30
2011
Balance Is The Key To The New CBA
An article by 
While details about the new CBA are still coming in, it seems one thing is quite apparent about this new deal. It was an exercise in balancing the inequities in the league.
It starts off by balancing the AL and NL to have the same number of teams. While this does not appear to have much of an effect on team building it does balance one of the inequities inherent in the interleague play that has existed. In the past Interleague scheduling was more based on location and regional rivalry where a team like the Mets had to face the Yankees every year while their competition would or could face lesser teams on their schedule. Now there will be one Interleague game per day and it means more NL teams will have to face the Yankees than just us. How this new scheduling plays out Is yet to be seen, but it does appear to be a step in the right direction as far as interleague is concerned and it does open the possibility to balance it later by adding two expansion teams (one to each league) if it proves to be a problem later on. Then they could go back to targeted interleague matchups if they don’t like what they did.
Where the new CBA seems to do its best balancing act though is in regards to spending. For a few years now the league has limited what the big Free Agent spenders could spend via the Luxury tax that is imposed when you go over a certain spending threshold. The inequity here was that teams that were willing to pay to win would help subsidize teams that were not willing to spend to win. Most of the tax money that was distributed would usually be pocketed by the subsidized teams instead of re-invested. A team like KC or Tampa Bay probably had 10-25% (maybe more!) of their payroll paid for by their share of the luxury tax. The MLBPA has always had an issue with this system not because it limited the salaries that a free agent could get (it did not do that) but because the teams who got the money refused to spend that money on other free agents.
This leads us to FA Compensation and slotting.
These non-spending teams would instead stick to their draft first approach and use that money to go over slot to select a player who would one day net them two more draft compensation picks – hopefully. All while keeping their payroll artificially low. Usually, they may trade these players during their arbitration years and get even more in trade value while maybe lucking out with 2-3 solid competitive seasons.
The changes to the compensatory process will help curtail the practice of letting good players go to collect more cheap draft picks. These NON-SPENDERS will no longer be able to fill their roster with a constant flow of more than normal picks and be forced to enter into Free Agency and spend to fill their roster.
The MLBPA will gain the most here because for one, Free Agents won’t have their offers artificially lowered to compensate for draft losses and two, teams who previously stayed away from free agency and opted to preserve or accumulate picks, will now need to spend.
The Current CBA seems to balance out those who spend in Free Agency and those who spend in the draft and International market.
Draft Slotting was an unenforceable attempt at limiting how much Rookies would get to sign. Most teams did not comply. The Yankees would spend more on Draft picks just as they would spend more on Free Agents. So it never stopped them, and teams who were not big players in free agency and were draft focused gladly went over slot.
What the new CBA does is remove the ability to pay rookies a large bonus so that these players can no longer hold up a team for ransom. I personally don’t think it goes far enough or will work, but it is a decent start. Those first rounder’s will still demand above the slotting guidelines and the end result will be lower draft picks will pay the price for that in what they get as a bonus. The new Tax on rookie signings only applies to the first eleven rounds. What we may see is that the early picks get the same high bonuses, but teams will be unable to sign kids from rounds 6-10.
What it does successfully accomplish though, is balance the process for those who are in the middle of the pack.
The “Have’s” always had the ability to spend and the “Have not’s” could because they didn’t spend anywhere else. Neither side had anything to lose by paying more. It was those teams in the middle who were willing to pay free agents and draft in combination that were hurt the most by the over slotting.
Over slot has always affected the middle round drafters more than the top and bottom round drafters. The guys at the top were worth paying more for and the players selected at the bottom had little leverage.
The top round pickers were usually bad teams, were getting the best players, and had a vested interest in paying more. The bottom rounder’s who were winning teams already, could easily pay over slot whenever they wanted to
The middle round picker’s now will have a built-in excuse to tell their picks, “sorry, we can’t give you more than slot because we need to sign all our picks.” We will see how well that actually works for them.
What is significant though is that many teams will not go too far over slot because of the New Tax plus the possibility that they could lose future picks as well. As many as two consecutive first rounder’s could be forfeited which will certainly curtail the bottom feeders a lot more than the spenders.
A better change to the draft rules might have been to penalize a player who refused to sign by having him sit out “X” number of years before they could re-enter the draft. Once they did re-enter the draft, a comparable pick would then be given to the team that originally drafted him as compensation the following year. This would force these rookies to say “hey if I want to play in the MLB I had better take what I can get or look for some other job”.
Some have pointed out that this new CBA will discourage some athletes from choosing baseball over other sports. I don’t buy this argument at all. The average career in football is 4-5 years. Baseball is usually 10 years or more especially if you’re an above average player. I don’t see anyone choosing football over baseball considering that only the top 5% of football players actually make the big bucks under their league’s salary cap limitations. Not to mention the the added bonus that in baseball you will still have the ability to walk when your 60 years old as opposed to needing a cane by the time your 40.
It is important to note that the biggest complaints about the current CBA comes from both ends of the spending spectrum. The low spenders complain it will hurt competitive balance and the big spenders complain that they will now have another TAX to deal with that makes successful/profitable teams subsidize those who refuse to spend even WITH their collected tax dollars going to them.
You know what that says to me?
This CBA is pretty damn good, And VERY good for BOTH SIDES and baseball in general…
It would appear to shift the balance of spending big or not spending at all, to the middle where it should be.
Free Agents will not be allowed to leave as easily as they have been due to less of a return in picks and you’ll see lower market teams finding ways to keep their stars. It also limits the ability of spenders to take the non spenders or middle spenders out of the IFA market as spending in those areas are also limited, taxed and compensated. It will stop teams from playing market inequities and put them more on a level playing field.
Players will make more, reasonable spending teams will save money in more areas and the draft picks will not be an exercise of shooting craps hoping the kid you picked will sign with you. Non spenders will have to spend more to fill their roster and large spenders will not be able to cut everyone else out of the valuable IFA market or drive up the price on draft bonuses the way they have in the past.
What it does is put more focus on good evaluation over money. You will no longer be able to cheap your way or spend your way to success. And that can only be a good thing.
Does the new CBA go far enough towards this goal? Perhaps not but the fact that the two spending extremists seem the most unhappy about it says to me it is a step in the right direction.
Now I personally don’t like some parts of this new CBA, expanded playoffs being chief among them. But as far as fixing the financial inequities that have been exhibited in the league I think it does a pretty good job in trying to create spending parity as opposed to what we have seen.
Small market teams will complain they have to spend more but maybe they will also see that spending more will draw more fans into the stands. Maybe some are not as small a market as their spending and current attendance would suggest.
Large Market teams will be limited further in how they can throw money around and cherry picking the league’s top stars.
And it finally takes some of the power away from rookies that should be going to players who have worked hard to get to the MLB only to be discarded in favor of some kid who hasn’t proved himself yet.
It will be more about WHO you spent it on, not how much you spent. Evaluation over Valuation will be the order of the day.
The only ones who will be hurt the most are the players who were using HGH to make themselves better, and the teams whose entire plan was based on rebuilding using the inequity of not spending in the name of collecting multiple draft picks.
Sorry Sandy, it looks like you’re going to have to go back to the drawing board.
This Fan Shot was submitted by Mike (Metsie). Have something you want to say about the Mets? Share your opinions with over eleven-thousand Mets fans who read this site daily. Send your Fan Shot to GetMetsmerized@aol.com.
About the Author: Fan Shot
To share your opinions with over 11,000 different readers each day, simply email us at GetMetsmerized@aol.com. Thanks for supporting MMO, the #1 Mets Fan Site on the web. Lets Go Mets!
24 Comments + Add Comment
NL East Standings
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braves | 26 | 17 | .605 | - |
| Nationals | 25 | 17 | .595 | 0.5 |
| Marlins | 23 | 19 | .548 | 2.5 |
| Mets | 22 | 20 | .524 | 3.5 |
| Phillies | 21 | 22 | .488 | 5.0 |
Last updated: 05/22/2012
Recent Comments
- Russell Zanca: on Arr, Dickey Stifles The Pirates In A Swashbucklin’ 3-2 Victory Over The Pirates: Apparently, TC and Warthen discussed removing R.A....
- Nathan: on On The Road With Petey Pete: Wet & Soggy In New Britain: I am seriously jealous. Work has always...
- Nathan: on 2012 MLB Draft: OF David Dahl, SS Carlos Correa, C Stryker Trahan: I love draft time. It's like the...
- Joey D.: on Morning Grind: We Sure Could Use Someone Like Angel Pagan In Centerfield Right Now: Fonzi, Forgot to add to my assessment that...
- Joey D.: on Morning Grind: We Sure Could Use Someone Like Angel Pagan In Centerfield Right Now: Hi Fonzie, Oh, I agree that anyone who...
MMO Live Chat
Write Your Own Mets Post
Major flaws in your premise is the assumption that only the top 10 players or so turned into premium major leaguers and that only small market teams played the draft and IFA game.
Since 2008, the top 5 spenders on IFAs were (courtesy http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5526:lwib-reactions-to-mlbs-new-cba-plus-tidbits&catid=67:pete-toms&Itemid=155)
1) The Reds
2) the Rangers
3) the Mariners
4) the Red Sox
5) the Blue Jays
Not exactly a who’s who of small market teams
Draft wise, the list doesn’t look very different, but I think the Pirates are in there instead of the Blue Jays. Unfortunately, the link MisterNorthJersey posted to his work is not working right now.
Not to mention Gene Michael (Yankees), Dan Duquette (Red Sox) and Pat Gillick (Phillies) all spent time using the draft and IFA to build their farms.
“The Current CBA seems to balance out those who spend in Free Agency and those who spend in the draft and International market.”
No, it puts the teams that can shell out $15 million a year for guys like AJ Burnette and still keep spending at an even greater advantage. It makes it that much easier to buy a championship.
And the Luxury tax argument doesn’t hold water. It simply doesn’t deter big spenders. They just add it to the cost of doing business and selling more jerseys.
Where did that article say anything about the small market spender being big in IFA?
Where did it say the Big Spenders were not overslotting when they wanted the guy?
It does NOT allow spenders to spend people out of the market without incurring a tax by giving big bonus’ to draftees or by spending too much on IFA and keeps the Luxury Tax on FA signings?
Did you read the article at all or did you just guess on what was said after the first sentence and then make up stuff from thin air and label it fact like you usually do?
None of your points that you argued against were actually made in the piece!
And none of your conclusions about the new CBA are true!
It stops folks from spending on BOTH sides of the spectrum!
Stops the Big Spenders from spending in the draft, IFA and FA.!
Stops the Low Spenders from spending overslot to retain their top picks which they presume to be worth a lot to them later on either AS a player or via trade.
I noticed you didn’t note which picks are the most common guys who GET over slotted!
By your response I suppose it’s the 2nd and 3rd rounder who ask for more not the top 20 in the 1st.
I get it better than you do, which is sad. I mentioned IFAs because they are falling under the same umbrella.
Question, if a luxury tax didn’t work before, why do you think it would work now? Because it is more? The biggest spenders on the market are also the largest revenue draws (the Yankees).
The reality is, the big free agent spenders don’t care. At all. They’ll pay the luxury tax. All these new rules do is punish teams that invest more in amateurs. It completely pushes the advantage back to the free agent spenders.
If you want to make it all equal, make repeat luxury tax offenders lose a roster spot.
Luxury Tax did work before…Show proof it didn’t!
There was no Luxury Tax on Draft picks before!
And IFA have never been taxed either!
Now they are!
Which means that Teams who pick higher will run up to their bonus allotment quicker than someone who lets say picks last in the round.
So all you BUILD VIA THE DRAFT guys are now going to have a MUCH harder time!
You still only get so much Bonus to give out even if it means you get extra compensation picks.
And you won’t get AS many compensation picks as you used to!
How do they fill the holes then?
They have to spend in FA something they don’t do now!
No you have to show proof it did. We’ve gone through that.
and there is this team called the Yankees…
“There was no Luxury Tax on Draft picks before!
And IFA have never been taxed either!
Now they are!
Which means that Teams who pick higher will run up to their bonus allotment quicker than someone who lets say picks last in the round.”
Um, no, teams that invest in their picks will run up their allotment. Not every team has the same allotment. Teams higher in the order have more money, but teams at the top aren’t necessarily the ones who spend the most. Or are you telling me the Red Sox and Rangers are 2 of the worst teams in baseball every year?
“So all you BUILD VIA THE DRAFT guys are now going to have a MUCH harder time!
You still only get so much Bonus to give out even if it means you get extra compensation picks.
And you won’t get AS many compensation picks as you used to!
How do they fill the holes then?
They have to spend in FA something they don’t do now!”
Ya, you Yankee fans must be thrilled about that.
I think you’re both barking up the wrong tree. Metsie, the luxury tax didn’t work. But, Donal, it was never designed to. Let’s be honest here. It was dubbed the “competitive balance tax,” but what exatly was it balancing? In its first year in 2003, the threshold was $117 million. In 2002, only the Yankees had a payroll of even $110 million. In 2001, no one had a $110 million payroll. In 2000, only the Yankees eclipsed $100 million. Who was it deterring? I’m not stating this as any sort of Yankee apologist, because detracters of the tax simply call it the “Yanmkee tax.” I’m simply trying to point out the fact that the threshold is entirely too high to do the job it was designed to do.
In 2011, only eight teams had a payroll higher than that initial threshold. Cut it down to six teams using the 2004 threshold. Now that’s what I would consider more of a “deterrent.” If 20-25% of the teams suffer the conssequences, maybe then the competition would have been balanced. No more then three teams have ever had to pay the luxury tax in a single season, and that was back in 2004.
Think about the fact that eight of ten highest annual salaries in baseball history (exception A-Rod’s Texas deal and Manny’s Boston deal) were signed after the tax was instituted. It doesn”t seem like anyone’s scared of it at all.
The tax might have worked if it was administered properly, but it wasn’t, so it’s not doing the job it was designed to do.
Extreme it worked just fine. If it hadn’t the Yankees would have spent 300m By now!
They have not gone much past 200Mil for years now!
The Luxury tax is why!
Most teams have not gone past it unless they knew it was a temporary situation worth doing because it meant they could play for a playoff and it was worth paying the tax.
SO you can’t say it didn’t work you could say (which you sort of did) that it didn’t make it as prohibitive to spend 200 Mil as it could have but without it I guarantee the Yankees would have spent what they paid in Tax on Players just as quickly!
PROOF only three teams have ever paid the Luxury Tax!
If it hadn’t worked there would have been many more!
And again you miss the point!
The Big Spenders were ALWAYS at a disadvantage under the old system, Get Taxed for signing AND lose Comp picks!
Now they lose fewer picks, get taxed the same as theydid before only now they can’t spend on IFA and draft picks as well SO they lose their free ride on kids.
The non Spenders had it great get comps for letting kids go and could spend whatever they wanted in Overslot because they were no where near the Tax threshold…
UNTIL NOW!
Now they lose tax on overslot AND draft picks!
Which means no more overslot for draft centric teams and fewer comp picks to feed off of.
The ONLY ones not hurt by the new CBA and maybe even helped were the middle spenders!
Which is EXACTLY what the pices says if you had bothered to read and comprehend it!
And if you read my response, you’ll notice I point out the false assumption of assuming the middle picks don’t spend. Or that all the best players are gone at the beginning of the first round. It doesn’t work that way.
Now, it does. If you stink you’ll get all the good picks and they’ll have to sign. You also have no incentive to improve, since those kids will be arb eligible faster. And, if you do win, yoi get lousy picks and can’t replenish as easily. Just draft a couple noticable players, let them go, sit back and enjoy the moronic revenue sharing system they refuse to make any meaningful changes to.
If you are a big spender that doesn’t care about the draft, nothing changes. You spend more money, big deal.
The ones getting hurt are second tier and lower IFAs and teams that do the work scouting.
Dude I read your response and it really had NOTHING to do with anythiong I said!
Absoloutly NOTHING but a bnch of bull you made up Assuming I said something about it because you ddn’t read it, Just saw the bit about Sandy needing to go back to the drawing board and then going into SLASHER defense mode!
Now go and quote the parts what the middle picker spent, or how picking in the top is the only place good players are picked please and if you can’t then please go ply your trade of bull someplace else or write your own post and submit as opposed to crapping up my comment section with bullshit that was never said or discussed in the first place!
I really am sick and tired of dealing with your immature, childish nonsense responses to what everyone else writes , What you THINK they said, or what you wished they HAD said to make your point relevant and worth posting!
You are an idiot and saying that is probably isulting to idiots!
You a waste of posting bandwidth Donal!
REALLY!
who wrote this fan post?
Well it obviously wasn’t Donal! LOL
i don’t understand, it’s completely anonymous! That’s not fair. I’m not gonna respond to a completely anonymous post – especially one that’s a blog post!
Well Bayonne first off it really shouldn’t matter who wrote it if the intention is to comment on what they said!
I wrote this piece and did not care one bit about getting credit for it.
But I did think it might be interesting to see who replied and what tone they took without personal bias entering into it…
Cats out of the bag now!
oh i’m sorry about that now i feel bad
Don’t feel bad dude but to be honest you really should comment on WHAT is said more than Who said it.
Shouldn’t make a difference really who said it and comment on what they actually did say.
I apologize guys for forgetting to include who wrote the fan shot, especially to you Mike. I posted it from my blackberry which was my first mistake. It’s corrected now.
No need to apologize to me Joe,
I was very curious to see what people would say about what I said without bringing their past with me into it.
Sort of a Social Experiment!
LOL
Maybe we try that later!
Thanks Metsie. I enjoyed reading it. Your facts and insights are helpful.
Thanks Des.
“A better change to the draft rules might have been to penalize a player who refused to sign by having him sit out “X” number of years before they could re-enter the draft. Once they did re-enter the draft, a comparable pick would then be given to the team that originally drafted him as compensation the following year. This would force these rookies to say “hey if I want to play in the MLB I had better take what I can get or look for some other job”.
I actually agree with this.As far as the rest of this article,I really can’t say if it’s a good or bad article sice I haven’t yet read the full details of the new CBA but I don’t like your suggestion of adding 2 more teams to even out the leagues.While it makes more sense to have an even amount of teams in each league,the last thing MLB needs is 2 more teams.Pitching in MLB is watered down as it is since the addition of the Marlins and Rockies in 93 and D-Backs and Rays in 98.Adding 2 more would add 24 more pitchers to the majors that don’t belong and we could see another offensive outburst.If anything I would like to see contraction.Cities that don’t support their teams should not have a team.That’s just imo.
Hey Joe,
First let me clarify I wasn’t suggesting they should add two more teams, only that they could (and they will at some point becuase they are greedy) now that they have balanced the leagues to have equal number of teams.
The move of Houston sets them up for future expansion as now they can add two teams without one league saying “Hey No Fair!”
I don’t want them to or believe it would be good to expand but I do think it is inevitable! Too much money for them to make to not do it.
As for the details, I didn’t go too far into the details since the details have not been released.
But based on what we know now it does seem safe to say that teams who in the past have not spent money in FA and would settle for hoarding draft picks has been targeted under this new CBA, They will get fewer picks for letting folks go, Will be limited by how much they spend in the draft and IFA (which is where the Don’t Spenders spend the majority of their money now) and are now being limited on how many CHEAP KIDS they can acquire in any given season.
That is going to force them into the FA market to a degree (Which the players really want) and the Middle spenders will be able to sign some bigger names to FA without it costing them so dearly in picks.
The piece is basically about how the middle spenders are the only ones who truly gained by this new CBA!