|
New CBA
Dec 4, 2016 20:37:43 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 4, 2016 20:37:43 GMT -5
High points: No international draft, but a cap of $5M - $6M on total amateur international free agents. Minimum stay on DL now 10 days (was 15). Roster sizes unchanged (owners wanted to increase to 26 and end September expansion) Teams no longer lose a first round draft pick for signing a player given a qualifying offer unless his salary exceeds $50M. Luxury tax threshold rises to $195M, eventually to $210M by 2021. Exceeding by more than $40M causes a team to forfeit a 2nd and 5th round pick. Effective 2017 - 2018 offseason. Also: The A's will be phased out of the revenue sharing plan for four years. They were allowed in even though their market is too large for them to qualify, because their stadium is a dumpster. A fish market dumpster. The CBA lasts five years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 1:01:22 GMT -5
Free agency is now basically unfettered and qualifying offers are tied more to the luxury tax. I expect what you'll see are more teams putting their pending free agents on the trading block rather than let them play out their walk years and expect a compensation pick in return.
With increased penalties for teams which exceed the tax threshold, the big money teams are on notice.
|
|
|
Post by mmmbeer on Dec 5, 2016 9:47:56 GMT -5
I read that the pushback (don't remember from which party) against 26 player roster was driven by the fear it would be used to add another reliever, further slowing down the games.
What do you all think about the agreement in general? What effect, if any, do you foresee?
|
|
|
New CBA
Dec 5, 2016 15:18:32 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 5, 2016 15:18:32 GMT -5
I read that the pushback (don't remember from which party) against 26 player roster was driven by the fear it would be used to add another reliever, further slowing down the games. This might be true. Rob Manfred floated an idea about limiting the frequency of pitching substitutions as a way to shorten games; his opinion is that too much tactical pitching is going on. As far as I know the idea was stillborn. What do you all think about the agreement in general? What effect, if any, do you foresee? It looks like the rest of the owners are trying to reign in salary escalation to the extent that it's driven by a few big spenders. They'll never get a salary cap past the players, so the luxury tax is what remains available to them. Large market teams believe their path to remaining large market teams is to grab all the best players for their fans. In this they are short-sighted, for they need meaningful opponents or casual fans will lose interest. You can't sustain any enterprise solely on hard-core fans (here, homers). Numerous attempts at adapting books, comics, and other non-film media to film have died of not understanding this. The players dislike the qualifying offer, and the changes there favor them. One change I was not aware of when I started the thread: a player can only be subject to a qualifying offer once. I don't know if that's per team or per career, but given the players drove these changes, I'd bet it's per career. That they sat down and got the deal done quietly is a good thing for both sides. I would guess we fans will never know the effect of that long ago strike on baseball sales, but it must have really scared the owners. Over the years, experts have said the sport owes Cal Ripken a great debt, as the fact he was chasing the streak worked to sustain fan interest across that lockout.
|
|
|
Post by mmmbeer on Dec 6, 2016 9:06:57 GMT -5
Thank you. Seems the trend is moving to reward clubs that draft and develop. Not the Os forte.
|
|
|
New CBA
Dec 6, 2016 12:07:09 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Dec 6, 2016 12:07:09 GMT -5
Thank you. Seems the trend is moving to reward clubs that draft and develop. Not the Os forte. They've developed some position players. The jury remains out on Bundy and Gausman, both of whom might possibly be good, long term pitchers (although I suspect that one and perhaps both, will not spend his career here - if the Orioles want to keep Manny, they won't have money for much else. The luxury tax will never be a problem for this team). Prior to them they had a long history of being unable to develop pitching at all. Pitchers failed, got hurt, or both. Which makes "buy the bats, grow the arms" difficult to understand. One hears rumors that Duquette sets policies that drill down to what pitches may be thrown. I hope that's not true - he should be running things at a much higher level than that. Developing pitching may be the hardest thing teams do. (That seems intuitively obvious, but sometimes what's "intuitively obvious" isn't true. Still...) It requires excellent scouting, excellent instruction, and luck. The first two of those require investments in the minor league system and good leadership. From spending patterns one suspects that Angelos doesn't spend on the farm systems (he doesn't spend on anything). There are also rumors, mostly centered around the front office, that nepotism and/or friendship has as much to do with who gets hired as skill and insight. I suspect the Orioles' problems may stem from a combination of the difficulty of the task, and the talent they don't have and resources they won't expend to pit against that. It is unclear how much of a role Peter still plays in team decision making, but over the last years they've been spending a little more on player salaries, and John has represented ownership more as well. That's a tenuous link, but if the next generation of the Angelos family is more willing to spend (wisely) the Orioles should have a brighter future. The trick will be doing that before Buck decides to retire; they won't find a manager of his caliber to replace him soon, and he's no longer a young man. My $0.02, of course.
|
|