New CBA thread

[mul21]

A guy on Twitter already found a solid loophole and Callis thinks it's interesting. Don't sign your 1st rounder, spend more money on your other picks and then receive the extra 1st the following year, plus a larger budget to work with as well.

I saw that as well, this would be particularly effective when a draft class is weak at the top. Just don't sign the top pick, use that money to get guys that might slip due to signability and get another first rounder next year when the draft class is possibly stronger.

 

Since we've all come up with this scenario already, I wonder if there isn't some language in there that reduces your "pool" if you don't sign a pick/several picks.

[Guest]

Given the increased slot at the top of the draft, I'm not sure Mauer bolts for football.

 

However,

 

Within our own system, Samardzija and Szczur would have tried the NFL.

[jersey cubs fan]

Given the increased slot at the top of the draft, I'm not sure Mauer bolts for football.

 

However,

 

Within our own system, Samardzija and Szczur would have tried the NFL.

 

Maybe this was discussed earlier, but with regards to Samardzija, he signed a small contract when signed, and didn't sign his "stay away from football" contract until a year later. Once a guy is already in the system there shouldn't be much from a team paying him more to give up a 2nd sport.

 

 

I also don't think I really buy all the talk about guys giving up baseball in general. The vast majority of players are still going to get the same or similar money to what they used to get. Anybody who could possibily make big money in basketball is already going toward basketball. Baseball still has the largest pool of available positions to fill, potentially the longest career arc of any sport and definitely as high of an upside as any sport in terms of annual earnings.

 

This will hurt in places like Brazil, where they were still on the ground floor, but again, people aren't necessarily looking for Lebrons out there, just a large pool of cheap talent.

[Guest]

I wonder if you're right in the S&S deals being things that wouldn't be prevented under this CBA. "Sign with us for this year at $100K. If you like baseball, we'll work out a secondary deal to keep you here."

 

I'm not sure what there is in the new CBA to prevent that from happening.

[jersey cubs fan]

I wonder if you're right in the S&S deals being things that wouldn't be prevented under this CBA. "Sign with us for this year at $100K. If you like baseball, we'll work out a secondary deal to keep you here."

 

I'm not sure what there is in the new CBA to prevent that from happening.

 

I'm not sure if there is something to curtail it, but I'm not sure what it could be other than not allowing teams to sign guys who are already in their system, which seems crazy.

[SouthSideRyan]

I wonder if you're right in the S&S deals being things that wouldn't be prevented under this CBA. "Sign with us for this year at $100K. If you like baseball, we'll work out a secondary deal to keep you here."

 

I'm not sure what there is in the new CBA to prevent that from happening.

 

I'm not sure if there is something to curtail it, but I'm not sure what it could be other than not allowing teams to sign guys who are already in their system, which seems crazy.

 

So does the IFA cap with the ability to trade parts of your cap to other teams.

[jersey cubs fan]

I wonder if you're right in the S&S deals being things that wouldn't be prevented under this CBA. "Sign with us for this year at $100K. If you like baseball, we'll work out a secondary deal to keep you here."

 

I'm not sure what there is in the new CBA to prevent that from happening.

 

I'm not sure if there is something to curtail it, but I'm not sure what it could be other than not allowing teams to sign guys who are already in their system, which seems crazy.

 

So does the IFA cap with the ability to trade parts of your cap to other teams.

 

I think being able to trade part of your cap makes more sense than having one, and a lot more sense than not allowing you to resign your own players.

[Bote McBoteface]

I'm sad that with all these changes, they didn't add the ability to trade draft picks.

[Jake]

I love this! This is great!

 

We can't compete for free agents because we don't have the money. So, instead, we overspend on the draft.

 

Now, we can't do that anymore!

 

A good summary:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_768718.html

[davearm2]

Dave Cameron on FanGraphs Audio said it best...if this had been in place during the 2001 draft, Mauer is the starting quarterback for FSU. That for me, more than anything, is why this CBA is bad for baseball.

??? Why?

 

Mauer got a $5.15M signing bonus. The projected cap for the top pick is $7.2M.

[BeerHere]

I'm sad that with all these changes, they didn't add the ability to trade draft picks.

That is a good point but with the new CBA, the spending "caps" discourage a team from spending so a team with multiple picks would really have to curtail their spending later in the draft. I really don't like the new system.

[davell]

I'm sad that with all these changes, they didn't add the ability to trade draft picks.

Actually, I think teams that win the 10 lottery picks have the ability to trade them. But, I think there's something to the effect that teams acquiring them only receive 50% of the added value to their draft allotment. Something like that anyway.

[davell]

Figure this is as good of a place as any to put this, but today's the arb deadline for Type A and B FA's. Will we offer arbitration to Ramirez, Pena, and Wood? I'm figuring we do to Aramis, since he's going to be getting a 3 or 4 year deal somewhere and he's closed the book on us, so it's safe on him. Wood? No idea honestly, because I kind of expect a 2 year deal to be announced soon on him. But I guess we'll offer arb anyway. The question mark is Pena? Do we take a chance and offer it? Personally, I'm worried he'll accept and leave us with a guy we don't want back. I guess a team MAY would give him a 2 year deal, but I don't think that's a guarantee. It'd be nice to get another pick, but I won't be surprised if we stay away from offering him either.

[Guest]

I love this! This is great!

 

We can't compete for free agents because we don't have the money. So, instead, we overspend on the draft.

 

Now, we can't do that anymore!

 

A good summary:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_768718.html

yeah, I'm not sure why small market owners were behind this. At all.

 

We're complaining because in the short term we wanted to spend and replenish the farm. but in the long term, this benefits the big market teams.

[Guest]

Figure this is as good of a place as any to put this, but today's the arb deadline for Type A and B FA's. Will we offer arbitration to Ramirez, Pena, and Wood? I'm figuring we do to Aramis, since he's going to be getting a 3 or 4 year deal somewhere and he's closed the book on us, so it's safe on him. Wood? No idea honestly, because I kind of expect a 2 year deal to be announced soon on him. But I guess we'll offer arb anyway. The question mark is Pena? Do we take a chance and offer it? Personally, I'm worried he'll accept and leave us with a guy we don't want back. I guess a team MAY would give him a 2 year deal, but I don't think that's a guarantee. It'd be nice to get another pick, but I won't be surprised if we stay away from offering him either.

I guess it depends on what mgmt intends to pursue. If we sign Prince, it's pretty safe to offer the arb to Pena. He'd see he wouldn't get playing time and would go elsewhere. If they're planning to go budget at 1B, it would be a bit crazy to offer arb unless they feel Pena has a multi-year market out there.

[UK1679666180]

I love this! This is great!

 

We can't compete for free agents because we don't have the money. So, instead, we overspend on the draft.

 

Now, we can't do that anymore!

 

A good summary:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_768718.html

yeah, I'm not sure why small market owners were behind this. At all.

 

We're complaining because in the short term we wanted to spend and replenish the farm. but in the long term, this benefits the big market teams.

 

They save money. It might be marginal and hurt those that build from within (Tampa) but they weren't saving money at the expense of the MLBPA.

[BeerHere]

Didn't see this discussed, according to Rogers, some picks can be traded

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-your-morning-phil-theo-scott-bud-20111123,0,6178570.story

 

That should give teams room to maneuver as they learn how to work a system in which the lowest revenue teams will receive extra picks that, interestingly, will become the first ever than can be traded for already signed players.

[Guest]

That Rogers piece also talks about how Theo/front office feels about this.

 

Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus said on Chicago Tribune Live that Epstein “pretty much invented’’ the concept of paying over slot to get the most talent. He didn’t talk about it, but Epstein also took maximum advantage of a loophole that allowed teams to accrue multiple picks at the top of the draft through the free-agent compensation system.

 

From 2003 through 2011, the Red Sox had 43 picks in the top three rounds of the draft – 16 more than they were given. That’s almost two extra high picks per year.

 

Not surprisingly then, Epstein wasn’t thrilled at the changes made in the draft under baseball’s new collective bargaining agreement. He’s apparently one of the people who thinks that a system of taxes and lost-pick penalties on teams that continue to pay premium will make life harder for him and better – much better, really – for teams like the White Sox, who in recent years have ranked 3oth in the majors on draft spending.

 

Epstein declined an interview request on the subject Tuesday night, but a source close to the Cubs’ front office said that the belief within Theo’s baseball operations bunker is that “it just became a slower and more difficult process’’ to build a player development machine, which is Epstein’s stated goal.

 

The source said that the system rewards small markets at the expense of big markets, and neutralizes “a club's ability to deploy resources (over-slot bonuses) or develop strategies (extra picks) to maximize the impact of amateur acquisitions.’’

 

This wasn’t a surprise for the Cubs, however. When I talked to their scouting director, Tim Wilken, last summer about Tom Ricketts’ authorizing them to spend almost $20 million in the draft and on amateur signings, he acknowledged that one reason the industry spent so heavily was that it might be “the last uncapped year’’ of the draft. It turns out that was the case, but it doesn’t sound like Team Theo expected the new system to be as much of a disadvantage as they felt it was when it was formally unveiled.

 

“The right to choose to focus predominantly on young players has been legislated away,’’ the Cubs’ source said.

 

Ricketts, the Cubs’ chairman, was among the owners who voted for the CBA, which covers a much wider spectrum of issues than just the draft. I hoped to talk to him about the new deal but was informed that he was out of town for the Thanksgiving holiday and unavailable.

 

All’s not lost, of course. Epstein and his guys will adjust and start finding ways to exploit the new system, because that’s what smart guys almost always do. The changes won’t make them any less thorough, and that’s the trait that allowed their creativity to contribute to two championship seasons in Boston.

 

Even our disheartened source acknowledged that.

 

“Now, a team's strategy is more or less dictated,’’ he said. “It's only a matter of making the picks, still the most important and difficult part.’’

[SouthSideRyan]

WTF TOMMY

[Sammy Sofa]

AND NOW HE'S ON A TURKEY SAFARI WHEN HE NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR THIS.

[Guest]

WTF TOMMY

 

Can't blame him if the large market teams are better off in the long run, I guess.

[Guest]

AND NOW HE'S ON A TURKEY SAFARI WHEN HE NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR THIS.

 

 

rofl

[jersey cubs fan]

This new CBA is so much more gayfriendly than the previous one.

 

The biggest talking point in MLB's new collective bargaining agreement is draft slotting, which paradoxically penalizes certain small-market teams by limiting signing bonuses. Opinions are split, but everyone can agree that if this is the biggest controversy, baseball's in a million times better shape than the NBA.

 

One little-noted addition to the CBA is a non-discrimination clause for sexual orientation, the first in MLB history.

[KingCubsFan]

Are we really going to shell out millions on a Dominican training complex to develope players for other teams? That seems like a total waste of money now.

This may make a state of the art training complex even more important, as teams will no longer be able to significantly outbid each other. If they're being offered virtually the same amount of money from every team, odds are they might choose the team whose complex they've been training at.

[SouthSideRyan]

Are we really going to shell out millions on a Dominican training complex to develope players for other teams? That seems like a total waste of money now.

This may make a state of the art training complex even more important, as teams will no longer be able to significantly outbid each other. If they're being offered virtually the same amount of money from every team, odds are they might choose the team whose complex they've been training at.

 

You're talking about 2 different things. There are Dominican academies and there are Dominican facilities for those in the affiliated Dominican leagues.