|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 22, 2019 15:53:57 GMT -5
Think if no contract came out of an offseason FA classs going more than say..4y the MLBPA would definately start howling collusion then jimed. today's political climate (not trying to start anything there), believe it would get time mentioned, unlike last time collusion actually did happen during the late 80's.
My thoughts are that enough small teams refuse to spend and enough big market teams end up at/near the cap? could at some time be leaks to union/agents at some time regarding what is happening and which ownerships/locations are the cause and some kind of grievances brought against those by the MLBPA.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 22, 2019 16:38:29 GMT -5
Think if no contract came out of an offseason FA classs going more than say..4y the MLBPA would definately start howling collusion then jimed. today's political climate (not trying to start anything there), believe it would get time mentioned, unlike last time collusion actually did happen during the late 80's. My thoughts are that enough small teams refuse to spend and enough big market teams end up at/near the cap? could at some time be leaks to union/agents at some time regarding what is happening and which ownerships/locations are the cause and some kind of grievances brought against those by the MLBPA. To be clear, I'd like limiting contract lengths as part of the CBA as some kind of concession for paying younger players more and doubling or tripling the league minimum. Other sports have it.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 23, 2019 14:25:57 GMT -5
Completely agree. If I were running the union I'd have a wish list like: - 5 years of team control, 2 pre arb and 3 arb - if you spend 1 day on an mlb roster that counts for half a year of service, more than 1/3 of the season on a roster gets you a full year of service. - double the league minimum - all players on the 40 man roster make the league minimum (teams have to carry at least 35-37 so there is no gaming the system)- fix the system for relievers. 6 years is a career for a relief pitcher, they need to make money before free agency. - some sort of informal understanding that the percent revenue paid to the players is expected to remain within a certain range The concession the union gives up is to allow a max length on contracts, 5 years for pitchers and 6 for position players.That would be a system that worked better for how the game is now rather than the current system that was built for how the game was in the 90s. I might quibble with some of the particulars but I do think that the basic outline of what the MLBPA should go for is basically this, a reduction in year control, a raising of the salary floor, and a widening of the player pool, in exchange for some kind of max contract or other mechanism that does away with Pujols/Cabrera type contracts. I think that's the right thing to do for the players (career mostly-minors guys are the worst off and this benefits them the most), the right thing for the game (I want the players to get their fair share but the insane lottery for high end free agents is actually a pretty unfair mechanism for achieving that), and it's the best thing for them in the PR battle.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 23, 2019 14:42:13 GMT -5
Completely agree. If I were running the union I'd have a wish list like: - 5 years of team control, 2 pre arb and 3 arb - if you spend 1 day on an mlb roster that counts for half a year of service, more than 1/3 of the season on a roster gets you a full year of service. - double the league minimum - all players on the 40 man roster make the league minimum (teams have to carry at least 35-37 so there is no gaming the system)- fix the system for relievers. 6 years is a career for a relief pitcher, they need to make money before free agency. - some sort of informal understanding that the percent revenue paid to the players is expected to remain within a certain range The concession the union gives up is to allow a max length on contracts, 5 years for pitchers and 6 for position players.That would be a system that worked better for how the game is now rather than the current system that was built for how the game was in the 90s. I might quibble with some of the particulars but I do think that the basic outline of what the MLBPA should go for is basically this, a reduction in year control, a raising of the salary floor, and a widening of the player pool, in exchange for some kind of max contract or other mechanism that does away with Pujols/Cabrera type contracts. I think that's the right thing to do for the players (career mostly-minors guys are the worst off and this benefits them the most), the right thing for the game (I want the players to get their fair share but the insane lottery for high end free agents is actually a pretty unfair mechanism for achieving that), and it's the best thing for them in the PR battle. Unfortunately, it's also the worst thing for small market teams so it's probably never going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Nov 24, 2019 16:22:23 GMT -5
I think both the players and the union should go for some kind of option opt out contract. Veteran players who are out of options could sign a one year contract that restores a teams ability to have full option rights the player for that season. Seems like this type of deal would allow marginal players to get signed and see the bigs better than the current system of sign, bring up when needed then waive/release when the need passes .
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 25, 2019 15:30:15 GMT -5
I think both the players and the union should go for some kind of option opt out contract. Veteran players who are out of options could sign a one year contract that restores a teams ability to have full option rights the player for that season. Seems like this type of deal would allow marginal players to get signed and see the bigs better than the current system of sign, bring up when needed then waive/release when the need passes . I think minor league deals with opt outs already fix most of this.
|
|