Pages

24 October 2006

New CBA equals minor changes

Details were announced on the new five-year deal struck between MLB and MLBPA. Some important points:
  • As expected, contraction did not rear its ugly head.
  • There was no major revamp of the amateur draft to include certain foreign players.
  • A reduced form of free agent loss compensation remains in place. Type A free agents will now be the top 20% of their position (down from top 30%), and Type B will be 21-40% of their position (down from 31-50%). Type C free agents no longer mandate compensation. Upshot: The A's will get something out of losing Barry Zito.
  • The luxury tax levels stay the same, but the tax threshold has increased to $148 million next year with 4.7% annual increases throughout the life of the CBA. Unless the Red Sox or Mets really went crazy, the only team that would consistently hit the threshold would be the Yankees.
  • Citing the increase of non-local revenue leaguewide, the revenue sharing formula has changed, with each team set to contribute 31% (down from 34%) of their net local revenues minus "actual stadium expenses" (i.e. rent or debt service).
  • League minimum salary increases from $327,000 to $380,000, with $10,000 increases thereafter.
  • Drug policy remains the same and now officially runs concurrent with the CBA. Selig will cite his "blood test study" until he retires.
  • The questionable rule that gives World Series home field advantage to the league that wins the All Star Game remains intact.
The new CBA should not change much things for the A's since they only undergo incremental payroll raises. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the Yanks because their radio deal with WCBS has just expired.

15 comments:

Jeff said...

Incredible. Apparently the MLBPA and the owners finally realized that they are both incredibly rich and realized how foolish it is to mess around with the golden goose. Labor peace in MLB, who woulda thunk it? In a way it's too bad. There is a lot of irony in millionairs forming a union to fight with billionairs.

jrbh said...

What's amazing to me is that there is a ton of work to be done as a union that Fehr and his evil minions continue to ignore: organizing minor league players and getting them a living wage, representing international players, and getting a drug testing policy that genuinely protects the health of the players. And that's just off the top of my head.

(On the subject of drug testing, is it just me or is there absolutely no way that Pujols isn't using something?)

Marine Layer said...

Why is it amazing? It's the Major League Baseball Players Association, not the Professional Baseball Players Association. Bargaining for benefits on behalf of minor leaguers will only cause MLB to propose decreasing the share that currently goes to major league players. If circumstances were more contentious, MLB wouldn't approve of a minor league union since minor league players provide leverage against major leaguers during a work stoppage.

The players union is not akin to a working class labor union. MLBPA's goal is to increase the share of benefits they get collectively, then let the market figure out the rest. That's why there's no bonus slotting for first round picks, and why the highest paid player gets 80 times what the lowest player gets. It's a superficial solidarity at best.

Jeff said...

You bring up a good point concerning the top earners in the MLBPA ML. How is it possible for the select "few" at the top of the earning scale to completely dominate the entire union? I would have thought that the lower tier players would have figured out long ago that the richest amoungst them do not always have their best interests at heart. It seems to me that that they should have advocated a higher "floor" salary for the lesser players. Why do the majority of these guys vote against their own self interest?

I know why Fehr and his crew do what they do. Their skids are greased by the high earners, so that is who they are going to cater to and represent. The other guys....not so much.

jrbh said...

My theory has always been that every single go who actually makes the major leagues thinks they're going to be a star, one of those guys with $15M contracts, and so they want to make sure that option is still available for them.

I think it's the same reason working class people in the Midwest and the South support Republicans: hey, I'm going to strike it rich one day, and I want to keep it all. No need to plan for anything else.

jrbh said...

every single guy, I meant in the first line of that last post.

I didn't mean "amazed" as in, "Wow, this is completely inexlicable." (I agree with everything marine layer wrote in response.) I mean "amazed" as in "amazed at the tenacity of what for lack of a better term I'll call false consciousness."

Constance said...

why is it that jrbh gets away with the politics crap while others get a slap on the wrist for less

Marine Layer said...

If jrbh's political rants caused the same kinds of flame wars the city debate did, I'd do the same kind of moderation. Thankfully it doesn't.

Constance said...

I dunno, off topic is off topic any way you cut it. And talking about the best place for the A's to be and what to call them when it happens is more on topic than comparing Lou Wolf to Reagan, who is dead.

But thats just what I think. Whatever floats your boat, Marine Layer.

jrbh said...

What I wrote was hardly a political "rant"; it was an observation about people voting their dreams, however unlikely their fulfillment may be, over their current reality. It's not exactly a revolutionary sentiment.

It was also a total of one sentence long, which I think leaves it a little short for the common useage for "rant."

The "constance" guy is a stalker. His IP should be identified and he should be banned from the site.

Marine Layer said...

Sorry, I don't get paid enough to play babysitter (notice how the blog is completely ad-free). If you're going to post a comment, you're leaving yourself open to criticism. I'll step in for anything I deem egregious. That's as far as it goes.

jrbh said...

Hey, the guy has a history. You're probably aware of it. It's your blog, and your call how you handle it.

jeff said...

Why is it that everyone jrbh has a problem with is a stalker? Its getting lame.

I agree that ML has better things to do than babysit. However, there are also other blogs we can go to if this keeps up.

As long as people support baseball by purchasing tickets there's not going to be much change in the MLBPA's tactics.

jrbh said...

I don't have a problem with the guy, Jeff. The guy has a problem with me. And it's one guy. Not "everyone".

Or are you saying that internet stalking doesn't happen? And that isn't annoying, and sometimes dangerous? Nah, that would be lame.

jeff said...

For the record jrbh,

That last jeff is not the same as the 1st two in this thread. I try to avoid personal arguments over the internet. To me, it's like running in the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded.