New CBA rules
Well, the new CBA was announced today. Most importantly, we get five more years of uninterrupted baseball, a much welcome break from the 90s when labor struggles were too often the headlines. So, hooray for both sides for coming to an agreement on how to split their massive profits without complaining. Good job, fellows.
As far as the rule changes, there are some interesting and important wins. In no particular order:
- Free agent compensation is changing, but not going away, contrary to multiple reports from different sources. Not a big surprise, honestly. The percentages for how Type A and B free agents will be calculated differently now, and compensation for a Type B free agent will now come from the league instead of the signing team, but the system’s structure remains in tact. This means the Mariners will still get compensation for Gil Meche this winter.
- Perhaps getting the least attention of the important rule changes, amateur draft picks must now sign by August 15th. This will put an end to the long, protracted holdouts we’ve seen by high draftees recently, but more importantly, also puts an end to the draft-and-follow process that teams have used to evaluate a player’s development during a year at a junior college and still be able to sign the player. The DFE process, as it was known, was a boon for JC baseball, and the elimination of the DFE process isn’t a good thing, in my opinion.
- Also draft related, compensation for not signing a player is now given at the same slot as the pick used on the unsigned player. In other words, if the Royals had not signed Luke Hochevar this summer, under the new rules, they would get the #1 pick next summer, and everyone else would slide back a pick. This is a big deal; it gives teams all kinds of incentives to hold the line on signing bonuses and creates a massive potential for abuse.
For instance, if the Mariners desired last summer, they could have looked at the crop of available talent, decided they weren’t big fans of the guys available at #5, and drafted a HS senior who was essentially a lock to go to college, made him an offer they knew he wouldn’t accept, and then take the #5 pick in next year’s draft as compensation for “losing” their draftee. Essentially, teams are now given the ability to “trade” one year’s draft selection for the next year’s, if they so desire. The Reds actually did something similar to this a few years ago, when they were having budget issues, and now teams will have significantly more motivation to pull the same trick. On the surface, it seems like a good idea, but it’s really relying on a lot of integrity from the teams themselves to work. I’m not sure putting these guys on the honor system is a great idea.
- The league minimum salary gets a significant bump, from $327,000 to $380,000 next year, $390,000 in 2008, and then $400,000 for the rest of the agreement. That’s a 22% raise in the minimum salary. Depending on how the free agent market responds to the new CBA, this could potentially serve to make mid-tier players more attractive than previous, as the cost of replacement level is going up, lowering the value of low-end talent in the process. Mid-tier players have been significantly overpriced the past few years; this may begin to shift. We’ll see.
- All the previous offseason deadlines are being eliminated, such as the date for players to accept an arbitration offer or the May 1st date they had to wait to re-sign with a club who failed to reach a new contract with them after a certain offseason date. This should hopefully eliminate that annoying offseason lag we had every year, where teams waited around to sign players until the non-tenders began, and essentially make everything flow a little better. I hope.
All in all, some changes I’m not so fond of, but some good ones too, and in the end, labor peace = woohoo!
Did they talk about posting fee and salary cap?
Nope.
Dave – do you think teams will ever be allowed to trade draft picks? As a fan, I think this would be a lot more interesting. So, I’m wondering who would be opposed to this and why? I’m guessing the players would be opposed, but I can’t figure out why they would care…
No. Most teams view the trading of draft picks as an unnecessary hassle and a good way for players to end up where they want, while the Yankees would strong arm their way into more talent.
Thanks for this thread!
I know in an earlier thread it was stated that Selig threatened some very massive fines against teams discussing the negotiations. How do we know this? Also could you elaborate?
I ask because I’ve heard some rumblings that the secret to Selig’s charm was evocation of the possibility that the antitrust examption could be endangered if congress was given any reason to drag mlb baseball back to capitol hill. How credible does that seem to you?
Any comments on McPhail being named Selig’s successor? I can’t say he did a bang up job in Wrigleyville.
You know, as much as Bud gets mocked, 17 straight years without a work stoppage has to count in his favor.
The change in the time period for protecting a player from the Rule 5 (from 3 or 4 years to 4 or 5 years) is mildly interesting. It probably will not lead to any drastic changes (and certainly not to the Rule 5 draft itself), but giving teams an extra development year before the 40-man roster decision might have some indirect effect on how teams manage prospects — maybe the M’s will go from hyper-aggressive to very aggressive.
hmm. 1995 to 2006 isn’t 17 years. It’s actually 11. Still 11 years is nice.
and losing the right to demand a trade when traded mid-year … I assume this won’t affect guys like Delgado
Also draft related, compensation for not signing a player is now given at the same slot as the pick used on the unsigned player. … This is a big deal; it gives teams all kinds of incentives to hold the line on signing bonuses and creates a massive potential for abuse.
Yeah, that rule seems ripe for abuse. The commish might really have to lean on some teams to keep them in line, and I’m not so sure how effectively he can do that.
9. Actually the 5 year extension would make it 16.
You neglected to mention – contraction is officially dead.
And… “Minor League players that fall under the Rule 5 Draft can now be protected from an extra year. Currently players with four to five years of experience can be selected. It will increase to five to six years.”
Essentially, teams are now given the ability to “trade†one year’s draft selection for the next year’s, if they so desire.
This could be useful, but it could also be very wasteful, especially if you have a high pick (like the Royals). I mean, imagine if the Royals had drafted Alex Gordon with zero intention of signing him just to have two top 5 picks in 2006. Eventually, that would come back to bite them. You’re guessing that what you can get at any given pick is not going to be as good as what you can get with two picks the next year. On the surface, that makes sense, but the first round is littered with busts.
I’m not sure putting these guys on the honor system is a great idea.
Putting owners on the honor system is like putting art thieves in charge of museum security.
You neglected to mention – contraction is officially dead
well, for the life of this agreement….
“such as the date for players to accept an arbitration offer or the May 1st date they had to wait to re-sign with a club who failed to reach a new contract with them after a certain offseason date.”
AKA, The Roger Clemens Clause.
All the previous offseason deadlines are being eliminated, such as the date for players to accept an arbitration offer or the May 1st date they had to wait to re-sign with a club who failed to reach a new contract with them after a certain offseason date.
AAAAAHHHHH!!!! So what do us baseball nerds do during the off-season without certain dates to look forward to? AAAAAAHHHH!!!!! Now baseball really is yearround. (Which isn’t entirely a bad thing, when you think about it.)
Dave, very interesting points. Thanks for the analysis.
One question, re: draft and follow. I’ve never really understood what this means. Is it basically that a team drafts an interesting-but-untested player in the lower rounds, lets him play in JC or college for a year while they scout him, and then decide whether or not to tender him a contract before their rights expire?
That’s pretty much exactly right, except that they have to go to a JC or community college or some other institution: if they go to a four-year school they’re not draft-eligible again for two years.
I don’t understand how *all* off season deadlines can be eliminated. Eventually, they must hold arbitration hearings and they must start playing games. Some deadlines must exist. What am I missing?
“I’m not sure putting these guys on the honor system is a great idea.” I’m not sure how anyone let the “trade slots” agreement go through. Didn’t anyone read about Steve Hutchinson? The reason people hire lawyers before things go bad is to see what kind of manipulative, devious, nit-picky ideas could subvert the spirit, if not the letter, of an agreement. It really looks like a way for clubs to gain the benefits of collusion without actually colluding. Not that I’m all that choked up about unproven players losing the ability to command large bonuses.
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
I count 17 years there.
’95 wasn’t a full season
Does that mean we can’t count the playoffs for the Mariners? Yes there was a work startage then, but Selig was responsible for getting them back on the field.
The new agreement eliminated the old deadlines but replaced some of them with new deadlines. For example, the free agent salary arbitration offer and acceptance dates move to December 1 and December 7, and the last date to tender contracts to players under team control is now December 12. There is, however, no longer a deadline for a team to sign a free agent who rejects its offer of arbitration. In other words, the team and the free agent can continue to negotiate until they reach agreement or the player signs with another team.
So over on ESPN, Buster Olney (Insider account needed) says that the increase in the luxury tax threshold is going to cause contracts to make a big jump upwards. His example was Jeff Suppan who before the new agreement would probably have gotten a new deal in the neighborhood of 3 yr $21 million, will now probably be in the neighborhood of 4yr $40 million.
He also argues that young, good players will now become more valuable than established veterans. Meaning the days of trading several prospects for a veteran are likely over and may even be reversed.
If anyone has access to his blog, give it a read and let me know what you think. I can see a few flaws in his reasoning.
On the surface, it seems like a good idea, but it’s really relying on a lot of integrity from the teams themselves to work. I’m not sure putting these guys on the honor system is a great idea.
The owners aren’t that stupid. If they designed a system they can exploit, they did it fully intending to exploit it.
What this does is dramaticially reduce the leverage of drafted players. The drafting team now has effectively no incentive to draft their player because the downside failing to do so has been mostly eliminated.
Once again, I’m disappointed in the players. They gave up way too much again (this time they gave up stuff that only applies to people who aren’t in the union yet – I don’t think unions should be allowed to negotiate away the rights of people who don’t belong to it).
Wouldn’t these new rules have created a more rosy outcome for the draft pick we lost to Stanford Univerisity a few years back?
The new free agency rules will not affect this years free agent class per this article:
Baseball America
The new Rule 5 protection does apply immediately, so the M’s will still need to protect Wilson and LaHair and maybe Garciaparra if they want, but Chen, Valbuena, Andrew Baldwin, and Rob Johnson are safe.
If Jeff Suppan gets 4/40, I’ll eat a horse.
but Dave! He’s a Big Game Pitcher! He comes through in the clutch! c’mon, that’s worth a lot!
Wow point #3 seems to be totally ripe for abuse, especially for the team holding the #1 pick. If it’s a weak draft year, but there’s a BJ Upton or Delmon Young style prospect coming out next year there’s no incentive for teams not to abuse that rule.
Wow point #3 seems to be totally ripe for abuse, especially for the team holding the #1 pick. If it’s a weak draft year, but there’s a BJ Upton or Delmon Young style prospect coming out next year there’s no incentive for teams not to abuse that rule.
It’s pretty rare for the consensus #1 player a year prior to the next season’s draft to still be the #1 player when the draft actually takes place. Before his senior year of HS, Delmon Young was considered one of a great group of outfield prospects, and was not thought of significantly higher than Chris Lubanski, Ryan Sweeney, Ryan Harvey, or Lastings Milledge.
Justin Upton is the exception, not the rule. I don’t anticipate teams would bother with this trick at in the top 3, when you’re usually going to get a pretty good prospect, no matter what the year.
I could easily see it happening around #10 and lower, though.
One technical point that I don’t see mentioned here is that the Aug. 15th signing deadline doesn’t apply to college seniors. Clearly they did this because seniors can’t threaten going back to college, but it seems they could just as easily threaten to go to an indy league somewhere, though I could be missing something there.
There’s a part of me that’s secretly rooting for Suppan to get 4/40. He’s not worth it, but I have a feeling if he puts in another good showing in the post season that someone will give it too him.
35 – Be careful what you wish for.
#30, #35:
Dave may not be extending himself as far as he’s letting us think. Jason probably works really well with horsemeat.
Let’s go with the old comparison:
Player A: 3.2 BB/G, 4.8 K/G, 0.98 HR/G, 4.86 xFIP
Player B: 3.3 BB/G, 4.5 K/G, 1.18 HR/G, 4.92 xFIP
One of those is Jeff Suppan. The other one is Joel Pineiro.
Dave, you’ll get no argument from me that he’s not worth it.
The only argument I’m putting forward is that quite a few mediocre players have been rewarded with contracts disporportionate to their skills/stats simply based on their “Post-Season Heroics” (TM). It always seems to happen. It’s a phenomenon similar to the big contract rewarded to the player who puts up huge numbers in his walk year that are not reflective of his past history.
Someone will look at a player’s recent performance and decide it’s a better indicator of their future performance than all of their past history. Take Gil-ga-Meche for example. When he was on his hot streak, how many people were ready to annoint him the ace of the staff. That’s the argument I’m putting forward.
Should these things happen? No. Do they happen? Yes. Unfortunately.
That’s it, let’s give Pineiro 4/38, i mean, why the hell not? We gave one to Washburn!
Dash –
Funny that reminds me of Carlos Beltran… His postseason “heroics” (besides going 0-3 in game 7) with the Astros (2004) probably netted him a few extra million, while he goes on to the Mets and strikes out looking with the bases loaded in game 7 of the NLCS.
True we know Beltran is no scrub, but it just points out the fact how much media can hype up a player, and how that benefits the player in contract season.
The only argument I’m putting forward is that quite a few mediocre players have been rewarded with contracts disporportionate to their skills/stats simply based on their “Post-Season Heroics†™. It always seems to happen. It’s a phenomenon similar to the big contract rewarded to the player who puts up huge numbers in his walk year that are not reflective of his past history.
You’d have a hard time finding a player as poor as Suppan who got anything close to a contract this big under these circumstances.
Jarrod Washburn, a year ago, was a clearly superior pitcher to Suppan; left-handed, better ratios, pitching in the American League, and coming off a season where he ranked 5th in the league in ERA. He got 4/37.5 and the M’s got laughed at.
Teams aren’t good at evaluting pitchers corrrectly, but they’re also not that bad. They’re not going to see Suppan as a $40 million pitcher.
Re #29: half true. The elimination of Type C free agents and the change in compensation for Type B free agents are effective as of now. The reduction in the sizes of these two groups, however, isn’t taking effect this offseason.
To correct my error: the reduction in the sizes of the Type A and Type B free-agent groups isn’t taking effect this offseason.