http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/labor-peace-lockout-collective-bargaining-agreement-owners-players-baseball-112216
More at the link
Last edited:
New CBA has been agreed on for 2017-2021
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
More at the link
Color me very skeptical that the Player's Union holds out over an international draft. They'll use that as a chip to get more than unrestricted free agency. Be it a higher luxury cap or DH to the NL, they've never held firm in favor of anything concerning people not already in their union. I don't think they start now.
I wouldn't be shocked if this time is different. And I was as shocked as you when I first saw he article. It may be less of looking out for the little guy and more in terms of the owners depressing contract values that can effect actual union members. If X IFA player signs a contract worth x million the mlbpa would use that contract as leverage for its union members.
Historically, the union wanted draft-pick compensation, because that forces the owners bargain with them about any changes to the draft. I don't know if their position has changed now that draft-pick compensation is starting to function as an effective tax on free agency, or if this is just a stupid owner-side leak trying to make the players look bad for not accepting something they don't want in exchange for something else they also don't want.
Completely disagree.
The international FA pool is the last place owners can spend like drunken sailors other than the MLB FA pool. The entire reason the union was ok with draft slotting was it puts more money into the pockets of its members. If they owners can't spend how they like one draft picks, that money is and has been redistributed to post controlled players. The IFA pool is no different. Be it teenagers or older guys, their contracts aren't impacting negotiations for exactly that reason. Nobody had their contract upped because BC gave Castillo $72M or Moncada his money.
If the report is true it's a negotiating ploy to get something else back.
On second thought. I wonder if the influx of international players to "the bigs" is causing a rift among the MLBPA. You could have the "domestic" (players taken in the MLB draft) being ok with an international draft. On the other hand you could have the international players who have made a name for themselves , fighting for their fellow countrymen, fighting so that new international players don't get "screwed" financially when they themselves had the luxury of a sitting back and waiting for that large contract to come in.
What percentage of the union do you think those 'international players that have made a name for themselves' represents? And how many had a large contract coming in? The vast majority of IFA get pennies compared to domestic players in the draft because they sign when they are teenagers. The Puigs, Abreus, Moncadas, etc can be counted on fingers and toes. They represent low single digit percentages of the union. They're not driving the bus.
Last edited:
The one thing it's useful for is having empirical proof of the amount that draft slotting underpays players. Sort of in the NFL 'LA might be more valuable as a threat than an actual location' vein, I agree that the union doesn't really care about the small # of players this will actually effect per year... but it's very useful as a threat to be able to say 'this is economic proof that a #1 pick should be paid X but the draft is limiting him to Y'.
The union already agreed to the #1 pick being paid Y. They agreed to this in the last CBA. They did this because established major leaguers - union members - were making less over their careers than teenagers who had never proven a thing and never even made the show or paid a dollar in dues. They have no incentive or responsibility to bargain on their behalf.
You bring up the NFL and it's why it was agreed to there as well. The more money spent on draft picks or rookies who haven't done a damn thing, the less for vets. The more money that goes into the pool for veterans, the happier they are. That's their job. When a team drops $72M on a Castillo or $68M on a Tomas and they go bust, that's less money that can be spent in the free agent market and one less suitor. We've already been told by Boston press that Castillo will limit the Sox spending this year, despite not even being considered for luxury tax.
This really isn't all that complicated. Even if you have dreams of an altruistic union that would deny a system for international FAs that they just approved for domestic ones, that it is being proposed as a one to one swap for dropping compensation - and they're still supposedly arguing - should tip you off.
It's the strongest union in sports and the game is growing immensely. They're not risking a lockout over an international draft. It's a bargaining position and a pretty blatant one.
I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't heard a peep about the new luxury tax threshold. I'm guessing the owners came back lower than the players would like. I also assume the players would push for the DH in the NL. And probably some variation of the media proposed expanded rosters permutations. But those add up to costs for the owners. So they bargain on it.
In short, nothing to see here, imo. Ymmv.
You bring up the NFL and it's why it was agreed to there as well. The more money spent on draft picks or rookies who haven't done a damn thing, the less for vets. The more money that goes into the pool for veterans, the happier they are. That's their job. When a team drops $72M on a Castillo or $68M on a Tomas and they go bust, that's less money that can be spent in the free agent market and one less suitor. We've already been told by Boston press that Castillo will limit the Sox spending this year, despite not even being considered for luxury tax.
This really isn't all that complicated. Even if you have dreams of an altruistic union that would deny a system for international FAs that they just approved for domestic ones, that it is being proposed as a one to one swap for dropping compensation - and they're still supposedly arguing - should tip you off.
It's the strongest union in sports and the game is growing immensely. They're not risking a lockout over an international draft. It's a bargaining position and a pretty blatant one.
I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't heard a peep about the new luxury tax threshold. I'm guessing the owners came back lower than the players would like. I also assume the players would push for the DH in the NL. And probably some variation of the media proposed expanded rosters permutations. But those add up to costs for the owners. So they bargain on it.
In short, nothing to see here, imo. Ymmv.
@Papelbon's Poutine
And it looks like the MLBPA has won on the issue of an international draft
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal 21m21 minutes ago
Sources: Owners have backed off the international draft as a requirement for a new collective-bargaining agreement.
Though I do not know if this means that an international draft is now DOA until the next CBA, or something that can be added down the line while the new CBA is still enforced. Though this is nonetheless shocking, that the owners have backed down on this issue after all the hoopla the owners made about an international draft the past 3(?) seasons....
And it looks like the MLBPA has won on the issue of an international draft
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal 21m21 minutes ago
Sources: Owners have backed off the international draft as a requirement for a new collective-bargaining agreement.
Though I do not know if this means that an international draft is now DOA until the next CBA, or something that can be added down the line while the new CBA is still enforced. Though this is nonetheless shocking, that the owners have backed down on this issue after all the hoopla the owners made about an international draft the past 3(?) seasons....
Which just means what they wanted in return for agreeing to it was a bridge too far for the owners. It's really shocking in the least.
I don't think the players, foreign or domestic, care a tiny bit about the rights of international players. I think they only care about their jobs (I would feel the same way in their shoes). If the international players are too cheap, then veterans will lose jobs to cheaper international players.
Edit: we already see that in football. The new CBA has made young players cheap and cost veterans their jobs.
An international draft would be for the 16-18 year olds, not the Rusney Castillo types. An international draft would have absolutely no impact on veteran job security since those international draftees would still have to go through the minors like any domestic draftee. They are, at a minimum (in 99% of cases) 4-6 years from cracking a major league roster, at which point they still make league minimum for 2 or 3 years and then go through arbitration for 3 or 4 before hitting free agency.
This isn't entirely accurate. While the full details weren't disclosed, one of the components of the proposal by the owners was that international signing eligibility would be raised to 18 years old, rather than 16 years old. As to how the mechanics of players older than that would work, I have yet to see it laid out, but given that almost every article cites players like Moncada, Puig, Tomas, etc - all guys that were signed well after being 18 - I don't think we can assume it would have only applied to youngsters. I think it would have turned into something akin to the NBA draft, where teams could draft and stash or draft and follow, while protecting their rights to the player.
Buster O on ESPN this morning said that lots of progress was made in the last 12 hours and a 'pathway' to a deal is there.
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal 14m14 minutes ago
Source: Luxury-tax thresholds could rise in something close to this progression over new five-year CBA: $195M, $197M, $206M, $209M, $210M.
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal 11m11 minutes ago
Source on draft-pick comp: “Still being discussed. Trying to shuffle around loss of first pick with player getting deal of $50M or more.”
Joel Sherman @Joelsherman1 21m21 minutes agoManhattan, NY
Hear new CBA will have 60-70 pct penalty for those extremely over threshold, about $250M payrolls or greater. Currently highest is 50 pct
Joel Sherman @Joelsherman1 20m20 minutes agoManhattan, NY
Hear in the new CBA there will be NO 26th roster spot. The current conditions with 25 and expanded rosters in Sept stays.
Joel Sherman @Joelsherman1 6m6 minutes agoManhattan, NY
So after all talk about 26th man and international draft, neither will be part of this new CBA.
Source: Luxury-tax thresholds could rise in something close to this progression over new five-year CBA: $195M, $197M, $206M, $209M, $210M.
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal 11m11 minutes ago
Source on draft-pick comp: “Still being discussed. Trying to shuffle around loss of first pick with player getting deal of $50M or more.”
Joel Sherman @Joelsherman1 21m21 minutes agoManhattan, NY
Hear new CBA will have 60-70 pct penalty for those extremely over threshold, about $250M payrolls or greater. Currently highest is 50 pct
Joel Sherman @Joelsherman1 20m20 minutes agoManhattan, NY
Hear in the new CBA there will be NO 26th roster spot. The current conditions with 25 and expanded rosters in Sept stays.
Joel Sherman @Joelsherman1 6m6 minutes agoManhattan, NY
So after all talk about 26th man and international draft, neither will be part of this new CBA.
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman 1m1 minute ago
Free agent compensation must be paid by teams over the tax threshold only, is the word (w/ draft pick below 1st round)
Free agent compensation must be paid by teams over the tax threshold only, is the word (w/ draft pick below 1st round)
ESPN reporting some contradictory stuff on some points there, specifically roster expansion. http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18176138/mlb-owners-players-union-reach-tentative-deal-new-labor-contract
Seems to me like the players got hosed on the luxury tax. That's not much of an increase relative to the way revenues have been growing in the sport.
That surprised me as well, I expected it to go up a good bit more, both initially and yearly over the course of the deal. But, they didn't really give anything up either. I'd imagine
The hard cap on international signings I look forward to seeing details on. It seems like shenanigans will just take a new form.
The hard cap on international signings I look forward to seeing details on. It seems like shenanigans will just take a new form.
$5 million cap
“@jaysonst: Sources say every team will have a total bonus pool of about $5 million to sign foreign-born amateur players. And they can't exceed that cap”
I'm reading QO compensation is now a 3rd rounder at most? This is going to be the last season of QOs being a big deal then?
I can see why the owners were willing to table the draft, then. Who needs a draft if the caps that low?
Teams over the LT threshold lose a 2nd and a 5th.
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal 2h2 hours ago
Club that signs QO free agent, if it exceeds luxury-tax threshold, will lose 2nd-rounder, 5th-rounder and $1M in int’l bonus money.
as well as $1million in IFA money
Also IFA's are exempt
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi 14m14 minutes ago
Cuban-born players who are at least 23 years old, with 5+ years of experience in Serie Nacional, maintain exemption from int'l bonus pool.
SO... It wouldn't shock me if we see the Moncada's of MLB either go to Japan, or declare later so they can get the most money.... Otherwise Moncada would have gotten peanuts compared to what he received from the sox, If he was declaring under the new CBA
Jon Morosi:
Correcting earlier note: Cubans exempt from international pool if they are 25 years old with 6+ years of experience.
There must be similar clauses for Korean and Japanese players too, right?
In addition to making those leagues relatively more attractive, seem like an opportunity for another country trying to break into baseball to set up a pro league and sign LA talent? Australian pro leagues could give a 17-year-old in Venezuela a 6 year contract with FA guaranteed thereafter. Or maybe Netherlands?
As someone else said, the hard cap is a fine replacement for the draft, because no team will be able to sign more than 2 or 3 top players without punting on all the mid tier players you need to stock a DSL team.
Hopefully they at least put some of the savings into DSL facilities and nutrition programs.
In addition to making those leagues relatively more attractive, seem like an opportunity for another country trying to break into baseball to set up a pro league and sign LA talent? Australian pro leagues could give a 17-year-old in Venezuela a 6 year contract with FA guaranteed thereafter. Or maybe Netherlands?
As someone else said, the hard cap is a fine replacement for the draft, because no team will be able to sign more than 2 or 3 top players without punting on all the mid tier players you need to stock a DSL team.
Hopefully they at least put some of the savings into DSL facilities and nutrition programs.
So basically the rich white people who run the businesses met with the rich mostly white people who run the union and they all agreed to screw over the poor brown teenagers. Capitalism at its finest.
MLB is a criminal organization.
IIRC, baseball players now get a smaller share of total league revenues than their football and basketball counterparts; fixing that was, of course, the MLBPA's top priority. Those other leagues have less flexible caps/taxes than MLB, but much more robust salary floors. There's probably more money to be made by getting small-to-medium market MLB teams to spend more on salaries than by squeezing every last dollar out of the Yankees and Dodgers. Let's see what's in the details.
This is a good point, and I don't think I've seen any reporting yet on what the new minimum salary is.
update, via AP:"—The minimum salary rises from $507,500 to $535,000 next year, $545,000 in 2018 and $555,000 in 2019, with cost-of-living increases the following two years; the minor league minimum for a player appearing on the 40-man roster for at least the second time goes up from $82,700 to $86,500 next year, $88,000 in 2018 and $89,500 in 2019, followed by cost-of-living raises."
Last edited:
I know that the anti-competitive nature of the criminal enterprise known as Major League Baseball is legal under U.S. law because Oliver Wendell Holmes thought baseball was a manly activity and therefore not interstate commerce. But does anyone know why these international spending caps are not a WTO violation? Is there no international protection for labor from this kind of collusion? This is not just robbing the players in favors of the owners, it's also robbing the DR and Venezuela and the rest in favor of the United States.
The draft suppresses the wages of young American teenagers/early 20s kids too, and those kids can often be poor themselves.
Anyway, the cap on international signings being hard was a concession (albeit, I think, a major one) to generally raising the cap overall. 5M each is significantly more than most teams got under the previous system. This is essentially robbing Yoan Moncada to get more unpenalized money available overall. Of course, there's still no requirement that teams still spend up to or near the cap.
spoiler for big chart:
spoiler for big chart:
MLBTR has all the info here
some highlights
some highlights
So as not to siphon clicks from MLBTR, you can see everything else at the link
Per Gammons and some others commenting during the previous CBA negotiation, the international players tended to be less willing to strike which led to a relatively (for MLB) owner-friendly CBA getting enacted.
12 teams had Opening Day payrolls below $100 million in 2016, and while a few of those are small-market clubs, 5 are in top-10 media markets (the Mets, White Sox, Braves, Astros and A's).
http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm
If the MLBPA didn't do something to address this, they're stealing the players' money at this point.
http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm
If the MLBPA didn't do something to address this, they're stealing the players' money at this point.
The MLBPA's long-time position has been there should be neither a payroll ceiling nor a payroll floor. Of course, letting a luxury tax with real bite gain traction has brought in a ceiling of sorts.
Not sure how reliable those numbers are, Cots has the Mets at $135M for Opening Day 2016.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league/new-york-mets/
Also the problem, as I've said before here, is that the older players are stealing the younger players' money, as more and more of the best players are pre-free agency. Big deals in recent years are bad ideas more often than not, it's hard to get too mad at teams for not wanting to sign deals that have a good chance of being dead money in the first year as well as onwards from there.
We haven't seen final terms of the CBA, but it looks like this wasn't addressed at all and it will be a major problem going forward.
We haven't seen final terms of the CBA, but it looks like this wasn't addressed at all and it will be a major problem going forward.
Short answer: no. WTO defers core labor standards to the ILO and ILO standards are focused on issues like child labor, forced labor, right to unionize, etc.
Longer: there's no broad agreement on even the concept of antitrust law internationally so not surprising there's no international law or legal standards against collusion.
Also it's not like the WTO was imposed on the US, the US drove the creation of the treaty. No way the US negotiates a treaty like the WTO that would make collusion over what baseball players earn illegal since that would make the domestic draft illegal.
Also it's not like the WTO was imposed on the US, the US drove the creation of the treaty. No way the US negotiates a treaty like the WTO that would make collusion over what baseball players earn illegal since that would make the domestic draft illegal.
Part of the new CBA is anyone who has received a QO in the past can't get tagged with one in the future. Per MLBTR, here's the list. This will mean trading for guys with more than 1 year on their contracts (since ones traded in their FA year couldn't offer a QO anyway) there's no longer a potential future draft pick gain as part of the transaction. For most of these guys it won't matter, like Robinson Cano, who's under contract into his 40s. For somebody like Daniel Murphy (who is 31 and under contract only through 2018), this could be a factor.
From the Sox point of view, they won't be able offer QOs to Hanley or Pablo. Or Ortiz, but he's not coming back anyway.
From the Sox point of view, they won't be able offer QOs to Hanley or Pablo. Or Ortiz, but he's not coming back anyway.