But that just means everyone's going to want to draft college players instead of high school players. I think the age limit is a smart compromise - 6 years or X age, whichever comes first.
Any system that the "years" only start to add up when the player joins the MLB club is going to lead to manipulation, maybe not with the college drafted kids, but it will with the high school drafted kids
Always thought the same thing. You could go 8 years for HS players and 6 for College players. Would massively change the dynamics of baseball. Could be 10 for international, but personally I'd rather see them signed at 18 rather than 16, though I realize international players would not be happy with that.
Also, i'm not saying there is no merit to what you are saying here, but I don't think it would be as much as you think Look at the top of the 2012 draft (Correa's Draft) Six players stand out pretty quickly Correa, Buxton, Gausman, Fried, Seager, Stroman Correa, Gausman, Seager and Stroman all reached free agency this year. Gausman and Stroman were College kids, Correa and Seager HS kids Fried and Buxton are both HS draftees who were manipulated into an extra year If there was a 9 years from entering the organization rule, all 6 would have become free agents this year Now I do see how it would get some kids to sign when they are drafted out of high school so they could reach FA sooner. If that is an issue then tie that to years of college. Organization controls you for 9 years minus a year for every year of college completed They really need to get away from teams being able to manipulate years by leaving players who are ready in the minors
Yea it could be a combination of years or age, but the years need to start being counted when they sign, not when the club pulls them up
I think it's just really different at the top of the draft that lower down. Those lower level high school players can toil in the minors for many years before developing enough to be called up - there'd be much less incentive for MLB teams to draft those "project" guys vs more mediocre guys who might have a lower ceiling but get to the majors more quickly. That said, I think your "years minus college years" or something could be a workable idea.
I think owners would accept it in a heart beat provided the percentage matches historical norms. Long term, labor stoppages would likely be shorter (i.e., more money for both sides) as labor disputes wouldn't be about total money, but how different types of players are paid, and how different teams share revenue. On revenues, I've seen estimates in the past on both total revenue and total payroll. I've seen articles back in ~2019 that basically stated that % of revenue had basically stayed with 53-57% (low end may be 51) of what is called baseball revenue for about 15-20 years with both MLB and MLBPA agreeing to this, but MLBPA was upset about their percent decreasing. From this, I inferred that the percent was likely close to 53% at that time, but also that the owners likely hide some revenue (e.g., signing low regional deals with networks they own so networks make non-baseball revenue profits). Though, the players also want anything the owners do to be called baseball revenue.
Yea that last part is why the owners will NEVER agree to this. They want no part of any system that will force them to open their books
[…] Turns out none of those experiments are coming to a bargaining table near Players Association executive director Tony Clark anytime soon. On Thursday morning, the commissioner, Rob Manfred, revealed that himself. He sat at a podium in Texas and acknowledged that despite months of bargaining, Major League Baseball still has not made “any specific rule-change proposals” to the players. In fact, he intimated at his first post-lockout press conference, MLB doesn’t intend to get around to that part of the discussion at all during these negotiations. Wait. What? “Frankly,” the commissioner said, “based on the discussions at the table, we saw it as another contentious issue and tried to put it to one side in an effort to get to an agreement – on the theory that we could deal with it mid-term of the next agreement.” It was just a quick answer that went zipping by after he’d already answered 16 other, seemingly more momentous questions. It generated almost no buzz on social media or in the room, best we could tell. Then it was back to the usual topics of process, timing, bridging gaps and making deals. But hold on. This was actually a major revelation — and one that could have an enormous impact on both Manfred’s sport and the fate of these negotiations. Why is that? Let’s explain. What the players want Do the players want a pitch clock, robot umps or the Double Hook? Sorry. Too soon to answer that yet. Besides, we should always be wary of saying “the players” as a group want anything when it comes to tweaking any rule, for two reasons: (1) There are more than 1,000 players out there, stuck in lockout limbo! (2) Remember, roughly half of those players are hitters and half are pitchers. So there’s an excellent chance they’ll be split down the middle on practically everything. But that caveat aside, you know what the players do want? They want to talk about all of these potential changes. And they don’t just want to talk about them at the bar or in the weight room. They want to talk about them at the bargaining table. And they don’t just want to do that some other time, after all these pesky “core economic issues” get resolved. They want to talk about rule changes and on-field issues as part of these negotiations, toward this labor deal. No one at the union has spoken those words into a microphone for all of us to hear, naturally. But we’ve heard that repeatedly from players and those on the players’ side. So why would the players be pushing to include rule-change talk as part of the larger negotiations? Because clearly, they believe all these dots are connected. Robot umps, for example, affect the earning power of catchers with elite pitch-framing skills. Other changes could affect how certain players are used or whether they have a role in the big leagues at all. And there’s one other apparent reason: It would seem to give them more chips to play in this big World Series of Labor Poker. How ’bout we trade you a pitch clock for that arbitration-eligibility thing we’ve been talking up? So no wonder the players would prefer everything to be scattered all over one giant negotiating table. It’s called leverage. What MLB wants In some ways, it seems all mixed up to have players asking to talk about these issues while MLB is on the side saying, “Nah. We’re good.” But that can happen when a labor fight starts raging. Once again, it’s called leverage. Let’s rerun Manfred’s words from Thursday’s media session: “Another contentious issue.” All right, does anybody mind if we translate for him? Obviously, owners see rule-change proposals — any or all of them — as issues the union appears virtually certain to reject unless there’s something else in it for them. So why go there — at least for the time being? MLB’s position, according to sources versed in these talks, is that rule changes have always been a separate negotiation throughout history. So there’s no need (and no precedent) to put them in play now, when the two sides are already occupying two vastly different solar systems in the economic ring of the Lockout Land Circus. Why, they believe, introduce another contentious issue? Unless … They could form a committee According to multiple sources, here is where the rule-change discussions careened off the tracks: Weeks ago, after the minor leagues wrapped up their seasons, MLB made a presentation to the union detailing how all the various minor-league rule experiments went. (Spoiler alert: Pencil in the 15-second pitch clock at the top of your next rule-change power rankings!) Following that presentation, MLB laid out one more idea: Let’s form a committee — made up of half players, half MLB representatives — to discuss this further. That way, MLB told the union, everyone on both sides would have a better feel for what players like, what they don’t like and how they could work through potential obstacles together. That wasn’t the union viewed this, though. So the response, from all accounts, went like this: No thanks. Don’t need a committee. Don’t want to limit the conversation to just a handful of players and a handful of execs. For years now, this union has invited large groups of players to be part of these negotiations. It had no interest in changing that policy. So feel free to make a proposal, the union told MLB. But as Manfred said Thursday, no proposal was ever made — and one won’t be coming anytime soon, unless something changes. […]
So if this is a fair summary, it seems to point out the players have little to no leverage. They want more money from the owners. But there is nothing they can give up in exchange that the owners care about. The owners can sit on the sidelines as long as they want. Having no baseball hurts the players much more than the owners, as the vast majority have a very short career and timeframe to generate earnings. I just don't see this ending well for the players.
I feel that this sentiment is always the case in labor disputes... however there is a decent pocket of owners that need baseball games, and fans in the stands. Some are controlling partners but may still own just a percentage of the team, thus there will be pressure from minority owners and investors to get things resolved. Lastly, the real money (TV deals) are contingent on these games happening... and a lot of yearly operating revenue (and profits) is tied to this. In the end, owners got into this business electively. They will all have golden parachutes when they decide to sell the teams. However they last thing they want is a depreciating asset/product and they do have more responsibilities other than simply the players. They have staff, investors, partners, advertisers, in some cases the city/county they pay rent to, etc.
https://theathletic.com/3018871/202...nlikely-to-talk-core-economics-until-january/ It’s been a long December in the baseball world, and there’s no reason to believe that’s about to change. Major League Baseball and the Players Association are unlikely to talk core economics until January, people with knowledge of the talks said. The parties have had some communication since the owners started the lockout Dec. 2, and a small in-person meeting is planned for Thursday to discuss areas outside of core economics. There are more than 30 subjects in collective bargaining, and not all of them are as contentious as matters like the competitive balance tax or how many years it takes players to get to arbitration. But communication on the big-dollar issues remains on hold. And the explanation for why would depend on whom you ask. A union source said Wednesday that since the sides met in Texas in the days leading up to the lockout, the union hasn’t heard from the league on any key economic issues. Now, the union hasn’t reached out on those issues either. But the MLBPA’s lead negotiator, Bruce Meyer, made clear when the lockout started the union felt it was incumbent on MLB to issue the next counterproposal. “We’ve attempted to follow the usual process making proposals,” Meyer said Dec. 2. “We made a major proposal in Dallas this week, which in our view, gave the league significant economic benefits. The league chose not to make a counter. But we stand ready, as Tony (Clark) said, to continue negotiating.” Commissioner Rob Manfred said in Texas that the league did make a proposal, one “that if it had been accepted, I believe would have provided a pretty clear path to make an agreement.” But the union was adamant that was not the case, with Meyer calling it “a proposal to make a proposal, if we would in advance agree to drop a number of key demands.” Whenever the core economics talks do resume, then, it’s unclear which side will actually wind up making the first set of new proposals. But why aren’t the sides locked in a room now, trying to hammer out a deal almost every day this month? People with knowledge of the process said the sides would likely be saying the same things to each other over and over. There’s little compelling them to change their positions at this point (save for the damage of having a sport that’s frozen, but the owners were, clearly, willing to take on that risk). The calendar, and specifically, the approach of spring training in early February, will create leverage for both sides. But that means that in January a lot of work will need to be completed in about a month’s time, or less, if spring training is to start on time.
I have been thinking of the Correa situation. Many FANS and I'm sure some teams, especially those in mid country non destination cities, have been heartbroken by losing favorite players when they hit free agency. Players want more and earlier control over where they play. They also want younger players to have more earning power earlier in their career. Teams want to hold on to their players longer and delay free agency. Fans want to keep their favorite players with their favorite teams. It would take a monumental concession for the players to give up any free agency But what if players got RESTRICTED free agency sooner? Would they go for it? 1) after 5 years of service time, a player is a restricted free agent. If another team offers a contract of 2 or more years, the original team has the option to match the AAV for a 2 year deal. 2) if the original team matches the deal, the player is considered under contract ( just like accepting qualifying offer) for seasons 6 and 7 then a free agent after year 7. 3) If the original team does not match the offer then the player is free to accept the offer. It will appeal to players because they have a chance to make more money, sooner. It will appeal to teams because they have a chance to keep players 1 additional year. If a player is given a good offer, the chances are 2 years at that AAV will be a value. Let's look at Correa. Actual he got: 2018: $1 mil 2019: $5 mil 1st year arb. 2020: $8 mil 2nd year arb. 2021: $11.7 mil final year arb. career earnings: about $32 mil through 2021 2022 free agent. Now let's say he got a 10 yr/$335 mil offer during restricted FA after yr 5 in 2022 2021: $32.5 mil Astros keep him career earnings about $53 mil thru 2021. 2022: $32.5 mil 2023: free agent If the Astros decline, he gets the 10 yr/$325 mil contract after only 5 years in MLB instead of 6. Of course extensions can still be negotiated during the years leading up to free agency during years 6 and 7 also.
Teams don't keep their players because other teams offer them more. If restricted free agency hit in your scenario, guys like Correa would get crazy AAVs instead of years if the incumbent team only has to match AAV for 2 years.
That would be true in a free market economy. When the minimum wage is greater than the value produced by a worker it does not matter how many of them are competing for the job.
Sure - but in either case, an influx of new workers doesn't drive up costs and destroy small businesses, which was the claim I was responding to.
