MLB Passes Two Small Rule Changes
Major League Baseball’s competition committee has unanimously passed two minor on-field rule changes for the 2025 season, reports Evan Drellich of The Athletic. The first involves defensive positioning, while the other relates to an infrequent baserunning scenario.
Regarding the defense, the rule change now allows a hitting team to accept an awarded base if a defensive player violates the shift ban and is the first player to field a batted ball. Teams are required to keep two infielders on either side of the second base bag. Previously, if a fielder violated the shift ban — likely a middle infielder starting on the opposite side of the base — the hitting team could either take an automatic ball or accept the result of the play. They’ll now be able to take the free base or the play result. If they accept the free base, any runners would move up one base. The fielder will be charged with an error, while the hitter will not be credited with an at-bat.
The change is designed to increase the penalty for teams violating the shift ban. The league felt that teams could push fielders slightly beyond the bag in hopes of getting away with a violation. The rationale would be that if the violation went unnoticed by umpires and opposing teams, the shift could result in an out. If the violation were detected, the automatic ball was unlikely to be that costly. Drellich notes that there were two shift violations that resulted in an automatic ball last season. Those would be errors under the new rule.
The baserunning rule only comes into play in very specific circumstances. If a player deliberately overruns the second or third base bag to beat out a force play, a longstanding rule is that the runner is to be called out for abandonment. Players are only really incentivized to do this if they’re the trail runner when there was a runner on third base with two outs. If they feel they’d be forced out if they slow down or slide, they may instead run through the bag. While they’d likely be tagged out a second or two later, negating the force play would allow the runner who’d been on third base to score.
Now, the replay official can determine whether the runner from third base touched home plate before the trail runner officially abandoned the bag. That’s defined as having both feet on the ground beyond the base. If the lead runner had not scored by then, the run will not count. The rule also includes an adjustment to replay review. Previously, if the umpire had incorrectly called the trail runner out on the initial force play, a successful challenge by the hitting team would call the runner safe even if the runner had gone through the bag. In that scenario, the replay official can now call the runner out by abandonment.
MLB’s competition committee is composed of six owners, four player representatives, and one umpire. The owner majority essentially gives the league unilateral power to make on-field rule adjustments. That has been to the players’ consternation in the past, though these changes are so marginal that they didn’t encounter opposition.
Marlins Notes: Payroll, Alcantara
The rebuilding Marlins have continued to subtract from their big league roster this winter, trading Jake Burger to the Rangers and Jesus Luzardo to the Phillies. Since Burger wasn’t yet arbitration-eligible and Luzardo was projected for a modest $6MM in his second arb year, the trades were more about adding young talent than cutting payroll, yet losing even Luzardo’s estimated $6MM salary has an additional impact on a bigger-picture question facing Miami’s finances.
As observed by The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal (using estimates from RosterResource), the Marlins have a luxury tax number of roughly $82.8MM. This leaves the Fish some ground to cover before they reach the $105MM threshold estimated as the figure representing 150 percent of the club’s reported $70MM or so in revenue-sharing funds. As stipulated by the league’s collective bargaining agreement, teams who receive revenue-sharing funds must spend at least 150 percent of those funds on player payroll, at the risk of facing a grievance from the players’ union.
It wouldn’t be the first time that the Marlins faced this consequence, as the MLBPA filed a grievance against the Marlins, Rays, Pirates, and Athletics in February 2018 based on the union’s stance that the clubs were simply pocketing a good deal of their revenue-sharing money, rather than reinvesting those funds towards player payroll. Rosenthal and his Athletic colleague Evan Drellich recently noted that that grievance was still pending in an adjusted form, though the most recent CBA saw the minimum spend rise from 125 percent to its current 150 percent figure.
The revenue-sharing minimum drew more of a spotlight this winter when the A’s started to increase their payroll, which was viewed as the team trying to hit that $105MM tax number and avoid any heat from the players’ union. The Athletics’ situation is a little different since their revenue-sharing status was reduced in the earlier years of the CBA while the team was looking for a new ballpark, and they are now back to receiving a full-fledged share of revenue-sharing funds in 2025.
The Marlins have generally been among the lowest-spending teams in baseball for most of their history, and spanning multiple ownership groups. Bruce Sherman’s purchase of the Marlins in 2017 was initially viewed as a possible light at the end of the payroll tunnel, though the sudden departure of CEO Derek Jeter prior to the 2022 season threw a wrench into that perception, especially since payroll expenditures were reportedly one of several sources of disagreement between Sherman and Jeter.
Miami did elevate spending a bit under GM Kim Ng and the team made the playoffs in 2023, but Sherman’s desire for a better farm system led to Ng’s departure after that season, and the hiring of Peter Bendix as the Marlins’ new president of baseball operations. Taking a page from Bendix’s former team in Tampa Bay, the Marlins seem to be moving towards a Rays-esque model of relying on a strong minor league pipeline to build their rosters, while only modestly spending on payrolls. Bendix’s arrival kickstarted yet another rebuild, as the Marlins have dealt several of their more experienced and higher-priced players over the last year.
As much as the Athletics’ winter moves were made with the revenue-sharing number in mind, acquiring Luis Severino, Jeffrey Springs, and Gio Urshela are also sensible from an on-field standpoint, given the club’s needs in the rotation and at third base. Considering that the A’s played solid baseball over the last three months of the 2024 season, the West Sacramento team might even have some darkhorse potential as a wild card contender if everything breaks right and the Athletics get another breakout or two from younger players.
The Marlins are in a different situation. While there is some interesting talent on the roster, it is very hard to imagine Miami contending in 2025, nor does contending seem to be in the front office’s plans within the near future as Bendix focused on overhauling the player development system.
Spending $22.2MM to get up to the $105MM threshold likely won’t translate, therefore, in any additions that will help Miami win ballgames in 2025. The Marlins could add a couple of lower-cost veterans on one-year deals, with an eye towards potentially trading those players at the deadline once the majority of their salaries have been officially tallied onto the team’s tax bill. With a nod towards the Marlins’ goal of restocking the farm system, Bendix could potentially look into trading for a bad contract or two from another team, with that other team adding some prospects as a sweetener to further entice Miami into absorbing most or all of the money owed.
Unsurprisingly, Bendix didn’t provide many details on the Marlins’ spending plans, telling the Miami Herald’s Barry Jackson and other reporters this week that “I’m not going to comment on what we might or might not do. Bruce continues to give us all the resources we need to build this franchise for sustainable success.”
Bendix also didn’t entirely close the door on the possibility that Sandy Alcantara could be traded, saying that “We never rule out anything. We listen to everything.” That said, Alcantara was told back in August that he probably wasn’t getting dealt this offseason, and Bendix noted that “Sandy is a really important piece for our organization. I’m really excited to see him pitch on Opening Day.”
Alcantara is the highest-paid player on Miami’s roster, as the 2022 NL Cy Young Award winner is owed $17MM in each of the next two seasons, plus there is a $21MM club option ($2MM buyout) on his services for 2027. This salary has naturally made Alcantara the subject of continued trade rumors, even though Alcantara didn’t pitch in 2024 due to Tommy John surgery.
Obviously the Marlins wouldn’t be trading the right-hander for a maximum return in the wake of this injury, which is why a deal this winter remains unlikely. If Bendix was to sell low on Alcantara now only to see him rebound to ace form in the early part of the 2025 season, that’ll count as a missed opportunity to gain the biggest possible trade package for the Marlins’ biggest remaining trade chip. Miami’s payroll might also factor into the equation here, as Rosenthal notes that trading Alcantara would leave the Marlins even further away from the $105MM revenue-sharing threshold.
Just as Bendix isn’t likely to openly state that Alcantara is available in trade talks, the PBO also isn’t likely to entirely shut down any offers because of basic due diligence. Bendix surely doesn’t want to limit options just in case a pitching-needy team actually is willing to part with a premium return for a pitcher coming off a lost season.
Details On MLB’s Future Broadcasting Plans
Back in February, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said that he wanted to be able to market a blackout-free streaming bundle including roughly half the league. That plan was largely tied to the collapse of Diamond Sports Group, though that company is now emerging from bankruptcy and will continue to operate for the time being. That seems to have kicked Manfred’s plans down the road a little bit, with Evan Drellich of The Athletic doing a deep dive this week on the current state of things.
Manfred still has his sights set on getting rid of local blackouts as part of TV/streaming packages, though it might now have to wait a few years. While some clubs that lost their broadcast deals are now letting MLB handle things, others have re-upped with Diamond. The Braves, Cardinals, Marlins, Angels, Tigers, and Rays are back with Diamond while the Royals might also join them, depending on the outcome of ongoing negotiations. But Drellich notes that none of those deals go beyond 2028.
That is significant because that is also the year that MLB’s national broadcast deals with Fox, ESPN* and Turner expire. (*As a side note, Drellich notes that MLB and ESPN have a mutual opt-out after this season but talks about that are ongoing.) The league’s hope is to have as much on the table as possible when negotiating new national deals. “Most important from my perspective is that all the deals for the Diamond clubs end no later than 2028,” Manfred says in the piece. “My interest in local rights in large part is to have them available when we do national renewals.”
The bidding could include more than those three companies that MLB currently has national deals with, as Drellich notes that executives from Apple, Amazon, CBS, Disney/ESPN, DirecTV, Fox, Netflix, NBC/Peacock, Roku, YouTube and Warner Bros.-Discovery were present at the World Series. MLB already has a deal with Roku for Sunday games, a slot previously held by Peacock. Apple has Friday Night Baseball while the Diamond clubs will be available on Amazon Prime next year. YouTube had a previous deal with MLB that ran from 2019 to 2022.
The regional sports network (RSN) model has been a huge source of revenue for all teams in the past but cord cutting has chipped away at that model. The Padres, Diamondbacks and Rockies all operated without an RSN partner in 2024, with the league handling their broadcasts both for TV/cable/satellite and direct-to-consumer streaming. The Twins, Guardians, Brewers and Reds will go down that path in 2025.
Simplistically, this is bad for teams but good for fans. The clubs are losing that passive revenue, as many people previously signed up for cable/satellite bundles that included sports RSNs even if they weren’t much interested in baseball. The streaming model cuts out the middleman but requires more active uptake from fans and leads to lower revenues, at least in the short term. But for fans, this allows them to finally get around the blackouts that have been an annoying part of the RSN paradigm for decades.
Though the revenue streams aren’t as strong, the league seems to recognize that this is the way of the future and is trying to lean into it. Though as detailed by Drellich, actually following through will be complicated.
“I’d like to have all the rights available,” Manfred said. “I’d like to talk to the people who are buyers. I’d like to cut them up into packages and sell them, as many of them as possible, nationally, and then have a plan to deal with what’s left over.”
As mentioned, the league already has seven clubs on its ledger, though Drellich adds that it’s technically eight. The Mariners took control of ROOT Sports Northwest a year ago but Drellich relays that the league is involved to some degree as well. If the six or seven clubs with Diamond eventually link up with the league a few years down the line, that would be roughly half the league. The Rangers are sort of a wild card at present, as they don’t plan to continue their relationship with Diamond but haven’t yet outlined a plan for 2025, reportedly exploring the creation of their own RSN. Drellich says close to two thirds of the league could have their rights available by 2028, presumably due to other non-Diamond RSN deals expiring. Some clubs still have relationships with NBC affiliates or other broadcasters.
The issue in MLB getting the other clubs on board is that they are in very different financial positions. Broadly speaking, the larger-market clubs are in better shape, both because of stronger viewership bases and because the club and its broadcaster are often the same company. If all the clubs were cobbled together as part of some bundle which spread the profits around, that would benefit the smaller clubs while harming the larger ones.
That would naturally be unappealing to the larger clubs, though Drellich notes that a compromise could perhaps be reached by changing the overall revenue sharing. Currently, each clubs shares 48% of their local revenues (local media, ticket sales, concessions, merchandise and sponsorships). The Drellich piece suggests that greater sharing of broadcast money could be accompanied by less sharing of the other streams.
“I do think there are a combination of things that for even the very biggest teams,” Manfred says, “we can demonstrate that for the good of the game over the long haul, it’s better for everybody and better for them.”
Another complication is that the MLB Players Association would have to be involved. They don’t need to be consulted when it comes to broadcast decisions but all revenue-sharing plans need to be collectively bargained. The current collective bargaining agreement runs until December of 2026, so these matters will likely need to be hammered out in the next CBA, ahead of the aforementioned key pivot point in 2028.
“If the model changes, we will be involved in negotiating how those changes might affect the system and will ensure that the interests and priorities of the players are protected,” says Tony Clark, the head of the MLBPA. The relationship between the league and the union hasn’t been great lately, with the most recent CBA talks resulting in a lockout of more than three months that almost resulted in the 2022 season being canceled or shortened. A deal did get done and the season was spared, but some key issues went unaddressed and will likely come up again, such as an international draft. Then there’s the ever-present CBA issues like salaries, the competitive balance tax and so on.
Presumably, Manfred won’t want another work stoppage just ahead of his big pitch to potential broadcasters. Anything that hurts fan interest in the game would naturally make those rights less appealing, but the league’s motivation to get a deal done will obviously be contingent on how effectively they can negotiate all CBA issues with the players. The two sides agreed in July of this year to have CBT money redirected to those clubs who lost broadcast revenue, so perhaps some of this could be accomplished outside of full CBA talks.
There are many balls in the air here and a few years for them to bounce around, but Manfred will need to find a path forward that satisfies the owners as well as the players. If he succeeds, it could be good for growing the game by improving fan access to the product. An entrenchment of the current paradigm, on the other hand, could perhaps increase fan dissatisfaction with the inequalities that impact competitive balance.
How it all plays out will lead to ripple effects that impact the on-field product. The Padres and Twins have already scaled back their payrolls in response to the shifting landscape. This seemed to have an impact on last winter’s market, with several free agents settling for deals that fell well below initial projections. Clubs like the Cardinals and Rangers are also planning to dial things back next year.
MLB Considering Rules To Keep Starting Pitchers In Games Longer
One of the biggest differences between modern baseball and past versions of the game is declining starting pitcher usage. Many fans and people in the baseball world want to reverse this trend and the league is considering some rule changes that could help in that regard, per Jesse Rogers of ESPN. The most drastic change on the table is a rule that would dictate starting pitchers have to complete six innings before being removed from a game.
Such a rule would have to come with exceptions for injuries, blowouts or other extreme scenarios. Rogers reports that the league has discussed criteria where a pitcher could leave before competing six innings, such as throwing 100 pitches, allowing four or more earned runs or suffering an injury. The last one would require an IL stint in order to avoid shenanigans.
Some less-extreme suggestions have also been thrown around, such as a five-batter minimum for relievers, which could give managers more hesitation about making a move. There’s also the possibility of lowering the sizes of pitching staffs or the double-hook designated hitter system. The latter, which has been in consideration for a while, would see a team lose its DH once they remove their starting pitcher. It’s also suggested in the ESPN piece that draft pick compensation could be offered to the team with the most innings pitched by its starting staff.
It’s worth emphasizing that no changes are imminent and MLB has shown that it will experiment with potential changes in independent ball and/or the minors before bringing it to the majors. They have also tried out many changes that never made it to the big leagues, so even getting to the experimental stage is no guarantee that a new rule will eventually be implemented in the majors. If any momentum builds towards making this change a reality, teams would have plenty of warning so that they could alter how they target and develop pitchers for this new reality.
All that said, it’s not a huge secret that this shift has been happening over the years, with most baseball fans keenly aware of the trend lines when it comes to pitcher usage. Even putting aside things like bullpen games and openers, starters have just been throwing less. Just about any volume stat can illustrate this by looking at a recent season compared to one further in the past. Last year, there were five pitchers who hit the 200-inning plateau and five who threw more than one complete game. Just 20 years prior, in 2003, there were 44 hurlers who got to 200 innings and 43 who pitched at least two complete games. Go back another 20 years to 1983 and those numbers are 50 and 82.
This is due to various factors, including the fact that pitchers are less effective a third time through the order. This year, for example, hitters are slashing .238/.311/.388 the first time they see a pitcher. That jumps to .250/.311/.416 the second time and .263/.327/.437 the third time through. Bringing in a high-octane reliever is simply just a better strategy than letting the starter stay out there. This has led to the pejorative term “five-and-dive” to describe modern pitchers only concerned with throwing five innings, compared to old school pitchers who aimed to go a full nine.
Batters and teams are also more focused on power these days. Last year, there were only ten players who qualified for the batting title but finished with less than ten home runs. In 2003, there were 30 such players. In 1983, there were 46. That makes it harder for a pitch-to-contact strategy to yield positive results.
It has also been learned that a pitcher has little control over what happens once a ball is put in play, so teams have been focusing more on strikeouts. The Athletic recently ran a five-part series looking pitchers emphasizing punchouts as opposed to pitch-to-contact strategies. This has led pitchers and teams to look to maximize velocity and spin, which is thought to have had an impact on the abundance of significant injuries and surgeries for pitchers these days.
The hope is that all or many of these factors could be mitigated by the six-inning minimum. Theoretically, a pitcher would have to dial back on velocity a bit in an attempt to stay in the game longer, going back to the old school focus on getting contact with fewer strikeouts.
Along with the pitch clock and the rules to incentivize base stealing, the league is hoping for a more action-oriented game and better entertainment product. It’s also hoped that this will lead to fewer pitchers undergoing Tommy John surgery or other significant operations that require lengthy rehabilitation periods.
Whether it’s possible to actually succeed in this mission and whether this is the best way to go about it is a something that can, and surely will, be debated at length. Many fans despise the constant tinkering that has gone on during the era of commissioner Rob Manfred, while those who yearn for the prominence of the starting pitcher to return would likely be more excited about these potential developments.
MLB, MLBPA Agree To Redirect CBT Money To Teams Losing TV Revenue
MLB and the Players Association have agreed to a change to the collective bargaining agreement that’ll help teams whose television rights situations are uncertain. Evan Drellich of The Athletic reports that the league is now permitted to redirect its portion of competitive balance tax money to clubs that have lost TV revenue. Those teams can receive a maximum of $15MM or the necessary amount to compensate for their revenue drop.
Teams that exceed the competitive balance tax threshold are required to pay fees at the end of each season. The league and union split the money. The MLBPA’s portion funds its retirement accounts. That is unaffected by today’s agreement. The league now has the discretion to allocate some of its half of the money to clubs that have seen their TV revenues drop in either of the last two seasons. According to Drellich, the MLBPA projects the league’s half of the CBT payments to total around $150MM this year. Today’s agreement permits the commissioner’s office to distribute half that money to the teams affected by TV problems.
It’s a sensible arrangement for both parties. MLB gets more flexibility to support organizations that have lost some or all of a key revenue source in recent seasons. The union expects that’ll lead to a trickle-down benefit on player salaries. Last offseason, roughly a third of teams pointed to concerns about the long-term viability of their TV contracts as justification for limiting payroll raises or outright payroll cuts. Most of those organizations had contracts with Diamond Sports Group, which is trying to survive as it concludes a lengthy bankruptcy proceeding.
Diamond dropped its contracts with the Padres and Diamondbacks midway through last season. This spring, it renegotiated its deals with the Guardians, Twins and Rangers at lesser fees after threatening to abandon those contracts. Texas had a quieter offseason than expected for a defending World Series champion. Minnesota sliced payroll over the winter and its ownership is reportedly still reluctant to take on money via deadline deals. AT&T Sports dropped its local TV deals with the Rockies, Pirates, Mariners and Astros last offseason. Pittsburgh, Seattle and Houston found alternate broadcasting arrangements (likely with reduced revenues), while MLB stepped in to handle Rockies broadcasts within market.
A good number of teams remain skeptical about the long-term future of their regional sports networks. Diamond is carrying 12 teams on its networks at least through the end of this season. MLB has made no secret of its wariness about the broadcaster’s viability for ’25 and beyond.
Diamond’s ongoing conflict with Xfinity hasn’t done it any favors in that regard. A contract dispute between the broadcaster and the carrier has kept Xfinity customers from watching any games on Diamond networks since May. Blackout restrictions prevent MLB from stepping in to handle in-market broadcasts, leaving a subset of fans without the ability to watch their teams for a couple months.
There was a positive development on that front this morning. An attorney for Diamond said at today’s bankruptcy hearing that DSG and Xfinity had made progress in negotiations and expected to finalize a new contract “in the very near term” (link via Alden González of ESPN).
Rob Manfred Hints At Changes To Rules On Trading Draft Picks
Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred spoke on various topics today, including possibly loosening the rules on trading draft picks. Per J.J. Cooper of Baseball America, Manfred suggested the owners have some openness to allowing teams more freedom to trade picks but he also noted that changes would have to be collectively bargained with the MLB Players Association.
Under the current rules, teams can only trade competitive balance picks. Only the clubs with smaller markets/revenues get those and they make up a small portion of the overall number of picks in the draft.
Plenty of other sports allow the trading of draft picks, which adds an element of excitement to the draft itself as well as trades during the rest of the year. Many have argued for MLB to follow suit and allow picks to be traded, but the counterargument has been that teams might send away too many picks and doom themselves to years of fielding ineffective teams.
The counter to that argument has usually been that teams can already do themselves plenty of harm by trading away prospects and that things wouldn’t meaningfully change by adding draft picks to the equation. Furthermore, it has been argued that teams should be subject to the consequences of their own actions as opposed to being preemptively protected from them. This latter point seems to be something that Manfred is receptive to.
“The positions the clubs have taken over time in terms of what they want us to do at the table has been a product of a balance between flexibility in terms of utilizing the resources available to you on the one hand and paternalism on the other—that is I’m going to prevent you from doing acts because I think it would be stupid,” Manfred said. “I don’t think we have that many stupid clubs. We’ll see how it shakes out. We will go through our (collective) bargaining prep,” he continued. “The clubs are really sophisticated now. I do think that there’s a really good argument for allowing them to decide how to use their resources.”
The MLBPA clearly has some level of concern about tanking, the practice of teams intentionally making themselves worse in the present in order to improve their chances of winning in the future. They have tried to push back against the practice by looking for things in CBA negotiations like a salary floor or draft lottery, successfully getting the latter but not the former.
A team that hamstrung itself by trading away numerous draft picks could perhaps impact free agent earning power, as such a franchise might get into such a poor long-term state that they effectively sit out free agency for a while. But as mentioned, that’s not too similar from a team under the present system that has traded away significant prospect capital and spend many years in rebuilding mode. It could also be argued that such a club may be incentivized to sign free agents who could then be traded for draft picks, making up for those that were traded away in previous years.
Whether the two sides can agree to change the rules will be known in the next few years, as the current CBA extends through the 2026 season. They will have many other issues to address, such as the competitive balance tax, minimum salaries, TV/streaming revenue plans, expansion and other topics, but perhaps there’s a glimmer of hope for those who want to see draft picks trade hands in the future.
Players Who Sign Extensions Prior To MLB Debut Are Not PPI Eligible
A player who signs a contract extension prior to making his major league debut is not eligible for the prospect promotion incentive, reports JJ Cooper of Baseball America. He specifically mentions Jackson Chourio of the Brewers and Colt Keith of the Tigers, who both signed extensions with their respective clubs this offseason, as players who are not PPI eligible.
The latest collective bargaining agreement introduced the PPI to encourage clubs to carry top prospects on Opening Day rosters, rather than hold them down in the minors to gain an extra year of control, a move generally referred to as service time manipulation.
A major league season is 187 days long and a player needs 172 days in the big leagues to earn one year. By holding a player down in the minors for a few weeks, a club can prevent that player from getting to the one-year mark. Since a player needs a full six years of service to qualify for free agency, the club can gain an extra year of control over a young player by doing this. Some of the oft-cited examples of this practice are Kris Bryant of the Cubs and Vladimir Guerrero Jr. of the Blue Jays, both of whom were top prospects who were called up a few weeks into their respective rookie seasons, thus coming up just short of one year of service.
In an attempt to curb this behavior, the CBA introduced the PPI system, whereby teams could earn an extra draft pick by promoting certain players early in the season. To qualify, a player had to be on at least two out of the three top 100 lists at Baseball America, ESPN and MLB Pipeline, as well as being rookie eligible and have fewer than 60 days of service time. If such a player was called up early enough in the season to accrue 172 days of service the traditional way*, they would be PPI eligible and could net their club an extra pick just after the first round. To earn a pick, a PPI eligible player has to either win a Rookie of the Year award or finish in the top three of voting for Most Valuable Player or Cy Young prior to qualifying for arbitration.
(*There was another new measure in the CBA to disincentive service time manipulation, whereby a player could earn a full year of service even if called up too late. If they were otherwise PPI eligible and finished in the top two of Rookie of the Year voting, they could be bumped up to a full year, but they would not earn their clubs an extra pick. This situation arose with Adley Rutschman of the Orioles in 2022, who finished second in American League Rookie of the Year voting despite missing the first few weeks of the season. He earned a full year of service but the O’s would not have received a bonus pick for that if he had finished first.)
This new detail provides an extra wrinkle, as Chourio and Keith would have been in play for PPI picks. Both of them are top prospects who signed offseason extensions and then cracked Opening Day rosters. However, this new development means they won’t be in play for those bonus picks after all.
On the flip side, Cooper adds that Michael Busch of the Cubs and Joey Ortiz of the Brewers are PPI eligible. When Matt Eddy of Baseball America outlined the PPI rules back in February, he noted that players who debut in the majors and are then traded do not have PPI status with their new club. Busch debuted with the Dodgers last year and was traded to the Cubs this winter while Ortiz debuted with the Orioles before being flipped to the Brewers. Eddy provided a further update today, stating that they are PPI eligible since they were not moved via midseason trades.
MLBTR Podcast: Mutiny In The MLBPA, Blake Snell Signs With The Giants And The Dylan Cease Trade
The latest episode of the MLB Trade Rumors Podcast is now live on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and wherever you get your podcasts! Make sure you subscribe as well! You can also use the player at this link to listen, if you don’t use Spotify or Apple for podcasts.
This week, host Darragh McDonald is joined by Steve Adams of MLB Trade Rumors to discuss…
- The recent news of the divide in the MLBPA (2:15)
- The release of J.D. Davis and its impact on the MLBPA situation (8:45)
- Recent collective bargaining agreement history and its relation to current MLBPA strife (11:30)
- Giants sign Blake Snell (17:25)
- Padres acquire Dylan Cease from the White Sox (23:15)
Plus, we answer your questions, including…
- Will the Blue Jays make a run at Juan Soto when he hits free agency next year? (33:35)
- I don’t understand some of the outfielder signings this offseason. How does Hunter Renfroe command $6.5MM when Adam Duvall only gets $3MM? Why would the Twins trade for Manuel Margot when they could have just re-signed Michael A. Taylor? Is there a logical explanation? Or did the Twins and Royals front offices just screw up? (39:45)
- Do you think that Emmanuel Clase could be traded at the deadline if the Guardians out of it? If so, what do you think he’d fetch at full strength? (43:00)
Check out our past episodes!
- Injured Pitchers, Brayan Bello’s Extension, Mookie Betts At Shortstop And J.D. Davis – listen here
- The Giants Sign Matt Chapman, Zack Wheeler’s Extension, And Blake Snell And Jordan Montgomery Remain – listen here
- How Cody Bellinger’s Deal Affects The Other Free Agents And Why The Offseason Played Out Like This – listen here
The podcast intro and outro song “So Long” is provided courtesy of the band Showoff. Check out their Facebook page here!
Manfred: MLB Favors Free Agent Signing Deadline
Commissioner Rob Manfred addressed a few topics in his chat with reporters this afternoon. His announcement that he wouldn’t seek another term beyond 2029 was the most significant development. Among the other topics: the league’s desire for a free agency window during the offseason.
“We would prefer to have a free agency signing period, ideally in December, with a deadline,” Manfred said, regarding the league office and the owners (relayed by Alex Speier of the Boston Globe). Manfred confirmed the league has floated that possibility in conversations with the MLB Players Association, which opposes the idea.
“We actually made proposals to that effect to the MLBPA. They were not warmly received,” he continued (link via ESPN’s David Schoenfield). “With the system we have right now, one of the tactics that’s available to player representatives is to stretch out the negotiation in the belief they’re going to get a better deal. That’s part of the system right now. There’s not a lot we can do about it. Certainly, from an aspirational perspective, we’d rather have two weeks of flurried activity in December, preferably around the winter meetings where (media is) all there to write about it.”
Some agencies, most notably the Boras Corporation, are more comfortable than others in encouraging players to wait deep into the winter to sign. That’s hardly unanimous — high-profile Boras Corp. clients like Corey Seager, Brandon Nimmo, Carlos Rodón and Xander Bogaerts have inked huge contracts relatively early in prior offseasons — but it has again been a topic of conversation with Cody Bellinger, Blake Snell, Jordan Montgomery and Matt Chapman all unsigned into the second week of February.
[Related: Boras Clients Who Signed After January In Previous Offseasons]
One can debate how much responsibility for slowly-developing markets falls on agents, as Manfred implied, versus clubs themselves. Teams can have a similar motivation for waiting to either put an official proposal on the table or move towards a player’s asking price. Clubs could hope that players will feel increased pressure to have a deal in place by the early part of Spring Training and lower their demands. While there’s surely some level of brinkmanship on either side of negotiations that linger for three or four months, there’s no doubt that MLB’s free agent period plays out more slowly than those of other main sports.
The NFL, NBA and NHL all have salary caps and floors, a key distinguishing feature from MLB. That plays a part in spurring early-offseason activity in those other leagues as teams have fixed budgetary ranges. There’s more variability in team payrolls in MLB, which has the luxury tax to disincentivize spending at the top end. There’s no official salary floor beyond the cost of filling a roster with players on league minimum salaries (although obviously no team pares spending to that extent).
While the sport’s salary structure is a significant factor, there’s no question that some kind of signing deadline — whether an end date for multi-year contracts or any major league signing — would translate to a flurry of activity. The impending lockout and transaction freeze on December 1, 2021, led to a run on free agent signings.
As shown on MLBTR’s Contract Tracker, there were 30 multi-year free agent deals agreed upon by December 1 that winter. There were eight such contracts last offseason and only six this past fall. Edwin Díaz and Aaron Nola are the only players to sign nine-figure guarantees before the end of November over the last two offseasons, with both remaining with their previous organizations. There were six deals that exceeded $100MM before the lockout in 2021; all six players changed teams.
It’s easy to make the case that’s a more compelling offseason for fans, even if it’d result in minimal activity in January and February. At this point, it’s mostly academic though.
The MLBPA is broadly opposed to what it perceives as restricting players’ options during free agency. The union certainly harbors concern that a deadline would allow teams to hold firm as that date approaches with higher urgency for players to find jobs before a temporary transaction freeze. It stands to reason the league will try to reengage on this issue once talks get under way about the next collective bargaining agreement in 2026, although it’s hard to envision the MLBPA being more receptive to the idea at that point.
2024 Trade Deadline To Be On July 30
This summer’s trade deadline will be on July 30 at 5pm Central, reports Joel Sherman of The New York Post. That’s a slight change from 2023, when it was on August 1.
Traditionally, the trade deadline had always been on July 31. Under the current collective bargaining agreement, the commissioner can choose a date between July 28 and August 3 for the deadline. This is mostly so that the league can avoid having the deadline occur when games are going on and players have to be removed in a “hug watch” scenario.
If the deadline were to fall on a weekend, when there are many afternoon games, the chances of a player being dealt during an ongoing game would be higher. The commissioner’s office seems to have decided that Tuesday evening is the best choice, as this is the third straight year that the deadline will fall at that part of the week.