Forum
Forum Navigation
NEW CBA
#1 · August 18, 2021, 5:23 pm
The CBA has a lot of interrelated parts and negotiations are built on trade-offs (some hard to understand) and a deal will be negotiated for at least 6-9 months ... so "early" reports of selected parts are just "interesting" but we should not lock into them as in or in isolation from the parts we are not hearing about.
Having said that ... today's report that the owners are making a proposal that LOWERS the Luxury Tax Level to $180MM (no release on how that may be calculated) BUT ... and this is the key part as a change in the owners historical position ... OFFER a Payroll Floor of $100MM. Union will want both ends to be higher in the negotiations and the end is not likely at those levels.
IF a FLOOR is put in place and a CEILING is even at the current level (and holds there) there likely will be a multi-year window for both the below and above violators to get into compliance before penalties kick in. I can see the logic with that system of forcing the bottom feeders to improve their teams while putting some restraints on the big buck guys. Theoretically players will still get paid ... just from different organizations and fans get a more competitive league.
IF this is adopted at near these levels it will be the transition window that is critical for the Padres. First, they will be over and need to work their way down ... so likely no new big money signings while the internal value of prospects increases ... will have an impact on trades. Second, teams that need to increase payroll ... don't want to just give money to slugs ... maybe be more willing to deal for players such as Hosmer, Darvish, Snell and the Padres would be even more willing to take little or nothing in return. (note: Myers will be a FA by the time this comes together).
In a few years Machado ($30MM), Tatis ($30MM +/-) ... some big increase for Cronenworth and maybe Musgrove but after 2023 they should be a good spot if Campusano, Abrams, Gore, Weathers, Hassell, Angeles start making impact at league minimum. Money enough then to surround them with some veteran talent.
#2 · August 19, 2021, 10:08 am
Having a floor and a ceiling....luxury tax aside....sure looks like a possible showdown with the Sherman Act and various provisions after the fact....MLB has dodged this bullet before but the times they are a changing.....should be interesting to see who has the better lawyers.
#3 · August 19, 2021, 11:02 am
Quote from 3fingersplit on August 19, 2021, 10:08 amHaving a floor and a ceiling....luxury tax aside....sure looks like a possible showdown with the Sherman Act and various provisions after the fact....MLB has dodged this bullet before but the times they are a changing.....should be interesting to see who has the better lawyers.
Hasn’t the NFL and NBA skirted that issue … think they both have some version of floor/ceiling and don’t have MLB exemption.
My guess is that if there is a mutual agreement (CBA) between the League and the Union that takes precedent. If this were a unilateral cap from the owners … different story.
The Union (who has always wanted a floor) but with no ceiling might negotiate around this idea. I believe their thought was that the premium players free to get massive contract from wealthy clubs would motivate (force) the other teams to pay more to everyone else to compete. Basically a trickle down effect. Based on what has happened that theory is not panning out as the lower end teams are not spending and a number of teams with payrolls well under $100MM, teams (except for LAD) cutting veterans avoiding crossing the penalty limit. The impact is net for MLB the payrolls are not as high as the Union believes is reasonable. So for the benefit of ALL the players and some veterans … maybe the floor has more impact so concede a ceiling? Still a massive debate on the appropriate thresholds.
#4 · November 1, 2021, 6:15 pm
We're 30 days out from the expiration of the current CBA. It will be interesting to see what happens immediately after the World Series ends and Free Agency begins. As I understand it, free agents (FA's) can sign prior to the lapse of the CBA so you might see several non-qualified FA's move to teams they have targeted to lock in their future over what might be a long winter. I'm thinking that the Padres won't add any more payroll than they have reduced from letting their FA's go and not picking up options/not offering arbitration for several others - this is probably only around 11-13 million - before the details of the new luxury tax are known. That could get you Mark Canha and a LHP middle relief pitcher, like a Chafin or Loup to take the place of Strahm. Outside of good health, Padres really don't need to add much in the next few months; spring training and development of Abrams, Campusano, Gore and Martinez will be key early on. Trade deadline is when things will be much clearer for the 2022 Padres.
#5 · November 2, 2021, 5:47 am
Alway hard to predict what Preller is going to do. Can start signing FA 5 days after the World Series ends (for that matter also make trades) in theory. What we don't know (or even fully evaluate) is what MLB is advising the teams on freezing transactions (both before CBA ends and thereafter) or the "probable" impact of rule changes on payrolls / player control. Flips side, we don't know what the Union is advising the agents / players on their best course of action.
Assuming no early freeze ... and Preller's aggressiveness ... I would not be surprised he pushes early to add a quality hitter (Canha probably one of the targets) then (for hitters) just lay in the weeds until near or during ST to fill for the fringe / bench filler. Side note: the 40 man going (post FA and declining Marisnick's option .. my call ... will have only 13 position players including ONA and CAMPUSANO and really no ML ready other hitting options. So, expect hitters to be first priority ... expect some veteran non-roster signings with invites to ST. Basically cannot RELY on Ona and/or Campusano (or non-roster Abrams) to start 2022 at the ML level so two holes to fill with ML talent.
Making moves beyond that ... early ... just will be hard to value without the clear CBA rules. Beyond the payroll limits ... a major key is any change to the "6 year control" rule. Players may start hitting FA sooner ... altering the roster needs year to year. UNION clearly want to eliminate the "gaming" of service time for that extra year of control. One suggestion was players get a full year of service time if they on the 26 man roster for at least 30 days +/- in any season. Before I mentioned the "age" threshold proposed by the owners (29.5). Both would alter the valuation process of any non-contracted player ... hard to make trades if you don't know whether you will be getting 3 years control or 2 years (for example). Also, either proposal would impact strategically how teams add "propsects" to the 26 man during the season ... in turn, altering the approach (potentially) on how to fill the minor league portion of the 40 man to be used for call-ups.
A lot of IF / THEN unknowns that would alter the plans of GM ... and clearly trades.
#6 · December 2, 2021, 9:56 am
I know most don't care about negotiation details surrounding two big money sides BUT this is reality as the outcome will impact the Padres (good or bad). So some commentary is warranted.
First, sure sounding as though the owners are offering some signifiant changes while the union is demanding some significant changes ... just different. That sort of sets up the base for compromise and getting a deal done but probably not until closer to ST since that is how most negotiations work needing a deadline that starts to cost both sides money.
Nothing is a given until the entire deal is final given the give and take but beginning to appear:
- Universal DH is almost a lock ... both sides want it
- the qualifying offer (and signing team's loss of a draft pick) will go away making the FA to get a better range of teams (ones who love draft picks) to enter the bidding.
- Luxury tax looks like it is staying just going up. MLB originally wanted to lower the limit but now seem willing to move it up (maybe $220MM) while the union is at $240MM ... anyone see a $230MM mid-ground. open end is the penalty structure for exceeding.
- Owners proposed an expanded playoffs ... probably for negotiation purposes the union is playing hard to get ... likely focusing on the revenue potion going to the union / players ... expect expanded playoffs (which helps teams like the Padres battling LAD/SF).
- Owners suggesting a payroll floor ... not a current Padre direct issue but could put some pressure on the cost of players with the currently low end teams paying more to fill their rosters.
- Minimum pay levels will rise ... just how and how much
- Union wants arbitration to begin after 2 years (vs 3) ... owners don't seem opposed except want a more structured approach pay scale.
- the real tricky one is when players get FA. Union wants to move from 6 years down to 5 years while the owners have proposed an age based criteria at 29 1/2. I can see both having merit. For the "young" stars they hit FA at 26+/- and big money while the "older" players (usually the late signing college types) may not hit FA into their 30s and past their chance for a peak contract. From the Padres perspective the 29 1/2 trigger benefits control on the likes of Abrams going forward but hurts them on someone like Cronenworth who is going on 28. This sort of intertwines with how arbitration is modified. The dropping the FA to 5 years is great for the players but does not allow that much time for teams to benefit from the investment in player development. This one will be the interesting one to follow. Personally like the age based (also eliminates the games around service time and lets the players who deserve to be in the major get called up).
A lot of other stuff but those were the ones that popped into my head.
lafnboy13 has reacted to this post.
lafnboy13
#7 · December 2, 2021, 11:04 am
Quote from fenn68 on December 2, 2021, 9:56 am"8. The real tricky one is when players get FA. Union wants to move from 6 years down to 5 years while the owners have proposed an age based criteria at 29 1/2. I can see both having merit...."
An obvious compromise would be 6 years service time OR are aged 29 1/2?
If a younger player put in 6 years then they could qualify earlier than 29 1/2 but older players could qualify based on age and have a chance to cash in before it is too late. Seems like a win / win.
#8 · December 5, 2021, 3:33 pm
The Off Season is bad enough when we have a CBA.
This is just torture…..
#9 · December 6, 2021, 10:03 am
Hang in there Mr. P!