Collective Bargaining Agreementâ?¦ Latest: agreement announced (reply #109)

[1992casey]

"Larry" on South Side Sox has posted an interesting series titled How the new Collective Bargaining Agreement affects the White Sox (and baseball). It's well researched and provides more depth than I've seen any single writer offer so far.

• Part I (Amateur Draft and international talent)
• Part II (Free agency)
• Part III) (Realignment, minimum salary, super-two, roster expansion for doubleheaders
• Part IV (Instant reply, All Start Game, drug testing, revenue sharing, luxury tax, maple bats, , minor league contracts, fourth option, outrights, weekend waivers, tobacco, and debt service)

 

 

 

 

He also notes that we're currently getting our information from a CBA summary (PDF). That would mean that there's more information to come, and in the case of some details, we might be drawing incorrect conclusions.

[DHonks]

In Part IV, there's a great explanation of the terms of the 4th option year. I always thought it was an arbitrary decision by some MLB official, but now I know there are criteria.

[1992casey]

Note that the explanation of the fourth option is what's current rather than whatever the change might be. The same thing applies to the explanation for outrights. All that's been officially released so far is "Modifications to Fourth Option and Outright Assignment rules."

[Raw Biz]

So doesnt that make him more valuable to us than Prince? Wouldn't it have made sense for MLB to list those six free agents to be listed (Fielder, Reyes, Pjuols, Wilson etc) as the guys whom the teams that lose him get the pick before the signing team? Think about it. We lose KRod to a team in the lower half and we get a first round pick no matter what. We lose Prince to a team in the lower half and we may only get a second round pick even though Prince is a better player. Seems kind of backwards.

That has more to do with "punishing" the team who signs the best free agents than it does "rewarding" the team losing him.

[paul253]

That has more to do with "punishing" the team who signs the best free agents than it does "rewarding" the team losing him.

 

Yeah thats what it seems like. But it doesn't seem consistent with me. The compensation for the better type A free agents is at best equal to and at worst worse than the compensation for the lesser type A free agents. For instance, if a team in the back half of the standings signs Michael Cuddyer, the Twins would receive better compensation than the Brewers would receive if that same team signed Prince Fielder. That doesn't seem right to me. I understand the need to punish the signing teams here, but you shouldn't screw the losing teams at the same time.

[Raw Biz]

That has more to do with "punishing" the team who signs the best free agents than it does "rewarding" the team losing him.

 

Yeah thats what it seems like. But it doesn't seem consistent with me. The compensation for the better type A free agents is at best equal to and at worst worse than the compensation for the lesser type A free agents. For instance, if a team in the back half of the standings signs Michael Cuddyer, the Twins would receive better compensation than the Brewers would receive if that same team signed Prince Fielder. That doesn't seem right to me. I understand the need to punish the signing teams here, but you shouldn't screw the losing teams at the same time.

Well it wasn't right that we got screwed for losing Sabathia as well. But keep in mind this is only for this offseason. Then next season it goes to the average salary thing.

[paul253]

Well it wasn't right that we got screwed for losing Sabathia as well.

But keep in mind this is only for this offseason. Then next season it

goes to the average salary thing.

 

Yeah I know and that's why I thought the compensation system was a joke. I'm glad they changed it. But this is just one last head scratcher before the new system gets implemented.

[gregmag]

There's something I don't get, and I'm sorry if this has already been answered; but jjafnec asked about it a few days ago, and I haven't seen a response:

 

(1) The new CBA says that a group of free agents, which appears to include Rodriguez, would net the teams that lose them an extra first-round pick, rather than shifting the pick from the team that signs the free agent to the team that loses him. But --

 

(2) The new CBA also says that a team can only get compensation picks if it had the free agent for the whole year.

 

Everything I've read seems to assume, as to Rodriguez, that (1) helps us and that (2) doesn't hurt us. What's the deal? Does (1) go into effect immediately but (2) not until next offseason? If that's right, the Rodriguez trade just keeps on paying dividends. But we can't possibly be that lucky, can we?

[1992casey]

I'm not sure where everything falls, but for free agency, there's a transitional set of rules for this off-season with permanent rules being put in place next year. I'm sure that's confusing some of the interpretations we're seeing so far.

[paul253]

I would assume that since KRod is still considered a "type A" free agent that the year long rule doesn't apply and we still get compensation for him. They won't have type As and Bs next year so I assume thats when the rules really go into affect.

[Raw Biz]

I'm surprised there's been this much confusion over everything. There's been plenty of good writeups on MLB Trade Rumors that explain things pretty well. But basically this offseason has its own set of rules and then next offseason the stuff from the new CBA agreement goes into effect. So this offseason, there's a group of guys that cost a pick to sign (plus supplemental), another group that nets a 1st rounder in front of the signing team (plus supplemental), and another group that just nets a supplemental.

Then next offseason to get compensation, the player must be offered a one year deal of the average of the top 125 (I think that's the number) salaries from the previous season and that player must have been under team control for the entire season (so don't get rewarded for deadline players like KRod). Then I also believe that only the worst 10 teams are protected from losing a first round pick (instead of worst 15 in years past). Also if a bottom 10 team then signs a protected player, they would lose their second-highest pick, not necessarily 2nd round. So if they got a supplemental pick from supplemental draft (another new thing they are doing), they could lose that.

[DHonks]

gregmag, they grandfathered in the guys that were acquired this season. In the future teams cannot get picks for midseason acquisitions since the Jays (and others) had been compiling picks lately

[paul253]

Isn't this going to have a negative affect on small market teams? Won't teams offer less for guys since they will no longer receive compensation for the guy they trade for?

[nate82]

Isn't this going to have a negative affect on small market teams? Won't teams offer less for guys since they will no longer receive compensation for the guy they trade for?

They can offer less but that doesn't mean they are going to get that player then. You still have to give up value to get a player in a trade no matter when. If there are multiple teams looking to get one player that price is still going to go up with our without the compensation for that team.

[CheezWizHed]

Its going to mean less deadline trades. Teams that want a player will offer less, since they won't get compensation. Yet, teams trying to trade a player won't give them up for peanuts, since at worst, they will get the compensation picks.

 

I wonder if there is provisions for a trading team to talk extension with the player prior to the trade being consumated, like the NFL does.

[paul253]

They can offer less but that doesn't mean they are going to get that player then.

 

No, but the team that has the player is probably also now going to be less likely to receive compensation when the player leaves so they may have to be willing to accept less. The new rules will require them to offer a pretty big one year contract to the player and unless the player is really good it is unlikely the smaller market team will offer them that contract. Again, it favors large market teams who can better afford to take the chance on a contract offer.

 

I also don't like the new rule because it doesn't seem to differentiate by players. If the rule applied this year, the Brewers would have to offer Takashi Saito the same one year contract they'd have to offer Prince Fielder in order to receive compensation for Saito. I do like that it will likely decrease the number of comp picks handed out though but definitely not the best system.

[CheezWizHed]

MLB should simply look to the NFL. Look at how a teams offseason went as a whole, then grant compensation picks based on who they lost and gained.

[jerichoholicninja]

MLB should simply look to the NFL. Look at how a teams offseason went as a whole, then grant compensation picks based on who they lost and gained.

That seems like a good idea except there is way too much subjectivity involved.

[CheezWizHed]

there is way too much subjectivity involved.

 

Not really. The NFL has never "published" how their compensation system works, but there is one guy out there that very accurately predicts the compensation (there is a link somewhere on lambeauleap.net). Its a pretty well defined formula of past performance and the cost of the deal the player signed.

 

So, not anymore subjective than the ranking of FA into A, B, and None categories.

[Patrick425]

Hate to stir this up again, but given the events of recent days, I can't bite my tongue.

 

When is the last time any of you were truly excited about a FA signing by the Brewers? I mean Marcum, Greinke, Sabathia excited. Excited about a transaction that did not involve the Brewers giving up any of their players?

 

I think the last one I can remember is Larry Hisle ( I think he was a FA?)

 

I also can't think of an argument that will ever convince me that the current system is fair for all MLB teams and fans.

[Raw Biz]

Hate to stir this up again, but given the events of recent days, I can't bite my tongue.

 

When is the last time any of you were truly excited about a FA signing by the Brewers? I mean Marcum, Greinke, Sabathia excited. Excited about a transaction that did not involve the Brewers giving up any of their players?

 

I think the last one I can remember is Larry Hisle ( I think he was a FA?)

 

I also can't think of an argument that will ever convince me that the current system is fair for all MLB teams and fans.

I'm genuinely excited about the Alex Gonzalez signing since it means no Yuni.

[RightFieldCoder]

There was some excitement here about Suppan being a Christmas gift showing that we can go out and get premium free agents.

[Raw Biz]

There was some excitement here about Suppan being a Christmas gift showing that we can go out and get premium free agents.

I hate to say it but at the time, I was one of those. But to be fair, Suppan actually pitched pretty well for 4 seasons before coming here. But 3 of those were for the magical Cardinals.

[RightFieldCoder]

Also, how many other teams have the reigning MVP for 10+ more years?

[Matt Breen]

Hate to stir this up again, but given the events of recent days, I can't bite my tongue.

 

When is the last time any of you were truly excited about a FA signing by the Brewers? I mean Marcum, Greinke, Sabathia excited. Excited about a transaction that did not involve the Brewers giving up any of their players?

 

I think the last one I can remember is Larry Hisle ( I think he was a FA?)

 

I also can't think of an argument that will ever convince me that the current system is fair for all MLB teams and fans.

Tsk, Tsk. Have you forgotten the Franklin Stubbs signing? Jeffrey Hammonds?