GatewayRedbirds.com

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
So the next collective bargaining session will see the players go for 4 or 5 years instead of 6 I'll bet. And that will probably bring a work stoppage.

I'm fine with the free agency period being 6 years. That is a decent balance for teams being able to control a player for a while. I think the bigger push needs to be on the minimum salary, and how raises work pre-arb.

I think the system works great now. Shortening free agency would favor the big market teams.

Although I can be talked into a hard salary cap, but I doubt the players would agree to that.

So how long until Hosmer, Moustakas, Darvish and company hold out on their contact demands? At some point they're going to have to sign an MLB contract even if it doesn't give them the years they wanted. The teams are finding ways to improve themselves via trades, teams aren't going to suddenly cave to their demands by continuing to hold out.

Popeye_Card wrote:

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
So the next collective bargaining session will see the players go for 4 or 5 years instead of 6 I'll bet. And that will probably bring a work stoppage.

I'm fine with the free agency period being 6 years. That is a decent balance for teams being able to control a player for a while. I think the bigger push needs to be on the minimum salary, and how raises work pre-arb.

Why should teams be allowed to control players for 6 years? Or 7, if they game the system?

JoeMcKim wrote:So how long until Hosmer, Moustakas, Darvish and company hold out on their contact demands? At some point they're going to have to sign an MLB contract even if it doesn't give them the years they wanted. The teams are finding ways to improve themselves via trades, teams aren't going to suddenly cave to their demands by continuing to hold out.

Probably right up until spring training starts. I assume they have offers in hand.

dmarx114 wrote:Although I can be talked into a hard salary cap, but I doubt the players would agree to that.

For all intents and purposes, the luxury tax right now is doing a good job of emulating a salary cap. If anything was to be renegotiated during the next CBA, I would expect the players' union to attempt to get it removed to moved to a much higher value (like $250MM+).

Players are feeling the effects this year of the luxury tax that they bargained for. I doubt they considered this current scenario when they agreed to it, though. Of course, it's just like the previous CBA regarding Type A free agents and draft pick compensation. Players like Lohse and Stephen Drew got screwed over because of their career years the year before they hit FA.

The union agrees to something and doesn't necessarily understand the potential ramifications of what they agreed to until it's too late.

Famous Mortimer wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
So the next collective bargaining session will see the players go for 4 or 5 years instead of 6 I'll bet. And that will probably bring a work stoppage.

I'm fine with the free agency period being 6 years. That is a decent balance for teams being able to control a player for a while. I think the bigger push needs to be on the minimum salary, and how raises work pre-arb.

Why should teams be allowed to control players for 6 years? Or 7, if they game the system?

They can actually control a player for more than 6 years. Depending on the age at which they were drafted, clubs can control a player for something like 3-5 years before they have to be added to the 40 man roster. Once they're on the 40 man, the "6 years of control" clock starts.

By "gaming the system" I'm thinking you're referring to Super Two players? If so, they're still only under team control for 6 years. They're just arbitration eligible for 4 years instead of the traditional 3 years. Although you could also just be referring to overall service time, because as long as a player has less than 6 FULL years of service time when the season starts, they're under team control for that year. So they could have 5 years and 364 days of service time (essentially 6 years), but still be under control of the parent club for the following season.

EDIT: So the more I think about it, my second point above regarding service time is what I suspect you were referring to. By delaying a kid being added to the 40 man roster by even just a few weeks into the season, the club essentially gains an entire extra year of service that they control (aka what the Cubs did with Kris Bryant in 2015).

I could buy that the players didn’t fully understand the ramifications of the new CBA, specifically, the penalties involved. I could also see something more nefarious. This class of free agents is weak, but no weaker than last year when everyone was already signed.

I'm pro labor and pro players.

Screw the owners and team control. Players deserve to be paid.