Ongoing CBA negotiations

[Benjamin Grimm]

 

This is from ESPN. This is the first time I'm seeing the term "Cornerstone Player Provision"

MLB wants maximum 5-year deals for free agents changing teams

Link to the full article: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/49186750/mets-fire-manager-carlos-mendoza-34-47-start

As part of the next collective bargaining agreement with players, Major League Baseball wants a maximum contract length of five years for free agents who are switching teams while organizations will have the ability to keep their own players for up to six years, calling it a Cornerstone Player Provision.

The potential change to free agency comes as the league addressed reserve clause issues in a Thursday meeting with the MLBPA and would take effect after the 2027 season.

The league's proposal includes raising the minimum salary from $780,000 to $1 million in 2027 for players with at least two years of service time. Any player with zero or one-plus years of service time will receive $1 million if they receive a full year of service, which includes $900,000 minimum salary plus an automatic $100,000 bonus from the Pre-Arbitration Bonus Pool. The increase in the minimum is the largest year-over-year increase in MLB history, according to league data. Minimums would increase in future years along with the payroll floor and ceiling.

Additionally, players who reach five years of service time by age 30 would become eligible for free agency, a provision the union first put forth recently as part of its own CBA proposal. Currently, players of any age need six years of service time before becoming a free agent. That system has been in place since the advent of free agency in MLB in 1976.

The league also proposed eliminating deferred contracts as well as the qualifying offer but didn't ask for any changes to its arbitration system.

[MFS62]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Grimm said:

 

organizations will have the ability to keep their own players for up to six years, calling it a Cornerstone Player Provision.

I think that's the way it used to be. Teams could keep a player in the minors for three years, after which they had to be added to the major league roster or possibly lose them in the Rule V Draft.  Then, they had three years during which they could be optioned to the minors from the major league team. 

I don't see how this changes anything.

Later

[metirish]

The league also proposed eliminating deferred contracts as well as the qualifying offer but didn't ask for any changes to its arbitration system.

 

What about opt outs ? Something needs to give there 

[Benjamin Grimm]

36 minutes ago, MFS62 said:

I think that's the way it used to be. Teams could keep a player in the minors for three years, after which they had to be added to the major league roster or possibly lose them in the Rule V Draft.  Then, they had three years during which they could be optioned to the minors from the major league team. 

I don't see how this changes anything.

Later

It's very different. It's saying that the Mets could have signed Pete Alonso or Edwin Diaz (for two very recent examples) to a six-year contract, but every other team would have been limited to signing him for five years.

[Frayed Knot]

40 minutes ago, MFS62 said:

II don't see how this changes anything.

It's a change because this has nothing to do with minor league players or with pre-FA major league players.

So had this been in place last winter, for instance, the Mets could have offered Alonso a six-year FA contract whereas no other team could offer more than five. What it most resembles is what the NBA once called the 'Larry Bird Rule' which, similarly, gave a bargaining edge to the team the player was already on. The NBA did this because, in a sport that's more star-driven than any other one, they thought it was essential that a team be able to keep a player so identified with their organization. (aka: the old 'I can't imagine ______ in any other uniform" ploy)

Of course NBA superstars bounce around all the time now so I'm not sure it ever really served its stated purpose (of even if it was ever intended to). Nor am I sure how any of this will appeal to players. MLB is both proposing to cap the length of a contract the players can sign and also, less directly through caps, the amount of money in said contract.

 

 

oe: cross-posted with Grimm

[MFS62]

Got it. I thought it meant 6 years of control from when they  initially sign a player, including the minors.

Thanks to both of you.

Later