

How to fix it? Part of me feels one answer is expansion: Two more teams - one in Las Vegas (AL), the other in New Orleans (NL). Each league with four four-team divisions - AL East (Toronto, Boston, New York, Baltimore), AL West (Angels, Mariners, A's, Vegas), AL North (Minnesota, White Sox, Guardians, Tigers), AL South (Astros, Rangers, Rays, Royals), NL East (Mets, Phillies, Reds, Nationals), NL West (Dodgers, Padres, Giants, Diamondbacks), NL South (Marlins, Braves, New Orleans, Cardinals), NL North (Brewers, Cubs, Pirates, Rockies). 16-team format - 3-game first round (all three games at top seed's home stadium), 5-game LDS (2-2-1), 7-game LCS (2-2-2-1), World Series (2-2-2-1).

 

Larger major-league rosters - 30-man until September (then it expands to 40), a five-man "taxi squad" (paid MLB minimum, must have at least three years MLB service time), and a 50-man roster overall. Teams can sign players from other teams' taxi squad to the 30-man roster for at least twice the MLB minimum. Go with a salary cap, but that alone won't help small-market teams keep players. In some ways, I think we need to make it reasonably feasable/possible for smaller market teams to get that "value" deal.

 

Service time: Each team gets four years of player control (to discourage service time manipulation, a "full year" is considered if a player is called up three times prior to August 1), then for the next four years, a form of restricted free agency (to wit, they can match offers from other teams) that involves massive compensation in the form of draft picks and additional international bonus money ($1,000,000 per RFA signed away), after that, unrestricted free agency (but with "sandwich pick" compensation) and a smaller international bonus comp ($500,000).

 

Draft pick compensation: If the Dodgers were to sign a restricted free agent from the Brewers, the Brewers would get a compensation "pick" before the Dodgers' pick in the first round. If the Dodgers signed multiple RFAs, then they would use tiebreakers (starting with market size) to determine who goes first. The teams also would also get "sandwich" picks between the CB-A and 2nd rounds and between the CB-B and 3rd rounds. For unrestricted free agents, it would be the sandwich picks only, and only after the picks for teams who lose RFAs. In addition, teams cannot try to "unbalance" a deal to deter a team from matching (no massive amount up front or back-loaded).

 

DH: There will be a universal DH, but only for the starting pitcher. If the pitcher is lifted, the DH must be pinch-hit for. Teams will be allowed to "double switch" the DH into the field in that case.

 

Draft: It goes back up to 40 rounds. The competitive balance round picks would go to the teams in the 12 smallest markets (CB-A) and those with the 12 lowest attendance totals (CB-B). Some trading of draft picks will be allowed, but no team will be without a pick in the first three rounds (barring punishment for misconduct).

 

Minor-league teams: Each minor-league team will have 30 roster spots. The R+/Short-Season A leagues will return, and there will be the following minimum salaries: Rookie leagues (including DSL), $30,000; R+, $36,000; Short-Season A, $39,000; Full-Season A, $42,000; A+, $45,000; AA, $48,000; AAA, $60,000. Rule 5 draft is modified so that a player selected in the major-league portion must be on the 50-man roster all year, and spend at least 50% of the time in the majors and cannot be demoted below AAA. The minor-league portion will require that a player selected be kept at the AAA level or AA level (depending on the portion of the draft) or be returned to the team.

 

So, if the Brewers have 2 DSL teams, 2 rookie teams, a R+ team, a Short-season A team, a full-season A, an A+ team, a AA team, and a AAA team, that would come out to a minimum of $11,700,000 for the rosters. That's about 2/3 what they'd pay LoCain this coming season. Honestly, if they did that now, I think they'd get a lot of talent, even those who "slid" down the road.

 

Contracts: Allow contracts to be fully guaranteed at 100% for players under team control an at 50% afterwards. Deferred compensation would be allowed, but no more than 25 percent of a player's salary could be deferred, 50 percent would count against the salary cap, and deferred money is fully guaranteed. For example, Brewers sign Corbin Burnes to an eight-year, $160 million contract, and they defer $40 million over the 20 years after the contract, they have a $1 million charge on the salary cap, and the deferred cash is 100% guaranteed. A player who is released gets the guaranteed money, but only half would be applied to the salary cap. So, say the Brewers sign an unrestricted free agent to a 4-year, $40 million deal, but release him after year 2 - the player gets the guaranteed money of $5 million a year, but the Brewers would only have a $2.5 million charge on the salary cap.

 

That's what I'd do. I don't know if it could prevent teams from "tanking," but it does fix a lot of the issues I see in baseball.

 

Lots to dig into here, but this is thoughtful and I like it.

 

Larger rosters should be something the PA loves. Would they go for it even if it meant a small hit to league minimum? I don't know. But that's an idea. You might have to make a rule that limits roster churn to prevent teams from yo-yoing too much, which has to be hard on players. I am interested in that idea.

[KeithStone53151]

I feel like I have been very anti MLBPA lately, which probably isn’t a popular take. It just seems they never propose anything to improve the game, only to get more money for the veteran players. The owners at least usually have a mild interest in improving the game and therefore their business.

 

The MLBPA also seem completely fine with letting massive competitive balance exist between big market and small markets. Like if they had their way, the Yankees could run half a billion dollar payroll and just destroy the Brewers and their $100 million payroll consistently. Players like the idea of super teams, which from a fans perspective is bad for so many reasons. It's frankly bad enough the way it is currently.

[Axman59]

I'm far from a pro Players Association guy but there are three important issues in this standoff that put me clearly in their camp.

 

1) MLB needs a salary floor so teams cannot strip their teams down to AAAA rosters and pocket the competitive balance tax.

 

2) MLB (and all leagues for that matter) need to stop rewarding losers with the highest draft picks. Losing should be shameful and painful and every team on every day should be trying to win games. To have rules that reward losers is morally repugnant. I would favor a draft wheel (I think that's what it called) where by random draw every team get the first overall pick once in the next 30 years, second overall pick once every 30 years, etc.

 

3) Teams forfeiting draft picks for signing free agents who were offered a qualifying offer needs to stop. This punishes the players and leads to all sorts of manipulation. I have no objection to awarding sandwich picks to teams that lose free agents but players being saddled with a draft pick penalty is stupid and wrong.

[burnzy24]

I'm far from a pro Players Association guy but there are three important issues in this standoff that put me clearly in their camp.

 

1) MLB needs a salary floor so teams cannot strip their teams down to AAAA rosters and pocket the competitive balance tax.

 

According to Manfred's statement on mlb.com the owners did offer a salary floor. I assume this also means that the owners requested a salary cap but I actually can't find anything that states what exactly the owners are requesting.

[Axman59]

I think Manfred could've done without the negative tone towards the PA. He could've just stated items they've pushed for instead of making the PA sound like they are the complete reason for the lockout.

 

In my 51 years on this Earth I've never observed a commissioner with less common sense than Rob Manfred--in any sport. He can find a way to get ANY decision wrong. The man is so oblivious he called the trophy that bears his name, "just a piece of metal." He is a disgrace to the sport and I have little faith he can successfully foster an agreement on the CBA.

[clancyphile]

I feel like I have been very anti MLBPA lately, which probably isn’t a popular take. It just seems they never propose anything to improve the game, only to get more money for the veteran players. The owners at least usually have a mild interest in improving the game and therefore their business.

 

The MLBPA also seem completely fine with letting massive competitive balance exist between big market and small markets. Like if they had their way, the Yankees could run half a billion dollar payroll and just destroy the Brewers and their $100 million payroll consistently. Players like the idea of super teams, which from a fans perspective is bad for so many reasons. It's frankly bad enough the way it is currently.

 

If this is balance, I'd hate to see imbalance.

 

Right now, the system works for the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, and Giants, with the Astros, Rangers, Nationals, Cubs, White Sox, Braves, Guardians (Indians), Cardinals, Padres, and Mariners in a second tier.

 

The rest of MLB? Not so much.

[Simba2020]

I feel like I have been very anti MLBPA lately, which probably isn’t a popular take. It just seems they never propose anything to improve the game, only to get more money for the veteran players. The owners at least usually have a mild interest in improving the game and therefore their business.

 

The MLBPA also seem completely fine with letting massive competitive balance exist between big market and small markets. Like if they had their way, the Yankees could run half a billion dollar payroll and just destroy the Brewers and their $100 million payroll consistently. Players like the idea of super teams, which from a fans perspective is bad for so many reasons. It's frankly bad enough the way it is currently.

 

If this is balance, I'd hate to see imbalance.

 

Right now, the system works for the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, and Giants, with the Astros, Rangers, Nationals, Cubs, White Sox, Braves, Guardians (Indians), Cardinals, Padres, and Mariners in a second tier.

 

The rest of MLB? Not so much.

Definitely does not work for the Guardians but I'd say it also works for the Blue Jays, Phillies and maybe the Tigers. I think it would also work fine for the Orioles and the Rockies if those organizations weren't so incompetent.

[Simba2020]

I'm far from a pro Players Association guy but there are three important issues in this standoff that put me clearly in their camp.

 

1) MLB needs a salary floor so teams cannot strip their teams down to AAAA rosters and pocket the competitive balance tax.

 

2) MLB (and all leagues for that matter) need to stop rewarding losers with the highest draft picks. Losing should be shameful and painful and every team on every day should be trying to win games. To have rules that reward losers is morally repugnant. I would favor a draft wheel (I think that's what it called) where by random draw every team get the first overall pick once in the next 30 years, second overall pick once every 30 years, etc.

 

3) Teams forfeiting draft picks for signing free agents who were offered a qualifying offer needs to stop. This punishes the players and leads to all sorts of manipulation. I have no objection to awarding sandwich picks to teams that lose free agents but players being saddled with a draft pick penalty is stupid and wrong.

I still think I'd be opposed to scrapping #2 but I do like MLBs proposal to have a draft lottery. I just would probably expand it to more than 3 slots.

 

Totally agree on #3. I wish they would use some type of NFL formula. Lost X players to free agency, signed X players in free agency and based on the net loss of talent you get some supplemental pick compensation.

[nate82]

I'm far from a pro Players Association guy but there are three important issues in this standoff that put me clearly in their camp.

 

1) MLB needs a salary floor so teams cannot strip their teams down to AAAA rosters and pocket the competitive balance tax.

 

According to Manfred's statement on mlb.com the owners did offer a salary floor. I assume this also means that the owners requested a salary cap but I actually can't find anything that states what exactly the owners are requesting.

 

They only proposed a floor and that is it. The cap is the CBT which is already in place and the players want that to increase to $250m while MLB has countered with as high as $220m. The floor was also rejected by the players union because there were no details about what happens if a team goes under the floor.

 

There were also some suggestions by the league to go back to the 2 divisions per league with some realignment happening and an increase in the number of playoff teams 12-14. MLB would probably look more like the NBA in how the divisions would be set up so something like:

 

AL1:

1.Yankees

2.Red Sox

3. Blue Jays

4. Nationals

5. Mets

6. Phillies

7. Orioles

 

AL2:

1. Pirates

2. Reds

3. Guardians

4. Tigers

5. White Sox

6. Cubs

7. Brewers

8. Cardinals

 

NL1:

1. Twins

2. Royals

3. Rays

4. Braves

5. Marlins

6. Rangers

7. Astros

 

NL2:

1. Angels

2. Dodgers

3. A's

4. Padres

5. Mariners

6. Giants

7. Rockies

8. Dbacks

[JosephC]

I hope all you people that are complaining about imbalance and small market vs big market remember all of this when Attanasio comes to us and says AmFam Field is a pile of junk and he needs 1 billion dollars (will actually be 2+ billion dollars when all is said and done) for him and his millionaire buddies to get a new playground to play on.

 

I don't know if it will be the state governor or the Milwaukee mayor, but one of those two will then spew the dumb "Milwaukee is a major league city." Well Mr. Politician, if that is true, then maybe it's time for MLB to stop treating cities like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Kansas City as second-class citizens.

[clancyphile]

I'm far from a pro Players Association guy but there are three important issues in this standoff that put me clearly in their camp.

 

1) MLB needs a salary floor so teams cannot strip their teams down to AAAA rosters and pocket the competitive balance tax.

 

2) MLB (and all leagues for that matter) need to stop rewarding losers with the highest draft picks. Losing should be shameful and painful and every team on every day should be trying to win games. To have rules that reward losers is morally repugnant. I would favor a draft wheel (I think that's what it called) where by random draw every team get the first overall pick once in the next 30 years, second overall pick once every 30 years, etc.

 

3) Teams forfeiting draft picks for signing free agents who were offered a qualifying offer needs to stop. This punishes the players and leads to all sorts of manipulation. I have no objection to awarding sandwich picks to teams that lose free agents but players being saddled with a draft pick penalty is stupid and wrong.

 

1. I'd like to have a "tanking tax" as opposed to a hard floor. Maybe a team that misses the salary floor one year loses 10% of the CB tax.If the miss is by a large percentage (or they miss multiple years in a row), they lose 25%. The penalties get cut in half, though, if the team finishes at or above .500.

 

2. Teams that miss the salary floor in multiple years should have their picks bumped to the end of the first three rounds.

 

3. I'd go a little differently. I'd award a comp pick ahead of the first-round pick of the team that signed a free agent from another team. Nobody loses a pick, but the teams who can't keep all their free agents need to have more chances for their farm system.

[Lathund]

I'm far from a pro Players Association guy but there are three important issues in this standoff that put me clearly in their camp.

 

1) MLB needs a salary floor so teams cannot strip their teams down to AAAA rosters and pocket the competitive balance tax.

 

According to Manfred's statement on mlb.com the owners did offer a salary floor. I assume this also means that the owners requested a salary cap but I actually can't find anything that states what exactly the owners are requesting.

 

That proposal included lowering the luxury tax treshold by $30m, to $180m. Allowing the owners to treat $180 as the new "cap".

 

I wouldn't take the PR statements at face value either. Manfred blatantly lies when he says that the expiry of the CBA forced them into a "defensive" lockout. They chose to do it. Which is their right, but acting like they're doing it to protect the game or something is disingenuous.

 

As for what the sides want: MLB revenues have gone up significantly, while wages have gone up less and even stagnated, so the overall share of revenue has tilted heavily in the owners favor. The owners want it to remain that way and to continue the trend. The players want to reverse it.

 

Players also want players to not be significantly underpaid in their prime; So higher minimum salary, earlier arbitration, reduce service times manipulation via things like earlier FA (i.e based on service time OR a certain age, whichever comes first), disincentives towards tanking.

 

As far the owners go, they want to not do those things, and want to expand the playoffs (i.e more playoff income, less incentive to spend money).

 

Based on what Evan Drellich of the Athletic wrote, owners have taken a stance on not changing time to FA via service time, not introducing earlier arbitration and not changing revenue sharing. They declined to counter the unions last offer unless those things were off the table. Players seem to take a hardline approach on redistributing money to earlier in players careers in some way, and measures to counter the extreme tanking. As for what sides offer to give up the players seem willing to agree to expanded playoffs, but smaller (12 as opposed to 14 teams) and give the owners the right to put badges on jerseys; supposedly those two things are hundreds of millions worth. Owners seem to mainly be willing to just adjust existing systems; raise the CBT treshold somewhat, small increases to minimum salary, or allow older players earlier FA (What they don't want is more 26 year olds hitting FA).

 

Personally I hope the players get most of what they want. They are both the labor and the product; I follow baseball to watch them play. So I'd rather my money goes to them, as opposed to the owners.

[Brewermania101]

I'm far from a pro Players Association guy but there are three important issues in this standoff that put me clearly in their camp.

 

1) MLB needs a salary floor so teams cannot strip their teams down to AAAA rosters and pocket the competitive balance tax.

 

According to Manfred's statement on mlb.com the owners did offer a salary floor. I assume this also means that the owners requested a salary cap but I actually can't find anything that states what exactly the owners are requesting.

 

They only proposed a floor and that is it. The cap is the CBT which is already in place and the players want that to increase to $250m while MLB has countered with as high as $220m. The floor was also rejected by the players union because there were no details about what happens if a team goes under the floor.

 

There were also some suggestions by the league to go back to the 2 divisions per league with some realignment happening and an increase in the number of playoff teams 12-14. MLB would probably look more like the NBA in how the divisions would be set up so something like:

 

AL1:

1.Yankees

2.Red Sox

3. Blue Jays

4. Nationals

5. Mets

6. Phillies

7. Orioles

 

AL2:

1. Pirates

2. Reds

3. Guardians

4. Tigers

5. White Sox

6. Cubs

7. Brewers

8. Cardinals

 

NL1:

1. Twins

2. Royals

3. Rays

4. Braves

5. Marlins

6. Rangers

7. Astros

 

NL2:

1. Angels

2. Dodgers

3. A's

4. Padres

5. Mariners

6. Giants

7. Rockies

8. Dbacks

 

 

 

I think to go by geography and keep some geographic rivals in your plan you switch the Pirates to AL1( Batlle of PENN) and switch Twins and Cards (battle of Missouri ) and MN/WIS if you want to keep Cards/Cubs rivalry just schedule more games between them since it will be unbalanced schedule due to not equal team divisions

[Axman59]

I'm far from a pro Players Association guy but there are three important issues in this standoff that put me clearly in their camp.

 

1) MLB needs a salary floor so teams cannot strip their teams down to AAAA rosters and pocket the competitive balance tax.

 

2) MLB (and all leagues for that matter) need to stop rewarding losers with the highest draft picks. Losing should be shameful and painful and every team on every day should be trying to win games. To have rules that reward losers is morally repugnant. I would favor a draft wheel (I think that's what it called) where by random draw every team get the first overall pick once in the next 30 years, second overall pick once every 30 years, etc.

 

3) Teams forfeiting draft picks for signing free agents who were offered a qualifying offer needs to stop. This punishes the players and leads to all sorts of manipulation. I have no objection to awarding sandwich picks to teams that lose free agents but players being saddled with a draft pick penalty is stupid and wrong.

I still think I'd be opposed to scrapping #2 but I do like MLBs proposal to have a draft lottery. I just would probably expand it to more than 3 slots.

 

Totally agree on #3. I wish they would use some type of NFL formula. Lost X players to free agency, signed X players in free agency and based on the net loss of talent you get some supplemental pick compensation.

 

I'm not wedded to any specific solution to #2, but the system of richly rewarding teams like the Cubs and Astros for intentionally sucking for a number of years so they could get top picks (and the slot money that goes with them) has to be stopped and stopped now. A lottery like the NBA would help--but teams still tank in the NBA (I'm looking at you 76ers). While it helps a little it does not solve the problem.

[wntrtxn21]

I'm far from a pro Players Association guy but there are three important issues in this standoff that put me clearly in their camp.

 

1) MLB needs a salary floor so teams cannot strip their teams down to AAAA rosters and pocket the competitive balance tax.

 

2) MLB (and all leagues for that matter) need to stop rewarding losers with the highest draft picks. Losing should be shameful and painful and every team on every day should be trying to win games. To have rules that reward losers is morally repugnant. I would favor a draft wheel (I think that's what it called) where by random draw every team get the first overall pick once in the next 30 years, second overall pick once every 30 years, etc.

 

3) Teams forfeiting draft picks for signing free agents who were offered a qualifying offer needs to stop. This punishes the players and leads to all sorts of manipulation. I have no objection to awarding sandwich picks to teams that lose free agents but players being saddled with a draft pick penalty is stupid and wrong.

 

1) I agree on a salary floor as long as it's in the $80-85M range. There should also be a cap, but that will never happen.

2) As long as there is such a tremendous disparity in money there can never be a penalty for losing. In the NFL where money is more or less equal, yes. Not in MLB. Small market teams that can't just go out and buy players to fill holes are going to lose much more of the time. They have to rely on the draft far, far more than big money teams. The draft was originally set up to help small market teams be competitive for a few years. I believe it would be morally repugnant to reward teams that can simply outspend many others, with the top picks in the draft.

3) I agree losing draft picks for signing FAs is wrong. You're right on the money with the sandwich pick.

[wntrtxn21]

Larger major-league rosters - 30-man until September (then it expands to 40), a five-man "taxi squad" (paid MLB minimum, must have at least three years MLB service time), and a 50-man roster overall. Teams can sign players from other teams' taxi squad to the 30-man roster for at least twice the MLB minimum. Go with a salary cap, but that alone won't help small-market teams keep players. In some ways, I think we need to make it reasonably feasable/possible for smaller market teams to get that "value" deal.

 

Service time: Each team gets four years of player control (to discourage service time manipulation, a "full year" is considered if a player is called up three times prior to August 1), then for the next four years, a form of restricted free agency (to wit, they can match offers from other teams) that involves massive compensation in the form of draft picks and additional international bonus money ($1,000,000 per RFA signed away), after that, unrestricted free agency (but with "sandwich pick" compensation) and a smaller international bonus comp ($500,000).

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

 

I think larger rosters give big spenders even more of an advantage. That keeps more players under their controll.

Reducing service time makes it even worse for small market teams. Now they lose their top players even earlier further reducing the chances of being competitive. Draft choices in baseball are extremely poor substitution for losing top players, but it's the only way to somewhat compensate teams.

[stoutdude04]

I think Manfred sucks, but I did appreciate his response about the MLBPA proposals being bad for small market teams. His job should be to look out for the entire league and not just the big boys. Now, if you want to debate if that's his real motivation...that's a whole other topic.

[clancyphile]

I'm far from a pro Players Association guy but there are three important issues in this standoff that put me clearly in their camp.

 

1) MLB needs a salary floor so teams cannot strip their teams down to AAAA rosters and pocket the competitive balance tax.

 

2) MLB (and all leagues for that matter) need to stop rewarding losers with the highest draft picks. Losing should be shameful and painful and every team on every day should be trying to win games. To have rules that reward losers is morally repugnant. I would favor a draft wheel (I think that's what it called) where by random draw every team get the first overall pick once in the next 30 years, second overall pick once every 30 years, etc.

 

3) Teams forfeiting draft picks for signing free agents who were offered a qualifying offer needs to stop. This punishes the players and leads to all sorts of manipulation. I have no objection to awarding sandwich picks to teams that lose free agents but players being saddled with a draft pick penalty is stupid and wrong.

I still think I'd be opposed to scrapping #2 but I do like MLBs proposal to have a draft lottery. I just would probably expand it to more than 3 slots.

 

Totally agree on #3. I wish they would use some type of NFL formula. Lost X players to free agency, signed X players in free agency and based on the net loss of talent you get some supplemental pick compensation.

 

I'm not wedded to any specific solution to #2, but the system of richly rewarding teams like the Cubs and Astros for intentionally sucking for a number of years so they could get top picks (and the slot money that goes with them) has to be stopped and stopped now. A lottery like the NBA would help--but teams still tank in the NBA (I'm looking at you 76ers). While it helps a little it does not solve the problem.

 

I think there is a way to deter consistent tanking via low payrolls. What would likely work would be to have a "tanking tax" that reduces CB payouts if someone goes below a salary floor. The tax can be reduced (say by 50%) if the team is at or above .500 (think the 2007-2008 Brewers with the young guns of Hardy, Braun, Weeks, Fielder, and Hart who were either pre-arby or in arby-1). Or a slightly lower threshold can be set, tied to wins.

 

Another idea could be to have a team consistently below the salary floor and consistently below .500 (say three years) be placed at the end of the line when it comes to non-playoff teams in the draft order.

 

That said, sometimes the best way for a team or organization to move forward is to take steps back - shed some contracts, acquire prospects, try to have a better draft proposition, or not rushing someone back from an injury (see RG3 for an NFL example). That shouldn't be penalized. The Brewers did that in 2015 with the Lucroy and Gomez trades. Two years later, they were in the playoff hunt. Three years later, first of four straight post-season appearances (and counting).

[clancyphile]

Larger major-league rosters - 30-man until September (then it expands to 40), a five-man "taxi squad" (paid MLB minimum, must have at least three years MLB service time), and a 50-man roster overall. Teams can sign players from other teams' taxi squad to the 30-man roster for at least twice the MLB minimum. Go with a salary cap, but that alone won't help small-market teams keep players. In some ways, I think we need to make it reasonably feasable/possible for smaller market teams to get that "value" deal.

 

Service time: Each team gets four years of player control (to discourage service time manipulation, a "full year" is considered if a player is called up three times prior to August 1), then for the next four years, a form of restricted free agency (to wit, they can match offers from other teams) that involves massive compensation in the form of draft picks and additional international bonus money ($1,000,000 per RFA signed away), after that, unrestricted free agency (but with "sandwich pick" compensation) and a smaller international bonus comp ($500,000).

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

 

I think larger rosters give big spenders even more of an advantage. That keeps more players under their controll.

Reducing service time makes it even worse for small market teams. Now they lose their top players even earlier further reducing the chances of being competitive. Draft choices in baseball are extremely poor substitution for losing top players, but it's the only way to somewhat compensate teams.

 

I don't pretend the ideas I have are perfect, but the issues of service time manipulation are real. I like the idea of a "restricted" free agency, where maybe there is something akin to either matching an offer, substantial compensation via the draft, and/or making those RFA deals more like a "sign and trade" in the NBA, because MLB can't function if they have 12 good teams and 18 de facto AAAA farm clubs.

 

Maybe a better approach is three years team control, two years of arby and three years of restricted free agency.

[brewers888]

This lockout period is a perfect time to get Stearns signed long term. If this lockout goes on for months and there is no extension announced we can pretty much connect the dots that we are going to lose the best executive in team history.

[clancyphile]

This lockout period is a perfect time to get Stearns signed long term. If this lockout goes on for months and there is no extension announced we can pretty much connect the dots that we are going to lose the best executive in team history.

 

I'd agree. For the team's long-term competitiveness, he needs to either be locked up to that long-term deal, or they need to start their succession plan.

[Axman59]

2) As long as there is such a tremendous disparity in money there can never be a penalty for losing. In the NFL where money is more or less equal, yes. Not in MLB. Small market teams that can't just go out and buy players to fill holes are going to lose much more of the time. They have to rely on the draft far, far more than big money teams. The draft was originally set up to help small market teams be competitive for a few years. I believe it would be morally repugnant to reward teams that can simply outspend many others, with the top picks in the draft.

 

 

I get why you normally would give a bad team a higher draft slot. However, in practice the teams that most blatantly took advantage of sucking for several years to get high draft picks (and the slot money they could then be used down draft) were the large market Cubs and Astros. That incentive to lose for years on end needs to be removed somehow.

[clancyphile]

2) As long as there is such a tremendous disparity in money there can never be a penalty for losing. In the NFL where money is more or less equal, yes. Not in MLB. Small market teams that can't just go out and buy players to fill holes are going to lose much more of the time. They have to rely on the draft far, far more than big money teams. The draft was originally set up to help small market teams be competitive for a few years. I believe it would be morally repugnant to reward teams that can simply outspend many others, with the top picks in the draft.

 

 

I get why you normally would give a bad team a higher draft slot. However, in practice the teams that most blatantly took advantage of sucking for several years to get high draft picks (and the slot money they could then be used down draft) were the large market Cubs and Astros. That incentive to lose for years on end needs to be removed somehow.

 

That can be addressed... perhaps if a team tanks for a period of time, their picks get moved to just before playoff teams. They don't get the biggest draft slots, but they still go ahead of playoff teams.

 

I don't think you can completely prevent a draft system from being gamed.

[Austin Tatious]

I totally agree that they need to get rid of the idea of losing a pick if you sign any class of player. That’s proven to be punitive and a hindrance.

 

I like the salary floor idea but something should be negotiated back with that.

 

Is the format of the draft being debated? Or is that a separate issue? From a competitive balance idea, I think you need a draft based on record. The rich teams already dominate payroll and free agency. Imagine the Dodgers re-signing their talent, adding an expensive free agent, trading for an expensive contract, winning the World Series, and getting the first pick. It’s absurd. The draft gives a small market team one of the very few opportunities to acquire high end, pedigreed talent. But gaming the draft is a good point although presumably not pertinent to labor relations.

 

You can avoid tanking with two simple fixes. First, you create a lottery for the top five picks, or top three, or a number along those lines. Second, you don’t let a team have a top three (or top five if you prefer) pick twice in any three year period. If that’s how they line up, you shift them down accordingly and shift up the next eligible team.