The next CBA and the future of MLB

[Surgnbuck]

This season will see the end of the current CBA, and I think it's going to shape things going forward in MLB.



The last work stoppage was a long time ago, almost 2 generations removed. I believe both sides are willing to risk a work stoppage because I think many of the CBA's since then have been done with neither party being happy about it other than for the sake of not risking another 1994.



We've been hearing about various issues for years, but there are some that I feel are going to be very big, and some of the moving parts outside of the CBA that are going to impact a new one being passed. Here are just a few that I feel are going to be big, and how I see it. Please feel free to comment, agree, disagree, correct information I may not have correct, and add anything you please. Here are my areas that I think will be the biggest issues:



1. Salary cap/floor- I'm seeing it this way. I feel the luxury cap is going to be raised quite high. So most teams will be able to spend pretty freely, and that has to be appealing to the union. I think the tax will be quite punitive though, but if it's something that might rarely happen, I think the union will risk it. As far as a floor, I think it will be agreed upon that certain percentages of revenue sharing must go to players' salaries. This is going to be difficult because of the issues of transparency. But I don't think we are going to see a floor per se, but something that is going to work like one, just like a luxury cap will work as a salary cap.



2. Player control- This is tied to the money IMHO. I think this is going to be very central to the negotiations. It's the lifeblood of every team. Even the richest teams need players they have under control. The arbitration process is going to have to change.  Players don't want a cap, owners don't want a floor. I discussed raising the luxury tax ceiling but making it more punitive. In lieu of a floor and losing controllable time, I think there is going to be an overhaul in the arbitration process. It's one of the most flawed things IMHO in MLB.



How can you justify some players getting a raise simply because they are now eligible for arbitration? How can you justify a player having to basically accept your contract offer because you're pre-arbitration? I know the players want to be free agents ASAP. But I don't think they see the big picture here. For every Bellinger, there are many more Braults. Bellinger was NL MVP in 2019 on a league-minimum contract, then hit it big the next season with the record first-year arbitration raise. What did Brault do to necessitate a raise of almost 1.5 million? Even if he goes to arbitration and loses, he still gets a big boost in pay. Michael Perez is eligible for first-year arbitration. If the Pirates don't cut him, they'll have to exchange numbers with him. Even if he decides to go to arbitration and loses his case, he'll get a hefty pay raise regardless. It's at this end that the players have to make some concessions. Every player should not get an enormous raise. IDK what the solution is. Perhaps tie a bonus structure to guys like Bellinger, who is paid handsomely for his performance in a pre-arbitration year with a bonus, but not have it set his salary. Because once his level is set, it never goes down for the subsequent arbitration years. Even if his performance never reaches that level again. But this I'm certain is going to be a big part of the CBA. I think if you can tie performance and service bonuses to the revenue-sharing money, perhaps the whole arbitration process can be semi-scrapped in lieu of bonus money, and the team still maintains control.



3. Expansion/relocation/realignment- The first process in any of this is going to be MLB deciding who might relocate, and where are we okay with them going? Five teams that I know of are going to be ending their leases within the next 8 years. The Orioles are first, in 2023, but can automatically renew for five years under the current agreement. The A's are 2024, and it's looking all but a lost cause trying to stay in Oakland because of the state. From my understanding, the team and the city are in complete agreement with a plan. Tampa is done in 2027. I don't believe for a moment there will be any Montreal split season stuff with them. The Mayor of Tampa said no way. There doesn't seem to be any progress in a stadium initiative that satisfies all parties in Tampa. The Diamondbacks lease is up in 2028, but they have an agreement that they can leave anytime starting in 2022, and pay a tiered exit fee of basically 5 million a year for each year they leave prior to the end of the lease. They want a new stadium, and they have looked into Las Vegas and Henderson. This could really be interesting between them and Oakland because for all we know, we could see another Baltimore Colts type move in the middle of the night as one team moves before the other. The Pirates lease is up in 2030.



I don't foresee the Orioles and Pirates going anywhere. The Marlins, Mariners, and Rockies were probably poor choices due to their remote locales as MLB franchises, but these island of misfit toys all renewed their leases well into the 2040s. Cleveland just renewed theirs for another 15 years. So I don't foresee much movement, only 2 teams have moved in 50 years, the expansion Senators going to Texas, and Montreal going to Washington. I think MLB is going to put a prod to teams, and already have with the A's, to get something in writing, get something built, and get stabilized. I think that's coming with Tampa and soon Arizona. Until those teams are settled, expansion is going to have to wait. But it won't be too long, because I think a big part of the CBA will be tied with a promise of expansion, which means JOBS. It's a way for owners to garner new revenue while at the same time keeping peace with the union possibly on the cap/floor and controllable years issues. In the end, I think 2 more teams will be proposed to be added by such and such a date. I think it will be done to keep a regional balance and enter new markets.



Once all that happens, the music has stopped playing, and everyone has a seat, they can go about the process of realignment. I think it will also bring about a restructuring of the playoffs, which is another revenue source the teams can use to counter cap and floor issues. I think realignment will occur with the dissolution of the leagues as they merge into one. How can that be done?



4. Universal DH- I think this is one of the surest things that will happen because the players seem to want it and the owners have spun the position to mean extra expense, which in PR speak means, "concession". It's an easy one to start, hand that one right across the table for the players to claim a victory. With there no longer being two sets of rules, the leagues can go the way of AL and NL umpires and league presidents. It's really the only line that blurs any distinction between the leagues now anyhow. This will allow realignment to occur and in most circumstances, make more sense of divisions. It will also tend to clump teams in similar markets.





I think in the end, to be able to reach an agreement, the deal will be paid for from a reworking of the draft, arbitration, and qualifying offer rules now in place, a promise of expansion, and tying the revenue sharing money in part to arbitration increases, as well as free-agent signings.



As far as all that other stuff like ghost runners, banning shifts, 7 inning doubleheaders, etc.  I think that is all secondary and will be done in conjunction with competition committees and such, and won't be stumbling blocks to an overall agreement.



I think there will be the talk of international drafts, increased minor league salaries, and benefits, but I also don't see this as a stumbling block, and like a universal DH is a win for the players, and will be paid for by the lure of increased jobs and playoff revenue, in exchange for controllable years.



I also think a CBA will be ratified that still is going to overly favor the large market teams, and the teams like the Pirates will just have to live with ever-increasing franchise value. I also think that to ratify the CBA, the small market teams will probably see an increase in revenue sharing, as the large markets are going to make it up eventually with more and longer post-season runs. [reason]Highlight each point that Surg considers important[/reason]

[DemDog]

Thanks, Surg for reposting this in a separate thread.

[DemDog]

Let me comment on point one in this post.



First, I ask how high will the salary cap go? Can you see it moving up to $300-$400 million in the coming years? I definitely agree that the amount of the tax penalty for going over the cap should be very punitive. I might suggest that each of these items can be indexed to overall revenues including revenue from regional sports networks owned by the clubs.

As far as a salary floor, where do you start? Do you start at a low $ amount, say $80 million in year one and then have it increase each year until the lower revenue teams have reached a floor of say $120 million in maybe 3 years. I think that if the team still is not at the floor going into year 3 some sort of penalty must be paid in the form of a revenue-sharing decrease until the floor is met.

As for the amount of revenue-sharing money that must be spent on player salaries why not go for 100% to begin with and negotiate to a lower level of say 75%. Of course, a team that is under the salary floor must spend 100% until they reach the salary floor.

[Ecbucs]

I think somehow any cap needs to figure in the amount of revenue. If I remember correctly every other league that has a cap has some sort of way to calculate total revenue.



The players want that or else it is just profit to the owners.



I don't know how the split comes out right now between mlb owners and players but think the players are going to want half.



The benefit of a floor is it could make harder for teams to tank. I think there should be some incentives for teams to that don't make it to the playoffs based upon where they end up in the standings.



Make it worth it for a team to finish ahead of other teams rather than having teams think they are better off to lose to get the bigger draft signing pool and better draft position.

[GreenWeenie]

Horses and carts. Unless you expect Revenue Sharing will be implemented, I would say move on.



I don't anticipate it.



Even then, certain franchises will continue to do what they've done unless other changes are made to what teams are permitted to do with the money.

[WildwoodDave2]

193F382D24283F29214A0 wrote: This season will see the end of the current CBA, and I think it's going to shape things going forward in MLB.



The last work stoppage was a long time ago, almost 2 generations removed. I believe both sides are willing to risk a work stoppage because I think many of the CBA's since then have been done with neither party being happy about it other than for the sake of not risking another 1994.



We've been hearing about various issues for years, but there are some that I feel are going to be very big, and some of the moving parts outside of the CBA that are going to impact a new one being passed. Here are just a few that I feel are going to be big, and how I see it. Please feel free to comment, agree, disagree, correct information I may not have correct, and add anything you please. Here are my areas that I think will be the biggest issues:



1. Salary cap/floor- I'm seeing it this way. I feel the luxury cap is going to be raised quite high. So most teams will be able to spend pretty freely, and that has to be appealing to the union. I think the tax will be quite punitive though, but if it's something that might rarely happen, I think the union will risk it. As far as a floor, I think it will be agreed upon that certain percentages of revenue sharing must go to players' salaries. This is going to be difficult because of the issues of transparency. But I don't think we are going to see a floor per se, but something that is going to work like one, just like a luxury cap will work as a salary cap.



2. Player control- This is tied to the money IMHO. I think this is going to be very central to the negotiations. It's the lifeblood of every team. Even the richest teams need players they have under control. The arbitration process is going to have to change.  Players don't want a cap, owners don't want a floor. I discussed raising the luxury tax ceiling but making it more punitive. In lieu of a floor and losing controllable time, I think there is going to be an overhaul in the arbitration process. It's one of the most flawed things IMHO in MLB.



How can you justify some players getting a raise simply because they are now eligible for arbitration? How can you justify a player having to basically accept your contract offer because you're pre-arbitration? I know the players want to be free agents ASAP. But I don't think they see the big picture here. For every Bellinger, there are many more Braults. Bellinger was NL MVP in 2019 on a league-minimum contract, then hit it big the next season with the record first-year arbitration raise. What did Brault do to necessitate a raise of almost 1.5 million? Even if he goes to arbitration and loses, he still gets a big boost in pay. Michael Perez is eligible for first-year arbitration. If the Pirates don't cut him, they'll have to exchange numbers with him. Even if he decides to go to arbitration and loses his case, he'll get a hefty pay raise regardless. It's at this end that the players have to make some concessions. Every player should not get an enormous raise. IDK what the solution is. Perhaps tie a bonus structure to guys like Bellinger, who is paid handsomely for his performance in a pre-arbitration year with a bonus, but not have it set his salary. Because once his level is set, it never goes down for the subsequent arbitration years. Even if his performance never reaches that level again. But this I'm certain is going to be a big part of the CBA. I think if you can tie performance and service bonuses to the revenue-sharing money, perhaps the whole arbitration process can be semi-scrapped in lieu of bonus money, and the team still maintains control.



3. Expansion/relocation/realignment- The first process in any of this is going to be MLB deciding who might relocate, and where are we okay with them going? Five teams that I know of are going to be ending their leases within the next 8 years. The Orioles are first, in 2023, but can automatically renew for five years under the current agreement. The A's are 2024, and it's looking all but a lost cause trying to stay in Oakland because of the state. From my understanding, the team and the city are in complete agreement with a plan. Tampa is done in 2027. I don't believe for a moment there will be any Montreal split season stuff with them. The Mayor of Tampa said no way. There doesn't seem to be any progress in a stadium initiative that satisfies all parties in Tampa. The Diamondbacks lease is up in 2028, but they have an agreement that they can leave anytime starting in 2022, and pay a tiered exit fee of basically 5 million a year for each year they leave prior to the end of the lease. They want a new stadium, and they have looked into Las Vegas and Henderson. This could really be interesting between them and Oakland because for all we know, we could see another Baltimore Colts type move in the middle of the night as one team moves before the other. The Pirates lease is up in 2030.



I don't foresee the Orioles and Pirates going anywhere. The Marlins, Mariners, and Rockies were probably poor choices due to their remote locales as MLB franchises, but these island of misfit toys all renewed their leases well into the 2040s. Cleveland just renewed theirs for another 15 years. So I don't foresee much movement, only 2 teams have moved in 50 years, the expansion Senators going to Texas, and Montreal going to Washington. I think MLB is going to put a prod to teams, and already have with the A's, to get something in writing, get something built, and get stabilized. I think that's coming with Tampa and soon Arizona. Until those teams are settled, expansion is going to have to wait. But it won't be too long, because I think a big part of the CBA will be tied with a promise of expansion, which means JOBS. It's a way for owners to garner new revenue while at the same time keeping peace with the union possibly on the cap/floor and controllable years issues. In the end, I think 2 more teams will be proposed to be added by such and such a date. I think it will be done to keep a regional balance and enter new markets.



Once all that happens, the music has stopped playing, and everyone has a seat, they can go about the process of realignment. I think it will also bring about a restructuring of the playoffs, which is another revenue source the teams can use to counter cap and floor issues. I think realignment will occur with the dissolution of the leagues as they merge into one. How can that be done?



4. Universal DH- I think this is one of the surest things that will happen because the players seem to want it and the owners have spun the position to mean extra expense, which in PR speak means, "concession". It's an easy one to start, hand that one right across the table for the players to claim a victory. With there no longer being two sets of rules, the leagues can go the way of AL and NL umpires and league presidents. It's really the only line that blurs any distinction between the leagues now anyhow. This will allow realignment to occur and in most circumstances, make more sense of divisions. It will also tend to clump teams in similar markets.





I think in the end, to be able to reach an agreement, the deal will be paid for from a reworking of the draft, arbitration, and qualifying offer rules now in place, a promise of expansion, and tying the revenue sharing money in part to arbitration increases, as well as free-agent signings.



As far as all that other stuff like ghost runners, banning shifts, 7 inning doubleheaders, etc.  I think that is all secondary and will be done in conjunction with competition committees and such, and won't be stumbling blocks to an overall agreement.



I think there will be the talk of international drafts, increased minor league salaries, and benefits, but I also don't see this as a stumbling block, and like a universal DH is a win for the players, and will be paid for by the lure of increased jobs and playoff revenue, in exchange for controllable years.



I also think a CBA will be ratified that still is going to overly favor the large market teams, and the teams like the Pirates will just have to live with ever-increasing franchise value. I also think that to ratify the CBA, the small market teams will probably see an increase in revenue sharing, as the large markets are going to make it up eventually with more and longer post-season runs. [reason]Highlight each point that Surg considers important[/reason]
Excellent job, it is going to be quite interesting

[Surgnbuck]

55747C557E76110 wrote: Let me comment on point one in this post. 



First, I ask how high will the salary cap go?  Can you see it moving up to $300-$400 million in the coming years?  I definitely agree that the amount of the tax penalty for going over the cap should be very punitive.  I might suggest that each of these items can be indexed to overall revenues including revenue from regional sports networks owned by the clubs. 

As far as a salary floor, where do you start?  Do you start at a low $ amount, say $80 million in year one and then have it increase each year until the lower revenue teams have reached a floor of say $120 million in maybe 3 years.  I think that if the team still is not at the floor going into year 3 some sort of penalty must be paid in the form of a revenue-sharing decrease until the floor is met. 

As for the amount of revenue-sharing money that must be spent on player salaries why not go for 100% to begin with and negotiate to a lower level of say 75%.  Of course, a team that is under the salary floor must spend 100% until they reach the salary floor.
IDK what the luxury threshold is now, but I think there would be a proposal of percentage increases to a specific level that is formulaic with revenues. It may not actually go up one year, I don't think it would ever go down, if a team really was hit hard revenue wise they could just simply trade away some of their problem.



That's actually a luxury higher revenue teams also have. If they have a real bad year, they have ways of making room simply because with so much salary, there's a good chance from year to year someone is coming off the books, or they have someone they can trade that they won't have to pay all of the salary to get rid of. Boston is a good example. The Red Sox had 32.7 million they were paying to other teams for players no longer on their team in 2019 that was coming off the books in 2020. They were able to trade David Price, and pay 16 million of his salary through 2022. With the money coming off the books, they still had another 16 million to play with anyhow.



That's a value that you can't quantify. The revenue difference is one thing, being able to retain the salaries of guys who aren't even playing for you that approach another teams entire payroll is kind of staggering to think about. So the Red Sox spent up to a level, and if they have a down year, they can shed a lot of salary, and find a better player/s to spend it on. They have the luxury Being able to first sign a guy to a contract paying 30 million or more a year is one thing; being able to trade him and still pay half his salary in order to retool is another.



Another advantage is what large market teams can do as far as paying guys into the future. Take a look at Mookie Betts contract. He has salary deferral from 2040-2044 that pays him 11 million a year. The Pirates only had one player at the beginning of this year making that kind of money and actually PLAYING.



So I think it's actually going to get pretty high, but incrementally. Teams have to think about these deferrals at some point I would think, but do you really think the guys who are running the Dodgers now expect to be running it 24 years from now? I also don't know how the deferrals are figured into the luxury tax calculation right now. Are they going by AAV? The stated number? IDK if signing bonus money is figured into the luxury tax. The Dodgers paid Betts a 65 million dollar signing bonus.



They were talking about a salary floor during the playoffs I think on MLB network, and talked about that very exact thing. If you make the floor 100 million, do you force teams to go there immediately? It would have to be phased in.



But no matter what any of us thinks, the first and most important issue of it all is revenue disclosure. I'm guessing the owners don't want to share a specific percentage of the profits, I think they want hard and fast numbers to play with.



So they only way around that is finding what number "sounds good" to the union. I really think that's how it's all going to boil down. I think the union is going to want to know all the numbers coming in. I think they'll be satisfied not knowing if they hear the right numbers.

[GreenWeenie]

I've read so many articles on this that I dnk what to believe.  Every writer, regardless of credentials, has an opinion.  I'm trying to find one that I felt had some good rationale so I can post a link to it.  She says that, based on 2019 numbers, the floor should be set at $120m.  She also gives examples on the effect it would have on smaller revenue rosters.  I'll poke around some more.



Regardless, I have always believed that leopards do change spots.....but, when they do, it takes a very long time to notice.



Added:  Try Googling "Sheryl Ring", "beyondtheboxscore"   i can't post it using my phone.

[WildwoodDave2]

002621343D31263038530 wrote: Let me comment on point one in this post. 



First, I ask how high will the salary cap go?  Can you see it moving up to $300-$400 million in the coming years?  I definitely agree that the amount of the tax penalty for going over the cap should be very punitive.  I might suggest that each of these items can be indexed to overall revenues including revenue from regional sports networks owned by the clubs. 

As far as a salary floor, where do you start?  Do you start at a low $ amount, say $80 million in year one and then have it increase each year until the lower revenue teams have reached a floor of say $120 million in maybe 3 years.  I think that if the team still is not at the floor going into year 3 some sort of penalty must be paid in the form of a revenue-sharing decrease until the floor is met. 

As for the amount of revenue-sharing money that must be spent on player salaries why not go for 100% to begin with and negotiate to a lower level of say 75%.  Of course, a team that is under the salary floor must spend 100% until they reach the salary floor.
IDK what the luxury threshold is now, but I think there would be a proposal of percentage increases to a specific level that is formulaic with revenues. It may not actually go up one year, I don't think it would ever go down, if a team really was hit hard revenue wise they could just simply trade away some of their problem.



That's actually a luxury higher revenue teams also have. If they have a real bad year, they have ways of making room simply because with so much salary, there's a good chance from year to year someone is coming off the books, or they have someone they can trade that they won't have to pay all of the salary to get rid of. Boston is a good example. The Red Sox had 32.7 million they were paying to other teams for players no longer on their team in 2019 that was coming off the books in 2020. They were able to trade David Price, and pay 16 million of his salary through 2022. With the money coming off the books, they still had another 16 million to play with anyhow.



That's a value that you can't quantify. The revenue difference is one thing, being able to retain the salaries of guys who aren't even playing for you that approach another teams entire payroll is kind of staggering to think about. So the Red Sox spent up to a level, and if they have a down year, they can shed a lot of salary, and find a better player/s to spend it on. They have the luxury  Being able to first sign a guy to a contract paying 30 million or more a year is one thing; being able to trade him and still pay half his salary in order to retool is another.



Another advantage is what large market teams can do as far as paying guys into the future. Take a look at Mookie Betts contract. He has salary deferral from 2040-2044 that pays him 11 million a year. The Pirates only had one player at the beginning of this year making that kind of money and actually PLAYING.



So I think it's actually going to get pretty high, but incrementally. Teams have to think about these deferrals at some point I would think, but do you really think the guys who are running the Dodgers now expect to be running it 24 years from now? I also don't know how the deferrals are figured into the luxury tax calculation right now.  Are they going by AAV? The stated number? IDK if signing bonus money is figured into the luxury tax. The Dodgers paid Betts a 65 million dollar signing bonus.



They were talking about a salary floor during the playoffs I think on MLB network, and talked about that very exact thing. If you make the floor 100 million, do you force teams to go there immediately? It would have to be phased in.



But no matter what any of us thinks, the first and most important issue of it all is revenue disclosure. I'm guessing the owners don't want to share a specific percentage of the profits, I think they want hard and fast numbers to play with.



So they only way around that is finding what number "sounds good" to the union. I really think that's how it's all going to boil down. I think the union is going to want to know all the numbers coming in. I think they'll be satisfied not knowing if they hear the right numbers.
From all indications, there should definitely be a work stoppage on Dec.2nd. This will freeze the Free Agent Market

[GreenWeenie]

"Should" and "definitely" rarely mix. Choose one.



Who knows? Even enemies often agree that they'd rather make some money than none at all. They'll probably (not "definitely") reach some agreement. The last thing anyone wants is a work stoppage.