There’s said to be progress in collective bargaining talks, as the owners and union strive to reach agreement — or, at least, avoid a work stoppage — with the current CBA set to expire at midnight. As ESPN.com’s Jayson Stark reports, the league’s ownership has not scheduled a lockout vote, though the owners are on standby in the event that one is required, or if there’s a deal to be confirmed.
Here’s the latest:
- A deal is close and could be finalized tonight, Rosenthal tweets. The meeting has adjourned with “handshakes all around,” MLB.com’s Richard Justice adds on Twitter.
- The sides are “close” to hammering out a deal on the luxury tax system, Jon Morosi of MLB Network tweets. That has been seen as one major obstacle. Given the overall movement, whether or not a final agreement is reached tonight, there’s now little chance of a lockout, Tyler Kepner of the New York Times tweets.
Earlier Updates
- It’s possible, of course, that the sides could simply decide to maintain the status quo while talks wrap up. If they haven’t seen eye to eye on everything, but see a path to a deal, that may well come to pass. In that event, the offseason business of baseball could carry on while the final issues are resolved. A lockout vote would be viewed as a drastic measure — “only if owners felt they were at point of no return” — at this point, per Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports (via Twitter).
- We’re waiting to learn more on how things could be shaking out, and it seems there’s still quite a bit of variability in what form the qualifying offer system will take. One possibility, Rosenthal says, is that wealthy teams (i.e., those that pay into the revenue-sharing system) could sacrifice some draft position (say, five spots) if they sign a QO-declining free agent. Meanwhile, low-revenue organizations could sign such free agents without penalty. (Twitter links: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5.)
- Also under consideration, per Rosenthal (via Twitter), are changes to the international signing system. While it seems that a draft is off the table at this point, it’s possible that teams could face a hard cap on total bonus outlays. Presumably, there would also be some increase in the total spending allotment, though that remains unclear.
a team should never be penalized for signing a free agent. it’s seem a bit like double jeopardy if the player doesn’t work out. EE will be a prime example of that
A guy whose value is seen in actual production? Not based on WAR?
Teams use WAR to determine value.
Why shouldn’t a team be penalized for signing a free agent? If a top tier players on Tampa Bay leaves to sign with the Yankees or Dodgers simply because those teams have the resources to pay top dollar, why shouldn’t the incur some type of penalty? If there’s no penalty or detriment to sign free agents there’s nothing to stop the top-revenue clubs from signing the majority of the best players.
Nothing would stop the new yorks, the Bostons and the LA’s of the world from signing FA’s then. I agree it stinks, but something has to be done to limit that. A salary cap would help eliminate draft pick losses, but I doubt that’s ever going to happen
Salary cap will never happen.. nor should players ever agree to one.
I’m more on board with a salary cap
It forces the small market teams to spend more in theory that’s why they validated it in the first place.
There should be some penalty.. Esp if that FA is an elite player who commands a salary only a big market team can afford.
ie yanks, dodgers, red sox, cubs, giants
A discussion for a cap for each team on international spending. Which should have been the starting point.
Only thing missing there? An aim to expand recruiting by teams to Brasil, then China.
One possibility, Rosenthal says, is that wealthy teams (i.e., those that pay into the revenue-sharing system) could sacrifice some draft position (say, five spots) if they sign a QO-declining free agent. Meanwhile, low-revenue organizations could sign such free agents without penalty.
This strikes me as a really bad idea. Any draft pick penalty for signing free agents should be applied equally to all teams if you ask me. How about just taxing, monetarily, signing by clubs that pay into revenue sharing or increasing the amount of money wealthy teams pay into the revenue sharing program.
Moving slots is a good idea, but should be applied equally across the board. I don’t agree with wealthier teams needing to give poorer teams more money…there is so much money in baseball right now that all teams can afford to sign players. Perhaps only a few can sign the top top players, the $200M+ players, but there isn’t a team in the game that can’t afford to sign a player to the contract Cespedes just agreed to.
What baseball should do with the QO is make it a two-year guaranteed commitment, thus limiting the number of players who would receive one. The only players who would receive one, and thus require draft-pick compensation, are those who that attachment will not hurt.
With international signings the solution is simple too: 1) a hard cap, or 2) a hard(er) cap with severe penalties for exceeding it…such as a 300% tax on any overages, plus a complete 3 year ban on signing any international players for any amount.
Why not just let the market decide what they’re worth and leave it at that, instead of all these punishments, restrictions and deterrents? I’m not sure why, logically, they make sense.
Because some teams have more cheddar to spend than others.
It’s business. It’s not the Yankees, Dodgers or whomever’s fault, that the Pirates and Royals of the world don’t have owners willing to put more of their moolah into the product.
I agree with this.
It’s mostly that those teams don’t reside in one of the largest cities in the world. Team revenues are so vastly different that without an actual salary cap, something has to be there. A few years ago, the Brewers as a franchise actually lost money because they spent to try to make a playoff push and didn’t quite make it.
It’s not that every team can’t sign a Cespedes type of contract really. It’s that only a few teams can go spend that money on 5 different players on their team. Think about how weird it is that the Yankees did not make the playoffs last year. That doesn’t happen often. That’s because they can sign free agents and retain stars far easier than other teams. It really messes with competition
IMO international signing penalties should include loss of draft pick and pool money attached.
I agree with Cam. Keep the player and pay him or the player goes somewhere else. Period. The team that let him walk saves that money to go spend on someone else then.
I still think penalizing the wealthier teams with draft-pick loss is ultimately counterproductive. What a wealthier team can’t develop, it has to buy, and that places upward pressure on salaries because the wealthier teams are usually competitive and don’t have the luxury of cobbling together a couple of positions with role players/castoffs. Years of low draft pick position (because of success on the field plus penalties) leads to a greater probability of a weak system, and then the cycle reloads.
If you want lower revenue teams to get more money, tinker with the revenue sharing formula. But don’t forget that owners are just as competitive amongst themselves–and the bigger revenue teams resent having to subsidize lower-revenue teams profitability.
There is a specific provision in the current CBA, called a sunset clause, that provides that the luxury tax will not survive the end of the current agreement. This does not prevent the parties from agreeing to a new luxury tax scheme, and we can expect they will, as they have the last two CBA’s, but it’s there in case of no agreement. So if they decide to continue on “current terms”, the tax is not part of that.
Also note that seven MLB teams are in tax territory as of the end of the 2016 season. One of the things that should happen is a “reset” of the penalties, as happened last CBA.
Don’t be surprised if there is a higher threshold for the tax with a new super punative tax bracket at the top of the structure. They may also agree that the tax rate depends on the amount of the overage, above the threshold, rather than how many times a team has busted past the limit.
All these formulas are getting pretty complicated…..Give the players a 26-man roster, go back to charging free-agent teams their first or second draft choice (the old “A” and “B” system wasn’t bad)…..parity’s not a consideration; look at the different teams that make the playoffs…….
As one writer on the board said, many franchises that aren’t doing well owe their lack of success to poor management, rather than market status. It’s obvious to anyone that the ownership of Oakland and Tampa don’t want to build new stadia; why should they, they’ll lose their Revenue Sharing money.
i hope they keep the 40 man roster for sept call ups…may not be popular but i like it