Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: UFC 146 Results: Junior dos Santos TKO's Frank Mir

The New Collective Bargaining Agreement Is An Abomination

Major League Baseball Executive Vice President Rob Manfred, Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig and Major League Baseball Players Association Executive Director Michael Weiner attend a news conference at MLB headquarters in New York City. Selig and Weiner announced a new five-year labor agreement between the MLB and the MLBPA.  (Photo by Patrick McDermott/Getty Images)

The Owners and the Players Association announced their agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) today. The good news from this agreement is that it ensures another five years of labor peace. The bad news is that they came to an agreement by agreeing to cheat poor kids from the Dominican Republic as well as the United States.

One of Bud Selig's biggest complaints lately has been escalating amateur signing bonuses. He instituted a "slotting" system in the draft where MLB told teams how much they should pay each of their draft choices. The problem with this system, as far as Selig was concerned, was that teams could and did just ignore these slotting "suggestions." 

Teams had no reason to follow these suggested slottings. There was little the commissioner's office could do to enforce them. They often delayed approving contracts that went over slot, but that hurt everyone as newly drafted kids could often not get minor league experience until the next season. This often forced them to either play in Low-A in April, which is a tough way to get your start, or wait until late-June to play in short-season A ball or the Rookie Leagues. The signing deadline for new draftees was moved up to mid-July in the new CBA. That's about the only good thing in the CBA as far as amateur signings are concerned.

I don't want to blame this all on Selig, because he's simply acting on the wishes of the 30 owners. But he's made it clear in interviews over the past few years that he doesn't like the way teams ignore his suggestions. 

The solution, as far as the Commissioner's Office is concerned, is to make these draft slot bonuses mandatory, like they do in the NBA. But the MLBPA was going to have none of that as it sounded too much like a salary cap, which they adamantly oppose. So just as they did with major league salaries, they went with a luxury tax where teams who spend too much are forced to pay a fine.

Star-divide

So far, so good. I'm not in favor of a luxury tax, but even paying the tax would be a better deal for most teams than letting top talent get away. But the new CBA puts in a provision that makes the luxury tax, in effect, a salary cap. Teams that go more than 5% over the recommended amount for draft and international signings will lose their first round draft pick the next season. Teams that go 15% over will lose their next two first-round draft picks.

This is, in effect, a salary cap. Few teams will be willing to lose a first round draft pick to go over slot. Perhaps a team like the Yankees, picking at the end of the first round, might be willing to sacrifice one to sign a big name that dropped in the draft or an international free agent.  A team like Washington or Kansas City would never dare. There are some protections so that you don't lose a top ten pick, but poor teams need every pick they can get. The Yankees can just sign another free agent to fix that hole in their system. The Pirates can't. That's great for the competitive balance you keep talking about, Bud.

It is undeniable that spending money on amateurs is the best way for smaller market teams to compete. When you sign an amateur, you control him throughout his minor league career at what amounts to below a minimum wage salary. Then you control his rights for his first six years in the major leagues. The top two spending teams in the draft the past two seasons have been Pittsburgh and Kansas City. How are those two teams supposed to get elite talent now?

This new slotting system takes money away from amateurs, who aren't in the union, and gives it to major leaguers who are. That's why the Union agreed to it. Some of you might say "So what? Why are we spending money on players who haven't proven anything?" The big reason is because if they succeed, they are cost-controlled for six seasons. But let me counter with this: The Pirates just gave an $8 million bonus on high school slugger Josh Bell to keep him from going to the University of Texas. They also gave a $10.5 million, two-year contract to Clint Barmes. Which one of those two players is more likely to lead the Pirates to the playoffs? Which one got more money? It's not the same answer.

Talented high school players are going to choose college. Talented college players are going to choose football and basketball over baseball. Given that NCAA schools can give 85 football scholarships and 11.7 scholarships for baseball that are usually split up into partial scholarships, which sport do you think most players will choose? Especially if they come from poorer families that can't afford to send their kids to college anyway. Those families also tend to be disproportionately minority in this country; so much for Bud Selig's outreach to urban kids and the RBI Program.

Internationally, it's even worse. Desperate kids from the Dominican Republic are going to sign anyway, but for a lot less money. So we're taking money away from poor Third World kids and giving it to American billionaires. Additionally, teams are only going to be able to sign kids from an established data base. Essentially, if you want to sign a Dominican or Venezuelan kid, you've got to tell the other 29 kids about him first. In theory that should raise bonuses because it should create a bidding war, but remember, everyone's budget is capped. No one is going to be able to go over a certain amount without losing draft picks. In theory, I suppose, a team could put all its eggs in one basket and give a huge bonus to one player and not sign anyone else, but that's a recipe for disaster. In a best case scenario, then, players will sign with the big name teams that they've heard of, such as the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox. In a worst-case scenario, corruption and under-the-table payments are going to be everywhere. I think the second scenario is more likely and these kids are going to be even more at the mercy of the buscones who connect players with teams.

Cuban players over 23 are exempted from this system. Yoenis Cespedes wouldn't be affected, but Kendrys Morales would have been.

In Asia, the situation isn't as bad for the players but it is worse for MLB. Japanese players who sign with NPB are exempt from the spending limits, so guys like Yu Darvish are going to get even more money when they are posted. It will prevent prospects like Junichi Tazawa from skipping NPB altogether and signing with an American team. But players from Korean and Taiwan are going to have to think twice about signing with American teams when their local league or NPB can offer a similar bonus.

On top of all that, the leagues will continue discussions on a worldwide draft. I've always been against such a thing, but now I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be better than this monstrosity.

Also, major league deals for amateur players have been banned. I'm not so worked up about this because major league deals are almost always bad for the amateur player, but it does eliminate a loophole that teams could have used to get around these onerous restrictions.

Looking at the Cubs briefly, under this system, Jeff Samardzija and Matt Szczur would be in the NFL right now. Logan Watkins would be playing college football. Ben Wells, Dillon Maples and Shawon Dunston Jr. would be in college. Matt Garza would be playing baseball, but not for the Cubs because we would not have had Hak-Ju Lee to trade for him.

I was planning on doing a story about how the new Theo Epstein/Jed Hoyer management team is going to change the way the Cubs are going to do business in the signing and development of baseball talent. I'm still planning on doing that and look for something after Thanksgiving. But I can tell you right now that the new CBA is going to completely change the way that they are going to have to go about their job. Not for the better, either.

Comment 222 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I'm glad I'm not the only one

upset. This is horrible on so many levels. I’d like to know who votes for it. And why.

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:09 PM CST reply actions  

Are you guys crazy?

Do you really think it’s fair for the big market teams to grab all of the top free agents PLUS blow everyone else out of the water with respect to the draft picks they choose?

At some point they have to make it a bit more fair for small market teams to compete.

I am and always will be a Cubs fan and I know it hurts us since we can’t go spending more than everyone else on draft picks. However, something had to be done to allow for fair competition.

by nickler on Nov 23, 2011 5:55 AM CST up reply actions  

Except....

Now Pittsburgh and KC, two of the top recent Amateur spending teams, will be unable to do what you would like to see…. the tables evened. Pittsburgh had the top pick, then grabbed Josh Bell with their second. They spent upwards of 12 million on two guys that they will have for about 8-10 years.

Now, that will be illegal, or at least counter-productive.

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 23, 2011 7:02 AM CST up reply actions  

Not to mention

the Yankees, etc. will have less trouble paying the 75% and up tax to go over the alloted bonus pool. The Pirates may have to think twice about that one.

by Bradsbeard on Nov 23, 2011 8:38 AM CST up reply actions  

Not if it means

giving up draft picks. Unless there is another Harper or Strasburg, nobody is going to do that.

by tomas21 on Nov 23, 2011 8:41 AM CST up reply actions  

That's true

going 5% over isn’t going to give the Yankees a huge advantage. I just ran the numbers, and the most the team with the largets draft pool could spend without losing a pick is about $12.5M (includes 5% over $11.5M plus 75% of that 5%). For a team on the low end, they would be capped at about $4.9M. That doesn’t give the Yankees any real advantage.

On thing that remains to be seen is how handicapped teams in the middle of the draft will be. I’m still not clear if the draft pool is entirely based on draft position or if it includes some factor for a teams’ market size and revenues. In other words, do the Rays get stuck on the low end of spending every year because they finish near the top of the standings, or is there some adjustment for their market size? If not, they are totally screwed.

by Bradsbeard on Nov 23, 2011 8:55 AM CST up reply actions  

The extra supplemental picks

are based on the bottom ten market size teams and the bottom ten revenue teams. So the Brewers will get a chance to win one every year because they’re the smallest market in baseball. But they would not qualify as one of the ten lowest revenue teams, at least not this season. Oakland would never qualify as one of the smallest market teams, but would qualify almost every season as one of the smallest revenue teams.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 1:28 PM CST up reply actions  

Are San Fran and San Jose

considered part of Oakland’s “market”? If so, I can see how they aren’t “small market”… but if not, I can’t imagine how they wouldn’t be one of the 10 smallest. But maybe that is my misperception of Oakland and its surrounding area.

"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."

by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST

by fsuapollo on Nov 23, 2011 2:33 PM CST up reply actions  

They're part of the TV market

as is Sacramento. I would assume that’s what “Market” means—or at least it’s a big part of the . Otherwise you’d have some odd combinations. St. Louis would end up in the bottom. So might San Francisco, actually, if you remove the East Bay from their equation.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 2:48 PM CST up reply actions  

How is Sacramento part of the Bay Area TV market?

It’s a TV market of its own, 20th largest. If you added Sacto’s TV households to the Bay Area’s, the Bay Area moves up to third largest.

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Nov 23, 2011 2:58 PM CST up reply actions  

They are part of the Oakland Athletics TV market

As is Fresno. Sorry I didn’t make that clear. I meant that advertisers for Athletic games get viewers in San Francisco, Sacramento and Fresno.

Comcast Sports California is standard in all three of those markets. In fact, CSC was originally created to broadcast Sacramento Kings games.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 3:17 PM CST up reply actions  

That makes quite a bit more sense.

I know there’s been talk at times of moving the A’s to Sacramento. They could do worse.

I do hope they wind up in San Jose.

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Nov 23, 2011 4:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Thanks both for the info.

Interesting… and maybe a little deflating as far as the future of the A’s. It seems they have access to enough eyeballs, but still aren’t drawing much of anything in the way of revenue and/or attendance.

"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."

by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST

by fsuapollo on Nov 23, 2011 4:56 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't think Sacramento is.

I forgot to just check the DMA listing.

San Fran / Oakland / San Jose is #6
Sacto / Stockton / Modesto is #20

But I’ve always had the feeling / assumption that the A’s are the little brother in that market since most of the “market” fanbase gravitates towards the Giants.

Anybody that can enlighten us on how Giants / A’s games are televised on the left coast? Do the Giants more often than not get “first dibs” and/or more prime spots, kind of like the Cubs do here compared to the South Siders?

"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."

by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST

by fsuapollo on Nov 23, 2011 3:51 PM CST up reply actions  

They have two CSN channels there

CSN Bay Area carries Giants Games. CSN California carries A’s games.

Some games are also on over the air broadcast outlets, not sure how many.

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Nov 23, 2011 4:45 PM CST up reply actions  

No Athletics games are over the air anymore

Except for an occasional Fox Saturday telecast. The Giants have about 15-20 games over the air.

When I first moved to Northern California, both the Giants and the Athletics were on Fox Sports Bay Area. This was a problem as the Giants got first dibs and then the rest of the Athletics games went on a UHF station in the Bay Area. Unfortunately, very few of those games got picked up in the Sacramento or Fresno markets. (or Monterey, Redding, etc.) Of course they were blacked out on MLB.tv or EI, so if you couldn’t get that UHF station, you were mostly out of luck. This was about 60 games.

Eventually, Comcast bought Fox Sports Bay Area and made it Comcast Sports Bay Area. They then started to broadcast CSN California in the Bay Area (it had previously been a Sacramento RSN) and moved both the Athletics and the Sharks to it.

So to recap, the Giants and the Warriors are on CSNBA and the Athletics/Sharks and Kings are on CSNC. The Warriors are blacked out in Sacto and the Kings are blacked out in the Bay Area. Both are available in Fresno and other markets, although several Kings games are broadcast over the air in Sacto and not broadcast elsewhere. The Earthquakes MLS team goes on both: whichever one has room that day.

And now you know more than you want to know.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 7:02 PM CST up reply actions  

If what you are all saying is true,

(and I’m not saying it’s not)…
Then the new agreement would hurt the small market teams.

EXCEPT

If the current system were “fair” then the Yankees and Red Sox would have the absolute worst farm systems. They should. After all, they are choosing last in the most recent drafts.

And yet, that’s not the case. Their farm systems are two of the very best. Why? Because they can overspend on the draft with reckless abandon. They can pay “over-slot” for whomever they want, while small market teams cannot do this. Some small market teams actually pass on higher talent because the draft pick has an ass like Boras as their agent.

How fair is that?! The draft is the ONLY way that small market teams have a chance.

I think that ultimately, they should allow the 10 smallest market teams and 10 “worst” teams to spend a certain percentage more on draft picks so that they have an advantage in signing the better prospects. However, I think the change makes things more, not less fair.

Am I wrong here, or am I missing something????

by nickler on Nov 23, 2011 2:53 PM CST up reply actions  

You are missing one thing
Because they can overspend on the draft with reckless abandon. They can pay "over-slot" for whomever they want, while small market teams cannot do this.

That’s not true. “Have not” doesn’t mean “could not.” In fact, the two teams that have spent the most in the past two drafts have been Pittsburgh and Kansas City. Tampa Bay made it to the top because they realized that even by spending tons for top talent, that’s only about $10-12 million a year. That’s the price of a #3 starter. It’s only about $4 million more than they are required to spend, or less than the price of Clint Barmes. The whole total is less than what these teams were pocketing in revenue sharing. Recently these teams have realized they were being foolish and started to spend. When was the last big Yankee overslot signing? Andrew Brackman? (and a poor one at that.) They don’t get them anymore because those players don’t fall that far anymore.

Now that avenue, while not completely closed off to them, is severely restricted. It looks like they’ll be able to get one big overslot signing a year by pushing things around, but there is no way a team like Pittsburgh could draft Gerrit Cole AND Josh Bell in the same year like last year.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 3:28 PM CST up reply actions  

But Josh

don’t you think the big market teams are starting to get a grasp of this?

Once the big market teams realize this (and you certainly know more than I do, but I think they have already started to) then the smaller teams are absolutely screwed.

Again, with even the top organizations now prizing their top prospects and being reluctant to trade their prospects even for top talent (i.e., the Yankees and Red Sox) it would seem that they realize this now. I really fear that, without these provisions, the bidding for prospects will become as lopsided as the bidding for free agents.

I do think they need to “allow” smaller market teams and teams with poor records to pay more for draft picks than they do the larger market teams. Have they allowed for this?

by nickler on Nov 28, 2011 12:30 AM CST up reply actions  

But the winning teams

pick after the losing teams. If the losing teams grab the top talent before it falls to the winning teams, the winning teams have nothing to spend it on.

Teams with losing records and smaller markets will get more money to spend on international signings than other teams, at least after this season. How much is unclear at this time.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 28, 2011 2:21 PM CST up reply actions  

But Josh...

I am not trying to argue or be disrespectful. You know so much more about than I do it’s not even funny. I am just trying to understand and pick your brain.

Going by what you just said, the new system will allow the small market teams to ensure that they WILL get those top picks. I probably just don’t understand but the argument seems circular.

The concern is that a team like, say, the Indians who pick before the Yankees might balk at signing someone they otherwise might sign because they know the agent is going to ask for a ton of money and they don’t want a bidding war while they lose their top pick.

The draftee, understanding that he is in high demand and that there is no cap on spending for prospects, can demand an outrageous amount that the small market team (Indians) cannot afford. So he drops down, not because he isn’t the best player available, but because the Indians don’t want to have him hold out and potentially get nothing with their top draft pick, and can’t afford to pay him what the agent is going to demand.

Draftee then falls down the board and some asshole team like the Yankees gets him who are willing to overspend, since a mistake to them does not cost the way it would a small market team.

For goodness sake, the Nationals almost lost out on Strasburg for this very reason.

More and more teams are understanding the importance of prospects, and without a system like this to prevent the Yankees and Red Sox (and yes, the Cubs) from distorting the draft also they way they have distorted the free agent market, this really was absolutely necessary.

While I think the parity in the NFL beats any other sport, I totally disagree with the drafting system. There have been several times teams have been “scared away” from signing the best available player because they knew the demands were too high.

I do think they need to give the small market and worst teams additional picks (not just some lame 6-selection lottery) or allow them additional resources to sign those picks.

It is great to hear that teams with losing records and smaller markets will get more money to spend on international signings. That is definitely a step in the right direction.

by nickler on Nov 29, 2011 4:28 PM CST up reply actions  

That draft spending

by Pittsburgh is a new behavior. Had they done that the last 5-10 years, they would be the D-Rays of the NL. Instead they are the Royals of the NL.

For all the faults of the new collective bargaining agreement, the one thing it does (or attempts to do) is funnel the top talent to the worst teams. In the absence of a salary cap, it’s a way to at least attempt to have parity.

The lack of parity in baseball is one of the causes of it’s relative unpopularity compared to football. It’s hard to be a fan over 162 games when your team has been out of contention for the last 120 games for years on end. The season is way to long to have such a chronically lopsided league. Purists can complain about having extra playoff teams, but modern sports need all fanbases to maintain interest all the time. You can’t have that when so many teams are effectively eliminated 1/3 of the way into the season.

by tomas21 on Nov 23, 2011 8:40 AM CST up reply actions  

Do not agree

The NBA has been successful (up until this season) and six franchises – Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Rockets, Pistons and Spurs, have won 28 of the last 31 championships.

And if you do the entire NBA history, throw in the Knicks and 76ers, and it’s something like 80 percent of the championships have been won by 8 franchises.

Dynasties can work. The key to the NBA is that the Spurs and Pistons can make dynasties too, if they get the right stars.

"It's all in the game, yo"

by Worf on Nov 23, 2011 9:27 AM CST up reply actions  

NBA fans

are a different breed than baseball fans. They tend to cheer for stars more than teams. Still, I think your general point is correct that a lack of parity is not as great a problem for the general health of the sport than some people claim. It is a real problem is markets like KC and Pittsburgh though.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 1:31 PM CST up reply actions  

No disrespect Worf,

but I absolutely disagree.

The NBA is a pathetic mess. Many teams can barely fill 1/2 their stadium. There is a ton of apathy from fans of many teams because dynasties arise and they know their team will have no chance for many years. The financial state of the NBA is very dire.

They tried to make up for it by allowing over 50% of the teams into the playoffs, but everyone knows that is just a joke.

Having a system with parity increases the fan base and makes the game better and more watchable. It also allows for small market teams to compete. The Buffalo Bills and Cleveland Browns routinely sell over 85% of their seats despite the fact that they stink.

by nickler on Nov 23, 2011 2:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Fair?

None of this is about fair. It’s about making money for the people who have money.

"'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." - Lewis Caroll, Alice Through the Looking Glass

by chitownhawkeye on Nov 23, 2011 10:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Worth pointing out

Since it informs the discussion, MLB has said the expected “pools” for the top 10 rounds will be about $4.5 million to $11.5 million (depending on where you pick, and how many picks you have).

Bleacher Nation - Cubs Rumors and News

by Brett Taylor on Nov 22, 2011 3:09 PM CST reply actions  

This will help the Cubs next summer

… since they’ll pick higher given their poor finish in 2011. After that, who knows. But if they have another mediocre or poor year in 2012, that could help in the future.

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Nov 22, 2011 3:11 PM CST up reply actions  

I have wondered many a time

How although other pro sports are out of touch and so is college football that baseball has to be the most out of touch with reality.

The Stat Pack

by shoemile on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 PM CDT

by Madison Cub Fan on Nov 22, 2011 3:10 PM CST reply actions  

Can't we vote Selig out of office?

It’s clear that his motives benefit the owners first. He could care less whether Pitt or KC have a fair playing field, so long as he and the owners get their billions.

"Whenever one finds himself in the majority, it is time to step back and reflect," Mark Twain.

by WindisBlowingOut! on Nov 22, 2011 3:11 PM CST reply actions  

Pretty much.

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:13 PM CST up reply actions  

well allegedly he’s leaving after 2012 and not a moment too soon. He’s a master of taking something that isn’t broken, and fixing it until it is.

I am not a Leader, and I am not a Legend.

by Aaron Go Bragh on Nov 22, 2011 3:14 PM CST up reply actions  

but do you think anyone better will get in

The Stat Pack

by shoemile on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 PM CDT

by Madison Cub Fan on Nov 22, 2011 3:14 PM CST up reply actions  

Only if the smart owners speak up

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:16 PM CST up reply actions  

you really think these owners are going to let someone who might decide

things against their wishes be commish?

The Stat Pack

by shoemile on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 PM CDT

by Madison Cub Fan on Nov 22, 2011 3:18 PM CST up reply actions  

If Ricketts, Henry, and KC and Pittsburgh

make it an issue. Or, they can be p***ies about it and get a lousy commissioner again.

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:23 PM CST up reply actions  

why did those 4? was it random?

Let’s be honest………. Why would they do that?

It all comes down to money, just like it does in the rest of the world.

The Stat Pack

by shoemile on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 PM CDT

by Madison Cub Fan on Nov 22, 2011 5:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Owners don't have a hive mind.

While profits are always going to be the main driver, some owners have taken the long view before.

There are owners out there who understand a healthy league is one that benefits everyone equally.

by Nunyabidness on Nov 22, 2011 5:04 PM CST up reply actions  

It ain't just Selig

The players agreed to this too. Why? Because it takes money away from people like Josh Bell, who aren’t in the union, and likely gives it to players like Clint Barmes, who are.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 3:15 PM CST up reply actions  

exactly

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:16 PM CST up reply actions  

I think one of the biggest disadvantages baseball has is its minor league system

The NBA and NFL take players either right out of college or from over seas. They don’t have to agree to spend x amount on draft picks or suffer a penalty, which would cost them future picks. It’s a bogus, absolutely absurd rule.

"Whenever one finds himself in the majority, it is time to step back and reflect," Mark Twain.

by WindisBlowingOut! on Nov 22, 2011 3:24 PM CST up reply actions  

No one put a gun to Pittsburgh's head

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Nov 22, 2011 3:42 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes, and Al's argument rings especailly hollow when he tries to use this as part of the foundation...
They (The Pirates) also gave a $10.5 million, two-year contract to Clint Barmes.

This is why the Pirates suck, it’s NOT a reason to hate the new CBA.

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 22, 2011 3:50 PM CST up reply actions   2 recs

EDIT: I meant Josh's argument.

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 22, 2011 3:51 PM CST up reply actions  

Here's another question

What should the Pirates have spent that 5.25 million dollars a year on? There certainly isn’t any major league talent better than Barmes that would have signed with them for that amount of money. They used to just pocket it, but now they’re in trouble with MLB and the MLBPA for not spending all the revenue sharing money they get. They have to spend it or they lose it.

A better way is to spend it on Josh Bell. Oops, they can’t do that anymore.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 3:59 PM CST up reply actions  

Absolutely.

But they don’t have to spend it on nonentities like Clint Barmes, either.

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Nov 23, 2011 7:40 AM CST up reply actions  

True

And it was a terrible move. But they were going to end up overpaying for someone. They should have overpaid for someone who was actually good though.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 1:32 PM CST up reply actions  

The point is

teams have money to spend. If they are restricted from spending on amateur talent, they can do two things with it. They can spend it on players or they can pocket it. Since at least some of those teams are not going to pocket it, that is going to increase the salaries of all players, including guys like Clint Barmes. If all teams decided to not spend that money and pocket it instead: that’s collusion.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 2:52 PM CST up reply actions  

No, that would be greed. But not collusion.

To have collusion, you need to have an agreement between competing firms.

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Nov 23, 2011 8:53 PM CST up reply actions  

If they all decided to do it at the same time

and none of them broke ranks, it’s collusion. There is no way 30 groups can all agree to make the same change at the same time without collusion. Peter Ueberroth tried to get away with that by saying “We’re not having any sort of agreement here, but wouldn’t it be good for baseball if . . .” The arbiter wasn’t buying it.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 24, 2011 3:05 AM CST up reply actions  

Yes, that's collusion

But there’s a huge gap between the structure of the latest CBA and it’s impact on draft/international spending and MLB salaries, and Collusion.

I don’t take a lot of stock in recent talk of collusion. Barry Bonds’ agent tried to puff up that pillow and it didn’t work.

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Nov 24, 2011 11:27 AM CST up reply actions  

guys like clint barmes?

you mean guys that used to be “amateur talent” but had the audacity to develop from a 10th round draft pick into a useful major league shortstop?

by circuitclout on Nov 24, 2011 4:51 PM CST up reply actions  

There's nothing wrong with Clint Barmes

other than you aren’t going to build a winning team around him. That and he’s not a very good hitter. Or fielder.

This isn’t personal.

Look, if you’ve got a good team with a gaping hole in the middle infield, Barmes can be a decent replacement-level stop gap. But what good is he going to do Pittsbugh?

by Josh Timmers on Nov 28, 2011 2:24 PM CST up reply actions  

i think you're undervaluing him a tad

he’s a better defensive player than he gets credit for and he’s not a black hole offensively. i don’t think pittsburgh is trying to build around him, i think they are trying to build around mccutchen, walker, alvarez and tabata, so barmes makes some sense for them, more sense than, say, jimmy rollins would make on a longer, more expensive contract.

obviously, he can’t pitch and until pittsburgh solves that problem they aren’t going to have any sustained success.

by circuitclout on Nov 28, 2011 7:48 PM CST up reply actions  

Defensively, Barmes is very good.

Offensively? His numbers look like Neifi Perez’s. If the Cubs had a SS hitting like that people around here would be screaming for him to be DFA’d.

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Nov 29, 2011 7:49 AM CST up reply actions  

i wouldn't want him on my fantasy team

but there are worse guys you could have playing SS and hitting in the bottom third of your order. it’s pretty clear when you look at his career numbers that he wasn’t at full strength in 2006-07 after his meat-induced injury. over the last four years he’s put up a .720 OPS and played good defense at a premium position.

by circuitclout on Nov 29, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Barmes contract is stupid

Bell’s contract is virtually illegal.

At least college baseball should be better soon?

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:52 PM CST up reply actions  

But they also spent $8 million on Josh Bell

and in fact, the reason why they’ve sucked for so long is not giving money to Clint Barmes, but not giving money to Stephen Drew or Buster Posey or Matt Weiters or Jered Weaver or all the other players they passed on because they didn’t want to spend the money on “unproven” amateurs.

The Clint Barmes thing is a distraction. The point is that in recent years, the Pirates have discovered the error of their ways and are building a top farm system. The new CBS closes this off to them.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 3:55 PM CST up reply actions  

I think the Barmes point is an important one

Teams like the Pirates are going to start shoveling extra money around toward players like Barmes because they (a) can’t spend it on the amateur side, and (b) can’t afford the tip top free agents.

Bleacher Nation - Cubs Rumors and News

by Brett Taylor on Nov 22, 2011 3:58 PM CST up reply actions  

Why are you so opposed to this?

Please see/ respond to my comments above. I would love someone to help me understand.

by nickler on Nov 23, 2011 2:58 PM CST up reply actions  

Giolitto for 6 mil

or Zunino for $4

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:14 PM CST reply actions  

This blows.

Theo! Good job, Tommy Boy!

by shoemile on Nov 22, 2011 3:16 PM CST reply actions  

Well written Josh.

I think the most important part of this piece is that there is no question players that play both Football and Baseball in High School will now choose football. It is all about what I can get, who can offer the most.
 Spot on about the union. They take care of there own with blinders on.

by Grockcubs on Nov 22, 2011 3:19 PM CST reply actions  

It's never that simple

Even the best two-sport athletes will have to choose between the immediate payoff of baseball vs. the college scholarship. And there is an injury risk with that college scholarship that can kill their pay day later.

It’s never that simple and markets never work this cleanly.

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Nov 22, 2011 4:26 PM CST up reply actions  

Except for a handful of schools

football wins out regardless

The Stat Pack

by shoemile on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 PM CDT

by Madison Cub Fan on Nov 22, 2011 5:53 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah, but my point is that those guys mainly go into college on football scholarships

So, under the current NCAA system, the football coach owns them (choice of verbs is deliberate). So their ability to play baseball will be limited and they aren’t likely to end up in pro baseball.

by ClarkFan on Nov 22, 2011 5:57 PM CST up reply actions  

that was my point also

The Stat Pack

by shoemile on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 PM CDT

by Madison Cub Fan on Nov 22, 2011 6:03 PM CST up reply actions  

The change in the draft will have marginal at best impact

Look at baseball players. In college football, what positions can they play? Quarterback, wide receiver, defensive back. I doubt you’ll see any baseball players taking a Wisconsin offensive lineman’s scholarship. Or Miami defensive lineman.

So not all baseball players will jump to football scholarships. And the talent level of college football is already very good. A few baseball players are not going to affect that.

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Nov 22, 2011 6:17 PM CST up reply actions  

Your point about players going to the NFL speaks volumes because it not only affects the Cubs but baseball as a whole. What drives a lot of the bonuses for draft picks is that teams have to convince an athlete to pick the minor leagues over taking a scholarship to play college football or basketball. Now more of those kids will be going to college football or basketball instead which means the overall quality of baseball will decline.

I am not a Leader, and I am not a Legend.

by Aaron Go Bragh on Nov 22, 2011 3:20 PM CST reply actions  

Amen, Josh

This CBA is so bad for baseball it’s not even funny.

by subtle on Nov 22, 2011 3:23 PM CST reply actions  

its better than a strike or lock out

… at least there will be a baseball season next year. lol

by chit0wn on Nov 22, 2011 3:24 PM CST up reply actions  

Maybe yes

Maybe no

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:24 PM CST up reply actions  

no way a strike or lock out is better for the game than a shitty labor deal

… look at the nba right now and how much money and jobs are being lost

by chit0wn on Nov 22, 2011 3:28 PM CST up reply actions  

No way having 3 teams anyone cares about and 20 that have

no shot at a title is any good either.

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:33 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes it will.
“at least the cba wont keep the fans away”

You just have to look farther down the road than next season. If 3 teams are good and 20 are crappy on a year in and year out basis, then those 20 crappy teams will lose fans and people won’t go to their games.

by Nunyabidness on Nov 22, 2011 4:48 PM CST up reply actions  

not nearly as much as a strike would

… alls i was saying is that a shit deal is better than no deal at all.

by chit0wn on Nov 22, 2011 5:34 PM CST up reply actions  

I actually agree with him

As awful as I think this deal is, I think a work-stoppage would be worse.

But my feeling is that baseball is actually hurting themselves with this deal. It will hurt competitive balance.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 9:23 PM CST up reply actions  

Gotta disagree

I think the goal of this system is to send the best amature prospects to the worst clubs. That is how a dispersal should work. It will help competitive balance.

For too long we’ve seen franchises having to weigh signability against talent.

Now teams are free to take the best talent on the board.

If a kid doesn’t want to sign for slot? Go to college and hope your stock doesn’t drop.

This CBA probably saves the Cubs from drafting Pawelek and Harvey anyway.

" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "

by aaronb on Nov 23, 2011 11:40 PM CST up reply actions  

The NBA is in that situation because their previous labor deal was terrible

Don’t get me wrong, playing is better than not playing but if either side turns on this CBA then the next labor talks could get ugly in my opinion.

They have two liter bottles now? To think I spent all that time demanding a liter!

by Say Ramrod on Nov 22, 2011 4:23 PM CST up reply actions  

My other thought

is that this new CBA completely screws Billy Beane and Oakland. Not only does it eliminate the comp picks he was getting for relief pitchers, but it eliminates and opportunity for them to be aggressive in the international draft.

The Cubs are going to be OK on this. It’s bad for baseball and I hate it, but the Cubs will do OK. But Oakland is completely hosed, now and forever. They better get a new stadium, paid for by the other 29 owners, for this.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 3:24 PM CST reply actions  

and Pittsburgh

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:25 PM CST up reply actions  

True

but with their stadiums and TV markets that they don’t have to share, I think the Royals and the Pirates will be better able to compete than Oakland. Oakland is just toast unless they get a new stadium in San Jose.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 3:27 PM CST up reply actions  

and Bud permits it

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:28 PM CST up reply actions  

But they can trade to earn more

International spending points.

Disclaimer…. not valid on Thursdays or months that start with J.

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:26 PM CST up reply actions  

yup

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:33 PM CST up reply actions  

To take it further... I imagine they'll be elsewhere in five years.

"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."

by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST

by fsuapollo on Nov 22, 2011 6:56 PM CST up reply actions  

It also prevents him, and others, from obtaining impending free agents

and then getting the draft picks after they leave. Players have to be with a team for the whole season for the team to get draft pick compensation now.

"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin

by davidalanu on Nov 22, 2011 4:28 PM CST up reply actions  

and KC

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:25 PM CST reply actions  

Looking forward to you opinion on Theo/Hoyer's new strategy

Well I suppose the issue of signability with some guys will be a lot less dramatic, or just more concrete for lack of a better word. If a Josh Bell doesn’t go on day one, you know he’s going to college. You know there is a floor (more or less) for a lot of these questionable sign /struggled in spring prep players.

www.minorleaguerundown.com

by TheBigMurt on Nov 22, 2011 3:25 PM CST reply actions  

Interested to see how the trading of won lottery picks turns out.

And who takes advantage of it first.

www.minorleaguerundown.com

by TheBigMurt on Nov 22, 2011 3:27 PM CST reply actions  

Here's some good news in the CBA!

The non-discrimination clause now includes sexual orientation. So that’s good news for all the open homosexuals in the sport.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 3:29 PM CST reply actions  

There is Laura Ricketts

But I’m not sure who would be in a position to discriminate against her.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 3:34 PM CST up reply actions  

lol

… i thought u meant players. That would be weird for the team i think

by chit0wn on Nov 22, 2011 3:35 PM CST up reply actions  

It may not apply to her

since she’s not in the union. In any case, this is the right thing to do, but it hardly affects anyone.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 3:37 PM CST up reply actions  

Might affect players who haven't openly revealed their sexuality

to do so.

"Keep pushin' til' it's understood. And these badlands start treating us good."

by AussieCub on Nov 22, 2011 6:45 PM CST up reply actions  

We could hope

but I imagine it won’t play a role. I don’t think fear of official retaliation is keeping players in the closet. It’s more the code of sports.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 9:24 PM CST up reply actions  

Agreed

but any steps towards changing that culture are welcomed.

"Keep pushin' til' it's understood. And these badlands start treating us good."

by AussieCub on Nov 22, 2011 9:31 PM CST up reply actions  

Also,

The wonderful photo of Bud and the boys is great isn’t it? The will tout “Labor peace” “Who would of thought MLB could and the Players Association could hammer out another deal for 5 years?” This story won’t find many front pages in the sports sections.

by Grockcubs on Nov 22, 2011 3:30 PM CST reply actions  

I'm very interested to find out

what loopholes teams/agents will concoct.

Every day is a beautiful day for baseball!!

by cowsarecool220 on Nov 22, 2011 3:33 PM CST reply actions  

see (Epstein, Theo)

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 3:34 PM CST up reply actions  

How about the Szczur loophole, as I will call it

Signed an initial deal, re-worked it with the team, got “released,” signed a new deal that was worth more money, and had to be added to a 40 man to protect from rule V.

by Mulhollandmania on Nov 22, 2011 10:58 PM CST up reply actions  

I'll be the devil's advocate.

I know political discussion is not enjoyed here, so I’ll limit my post to a few simple questions and comments.

I agree that a luxury tax should mean $$$ and not draft picks. After that, I started to disagree with the emotion in the OP.

So under this new CBA, we can’t pay a Josh Bell $8mil to not go to college? Is that bad?

We can no longer give lots of money to kids that live outside the U.S.? We could still give them something though, such as the opportunity to come here and play professional baseball. If they’re good enough, they’ll trump “minimum wage” and likely the average annual income of most American families over their lifetime.

I suppose we could see an impact on talent or parity. I would argue that baseball has never had either of these outside the random luck of the game. This is a separate issue.

Lastly, there have been many a late inning where I thought that Shark should be playing football. Just sayin.

I’ll be looking for my “political chatter warning” email later today. Pardon me in advance, I’m just sharing.

by Tat14 on Nov 22, 2011 3:59 PM CST reply actions  

I think an owner should

be able to invest in improving his product however possible. This limits that. I hate it.

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 4:02 PM CST up reply actions  

This is capitalism

What people who are for the CBA are arguing for is a cartel. (No, it’s not socialism.)

Without getting too political, I think that if MLB goes too far or into a worldwide draft, they could run into trouble with the WTO. Baseball can have a draft in the US and are protected by anti-trust rules, but I can see the government of the Dominican Republic challenging these rules as an unfair restraint of trade. And MLB would lose such a case.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 4:07 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Intriiiiiiiguing

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 4:08 PM CST up reply actions  

From what I understand

that’s why they don’t have such a system in football/soccer.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 4:09 PM CST up reply actions  

Hmmm

So the NBA, NHL, and NFL draft can divvy up contract rights for international players because the players willingly decide to enter the draft. But it is possible that MLB may not legally limit the signing bonuses for international players because these players did not willingly enter a draft?

by Kyle From Chicago on Nov 22, 2011 4:17 PM CST up reply actions  

Don't know

might have to do with union representation. In those leagues, players join the union as soon as they sign.

Could also be because no one has challenged it. The WTO doesn’t go around striking down stuff when no one complains.

I’m willing to admit that I’m out of my depth here in understanding the international law governing this.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 4:28 PM CST up reply actions  

Which is why I've advocated for an enrollment process for the draft

That would have been the other way to de-leverage these prospects negotiations.

" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "

by aaronb on Nov 23, 2011 11:49 PM CST up reply actions  

Step back from the ledge

The WTO? Seriously? That’s laughable. First, MLB is not a party to the WTO. The USA is a party. Second, I’m sure MLB would structure an international draft (which would probably help small market teams) to ensure they do not rule afoul of international treaties that the USA has entered into.

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Nov 22, 2011 5:48 PM CST up reply actions  

Is MLB considered American?

Out of curiosity, is MLB legally considered a US entity? I realize it’s headquartered in New York, but it’s 1) a cartel, which I assume is legally more complex than typical corporate law, and 2) composed of both US and Canadian bodies. Anyone know how national and international law (even if the latter is mostly theoretical) views these types of things?

by CubsWin!Oregon on Nov 23, 2011 6:21 AM CST up reply actions  

It is a U.S. entity

That’s why it had to be exempted from U.S. anti-trust laws and the like.

by Nunyabidness on Nov 23, 2011 9:01 AM CST up reply actions  

I agree. And I can understand the angst here.

The whole “argument” just seems shallow to me. My reasons start to move away from sports and more towards America in the big scheme of things.

This is where we’re supposed to stop, yes?

If the only point was, “hey $$$, not draft picks”, cool.

by Tat14 on Nov 22, 2011 4:09 PM CST up reply actions  

Only in the most shallow of ways
“My reasons start to move away from sports and more towards America in the big scheme of things.”

And I’m sorry, but only from the angle of someone who doesn’t have a completely firm grasp on economics

by Nunyabidness on Nov 22, 2011 5:01 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

I thought the point was about who got paid what.

Is that firm enough? (free joke here)

Please elaborate. I am curious as to why I should be tremendously bothered about the money paid to a kid who doesn’t live here yet. Not that I lack compassion, I just don’t think a kid with a chance to break in won’t do just that and make his fortunes down the line.

Are you going to argue fair market value? What’s fair about professional sports market value compared to… anything?

by Tat14 on Nov 22, 2011 5:13 PM CST up reply actions  

Then I think you're kind of naive
" I just don’t think a kid with a chance to break in won’t do just that and make his fortunes down the line."

by Nunyabidness on Nov 22, 2011 5:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Aww man.

I was hoping for your economics lesson instead.

Maybe in our other thread below?

by Tat14 on Nov 22, 2011 5:43 PM CST up reply actions  

damn nuny

I don’t like normally agreeing with you…………….

but I think you nailed this one.
 

The Stat Pack

by shoemile on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 PM CDT

by Madison Cub Fan on Nov 22, 2011 5:56 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm sure there are owners that that want to improve their product

I’m sure some owners would like to have an NFL style draft, where players must declare for the draft and renounce his amateur status. Well, they didn’t get that.

Not everybody gets everything they want in life.

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Nov 22, 2011 5:54 PM CST up reply actions  

Where else does the money go?

If it doesn’t go to Josh Bell, it goes to a billionaire. Maybe you think that’s a good idea. Sounds like it.

And if they don’t make it (and most of them don’t), they go back to the Dominican Republic with no skills and little chance of getting out of abject poverty. Again, maybe you think that’s a good idea. At least some of them now have enough money to keep a roof over their heads. But perhaps new amenities in the luxury boxes are more important.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 4:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Which billionaire?

Maybe its spent on major league contracts? Do you know any better?

I don’t see where a DR kid doesn’t get paid. He just may not be paid to the levels of old. What’s the difference between him and a poor kid from Robbins?

by Tat14 on Nov 22, 2011 4:13 PM CST up reply actions  

He's not getting his free market value

And I guess if it makes you feel better that the money is going to Clint Barmes instead of Robert Nutting, then fine. Either way it enriches someone who has a lot of money at the expense of someone who has none.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 4:30 PM CST up reply actions  

...
Either way it enriches someone who has a lot of money at the expense of someone who has none.

OCCUPY MLB

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 22, 2011 5:19 PM CST up reply actions  

I feel neither one way or the other about how PIT spends money.

If the luxury tax was a monetary penalty instead of costing teams draft picks, would you feel differently?

All I see here is that someone may not get paid millions right away. Considering what options most kids face here in the US, I just can’t get all worked up over it.

by Tat14 on Nov 22, 2011 5:26 PM CST up reply actions  

I wouldn't feel as strongly about it

because I believe teams would continue to spend as they always had and just pay the tax. But teams won’t risk tossing away draft picks.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 5:37 PM CST up reply actions  

Fair enough.

My previously unsaid point had to do with uncontrolled spending, national debt, etc. I feel that maybe not sending nine or ten figures of dough to any, any 19yo could be a good thing. Not for this forum.

They shouldn’t take away draft picks though. I don’t like that either.

by Tat14 on Nov 22, 2011 5:46 PM CST up reply actions  

I’m surprised there hasn’t been a he should just be happy to be able to come our great country yet from someone yet.

The Stat Pack

by shoemile on Oct 21, 2011 10:10 PM CDT

by Madison Cub Fan on Nov 22, 2011 5:59 PM CST up reply actions  

Not what I said.

Well played on your part though. Here (…….) you forgot a bunch of these up top.

by Tat14 on Nov 22, 2011 6:23 PM CST up reply actions  

He may be underpaid initially and overpaid later on

In the end, he’ll get what he deserves based on his performance at the major league level and the skill of his agent.

If you don’t think that’s fair, maybe the players union should be disbanded and all contracts nullified.

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Nov 22, 2011 5:59 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm in favor of the newly drafted players

not getting dicked this way. Pardon my language, but they absolutely got dicked. I hope they find loopholes and really stick it to the owners and Bud.

by Mulhollandmania on Nov 22, 2011 11:01 PM CST up reply actions  

Will try to stay away from politics as well but....
“So under this new CBA, we can’t pay a Josh Bell $8mil to not go to college? Is that bad?

Yes. Because as Josh pointed out, this deal hurts lower income families. What if his family needed all the money they could get ? I’m sure your response to that would be “then he should settle for whatever he wants.” My response to that would be, why should lower income families settle for less money not because their kids are less talented, but because they make less money?

“We can no longer give lots of money to kids that live outside the U.S.? We could still give them something though, such as the opportunity to come here and play professional baseball.”

Well then why pay them at all? Hell, maybe they should pay us for the privilege of setting foot in the country? So what if they are better at something than those in the United States?! We don’t want the best and brightest (and revenues their salaries are earned back in taxes and purchases they make in the US) we want Amurricans!

“I suppose we could see an impact on talent or parity. I would argue that baseball has never had either of these outside the random luck of the game.”

We never had it before, has never been a real good argument for why someone should take steps to make sure we never have it in the future.

by Nunyabidness on Nov 22, 2011 5:00 PM CST up reply actions  

You've taken my comments to an extreme.

That’s the problem with the written word. You assume a tone when you read a post.

If a young family is poor, but their son can now earn millions in pro sport, what is the difference between 900k and 8mil. Before you answer, consider that if he has real talent, his income will increase from a starting point that most of us would be happy with. If he washes out, this poor family still had a period of time with six figure income.

Your second sampled quote is just silly.

The last one, points to you. Only time will tell how this CBA effects the quality of the game.

by Tat14 on Nov 22, 2011 5:39 PM CST up reply actions  

That is exactly the response I expected
" what is the difference between 900k and 8mil. Before you answer, consider that if he has real talent, his income will increase from a starting point that most of us would be happy with. If he washes out, this poor family still had a period of time with six figure income."

A great deal is different considering any number of things could happen that could derail his career.

“Your second sampled quote is just silly.”

Ok, then explain to me WHY we can no longer give lots of money to kids that live outside the United States. Considering that most of them will spend a large portion of their time and money INSIDE the United States, how is this something we can’t afford to do?

by Nunyabidness on Nov 22, 2011 8:13 PM CST up reply actions  

You expected this?

Wow.

Sure, an athlete could find injury, and thereby fail to realize his or her potential. Welcome to reality.

As far as the debate about giving kids outside of American borders money, thinking that we can assume a recoup in our own economy; where do you get this? Can you prove that a young SS from a city overseas will pay his salary toward our country’s cash flow? Maybe a big house, three cars, and a plane? Maybe he sends his $$$ back home? You only assume this. Have you been outside of the U.S.?

You don’t, and can’t, know this. Your argument is lame, and your comments are as snarky as usual. Any blogger can ‘block quote’ with a retort, but you have yet to add anything substantive to this thread.

At the end of the day if you feel that this CBA is bad because an 18yo kid, regardless of where he’s from, can’t max out his agent’s bid then you are a part of the problem. Regardless of a luxury tax teams that want talent get talent.

I agree with OP about $$$ vice draft picks. I am astounded that you guys are that crushed over some teen-ager’s bankroll.

by Tat14 on Nov 23, 2011 1:30 AM CST up reply actions  

I personally am bothered by it for altruistic reasons...

i dont really care about the teenagers bank roll…i care about how much money the team i root for can give to a kid to play baseball for the team i root for.

So i you can give you can take it.

by epsilon on Nov 23, 2011 8:58 AM CST up reply actions  

Yes.
Can you prove that a young SS from a city overseas will pay his salary toward our country’s cash flow?

You honestly believe that when a kid signs a contract to come here, and DOES come here, he spends no money here? You think no taxes are collected?

It’s pretty basic.

I block quote so you know exactly what I’m responding to, sorry if that bothers you for some reason.

by Nunyabidness on Nov 23, 2011 9:03 AM CST up reply actions  

And let's assume some player comes here, and finds a way to spend almost no money in the US

Maybe he pays rent, buys basic groceries, but sends everything home.

If the team is competitive, that still helps everyone else connected to the team — owners of bars/restaurants near the stadium, T-shirts sales, parking lot guys, etc…

More likely, the great players will stay, spend money here, and bring over family members who will also send money here.

"It's all in the game, yo"

by Worf on Nov 23, 2011 9:23 AM CST up reply actions  

As details start to trickle out

I’m going to wait and reserve full condemnation. I’ve already been vocally against this, and I agree with all of Josh’s points in his post.
Biz of Baseball
has some interesting new info that changes things a little.

UPDATE#2: As part of the new Lottery within the Draft, some picks can now be traded

The picks for the new Competitive Balance Lottery – which represents a small number of picks – are assignable (tradable). The Competitive Balance Lottery will be active for 2013. There will only be certain times of the year when those picks can be traded.

For the Competitive Balance Lottery, it’s six picks after the first round and six picks after the second round.

UPDATE: Here are more details around how the Signing Bonus Pool works within the Draft:
The range of the Signing Bonus Pool is from $4.5 million-$11.5 million.

The more picks a club has, the larger the pool becomes that the club will have to work with.

The size of the pools will standardize more from club to club after next year’s class of free agents.
    
The size of the pools will be dependent on the number of picks a club has in a given year and where those picks fall within each round.

A club with the first pick of the Draft will have the largest pool.

by Bradsbeard on Nov 22, 2011 4:05 PM CST reply actions  

But that also limits

international signings. So if you spend all your money on Brian Harper, you won’t be able to sign a top Dominican prospect as well.

From what I understand, all of this comes out of the same budget.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 4:08 PM CST up reply actions  

If you spend all your money on Brian Harper

You better start looking for a new job, as neither Brian Harper was good when they were young, much less a decade out of major league baseball.

It's a simple question, Doctor: would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs??

by Invalid User on Nov 22, 2011 5:25 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah

We’ve already got Brian Harper under contract. He’s managing the Smokies.

Just a mistaken vowel there.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 5:38 PM CST up reply actions  

This isn't my understanding

From what I read, there is a separate budget for IFA’s that is also dependent on how the team finishes. I believe I read the range would end up being $5 million for the worst team, and $1.9 million for the best, when it is all said and done. The LA market is arguably the biggest loser in this new deal.

by RynoRooter on Nov 22, 2011 5:27 PM CST up reply actions  

The details were still coming out

when I was writing this. We’ll have to see what the final thing is. You may be right.

I’m curious to hear why you think LA is the biggest loser. It may be true, but I don’t know why.

Teams are also going to be reluctant to build big Dominican Academies if they aren’t going to be allowed to sign the players they want. This would be worse under an international draft, which from what I understand is still under negotiation for the 2014 season.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 5:41 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't see how an international draft is even feasible

But the limits put a pretty big cap on the possible bonuses given the LA talent. The elite LA talent, pre-CBA, knew they could rely on the Mariners/Rangers/A’s/Yanks for big time offers. They really can’t do so anymore. The Yanks and Rangers will have beans to spend in the LA market, as they are good teams, and the M’s and A’s will only have so much between them. It’s possible it allows other teams, like the Indians for example, to finally become players in the LA market, but my guess is that the cheap-@ss owners likely won’t spend the extra cash in the scouting for the LA market.

by RynoRooter on Nov 22, 2011 5:56 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree - I don't think an international draft is realistic or legally enforceable.


If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid. I'm a Sheeple and proud of it!
Spelling and grammar errors are included for creative and artistic reasons.

by eths on Nov 22, 2011 6:01 PM CST up reply actions  

There's my misunderstanding

For me—LA means Los Angeles. I didn’t realize you meant Latin America. I couldn’t figure out how the Dodgers and Angels were going to be especially hit hard.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 6:20 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree with just about everything Josh said.

BTW, and I am not a lawyer, so I may be wrong – I am certain that an international draft would be considered invalid here because it would be illegal in the European Union. Professional sports organizations in Europe have lost a series of cases in European courts concerning rules, from and by various leagues, limiting a player’s ability to chose where she/he wants to play. The regulations were struck down due to European labor laws. I think the same would apply to a draft.


If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid. I'm a Sheeple and proud of it!
Spelling and grammar errors are included for creative and artistic reasons.

by eths on Nov 22, 2011 5:06 PM CST reply actions  

That was my understanding too

although like you, I’m not a lawyer. And while I did spend some time studying the history of sports law in the University of Iowa Law School a few years ago, I didn’t touch anything approaching international law governing these things.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 5:43 PM CST up reply actions  

irrelevant

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.

by santoswoodenlegs on Nov 22, 2011 5:07 PM CST up reply actions  

rec'd


If the Cubs still have a chance, no matter how small, it’s still Go Cubs, damn the math and pass the KoolAid. I'm a Sheeple and proud of it!
Spelling and grammar errors are included for creative and artistic reasons.

by eths on Nov 22, 2011 5:08 PM CST up reply actions  

The law of unintended consequences will bite Bud in the behind

If I’m an owner, I tell my staff to identify every player who isn’t likely to accept slot but will go to college instead. Then I would draft as many of them as I could and pay them all as much as I feel like paying. Even if I had to lose 5 draft picks the next year, I wouldn’t care, because the players I’d be drafting in rounds 6-20 would be guys who could easily be 2nd-4th round picks without slotting.

Even years: draft like crazy
Odd years: take the draft mostly off.

Rinse and repeat.

It's a simple question, Doctor: would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs??

by Invalid User on Nov 22, 2011 5:23 PM CST reply actions  

Interesting strategy

Although you lose your next two first round picks for going 15% over.

I will say that I like the idea that these new “competitive balance” picks can be traded. That’s one small step in the right direction.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 5:44 PM CST up reply actions  

But if I can spend enough money in 2013 to beat what the slot-following teams are doing in 2013 and 2014

They I don’t care if I lose those two draft picks. Because I signed a couple of kids in the later rounds the year before that would have been 1st/2nd round picks except nobody was willing to pay them over slot.

Most types of competitive balance arrangements can be blown up by crowd-sourcing a contest to a bunch of capitalistic geeks who play strategy games and attend places like the University of Chicago lab school. I’m fully confident that a 22 year old strategy/statistics whiz who wants to either break into sports capology or become an agent someday will inhale the CBA and have a solid plan worked out to pitch to Theo within six months.

It's a simple question, Doctor: would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs??

by Invalid User on Nov 22, 2011 7:37 PM CST up reply actions  

The real point is that any system you have to game that way is broken

The modeling is just finding an artificially created inefficiency created by the owner/MLBPA cartel. The better market solution is to have more pricing (contract offer) flexibility.

by ClarkFan on Nov 22, 2011 8:38 PM CST up reply actions  

More precisely, an inefficiency that only a first moving team can effectively exploit for a couple of years

Weeb Eubank (the old and now dead Jets coach) had a great line about understanding the nuances of how referees were going to change calling holding penalties:

“I just want my fair advantage.”

It's a simple question, Doctor: would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs??

by Invalid User on Nov 22, 2011 9:40 PM CST up reply actions  

I imagine

Scott Boras will have it cracked by tomorrow. However, he won’t have the best interests of the game at heart.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 9:26 PM CST up reply actions  

I posted this earlier but I thought I would "reply" it to you

I’m not as certain of the details as you. How about they do what happened with Szczur? Or a version of it. What I propose they do is have a player sign a less than 5% deal, with a behind closed doors agreement that a new deal will be signed at season’s end after a “release.” This will technically be a free agent deal, which OF COURSE has no real restrictions. It also would mean they would have to be added to the 40 man roster the next year, circumventing that restriction in addition to the 5% BS. Your thoughts?

by Mulhollandmania on Nov 22, 2011 11:09 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't think it would be allowed

I think they’d rule the new bonus would be counted against the cap. Major league deals for amateurs were banned in the CBA. And any “behind closed doors” deal would be dealt with harshly if it was discovered. Look at the Timberwolves and the Joe Smith deal.

Someone did come up with something though. Draft someone in the first round you have no intention of signing. Use the money you save on later picks that dropped because of money demands. Then next season, you get an extra first round comp pick and the money to sign a second first round pick. Then don’t sign your next protected pick. Repeat ad infinitum. Of course, as soon as the Commissioner’s Office figured out what you were doing, they’d ban it. You’d only get two years of this, max.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 11:18 PM CST up reply actions  

Damn

I really hope they keep coming up with new loopholes to irk Bud. I really hope this doesn’t affect us too much, and we’re still able to sign top tier talent in the draft.

by Mulhollandmania on Nov 22, 2011 11:29 PM CST up reply actions  

There's a couple things I don't understand, Josh.
Talented high school players are going to choose college.

Why is this? Wouldn’t a good player choose to go into the majors?

Additionally, teams are only going to be able to sign kids from an established data base. Essentially, if you want to sign a Dominican or Venezuelan kid, you’ve got to tell the other 29 kids about him first. In theory that should raise bonuses because it should create a bidding war, but remember, everyone’s budget is capped. No one is going to be able to go over a certain amount without losing draft picks. In theory, I suppose, a team could put all its eggs in one basket and give a huge bonus to one player and not sign anyone else, but that’s a recipe for disaster. In a best case scenario, then, players will sign with the big name teams that they’ve heard of, such as the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox. In a worst-case scenario, corruption and under-the-table payments are going to be everywhere. I think the second scenario is more likely and these kids are going to be even more at the mercy of the buscones who connect players with teams.

I don’t undrestand this entire paragraph. Why would a player be more likely to sign with NYY if there are greater monies coming from another team?

Thanks.

Dan

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Nov 22, 2011 6:14 PM CST reply actions  

Explanation

It’s a bad thing for two reasons. One, baseball players don’t get full scholarships to college baseball. It’s usually 1/3 or 1/2 scholarships, sometimes even less than that. So players are going to get hit with big student loans which they have no chance of repaying on minor league salaries. If they sign out of high school, they can usually get a deal where they get tuition paid if their minor league career doesn’t pan out. Sure, if they’re still top five-round talent three years later, they’ll get their bonus. But if they slide a bit . . .

Secondly, it’s bad for the sport because college coaches are not in the business of turning kids into major league players. They’re in the business of winning games. If that means throwing your ace 175 pitches in the conference final, so be it. He’s not going to be around next year anyway. I remember reading about Chris Archer, who pointed out that if he had gone to college, he would have sat on the bench for three years because no coach would have played him with his control issues. In the minor leagues, he got regular training and instruction and in-game opportunities, because the Indians and the Cubs were invested in him.

Having said that, going straight to the pros is not for everyone. We’re talking about the elite talent here: top ten rounds of the draft talent. The rest of them probably would be better served going to college and having a fallback plan for their careers.

I don’t think Dominicans would sign with big-name teams for less money, although I can see the buscones pushing them into it for corrupt reasons. I think this system evens out the amount of money teams will have to spend on all but the elite talent. In such a case, the Pirates will simply be unable to offer more money than the Yankees. At least that’s the way I see it shaking out.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 6:37 PM CST up reply actions  

In such a case, the Pirates will simply be unable to offer more money than the Yankees.

Well, except for this. The amount of money allowed to be spent is higher for teams that finish worse in the standings, correct? So presumably, the pool of money the Pirates can spend is more than the Yankees are allowed to spend.

That’s the way I read it. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Nov 23, 2011 7:43 AM CST up reply actions  

Eventually

although initially everyone will have the same amount.

We’ll see how this shakes out.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 1:34 PM CST up reply actions  

I find it...

really hard to be upset with the fact that 16 year old kids from the Dominican Republic are going to get less money. These kids are from a country where the average income is $8,000 a year, and they’re being given 6 figure signing bonuses.

by kanderber on Nov 22, 2011 6:24 PM CST reply actions  

How many?

Very few get six figure bonuses. Most get 10 or 15 thousand dollars.

I also find the attitude of that statement disturbing. Who cares if they’re not getting what they’re worth? They’re poor! They should be thankful they get anything! How very Dickensian.

If the money doesn’t go to them, it just goes back into the pockets of billionaires.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 6:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Well...

I read an article from 2008 that said the average bonus given to Dominicans was 108K that year. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and assume that that number hasn’t gone down by 90% over three years. Where are you getting your numbers?

by kanderber on Nov 22, 2011 6:49 PM CST up reply actions  

Average

is not the same as “mean.” Between me and Bill Gates, we’re worth on average three billion dollars.

They may get a little more than $15k. Those numbers may be a bit old. But there is no way the majority of them get six figures.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 9:28 PM CST up reply actions  

Umm...

what? Average doesn’t mean the same thing as “mean?” Ok…?

And, I’ll ask again… where are you getting your 15K figure? Or did you just completely make it up?

by kanderber on Nov 22, 2011 9:31 PM CST up reply actions  

I think he means median there

"Just shut up and play" - Matt Garza
"Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option." - Dale Sveum

by RiskyBusiness on Nov 22, 2011 10:23 PM CST up reply actions  

Sorry

Yes, I meant median.

I’ve already said that the number was out of date. Many of them do get $15k though. Starlin Castro got $45k. (But don’t forget, 25% of that bonus goes to the buscones) That’s a lot more common than six figures. You’re not citing your source either. But your number of over $100k is too high and averages out some prospects getting three million with dozens getting $45k.

But you’ve also never answered the question as to why their poverty makes one damn bit of difference in how they’re paid. You think Trevor Gretzky should get a bigger bonus because his dad is rich? I cannot fathom how their poverty makes it more acceptable to pay them less than their market value.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 11:33 PM CST up reply actions  

Pardon me.

One last question before I leave this thread for good (lol);

What is this DR love? I admire your passion and concern for a tough region, but you crush the rest of us like we’re evil if we question it.

Do you feel this strong about your own neighbors? Its a smartass question I suppose, but… do you? Folks seem that the ball fields of oppressed countries are the key to our economic rebound, so please enlighten us.

Dude, I thought the OP was very well done. Its the “poor them” argument that sparked me. It just rings hollow IMO.

by Tat14 on Nov 23, 2011 1:59 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't understand your point

I don’t like seeing anyone getting screwed by the rich and powerful. Are you accusing me of hypocrisy? I don’t understand how you can do that when you have little clue as to my personal life.

I don’t understand the attitude that if they’re poor they should just take whatever scraps we throw them. I want someone to explain to me if that’s what they really mean. I’m not calling anyone evil: I want to understand what the thought process behind their thinking is. Unfortunately, I haven’t gotten a good answer out of anyone.

And I know too many stories about minor leaguers from the Domincan Republic who end up back on the island after five or six year careers in baseball broke, poor and injured to not care about their welfare. They also have no skills beyond baseball with which to improve themselves. Not all of that is baseball’s fault, certainly.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 1:42 PM CST up reply actions  

Why should it matter what they would make in their home country?

They will be working in the US, and should be judged on their market worth in the country they will be working in.

"Keep pushin' til' it's understood. And these badlands start treating us good."

by AussieCub on Nov 22, 2011 7:11 PM CST up reply actions  

Thanks Josh!!

This is one of the best researched, informative and cogent “articles” i’ve ever read on BCB. The details of the CBA didn’t sit well with me on many levels, but this give me a much more holistic view of the agreement.

I know you said that the “Cubs would do OK” under this agreement, but if you have a few minutes, would you describe what you mean? I can see how small markets gets hosed but is there anything specific about our situation that would make us benefit from this agreement?

I just still can’t get over how diluted this seems to make the talent pool of future generations of MLB players if this doesn’t get drastically altered. I was hoping Bubba Starling would fall to us last year, but he wouldn’t have even been in the draft under these circumstances.

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra

by wrigley's ivy on Nov 22, 2011 6:32 PM CST reply actions  

I'm going to work on an article on the Cubs

in the next week. Look for it sometime after Thanksgiving.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 6:40 PM CST up reply actions  

Much appreciated

I now see how you basically already said you would do this in the last paragraph and i’ll happily just check back for it. The general sentiment is that this CBA tends to favor major markets, but what about rebuilding major markets? I’m just typing out loud here, lol. Thanks again for the initial write-up and the reply.

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra

by wrigley's ivy on Nov 22, 2011 6:52 PM CST up reply actions  

It favors the big markets

The initial numbers that came out of this morning when I wrote this may have been in error. The teams may have more money to spend in the draft than I thought, although it will be about a 10% cutback from what they spent this season. (But less than the 35% cutback that was initially reacting too.) But once the principle is there, you can be sure the owners are going to fight tooth and nail against any increase in that number. Bonuses will not go up, even as they do in other sports.

The money for international signings are just as bad as I feared though. I can see millions of kids in Latin America and Asia taking up soccer in the next decade.

Just look what happened to baseball in Puerto Rico since they became subject to the draft. Don’t tell me that limiting bonuses is not bad for the sport as a whole. At the same time, the new CBA calls for playing more regular season games in foreign countries. They’re fighting against their own marketing machine.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 9:37 PM CST up reply actions  

After a little sleep and

time to think about it, the importance on player development just quadrupled. I’m glad we have someone assigned to player development.

I still don’t like this deal. Nor have I seen fans saying this is a good idea. Maybe talking heads, but not fans.

10-25-2011. Theo Epstein joins the Cubs. Now, the fun begins.

by timh815 on Nov 22, 2011 9:21 PM CST reply actions  

I haven't heard a single front office

say they like it. I’m sure someone does. Maybe Kenny Williams, since the White Sox are notoriously cheap in amateur spending.

Of course, they’re not supposed to like it. It’s supposed to limit their ability to spend.

You’re right. Player development becomes all that more important. And the costs of making a bad draft pick just went up.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 9:39 PM CST up reply actions  

I totally don't get it

They dont want a hard slotting draft but basically make it so that there is a semi hard slotting by limiting how much you can spend.?
What its going to do is have teams select 50 players or so in the draft and sign 28 or so they are going to sign about 20 is that good I don’t think so.
I don’t understand why you basically have to let every other team know you have an international player you want to sign I think based on this agreement which is a joke if he’s found to be of legal age and you have $ you should be able to sign them.

What ’s the point of trading picks if its limited to what rd and picks and when you can trade them what a joke.

by nkniacc13 on Nov 22, 2011 10:47 PM CST reply actions  

After the tenth round

they pretty much get a pass to give anyone $100,000. So this really only affects players drafted in the top ten rounds (or if they want to give anyone who drops more than 100k.)

by Josh Timmers on Nov 22, 2011 11:37 PM CST up reply actions  

That's what I thought

After reading this, I think you can still pay overslot after the 10th round. Don’t get it, I’m on my Thanksgiving drunk.

by joeby231 on Nov 23, 2011 12:28 AM CST up reply actions  

Yes

You can pay people after the tenth round anything you want. But if you go over 100k, it comes out of your salary cap.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 1:43 PM CST up reply actions  

Reading one team that pushed hard for this is theBraves

Supposedly, they were one team that abided by the slot recommendations and wanted penalties.

I get Josh’s arguments, but I’m also not sure I care as much. I won’t mourn for a second if the Royals and Pirates are contracted.

"It's all in the game, yo"

by Worf on Nov 23, 2011 6:54 AM CST reply actions  

The Braves and White Sox

are two of the big “slot” teams. I would imagine both teams wanted this.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 1:43 PM CST up reply actions  

A thought about wooing two sport and highschool talent into MLB

Josh or anyone else, do you know what control major league teams have over minor league conditions? I assume minor league contracts are standardized in some way, or could an MLB team pay its minor leaguers 10%, 20% more to make forgoing college to play in the minors more appealing? Do the affiliates themselves contract with and pay the players?

Salaries aside, could the Cubs for instance guarantee their minor leaguers better travel accomodations, meals, benefits, etc. to make entice kids to sign rather than go to college? Similarly, I wonder if college tuition guarantees are going to be included in the draft bonus pool or limited in any way?

by Bradsbeard on Nov 23, 2011 10:03 AM CST reply actions  

Except for minor league free agents

I believe the contracts are pretty standardized. Don’t quote me on that because I haven’t seen the contracts, but I do know things like per diem meal money are negotiated as standardized across the leagues. So I imagine contracts are too.

The exception to this are minor league free agents like Ramon Ortiz was last year or Bobby Scales was a few years ago. Those guys can negotiate their own salaries and they usually get a lot more than other minor leaguers. Usually between $60k and $100k. You have to be pretty good to get that kind of money, but not good enough to actually be a major leaguer. But that’s why a lot of these “Quad-A” players stick around so long when they have no shot at real major league careers. They’re actually making a decent living doing this.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 1:49 PM CST up reply actions  

My thoughts

1) Playing college football or baseball or another sport is over-rated when you have a chance for real monies given not all scholarships cover 4 years of tuition I believe. And there’s no guarantee post-college that player will play in the NFL. Can we offer to pay college tuition for players too and not have it count against the cap? Or is this an IRS type of situation where that is considered “income?”

2) This helps big pocket teams like the Cubs or Red Sox or Yankees since we can afford big cost free agents.

3) Can we buy those new compensatory picks from the low-revenue/small market teams?

4) And most importantly, I see a scenario where a large market team just accepts the fact they will never have 1st round picks, pays everyone over slot and pays the tax. Then, seeing this, prospects will threaten teams in the 1st round that they will be ‘expensive’, letting the big clubs pay for them in rounds 2 or later. It pretty much urinates on the system as intended, but it is 100% within the rules as far as I see. This is definitely an approach the Yankees could take, and the Yankees now also benefit from not having to give up draft picks for opening up the pocketbook for the best available FA of the year.

Go Cubs, Bears, Bulls, Blackhawks

by astroview on Nov 23, 2011 12:31 PM CST reply actions  

I don't have an answer for all of that

But my understanding of point 3 is that yes, the picks can be sold, but you only get half of the money added on to your salary cap. So if the Cubs bought Milwaukee’s welfare draft pick and that draft pick was slotted to be worth $1 million, Milwaukee’s draft cap would go down one million dollars but the Cubs cap would only increase 500 thousand dollars.

by Josh Timmers on Nov 23, 2011 1:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Every Team

should go at least 5% over the slot, then everyone’s 2nd round pick will become a 1st round pick.

by Crez on Nov 23, 2011 7:30 PM CST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bleed Cubbie Blue, the Chicago Cubs blog for the SB Nation, created on February 9, 2005 by Al Yellon

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Maybe it's time to take a deep breath

Recent FanPosts

Small
Top 10 things I liked about watching the Cubs lose at PNC Park
Seinfeld_jerk_store_black_shirt_small
Cubs pitching problems answered!
Zambrano_background_2_small
What is the most likely move in June regarding current players?
Small
Draft Prep: Pierce Johnson
Small
Trying to be positive (need some help)
Small
Soriano back to Second?
Small
Javier Baez Peoria Bound?
Small
Draft Prep: Conference Tournament Version
Despite-an-inflated-babip-lahair-is-no-one-month-wonder
Suddenly, I feel your pain

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Former MLB PItcher Bob Ojeda On Pitching And Pain
Wrigley Field Supporters Propose Tearing Down Rest Of Chicago
Doug Glanville On His Teammate, Kerry Wood
Thanks.
Samardzija takes a dig at Hawk Harrelson

Recent FanShots

A Day In The Life Of An A-Ball Minor Leaguer
Baez to Peoria
2012 Stars and Stripes Hat
Sveum moves Castro back to #2 spot
OT: Tyler Colvin bats 2nd
The Pittsburgh Pirates Offensive Catastrophe
Roy Halladay Bobblehead Fail
Full sized image

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Featured Poll

Poll
Should the National League adopt the designated hitter rule?

  1005 votes | Results

Cubs By The Numbers

Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.

Click here to order your copy, available now!

Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads

Yahoo_full_count

Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges


Managing Editor

Alyellontoppscard_small Al Yellon

Front Page Contributors

Profile_small Josh Timmers

B_w_avatar_small Brett Taylor

Marvin_the_martian_small Shawn Domagal-Goldman

Other Contributors

Toonmike_small Mike Bojanowski

Dsc_0139_small David Sameshima