New CBA thread

[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.

 

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

I didn't realize they were different. I'm thinking in the context of the academies.

[davell]

According to Heyman, slot for the 6th pick is 3.2.

[treebird]

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

 

9.8

[Have a seat, Neifi]

FWIW, both Jeff Passan (Yahoo! Sports) and Joe Sheehan (SI.com / MBL Network) have not only heavily criticized the new CBA re: caps on draft and IFA signings, but have specifically noted how these changes will disproportionately hurt the Cubs under Theo's leadership.

 

Passan:

 

The draft, on the other hand, has become the lifeblood for many teams, something on which they not only spend millions in bonuses but in salaries for scouts, travel and time. For MLB, there were two components to the draft: cost control and competitive balance. They got the former. They hope the new system does not impact the latter.

 

And if indeed players go in order of their talent and superagent Scott Boras doesn’t find a loophole to exploit the rules and, most important, teams adjust and find new ways to win within the system, this will not be the CBA with the extra wild card or HGH testing or that mandated the use of the Great Gazoo batting helmet by 2013 or instructed players that they can still use chewing tobacco as long as they do so discreetly.

 

It will be the CBA in which a new era empowered the brightest minds in the game to use their brains and figure out how to win.

 

Theo Epstein’s plan to change Chicago Cubs culture via scouting and player development just got a lot harder.

Link to full article: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_cba_hgh_testing_draft_rules_112211

 

 

Sheehan (excerpted from his paid newsletter):

 

Under this CBA, which represents the greatest change to the baseball industry since Peter Seitz ruled that the reserve clause attached for one year, rather than in perpetuity, 30 MLB teams will be forced to use the same tools, the same resources and the same approaches, which is the antithesis of "Moneyball." Baseball, as an industry, will be worse for this. Not just in terms of player talent -- oh, there are going to be losses we can't even appreciate yet -- but in terms of executive talent. The challenge isn't going to be the same. Theo Epstein and Andrew Friedman and Jon Daniels won't be able to do what makes them them, not with so little flexibility in how to spend their organization's money. The era of innovation in baseball management is over, and the wide spread of approaches that we'd seen in the last decade will be cut down not because those approaches were proven to be ineffective, but because the league itself legislated against even trying. Frankly, the age of the superstar GM may be over before it begins; with so many constraints on what GMs can decide, is there a need to spend $3 million a year on the position?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The new rules are complicated enough to have new market inefficiencies, and I am confident in managers like Epstein to find them quickly.

 

All the hand-wringing about the rules changes misses the point. It was never about OBP or farm systems or overslots or whatever. It's about finding the inefficiencies and exploiting them. When they change, you find new ones.

[Fro]

The new rules are complicated enough to have new market inefficiencies, and I am confident in managers like Epstein to find them quickly.

 

All the hand-wringing about the rules changes misses the point. It was never about OBP or farm systems or overslots or whatever. It's about finding the inefficiencies and exploiting them. When they change, you find new ones.

 

Exactly, they'll find new ways to exploit the system. Probably will actually give us more of an edge over other teams than keeping the old system where everyone had figured out the loopholes.

 

I think this hurts the smaller-market teams more than anyone else in the long term.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

The new rules are complicated enough to have new market inefficiencies, and I am confident in managers like Epstein to find them quickly.

 

All the hand-wringing about the rules changes misses the point. It was never about OBP or farm systems or overslots or whatever. It's about finding the inefficiencies and exploiting them. When they change, you find new ones.

 

Exactly, they'll find new ways to exploit the system. Probably will actually give us more of an edge over other teams than keeping the old system where everyone had figured out the loopholes.

 

I think this hurts the smaller-market teams more than anyone else in the long term.

It definitely does. Before, small-market teams could overspend in the draft to obtain what would become valuable assets. With fewer opportunities to overspend in the draft or on IFAs, the least unregulated frontier of where a front office can allocate its dollars is looking like MLB free agents, especially with the elimination of Type B status.

 

And plus, teams still can overspend in the draft; it'll just cost them (even) more money to do so. In other words, a franchise now can only overspend in the draft if it's prepared to REALLY overspend and pay the associated luxury tax amounts. This obviously favors franchises that have the money and the will to pay all these overage costs.

[javy knows my name]

I would not be surprised to see team Theo come out guns blazing in this draft, racking up completely irresponsible penalties, expecting everyone else to come out timid and risk-averse.

 

And with that said, there is a 0% chance that he even gives us an inkling of an iota of a morsel of what he's planning for this draft.

[KingCubsFan]

Doesn't seem like there's much of a point to having a first round pick anymore. If you sign more than one player to an overslot, do you just forfeit a first round pick two years from now? Or does it just go to your second round?

Edit: I see the penalties apply if you exceed the entire pooled amount. Makes even less sense to keep your first round pick now if you're a good team.

[Irrelevant Dude]

The more I read about the new CBA, the more I hate it. I think I should just stop reading about it.

[Guest]

The more I read about the new CBA, the more I hate it. I think I should just stop reading about it.

It's actually really good for the Cubs. Bad for baseball though.

[Guest]

The more I read about the new CBA, the more I hate it. I think I should just stop reading about it.

It's actually really good for the Cubs. Bad for baseball though.

It's not that good for the Cubs. It removes what was likely to be a major part of quickly rebuilding the system for the team.

 

Long term, it isn't so much good for the Cubs as it is bad for the small market teams.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The more I read about the new CBA, the more I hate it. I think I should just stop reading about it.

It's actually really good for the Cubs. Bad for baseball though.

It's not that good for the Cubs. It removes what was likely to be a major part of quickly rebuilding the system for the team.

 

Long term, it isn't so much good for the Cubs as it is bad for the small market teams.

 

Who make up almost the entirety of our division.

[Guest]

Callis on twitter:

 

#mlbdraft changes looking more dire. Just heard from club exec who said pool for first 10 rounds closer to $180 mil than reported $200 mil

 

More from exec: If you don't sign a pick, you lose his cap value. You can't not sign 1st-rder & spend his $ elsewhere. #mlbdraft

[treebird]

Callis on twitter:

 

#mlbdraft changes looking more dire. Just heard from club exec who said pool for first 10 rounds closer to $180 mil than reported $200 mil

 

More from exec: If you don't sign a pick, you lose his cap value. You can't not sign 1st-rder & spend his $ elsewhere. #mlbdraft

 

what the hell did the players get out of this deal that made them so happy to give away so much money for people entering the league? i never really heard all that much about real threats of a legit salary cap or anything.

[jersey cubs fan]

Callis on twitter:

 

#mlbdraft changes looking more dire. Just heard from club exec who said pool for first 10 rounds closer to $180 mil than reported $200 mil

 

More from exec: If you don't sign a pick, you lose his cap value. You can't not sign 1st-rder & spend his $ elsewhere. #mlbdraft

 

what the hell did the players get out of this deal that made them so happy to give away so much money for people entering the league? i never really heard all that much about real threats of a legit salary cap or anything.

 

The knowledge that owners will be spending their money on proven veterans (union members) and not prospects (non-union members).

[Rob]

Callis on twitter:

 

#mlbdraft changes looking more dire. Just heard from club exec who said pool for first 10 rounds closer to $180 mil than reported $200 mil

 

More from exec: If you don't sign a pick, you lose his cap value. You can't not sign 1st-rder & spend his $ elsewhere. #mlbdraft

 

what the hell did the players get out of this deal that made them so happy to give away so much money for people entering the league? i never really heard all that much about real threats of a legit salary cap or anything.

 

It makes more sense when you remember that the MLBPA only represents the best interests of players who have already logged major league service time. They've never much cared to protect draftees or prospects. And with the elimination of the hip new trend of major league contracts to draftees a few marginal bench guys will get to hold onto their 40 man roster spots a bit longer. And if you want to get really cynical, minimal bonuses may lead the more athletic young men to play different sports... and a smaller incoming talent pool helps to slow the pace at which current players will be pushed out of the league.

[Guest]

After re-reading that again, if you lose the value of a pick for not signing, then why in the world is there a pool for the top 10 rounds?

[MWV]

It seems unfair that a the MLBPA can effectively set rules to limit the income of an entire other class of prospective earners (amateur ballplayers, not to mention their agents) who themselves have no representation at the bargaining table. In fact, this CBA not only strips amateurs of earning potential, but also union inclusion and representation insofar as amateurs are prohibited from being offered MLB contracts.

[jersey cubs fan]

It seems unfair that a the MLBPA can effectively set rules to limit the income of an entire other class of prospective earners (amateur ballplayers, not to mention their agents) who themselves have no representation at the bargaining table. In fact, this CBA not only strips amateurs of earning potential, but also union inclusion and representation insofar as amateurs are prohibited from being offered MLB contracts.

 

Every union is more willing to negotiate away future members money before their own.

[Guest]

The more I read about the new CBA, the more I hate it. I think I should just stop reading about it.

It's actually really good for the Cubs. Bad for baseball though.

It's not that good for the Cubs. It removes what was likely to be a major part of quickly rebuilding the system for the team.

 

Long term, it isn't so much good for the Cubs as it is bad for the small market teams.

Sure it is good for the Cubs. They can spend more than anyone else in their division to get talent. The new rules make it harder for others to rebuild, not the Cubs. They can rebuild from existing talent with the money they have.

 

It's not good for trying to win on the cheap. Theo and the boys will figure it out, but their job will be much harder given the restrictions placed on amateur talent, but smart people will always be smart.

[davell]

Here's all we really know: the Cubs have 3.2 mill available for the 6th pick. The last pick of the 1st round is 1.6 mill. That's actually quite a bit higher than slot for the last pick. Teams aren't required to spend ALL of their slot money, so maybe the 2nd thru 10th round all have some semblance of "overslot" built in? The 180 total amount seems disconcerting obviously, but in the end, I still think quite a few guys will take what they can get, because they now know that if they're not truly a top 30 talent, they're kind of stuck. Because leverage can't get them more cash. On the other hand, it IS confirmed the IFA 2.9 mill crap starts immediately, right? Ace brought it up on BN that he thought that may start next year. I really hope that's the case, but I think it starts immediately, right?

[Guest]

Tangotiger...

 

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/cba_cap_pool_rules/

 

I like the idea of having a pool of money for each team, based on where they draft. But apparently, that pool of money is only for players you actually sign.

 

So, if you had 10MM$ allocated to you, and you only sign your #1 pick, but don’t sign your picks 2 through 10, then what you are actually allocated is only say 3MM$. (Your allocation is based on where the player was selected, and if he signed.)

 

What’s the unintended consequence here? Well, if you really really want a guy, and you are afraid he will go to college instead, you will intentionally tank the draft of picks 2 through 10, signing guys to 100,000$ deals, and taking the extra money allocated to those picks and putting them into your #1 pick. So, you underslot picks 2 through 10 so you can overslot pick #1.

 

Now, the idea of underslotting and overslotting was always the idea here, so there was some wiggle room, but it wasn’t the idea that you would underslot to such an extent.

 

In the end, a team that makes a good-faith effort to draft a quality player that they can’t sign ends up losing the allocation money, but a team that makes a bad-faith effort to draft a subpar player that they do sign ends up gaining the remaining allocation money.

 

When you put in these kinds of artificial controls that goes against a free market, unintended consequences will rear its ugly head.

[jersey cubs fan]

Tangotiger...

 

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/cba_cap_pool_rules/

 

I like the idea of having a pool of money for each team, based on where they draft. But apparently, that pool of money is only for players you actually sign.

 

So, if you had 10MM$ allocated to you, and you only sign your #1 pick, but don’t sign your picks 2 through 10, then what you are actually allocated is only say 3MM$. (Your allocation is based on where the player was selected, and if he signed.)

 

What’s the unintended consequence here? Well, if you really really want a guy, and you are afraid he will go to college instead, you will intentionally tank the draft of picks 2 through 10, signing guys to 100,000$ deals, and taking the extra money allocated to those picks and putting them into your #1 pick. So, you underslot picks 2 through 10 so you can overslot pick #1.

 

Now, the idea of underslotting and overslotting was always the idea here, so there was some wiggle room, but it wasn’t the idea that you would underslot to such an extent.

 

In the end, a team that makes a good-faith effort to draft a quality player that they can’t sign ends up losing the allocation money, but a team that makes a bad-faith effort to draft a subpar player that they do sign ends up gaining the remaining allocation money.When you put in these kinds of artificial controls that goes against a free market, unintended consequences will rear its ugly head.

 

Why is it a bad faith effort when you draft a signable guy higher than necessary to save money in your pool? Bad faith would be drafting a guy with no intention of signing him.

[Guest]

Honestly, this could in theory work. It’ll never happen, for reasons I’ll outline below, but it’s a theoretical strategy. Let’s review the CBA structure:

 

For international free agents, teams will get an overall budget based upon last year’s standings. Teams may sign any number of players using that budget.

If your team exceeds the budget, you face a luxury tax. If your team exceeds the threshold by a certain amount, they will be barred from signing any player for more than $250,000 in the next signing period.

 

These systems both seem breakable, especially if the Yankees are willing to pay the luxury tax, if the Yankees want to go all-in. What would that look like?

 

Year One: Spend like crazy. The Yankees blow the crap out of their budget – they go out and buy every player for as much money as is necessary. They pay their luxury tax and buy as many players over their budget as possible. They outbid their competition at every step.

Year Two: Suffer the restrictions. Internationally, they are barred from spending more than $250,000 on any player, so they stick to their budget while scooping up as many players are possible.

Year Three: Rinse, repeat.

 

I don't have a link but I found it interesting...