The new collective bargaining agreement includes radical changes to draft pick compensation, the postseason, arbitration, and much more. Here's a look at some reactions to the new CBA..
- With CBA now finalized, the Marlins now have a guideline on what is at stake to sign free agents, tweets Joe Frisaro of MLB.com.
- The Twins will benefit from the new agreement as Matt Capps goes from a Type A to a modified Type B and they can receive compensation for him without offering arbitration, writes Joe Christensen of the Star Tribune. The only downside for the club is that they might have been able to re-sign Michael Cuddyer and Jason Kubel at lower prices under the old system.
- The new CBA means that the Mets can't exploit their large-market status by going over slot for draft picks and spending a lot on international free agents, writes ESPNNewYork.com's Adam Rubin.
- Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated writes that the new agreement helps put Commissioner Bud Selig's legacy in order but doesn't agree with the new limits imposed on spending on the amateur draft. Agent Scott Boras predictably doesn't agree with the new rules pertaining to the draft and says that GMs have told him that they don't like the changes either.
- Jim Callis of Baseball America (via Twitter) calculates that 20 teams went 16% or more over slot this year, which would have triggered 100% tax and a loss of two first-rounders under this CBA.
- The overwhelming sentiment in baseball is that the CBA will prevent amateur talent from coming into baseball, tweets Jeff Passan of Yahoo.
- More from Passan (via Twitter) as he writes that the new amateur rules will have the greatest effect on successful, low-revenue teams like the Rays, which now have even less room for error than before.
- There's already major concern among some baseball officials about the impact of the changes to the draft and the international signings cap on the player talent pool, Buster Olney of ESPN.com tweets.
- The new CBA makes it tougher for teams to draft two-sport stars like the Angels did with Jake Locker, tweets Mike DiGiovanna of the Los Angeles Times. The Angels drafted Locker in the 10th round of the 2009 draft but the quarterback instead graduated from the University of Washington and was drafted eighth overall in the 2011 NFL Draft by the Titans.
As a Pirates fan, I think the draft slotting (because really, that’s what this is) is a bunch of crap. Way to insure the Yanks and Phillies will play in every World Series until the end of time.
I tend to agree. The draft slotting changes without some sort of corresponding salary cap just furthers the advantage of large-market teams. They can continue to outspend the small market teams two or even three to one, but those small market teams can’t make up for it with creative signings or simply investing more of their revenues into the draft process to take advantage of the surplus value that young, cost-controlled future stars provide. If they were going to do some sort of draft cap system I would have liked to see a sliding scale where the teams that pick earliest are allowed a bigger draft budget.
Pretty much the only good thing for the small market teams was reigning in international spending, but honestly that’s still not a huge advantage because they likely don’t have the resources to set up significant presences in those countries.
at the very least, the draft spending cap should have been created on a per pick basis. if a small market club gets extra picks through the lottery and a couple through compensation, but no extra spending power, how much have the really gained? extra picks should bump up your cap
in general any limits on the acquisition of amateur talent disproportionately harm small market clubs because they are the ones that depend on cheap young talent to compete. given that the bulk of these reforms are de facto limits on the acquisition of amateur talent, small markets got screwed pretty hard here
Extra picks do bump up your cap. Your cap is sum of ALL of your picks in the 1st 10 rounds. The draft is in June, you will know how many picks you have in February or March. MLB will determine the slot values and you can figure out the cap by adding up your picks.
good, that would make a lot more sense
I had the same reaction to reading the restrictions of how much they could pay draft picks. This is going to make it more difficult for teams to sign these multisport players for sure.
Bud Selig is a socialist. Period.
are you out of your mind? he is a true and true capitalist. for himself!
Yes, he’s out for himself. Just like a true socialist. It’s about how they apply the rules to others, not themselves. But you already knew that.
“Yes, he’s out for himself. Just like a true socialist.”
Do you inhabit Bizarro World?
Obviously you’re a liberal who doesn’t see that the left-wing is trying to control every aspect of our lives. In the meantime, they themselves decidedly don’t choose to live by those same rules. See the power players in Washington as an example (i.e. Congress and the healthcare system they propose to the public and conversely, the one they get to enjoy all to themselves). Yes, MLB is an industry of multi-millionaires and billionaires but Mr. Selig is imposing radical fees on teams that want to/are able to spend larger amounts than smaller market teams can afford. He’s aiming for parity. I get that. But he’s hindering a completely free market with his luxury tax and revenue sharing. Now he’s trying to cap spending on the draft which will have an impact on amateurs. Much of it seems, quite frankly, intended for the Yankees as their payroll just happens to be one of the few that cross the threshold. And yes, it appears to have socialistic principles at play. And please, if you want to criticize my words, at least come back with facts instead of juvenile insults. Tell me how Bud isn’t trying to force parity through strong financial penalties to so-called offenders.
If Bud = Socialist, David Stern = Terrorist?
Google “define: socialism” ;
Result:
1. A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
That’s the complete opposite of someone being “out for himself”. Socialism as an idea isn’t /bad/. If it weren’t for greed, it would work pretty well most of the time (see: NBA revenue sharing and labor dispute).
I don’t like the limit it imposes on small market teams, but this is a way to drive them to make more money and become bigger market teams. When’s the last time you saw the A’s or Rays try and push out marketwise? This CBA is good for the sport, bad for some teams. It benefits more teams than it hurts, and in the long run will keep the game afloat (and hopefully make the Yankees “Buy ALL the best players” strategy obsolete).
you live under a rock. pretty sure that’s a fact. go read the communist manifesto, and then come back and amend your exorbitantly wrong interpretation of ‘socialism’. i bet you’re one of those people that love to bash the ‘occupy’ movement based on what you hear from Faux News, and have never actually been to one which really makes for an overly biased and oblivious point of view. and if you think I’m wrong, just remember, you’re the one that suggested our government is ran by socialists. lmaox1000
oh no, they do exist
Diego, you might want to read my comments a little more carefully next time. I’ll tell you what, here’s the main line: “…it appears to have socialistic principles at play” You’ve taken that and blown it out to full accusation of Marxism. And you say I’m the one living under a rock. I’m not even commenting on OWS. One topic at a time. If I wish to respond to OWS, I will. I’ll only say I support everyone’s right to free speech and freedom of expression and leave it at that. Good day.
“Bud Selig is a socialist. Period. ”
“he’s out for himself, just like a true socialist”
those were your exact words which i’m responding to. that oversimplified and flat-out errant description of what a ‘socialist’ is. it’s the same tone of accusations and descriptions that the mainstream media and it’s pawns use to try to discredit OWS, which is why I included that, as a point of reference. then you go on to say that socialists run our country, as if there’s even the slightest truth to that. and it’s ignorant statements like that, that cannot go without re-addressing. tossing the word ‘socialist’ around like it’s a black mark on someone’s person who identifies with it, is no-more than a smear campaign in attempt to villainize different beliefs than yours. yes, redistribution of wealth is a socialistic practice, and in no way does that hurt the integrity of the sport. it’s practices such as those which impede teams such as the yankees from accumulating preposterous resources and using them to gain an unfair edge. the sport would be much less respected if the yankees or red sox perpetually won the championship due to their obscene payrolls and buying all the best players which only teams like those can do. those teams are beneficiaries of being based in cities with large populations, and that alone should justify them constantly beating down on the other teams who don’t have that luxury? why even watch baseball when you know that the richest team always buys themselves a title? i’m a fan of a team with one of the largest markets, but I’m also a fan of baseball and watching teams which range from the top to bottom in revenue compete fairly.
I posted a long response to Travis that needs moderator approval which explains in great depth my viewpoint. But to sum up a few points, I like parity but I am against it being enforced by a governing entity. The Yankees didn’t start out with the payroll they have today. They made wise investments and chose to reinvest in the team on the field. Carl Pohlad was actually more wealthy than George Steinbrenner but apparently had different priorities, yet Mr. Steinbrenner was forced to write Mr. Pohlad a check (in essence) thanks to revenue sharing.
I like that players who are dealt at the deadline don’t cost a draft pick, could make deadline deals way more prevalent
There has to be a trade off with this draft part of the cba. If the slot recomendations dont go up significantly then why would any highschooler not go to college unless they are signed in the first round. Slots should go up at least 50% to make this at all reasonable, but this whole cba doesn’t sound very reasonable at all, the older players really threw the younger ones under the bus.
Unless he is a 2 sport star and decides to play basketball or football, it would still be pretty profitable to sign out of high school instead of going to college. You still will get a 6-8 figure signing bonus and make $80k/year. How much would a player’s value improve by going to college? Heck it could even go down and you still couldn’t demand a high signing bonus coming out of college as the same rules still apply.
budt’s legacy is still steroid and concentration of wealth for a few east coast teams.
CORRUPTION OF BASEBALL!!!!!
“The Twins will benefit from the new agreement as Matt Capps goes from a Type A to a modified Type B and they can receive compensation for him without offering arbitration”
Now I’m really confused…..They don’t have to offer arbitration? I thought they still had to offer arbitration.
Yeah. What the heck is a modified type B, and who else got that designation?
This whole thing is confusing. I don’t get that statement either.
I’ll be the first to admit I don’t understand everything about the draft. But as far as the whole multi sport player argument goes, the NFL and NBA both of rookie salary caps, so why does everyone assume they’d choose another sport now. Wouldn’t this way make it easier for low market teams to sign their draft picks? Large market teams will probably spend over the slot and pay the “penalty tax” anyways cause they don’t mind. But they were already doing it. Isn’t a penalty for doing that better than nothing?
I’m only replying on your comment cause Disqus sucks and I can only comment on here if I reply to someone. Weird.
So…..yankees/phillies/red sox win the CBA?
so when kelly johnson signs somewhere the jays will have 3 firstrounders…
there 17ish pick
last years 22ish pick for not signing beede
and whatever team signs johnson
how are they supposed to sign 3 first rounders plus the comp picks they get and the rest of their draft picks for 2.9 million….. sooo shady to randomly bring this into effect this year
What makes you think that their draft pool would be only $2.9M?
If you can spend $100k in rounds 11+, your pool should be a lot higher than that.
Hypothetical example:
Rounds 6-10: $250k
Rounds 2-5: $500k
Sandwich picks: $750k
Round 1 picks:
25-30+: $1M
20-24: $1.5M
15-19: $2M
10-14: $2.5
5-9: $3M
1-4: $5M
In my hypothetical example Toronto would be allowed to spend around $9M to sign all of it’s draft picks in the first 10 rounds.
I don’t know what their slot values will be and neither do you, so everything is speculation at this point.
The purpose of the slotting system is to prevent players (agents) from saying unless you are going to pay me $xxxx don’t bother drafting me. It gives all of the teams to draft the best player available (of course each team has their own idea as to who they view as the best available) instead of the best player that they think that they can sign.
While it is possible that some high school multi-sport athletes my elect to go to college in another sport and abandon baseball altogether. And I’m sure that they will keep track of that and will have the data necessary to tweak the system in 5 years if necessary.
That’s how I’m seeing it. I don’t get how this hurts small market teams like everyone is saying.
So under this new cba why would teams even want extra picks ?
More picks are useless because if you don’t draft a guy you really want then why offer him a contract which could push you north of the limit, exposing you to a 100% tax and you lose your first round higher draft pick the following year. Also, why even offer contracts to anyone outside of the first 10 rounds ? Sure the bonuses may be smaller, but all the bonuses from rounds 6-20 could be used to sign a very highly touted player which you draft in the sandwich round.
The way I understand it, bonuses after the 10th round don’t count unless they are over $100,000
wow, sounds like all they did was widen the gap between the high and low payroll teams.
So wait a minute. You are allowed to spend whatever you want on a free agent but you HAVE to spend a specific amount on potential prospects?
Sorry but that just seems like a screw you to teams trying to build through the draft. Sorry Rays fans. Looks like the Rays might be headed back to the cellar in the future.
rzepczynski and baseballz,
I believe that you are misunderstanding the slotting pool. It is not like the NFL salary cap where every team has the same amount of money to spend.
MLB baseball will assign a “value” to every pick in the first 10 rounds (including the sandwich picks). Each teams pool will be the sum all of their picks in those rounds. If Toronto has 3 first round picks the value of those 3 picks will be included in their available spending pool.
All picks after round 10 don’t count against your spending pool unless the signing bonus is greater the $100k.
Potential loop hole:2.9 million seems low so what happens if every team goes over? They would essentially not really lose anything…
This seems to reward teams who don’t spend on good players which is just dumb
All this really does is stop Boras from playing his usual games, which is good for all of baseball.
I like how the players gave in to this in return for more super-two’s and much better free agent climate with the drastic paring of the qualifying offer rules.
Seems to me that members of the MLBPA don’t like how a kid out of high school is making more than some All-stars either.
There is some truth here, although basically the MLBPA doesn’t care about its future members, it cares about its current members. They know eventually some of these amateurs will become MLBPA members, but most won’t.
There never was any incentive for the MLBPA to fight against slotting or capping. In fact, just the opposite. If the MLBPA can limit the amount of money that is spent on amateurs that will in turn potentially increase the amount of money available to be spent on MLB players. If the Pirates can’t spend more money on amateur talent, then they can spend it on MLB talent. If the Yankees or the Red Sox find difficulty signing amateur talent to improve the MLB club, then they’ll spend even more on MLB talent in an attempt to remain competitive, thus driving up MLB salaries even more.
This is a total win for the Union. It’s a loss for MLB and its fans as there will be a certain percentage of talent that will be lost on the amateur level.
Boras could have been solved by hard slotting the first round and leaving the rest of the draft alone.
Then you’d have players refusing to sign if drafted in the first round.
Then they’d have to sit out a year and hope they wouldn’t get drafted with a capped pick the next year and run the risk again.