Collective Bargaining Agreement

[nymr83]

Edgy DC wrote: No, the cabals working in concert that the laws were aimed at restrict the market.

labor unions restrict the market just as much, but i sense no hostility to them...

[Guest Edgy DC]

Try harder to forget it.

[MFS62]

Looks like the draft pick compensation for signing free agents hasn't been eliminated, just modified. From today's Daily News:

]In terms of draft-pick compensation for free agents lost, there will no longer be "Type C" free agents and the top 20% - instead of the top 30% - of available players will be classified as "Type A" while the next 30% will be labeled "Type B." A team that loses a "Type A" player will continue to get a draft pick directly from the team that signs him, in addition to a supplemental or "sandwich" pick (a pick between rounds). A team that loses a "Type B" free agent, however, will get only a "sandwich" pick, meaning the team that signs him does not have to give up a pick.

Later

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

This is from an article by Claire Smith in The Philadelphia Inquirer:

="Claire Smith"]One of the more notable changes involved free agency, with the elimination of various signing deadlines, including the one that prohibited teams from talking to former-players-turned-free-agents until May 1. The minimum salary will increase from $327,000 this year to $380,000 next season. Among the new deal's declarations: no "contraction" (elimination of teams) during the term of the agreement. Also, the home-field advantage for the World Series will still be awarded to the league that wins the All-Star Game.

So May 1 is eliminated? How about January 8? Do the changes apply to this current offseason, or does it kick in after the 2007 season. (I'm guessing the latter.)

And if those dates are eliminated, what does it mean?

[metsmarathon]

does that mean that there's no longer any restriction on talking to players turned free agents, or that there's no longer any way to bring back a player turned free agent for the following season?

i'm sure it can;t be the latter, but for the former, what then is the point of offering arbitration? or did that somehow go away as well?

actually, wait.. did they abolish the whole draft compensation thing? if so, what does that do to the free agent arbitration thing?

clearly, there's just not enough meat in that clipping, and i'm way too easily confused.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Yes, those paragraphs from Claire Smith's article raise more questions than they answer.

We'll have to find a more comprehensive account of the new agreement.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'd love there to be an easier way to bring back a fading yet still productive player --- Piazza of Floyd, for instance --- that could still have a value to the team but clearly deserves more than a 20% pay cut.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I agree. I hope that the elimination of May 1 hints at other changes that will make that possible.

[Frayed Knot]

Well cutting him loose and then re-signing him on the open market is a way to do that and this agreement appears to make doing that easier by eliminating the cut-off point where teams not offering arbitration could no longer talk to their former player.
The 20% rule would still remain (I presume) for teams retaining their own guy w/o ever exposing him to outside bidding.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

So if May 1 is eliminated, then January 8 probably is, too. Unless I'm overlooking something, the key thing about January 8 was that if you didn't offer arbitration by then, you'd lose rights until May 1.

[Guest Iubitul]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Yes, those paragraphs from Claire Smith's article raise more questions than they answer. We'll have to find a more comprehensive account of the new agreement.

Adam Rubin's Blog to the rescue:

]Summary of MLBPA-Major League Baseball Labor Agreement Term 1. Five-year labor contract. 2. Termination date - December 11, 2011. Revenue Sharing 1. Net transfer of revenue sharing plan will be the same as the current plan ($326 million in 2006). Net transfer amounts will continue to grow with revenue and changes in disparity. 2. Marginal tax rates for all recipients are reduced significantly through the use of a new central fund redistribution mechanism. Rates reduced to 31% from 40% (high revenue Clubs) and 48% (low revenue Clubs) under old agreement. 3. All Clubs face the same marginal rate for first time. 4. Commissioner�s Discretionary Fund will continue at $10 million per year, with cap of $3 million per Club per year. 5. Provision requiring revenue sharing recipients to spend receipts to improve on-field performance retained with modifications. Competitive Balance Tax 1. Competitive Balance Tax structure from 2002 agreement is continued. 2. Rates will continue at 22 � % for Clubs over the threshold the first time, 30% for Clubs over the threshold the second time and 40% for Clubs over threshold the third time. 3. Clubs that paid 40% in 2006 will face 40% rate in 2007. 4. Thresholds reset to $148 million in 2007, $155 million in 2008, $162 million in 2009, $170 million in 2010 and $178 million in 2011. The Debt Service Rule 1. The Debt Service Rule from 2002 agreement retained with modifications. Amateur Draft 1. Clubs that fail to sign first or second round draft pick will receive the same pick in the subsequent draft as compensation. Club that fails to sign a third round pick will receive a sandwich pick between rounds three and four in the subsequent draft as compensation. 2. Period of time before a Player must be protected from the Rule 5 Draft is changed from three or four years from first minor league season to four or five years from year of signing. 3. Signing deadline of August 15 for draft picks other than college seniors. Draft Choice Compensation 1. Type C free agents eliminated in 2006 2. Also in 2006, compensation for type B players becomes indirect (sandwich pick) as opposed to direct compensation from signing Club. 3. Effective 2007, Type A players limited to top 20 percent of each position (down from 30 percent) and Type B players become 21 percent � 40 percent at each position (rather than 31 percent - 50 percent). 4. Salary arbitration offer and acceptance dates move to December 1 and December 7. Benefit Plan 1. Players Benefit Plan continued with maximum allowable benefit under IRS rules. 2. $154.5 million average annual contribution. 3. Improved benefits for some retired players. Minimum Salary 1. Major League: $380,000 in 2007, $390,000 in 2008 and $400,000 in 2009, COLA in 2011. 2. Minor League: $60,000 in 2007, $62,500 in 2008, $65,000 in 2009. 3. New minimum for first time roster players of 50% of minor league minimum. 4. Maximum cut rule applicable to split contracts reduced to 60% from 80%. Free Agency 1. Eliminate December 7, December 19, January 8 and May 1 deadlines for free agents. 2. Tender Date � December 12 3. Eliminate right to demand a trade for all new multi-year contracts. Other 1. Home-field advantage in World Series to League that wins the All-Star Game. 2. Drug program continues. 3. Settlement of 40 plus grievances and disputes. 4. No contraction during term of agreement.

[Frayed Knot]

Just looking at the draft part of things:

]1. Clubs that fail to sign first or second round draft pick will receive the same pick in the subsequent draft as compensation. Club that fails to sign a third round pick will receive a sandwich pick between rounds three and four in the subsequent draft as compensation.

This has been stepped up.
Prior, teams failing to sign a 1st round pick were "compensated" by being given a supplemental pick in the following year's draft; ie. if the #10 pick chooses a college scholarship the drafting team would only get a 30-something pick to make up for it the next year. Now, it seems like you'd grab the 10th pick the following year - I assume in addition to whoever already has that pick (picks 10 & 10A?).
Makes it easier for teams to walk away from a pick making high demands.

]2. Period of time before a Player must be protected from the Rule 5 Draft is changed from three or four years from first minor league season to four or five years from year of signing.

Were teams really complaining that they were losing too many guys via 'Rule 5' drafts? I guess this makes 40-man roster mgmt easier.

]3. Signing deadline of August 15 for draft picks other than college seniors.

Sounds like this eliminates all "Draft & Follow" guys and sets a concrete date for the end of eligibility instead of doing the dance where it stopped when said student attended his first day of classes.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Most of those (obviously, since FK culled them from the section labeled "Amateur Draft") have less to do with the league's relationship to big league players and more to do with them having more control over amateur and minor-league players.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

]Free Agency 1. Eliminate December 7, December 19, January 8 and May 1 deadlines for free agents. 2. Tender Date � December 12 3. Eliminate right to demand a trade for all new multi-year contracts.

This stuff is interesting too.

I take it that number 3 means that if Carlos Delgado had signed his contract under these terms, he wouldn't currently have the right to demand a trade this winter.

I'm still not clear on what this means for a departing free agent. Let's take Cliff Floyd for example.

If there's no deadline by which the Mets would have to offer him arbitration, does this mean that they'd be entitled to compensation anyway? I know the Mets didn't get compensated for Piazza because they didn't want to risk him accepting arbitration.

And if they don't offer him arbitration, they can still resign him. Is the 20% maximim pay cut only applicable for players who can go to arbitration?

In other words, can the Mets sign Floyd to an $800,000 contract, and if so, when can they do it and how could they make it happen? (I'm not saying he would sign for that; this is just a hypothetical example.)

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Good to see the compensation schedule for Free Agents become more exclusive. In the past teams were overcompensated for losing a fringe guy to a free agent deal with another club, and/or undercompensated for losing a good one, and/or too willing to collect the booty for parting with a guy they had no intention of keeping anyway.

[Centerfield]

I had the same questions as Yancy.

[Frayed Knot]

I'd have to be reminded about what all those dates were for.



In the meantime, Baseball America gives a more complete (and, of course, better written) over-view of the changes to the draft portion of the agreement.


Among questions we were discussing here earlier:
- Clubs have for years wanted a system of prescribed, slotted bonuses for every high pick but learned early in the negotiations that the union would not accept it, so instead focused on stronger compensation rules.
- Several ideas that have been discussed over the years, such as the trading of draft picks and an either supplemental or combined draft of all players worldwide, were not adopted. Also, the draft will continue to be held in June rather than be moved to July.

[nymr83]

Edgy DC wrote: I'd love there to be an easier way to bring back a fading yet still productive player --- Piazza of Floyd, for instance --- that could still have a value to the team but clearly deserves more than a 20% pay cut.

]One of the more notable changes involved free agency, with the elimination of various signing deadlines, including the one that prohibited teams from talking to former-players-turned-free-agents until May 1.

this is a positive change for sure, the deadline, and the the rule that you cant talk to a guy who you didnt offer arbitration, were both probably designed to protect salaries (you'd better offer arbtration or you wont be able to sign him at all!) but in recent years they seem to have had the effect of seperating fading veterans from their adoring fans. you can't blame the owners- they dont want to risk paying 80% of a huge salary to someone who is clearly no longer worth it, and you can't blame the players- they want to give the market one more (perhaps last) shot.
that the Mets couldnt negotiate with Piazza last offseason benefits neither the players, the owners, or the fans, so why would anyone want to keep the rule?


also why do they want to move the draft to July? that would (potentially) spell the death of short-season leagues like the NY-Penn league that are mostly stocked with recent draftees. Are the Cyclone not profittable enough?

[nymr83]

now THIS is a bad idea: (fromthat same BA article)

]Teams that fail to sign a first-round pick no longer receive an extra pick after the first round as compensation, but instead a virtually identical pick the following year; for example, a team that fails to sign the No. 5 pick one year will receive the No. 6 pick the next, rather than one in the 30s or 40s. The same compensation also now exists for unsigned second-round picks, while a team that fails to sign a third-round pick will receive a sandwich pick between the third and fourth rounds.

does this take effect this year or next: ?

]The major league portion of the Rule 5 draft will be affected by giving teams one extra year to protect players from it. Rather than teams being allowed three years (for players signed at age 19 or older) or four years (for players 18 and younger) before leaving them off the 40-man roster subjects them to the Rule 5 draft, those periods have been lengthened to four and five. Ownership considered this a significant boost in their efforts to operate their minor league systems more effectively.

not sure what effect this will have other than letting you wait a little longer before you give up on a formerly well regarded prospect gone bad.

[Frayed Knot]

"does this take effect this year or next: ?"

Starting with the next draft.
And those 'replacement for unsigned picks' rules already existed. They're just changed and expanded somewhat.




"not sure what effect this [Rule 5 changes] will have other than letting you wait a little longer before you give up on a formerly well regarded prospect gone bad."

It doesn't have anything to do with "giving up" on players. What it does is allow teams an extra year before they have to protect players by putting them on the 40-man. In the long run it'll probably make fewer 'Rule 5' players available, although the ones who are might be closer to ready and more likely to be picked.

[metsmarathon]

Nymr83 wrote: now THIS is a bad idea: (fromthat same BA article) ]Teams that fail to sign a first-round pick no longer receive an extra pick after the first round as compensation, but instead a virtually identical pick the following year; for example, a team that fails to sign the No. 5 pick one year will receive the No. 6 pick the next, rather than one in the 30s or 40s. The same compensation also now exists for unsigned second-round picks, while a team that fails to sign a third-round pick will receive a sandwich pick between the third and fourth rounds.

see, i like that one. i see that as giving teams more leverage to sign players in a given draft.

of course, a way to game it would be that some team could conceivably keep on taking away perfectly good high draft picks from other teams, consistently fail to sign said player, and keep on getting multiple picks in the top of the draft. and then, after so many iterations, could totally clean house in a given draft by selecting 6 guys in the first round. of course, their upper levels of the farm system would be barren, but then they'd have a tremendous influx of top talent a few years later.

i don't think there's a team out there that thinks long term enough to make that scenario work, but it could happen.

and that this new CBA allows for such a possibility makes it so much cooler.

i really don't think that's a realistic concern, mind you, and the possibility and subsequent calamity, of that happening really in no way overrides the added leverage teams would now have in being able to sign top draft picks.

[metirish]

New deal helps Yankees.

] Players Union to Yankees: No New Taxes By MURRAY CHASS Published: October 25, 2006 ST. LOUIS In the negotiations that culminated in a new labor agreement that was announced yesterday, the union had the best interests of George Steinbrenner�s checkbook in mind. Whereas the other clubs are out to get the Yankees� money and inhibit them from spending what is left, the union tried to help the Yankees. The union proposed that the rate schedule for the tax on payrolls above designated thresholds start over in the new five-year agreement that was announced yesterday at Busch Stadium before Game 3 of the Word Series. As a club that has exceeded the threshold and paid the tax each of the four years of the existing agreement, the Yankees pay at a rate of 40 percent. Last year they paid $34 million; this year they will pay nearly $26 million. The union wanted the Yankees to be able to go back next year to a rate of 22.5 percent, which they have not paid since 2003, the first year of the expiring agreement. Why was the union looking out for the Yankees� welfare? The Yankees are, as everyone knows, baseball�s biggest spenders. Not only do they have the largest payroll � by far � but their expenditures force other teams to pay more than they otherwise would, both to sign free agents and to retain their own players. Yankees salaries even affect other teams in salary arbitration. The luxury tax, or competitive balance tax as it is formally known, has worked, even on the Yankees. Teams that have flirted with the tax threshold have made sure they stayed under it to avoid paying any tax. The few teams besides the Yankees that have exceeded the threshold have not strayed too far over it. The whole purpose of the tax was to restrict payrolls. The owners would have preferred a payroll cap, as other sports have, but the union always fiercely resisted it. The owners� demand for a cap prompted the players to strike in 1994 and forced cancellation of the World Series for the first time. So the owners settled for a tax and hoped that it would have the desired effect, not holding their collective breath where the Yankees were concerned. But two years ago the Yankees surprisingly passed up signing a free agent because of what the contract would have done to their tax payment. Carlos Beltr�n�s agent, Scott Boras, offered him as a free agent to the Yankees at a discount � $100 million � compared with the Mets� $119 million offer. But the Yankees pulled out their calculator and figured out that the average annual value, on which luxury tax payrolls are based, of the Beltr�n discount would be $16.67 million, but the 40 percent tax meant it would actually cost the Yankees $23.34 million. As a result, the Yankees politely declined Boras�s offer, and Beltr�n signed with the Mets, helping change the culture of Mets baseball and helping take them one step from the World Series this year. All right, so he struck out with two out and the bases loaded in the ninth inning of Game 7 of the National League Championship Series. Are Mets fans going to hold that failure against him forever? � The Yankees may be the only team to pay the luxury tax this year. Payroll computations have not been completed, but the Red Sox are expected to come in just under or just over the $136.5 million threshold. Under terms of the expiring agreement, only teams that paid the tax last year were subject to the tax this year. The Yankees and Red Sox were the only teams affected. The Yankees� payroll will finish at about $201 million, creating a tax of $25.8 million. That, in turn, would mean the Yankees� profligate spending will have cost them $96.6 million over the life of the expiring agreement. Just as the Yankees� tax is falling this year from last, it should continue to drop as the tax threshold rises. The threshold in the new agreement will start at $148 million next year and rise to $155 million, $162 million, $170 million and $178 million. � The Yankees� payroll presumably will not rise to keep pace with the increasing thresholds. They won�t stop signing players for lots of money, but it is unlikely that the contracts will match the magnitude of the Alex Rodriguez-Manny Ram�rez-Derek Jeter deals. This may be na�ve, but the Yankees will continue to be the highest-paying team but at numbers below $200 million. Oh yes. As hard as the union tried to scale back the Yankees� tax rate for 2007 and subsequent seasons, the clubs� negotiators wouldn�t go for it. But Steinbrenner should at least send Donald Fehr, the union chief, a thank-you note acknowledging the union effort. Who else does anything nice these days for poor old George?

[Frayed Knot]

] ... of course, a way to game it would be that some team could conceivably keep on taking away perfectly good high draft picks from other teams, consistently fail to sign said player, and keep on getting multiple picks in the top of the draft. and then, after so many iterations, could totally clean house in a given draft by selecting 6 guys in the first round.

Nope, can't happen ... that "make-up pick" only carries for one year.
So say you have a lousy year and get slotted in the 3rd pick a year after failing to sign the 7th overall pick. Sure, you'd then have both the #3 AND #7 the following year (although the #7 doesn't take one away from any team, it merely bounces everyone down the line one slot). But then if you don't sign the 7th pick this year you're S.O.L. - it can't carry over a 2nd year.

Interesting scenario though.

[metsmarathon]

well, by selecting a player and not signing him so as to horde the pick, you would be keeping the player away from other teams.

and the one-year carry over really strikes a nail in the coffin of my grand scheme. rats.

[nymr83]

i still don't like it. i like the draft as a means of fairly dispersing talent, but i dont like giving the owners the added leverage of being able to tell the players "take it or leave it, but if you leave it theres no loss to me." the failure to sign a pick should be a penalty to BOTH sides for their failure to agree, the owners got too much here.

[metirish]

So the drug testing policy stays the same,no surprise I suppose.

[nymr83]

yeah i saw in the Post today that the union-head called additional drug-testing "unreliable" and said he'd have agreed to it if there was "reliable" testing available. I guess the olympics don't know what they are doing according to him

[metsmarathon]

over the long term, there's minimal net loss to the owner, true.

but in the short term, he loses a year of development of a top prospect.
to a GM, trying to build a team, or trying down the road to trade a prospect or two for a star, that's pretty big.

in the old system, he also lost the quality of that top prospect in addition to the year, which i guess was too much.

if i own the worst team in the league, i get screwed by the old system if a player decides "hell with that, i ain't playing for no damned tampa bay devil rays"

i lose that top pick, and in his place, i would only get the 31st best available player, the next year, right? that's a heck of a hit, imo.

[nymr83]

well i suppose an Eli manning-type ass hole comes along every now and then with his "i won't play for the Chargers" crap, but in baseball it always seemed to me that the guys who drop drop because of perceived bonus demands and that nobody has ever come out saying htey refuse to play for a team.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I remember many years ago Pete Incaviglia refusing to play for the Expos, who drafted him. He somehow forced a trade to Texas. I think he made his signing contingent on being traded immediately.