Don't you ever wonder what would happen if you were the head honcho, the dictator, who could dictate exactly what should be in the next CBA? "I've heard enough, here's how it's gonna go."
Likewise, when you hear politicians argue about tax rates and spending levels, wouldn't you like to step in there and say, "fellas and gals, here's how it is going to work from here."
I dunno about you, but the fact that the nation's deficit was $1 trillion in 1980 and $30 trillion now, just 42 years later, tells me someone should take away decision making abilities from our loony politicos. But that's just me.
If I had the ability to dictate the terms of a new CBA, just off the top of my little head, it would go something like these 13 points:
1) A maximum cap on years on any new contract - 5 years. Let's get back to some semblance of reality. How are you supposed to have any idea how well a star player will be performing 9 years from now? Do your 5 years, and start again.
2) Newer players...way I see it, guys who bust out of the gate like stars should not be paid almost identically in years 2 and 3 of their careers as marginal guys. There needs to be a formula so that a Pete Alonso, for instance, could have made 3 times as much as the marginal guy in his second year, considering his first year was 53 HRs and 120 RBIs. I'll leave the formula details to you guys, but it better be good.
3) Revenues - players and owners share at the same average % as the last 5 years. What's wrong with that?
4) 27 man rosters - it was great to finally expand to 26 man rosters, but back in the day (1960s, for example) the basic split was 15 position players and 10 pitchers. Pitchers crash and burn far more than in the 1960s, and starters probably throw an average of 2 less innings now than in the 1960s, so teams need 12 pitchers on their rosters. Why should position players suffer due to that? Keep them pegged at 15 position players on the roster. 15 + 12 = 27.
5) No service time manipulation. Period. So many of these players have short careers, and given that, postponing a player's free agency by a year is really criminal. If you bring up a guy in the first half of a season, that is a full year. If in the second half, his service time starts the next year. In fact, I would shorten the time to free agency by one year.
6) September call-ups. The old 40 # was absurdly high. But 28 (the new number) is absurdly low and screws many borderline athletes (especially position players) from achieving their dream of reaching the major leagues. I'd set the September call-up number at 5 above the normal roster level. So, if that roster level is set at 27, that September total would be 32, not 28.
7) Super-prospect September call-ups: If the Mets, for example, don't call up a Francisco Alvarez in September because it would start his "clock", then change the rule so it doesn't start his clock and get him his September cameo.
8) Pay minor leaguers substantially more. Doubling their minimum salaries is a reasonable approach.
9) If a player on a long term deal tests positive for PEDs afterwards, besides a suspension, the remainder of his contract gets reduced 10%. Test positive twice, 20%.
10) I would add a new role - the mop up pitcher. Designate a pitcher who 1) is over 30 years old and 2) never made the majors. He is on the team all season at 1/3 of normal major league salary. His one and only role is mop up in games where his team trails or leads by more than 10 runs, or if a game goes beyond 14 innings and he his needed to save arms.
Doing this is rather than having position players pitch in mop-up roles in blow outs. It cheaply gives 30 more guys a year (one per team) some big league time, even if at a lesser status. This would be above the normal roster. And these mop up pitchers can only have that status for one season. Next season, a new candidate.
11) Every team must spend at least $60 million on payroll, indexed to inflation. If a team can't afford it, then force them to sell the team to someone who will. This will help parity.
12) To avoid tanking, put the 10 worst teams record-wise into a lottery for the ranking of their draft pick level. So if the 10th worst team gets really lucky, they could get the first pick. Conversely, the worst team gets really unlucky, they pick 10th.
13) One more player carve-out...take a minor league journeyman like Aderlin Rodriguez. Now 30, and playing minor league ball since 2009, he hit .290/.362/.565 in the minors in 2021, which is impressive. Yet he has never been on a major league roster. How about, for one hitter like him per team annually, who is (say) 30 or older with 8 or more minor league seasons, promote him for one weekend series at home in September, so he can tell his grandkids he played in the big league. I think fans would love it. If I was the hitter, I would too.
There. That settles it. Now...
Let's play ball.
12 comments:
There definitely needs to be a salary floor of some kind and pay guys who reach majors and shine from rookie year.
Ernest, simply put, baseball is effectively saying to an Alonso, we don't care how well you do as a rookie or second year player, you won't get paid in years 2 and 3 for it unless your club decides to extend you long term early. Who wants that? Why would baseball want that? AN Alonso bursting on the scene like few ever have should get paid a lot more in years 2 and 3, period.
I think Spotrac has him estimated at $7 million for 2022. Huge increase from last year's < $1 million, but still underpaid at $7 million. Lindor will make $34 million. No one can say for sure which of the two will be better in 2022. So he should not be making only 20% of what Lindor does in 2022.
The best ideas presented here like the mop up pitcher and the doubling of minor league pay will never happen. However, the thought process is admirable.
I am reminded of the days that Branch Rickey would mail each Dodger a one year contract prior to the season started. Players had no choice but to take it. It was also when they found out what they were going to make
Now THAT was baseball.
Mack, those players sure got screwed. Also, the story of Ralph Kiner getting offered a pay cut after winning the home run title, and Koufax and Drysdale doing a joint hold out and getting NOWHERE with it, despite being the best duo in the game. Crazy.
I did this article in part because you see a lot of this in life. In politics, the Dems want to spend $X trillion, the Republicans don't, and there is an impasse. I'd love to get a group of non-politicians together who could start with the preamble, "I know that the nation's federal debt has jumped from $1 million to $30 trillion in 40 years, so here is what our group has decided would make sense to spend next year..." And then lay out a sensible plan. That doesn't continue to borrow like maniacs. Do something that is long term sustainable.
Likewise, in baseball, why not ask a group of knowledgable fans who don't give a crap what owners and players thing to come up with what THEY think should be a new CBA? There are 3 parties involved: 1) owners, 2) players, 3) fans and those who have ancillary baseball businesses that are hurt by a lockout.
Let number 3 group come up with ideas. Then put them out in the news what "we the people" think would make a fair settlement.
That's kind of what I did in this article, although I did it quickly off the top of my head.
Reese, my response to you is the same as I wrote for Mack, excerpted below:
I did this article in part because you see a lot of this in life. In politics, the Dems want to spend $X trillion, the Republicans don't, and there is an impasse. I'd love to get a group of non-politicians together who could start with the preamble, "I know that the nation's federal debt has jumped from $1 million to $30 trillion in 40 years, so here is what our group has decided would make sense to spend next year..." And then lay out a sensible plan. That doesn't continue to borrow like maniacs. Do something that is long term sustainable. It is clear many politicians should be given a "budget Breathalyzer" and have their keys taken away.
Likewise, in baseball, why not ask a group of knowledgable fans who don't give a crap what owners and players thing to come up with what THEY think should be a new CBA? There are 3 parties involved: 1) owners, 2) players, 3) fans and those who have ancillary baseball businesses that are hurt by a lockout.
Let number 3 group come up with ideas. Then put them out in the news what "we the people" think would make a fair settlement.
That's kind of what I did in this article, although I did it quickly off the top of my head.
Hey, we on Mack's Mets have been known for impasses.
Impasses end, sooner or later.
love some of your ...
I wonder if the owners would agree to reduce the years till free agency if hey could get a 5 year cap on contracts... that's serious bargaining..
I completely disagree with you on players in the first x number of years should be paid by merit... there have been plenty of one year wonders... in fact I consider Alonso a one year wonder. He is not a superstar. not yet. he is a boarder line allstar and hasnt been one since being a rookie (i may be wrong but i wont look it up) would you not trade alonso for acuna, soto, trout, ohtani, vald, j. ramirez, betts, and about 10 others?
nope you pay your dues like in most professions and then you get paid.
without literally going through all of them
agree with #8 highly... you are a multi billion dollar buisness you can pay these guys say 45K a year in A, 60k in AA, 75K in AAA with Housing included and food stipends?
#9 if you get caught with PED, your contract is voided. Period. that's how I handle that.
#11 is fair
#12 absolutely not about a lottery draft. I view tanking a very viable way to REBUILD a team. we have seen countless of times how that approach helped the team that do it well...
in fact speaking of the draft remove the draft pool... You actually alot a draft slot for where you get drafted. and thats what you get paid. It awful to have have to choose a lesser player to "Save money" to spend on another.
You should always draft the best player on your board and keep them period.
and no more competitive balance picks. your market is not NY, so what, sell your team and let someone else spend. but every owner already get allotted some funds because of the market they are in ( a tax ) so they can use that to buy players they shouldnt get draft picks.
man this was a hot topic lol
Good input, Eddie.
I do have to strongly disagree on the Alonso clause I mentioned. Because it is almost impossible to boost early salaries a lot. Pete hit 53 and 120, and under my model, he makes just $1.7 million, vs. the mere $600,000 he did get. Year two, he did struggle - so his "bonus bump" over the $1.7 million would be much smaller, probably getting him up to around $2 million instead of $650,000. Then after year 3, he starts arbitration and that takes over.
Remember, Pete only played 60 games in 2020 - had it been a normal season, he hits 35 and drives in 90+/
Why on earth should he get paid so (relatively) little in years 2 and 3, and have the owners pocket all that concession and ticket revenue etc. that were a direct result of Pete?
Anyway, I would love to see fans come up with the best ideas, go to the players and owners, and say what about THIS? We the fans, who pay the bills, have no say.
I have my thoughts on the CBA as well. Some will match Tom's, some will not.
I'll get back to Tom's list in a second, but my first priority is the Minor Leagues although I don't think that is part of this agreement between the Major Leagues and the Major League Players Union. More later.
(1) I don't like to put limits on contracts like that. If the owners think it is a good idea, then why not. They have to live it out.
(2) I agree with Tom that some sort of restructuring of the first 5 years of a player's career needs to be done. I don't like the arbitration process at all, and I don't care for the minimum salary to carry so long prior to the arbitration years. I think there should be some sort of stepped up salary structure for games on the big league roster with 50 game increments. along with some type of performance based adders. I do not like WAR and would look for something else.
(3) Nothing wrong with that.
(4) I think 27 man rosters make sense. Your argument of needing more pitchers is spot on. Most clubs kept 13 pitchers and 13 position players last year.
(5) See #2. Along with a stepped up stepped up salary structure, there should be some sort of an algorithm for that. It may be a two factor approach - number of games on the MLB roster or number of years that a player has been on the roster as of August 31. Something so it cannot be gamed by the clubs in April.
(6) Agree. 32 seem about right.
(7) I believe September call-ups are not on the clock, but yes, but make sure that doesn't become a factor.
(8) A whole nother articlce coming soon on that.
(9) I can't argue with this very much. It seems like a decent approach.
(10) Not a fan. I'd rather see a bench guy or back up catcher throw the mop-up innings than somebody coming in that (a) can't cut it to be a full time player and (b) a player sit for weeks at a time until there might be an opportunity.
(11) I think salary floors make sense. I'd go for something higher than $60M - perhaps even $100M
(12) I do like this idea. I think it is dangerous for the game to be playing for last place. Having a guarantee of the first draft pick while still playing is not a good idea. Perhaps some sort of a weighting, but not severe.
(13) I don't go for the 'gimmick' ideas of a promotion of a guy just for a story. Perhaps the expanded roster slots and the 5 man adders in September would open up the slots for the career minor leaguers with good numbers. I don't know what the issue is with Rodriguez, but there are a lot of one dimensional players in the minors that can hit and not do much else well. They are not the guys that belong in the bigs.
Other:
DH. I think 50 years is enough to try it out. Either get rid of it or adopt is thorughout baseball.
Speed of game: STOP THE GIMMICKS and figure out where the game is slowed down: It's the television and getting more revenue between innings. Television is a two edged sword - providing a lot of money, but killing it by longer games (more ads) and terrible start times.
Playoff Start times: How the hell is the game supposed to draw interest when games don't start until 8:15 at night. Kids and working stiffs have to get up in the morning. Us retirees are going to die before the new crowd comes along (never).
Runner on second base in extra innings: GET RID OF IT. Put it in the shredder, put it in the incinerator. .just don't bring it back. There is something good about a 16 inning game that forces managers to manage.
Double Headers: Bring them back to 9 innings the way games are supposed to be played. These guys are making tons of money to play a game. Make them play the game.
That's all folks. I'll be thinking about another article on what we need to do for the minor leagues in the next couple weeks if I can.
Sorry for the length . . good article, Tom!
Bill and Eddie are my co-negotiators. I think Manfred heard about us - now he says he hopes there will be a settlement that won't delay the season. Feeling our heat!
Anyway, Bill:
1) The problem is, I think it leads to overpayments. Who pays//Fans.
2) you don't like WAR? That's fine - Pete was 53/120. Using that is fine with me.
13) I like the gimmick thing. I am guessing Aderlin was mediocre early in his career for too long and got pegged; now they look at him and see his age. I can't imagine Pittsburgh wouldn't have called him up if they had him
I AM OK WITH RUNNERS STARTING ON FIRST BASE. SECOND BASE IS TOO EASY. I WISH PITCHER ARMS WEREN'T FRAGILE, BUT THEY are (sorry about the caps), so something has to be done to avoid 18 inning games. Or Dr. Andrews' business will be booming. I don't like first base either, but it would speed up the end. How about, instead, walks when you hit "ball 3" in extra innings? No runner on second, but increased likelihood of scoring if you bring in a wild reliever. Less pitches, so it would be quicker. Then, don't use the rule in the playoffs.
Post a Comment