SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 1, 2016 7:20:03 GMT -5
So much for the plan to make up for being singled out in the IFA market. That sux. Other than that there doesn't seem to ba anything that would alter the Sox plans whatever they might be.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 1, 2016 7:22:09 GMT -5
Good thing the Sox signed Moncada when they did. This kind of player will never be available to only them for just money ever again.
The days of "buying" prospects are truly over. It's now about having the best international scouting departments and spending the very few dollars you do have, on the right international amateur players.
The good news is that the Sox have been pretty good at this in the past.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 1, 2016 8:18:28 GMT -5
The loss of a 2nd round AND 5th round pick for a team over the luxury tax limit who signs a QO type free agent is an interesting twist, but now I have to wonder - with the 2018-2019 free agent class, say a team like the Red Sox, Dodgers, or Yankees sign both Bryce Harper and Manny Machado, what happens then? They would lose the 2nd and 5th pick of course, but since both would be QO free agents, would the signing team also lose a 3rd and 4th pick as well or would it be 3rd and 6th pick? How does that work? At some point I'd think some team would be willing to test it out if the free agent prizes were great enough. I think the Yanks used the old strategy of stacking the free agent signings that would normally cost a 1st round pick and losing a 2nd round pick for a player who would normally cost a 1st round pick - like when they signed both Teixeira and Sabathia. I would think this new wrinkle would discourage this more, but I have to wonder how this new rule works. Yeah I don't see anything about it either. It almost encourages big spenders to splurge and sign multiple free agents in one year and only get penalized for it once. I was kind of thinking the opposite. To sign one big free agent, yes, splurge, but if the cost is four draft picks, even if it isn't the 1st round, that is kind of steep? Also perhaps they'd lose $2 million off the international signing cap rather than $1 million? Wondering how that works? I'm sure somebody will test this in 2018, but that somebody will have to make sure they're under the luxury tax or else they could lose four picks out of their top 10 - if that's how it works! But then again if you hit on that 1st round pick, I guess it could be worth it depending on the talent? I just wonder what the rules are for that as I haven't heard anything about that. I am kind of disappointed that the 26 man thing and the September roster reduction thing didn't happen and I think it's way past time for the NL to adopt the DH. Glad the All-Star game deciding HFA has been scrapped.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 1, 2016 10:11:12 GMT -5
Definitely some more shots at teams going over the luxury tax threshold. Kind of surprised that the owner's got away with keeping it from increasing much more after multiple years of no movement
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 1, 2016 10:23:52 GMT -5
There's a number of other new and revised CBA details in this AP report, including: - Minimum DL stints will now be 10 days, down from 15 days.
- Teams signing QO free agents will lose their third-highest draft pick (if it receives revenue sharing), second-highest and fifth-highest draft picks plus $1M of int'l pool money (if it paid the luxury tax in the season just ended) or its second-highest pick plus $0.5M of int'l pool money (any other team). This clarification illustrates what would happen if a team signs multiple QO free agents in an offseason (e.g., a luxury tax team that signs two QO free agents would lose it's 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th round picks and $2M in int'l money).
- If a team is $40M+ over the luxury tax, its highest pick in the next draft drops 10 places.
- Hard cap on int'l money begins July 2, 2017.
- First-round draft slot values will decline more gradually (currently, they drop off fairly steeply after the first few picks).
Generally, my sense is that the new CBA is friendlier to small-market teams than the previous one. Luxury tax penalties are harsher and international spending is hard-capped, which limits the ability of big-market teams to use their financial advantages. New QO system is also tiered based on revenue-sharing and luxury tax status, which further penalizes big-market teams.
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Dec 1, 2016 10:27:09 GMT -5
I wonder how the timing for cap penalties of signing free agents will work. Will it only apply if the signing puts the team over the limit at the time of the signing? What happens if it doesn't but the team trades for a player later in the off-season that puts them over? What if that happens but it's a mid-season trade? What happens if the signing puts a team over the cap, but then they trade a player later that puts them back under?
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Dec 1, 2016 10:34:58 GMT -5
Eventually teams are going give themselves a hard cap of $39M over the tax line and just pay the $24 in penalties I bet.
edit: just saw Eno Sarris agree with this in his fangraphs chat.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 1, 2016 10:53:12 GMT -5
I wonder how the timing for cap penalties of signing free agents will work. Will it only apply if the signing puts the team over the limit at the time of the signing? What happens if it doesn't but the team trades for a player later in the off-season that puts them over? What if that happens but it's a mid-season trade? What happens if the signing puts a team over the cap, but then they trade a player later that puts them back under? Historically, the competitive balance tax calculations are only assessed at the end of each league year (and not any other time-- e.g., in the middle of the year or during the offseason). I'd expect that to continue. For mid-season trades, salary is prorated based on the number of days that the player spends on each team.
|
|
|
Post by Costigan on Dec 1, 2016 10:53:34 GMT -5
Eventually teams are going give themselves a hard cap of $39M over the tax line and just pay the $24 in penalties I bet. Exactly what I was thinking, seems like the smartest choice for clubs that continuously highest in cap.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 1, 2016 11:35:12 GMT -5
New QO system is also tiered based on revenue-sharing and luxury tax status, which further penalizes big-market teams. This is the only part of the agreement I really don't like (there are other parts that I don't like but am pretty much resigned to, such as the hard int'l cap). A fair draft-pick compensation scheme should simply take into account how much a free agent got, and award a draft pick based on that alone. No qualifying offer system, no consideration of "market size," no "Player A happened to start last season on a bad team and got traded midseason so you don't have to sacrifice a pick for him whereas you do for Player B, who is worse and will get less money." I'd probably exempt all non-playoff teams from losing a first round pick but that's about it. Just "okay, he got $47 million, that's worth a 4th-round pick." The new scheme is probably slightly better than the current one, but it's still nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 1, 2016 13:14:49 GMT -5
Best part of the new deal for me is not having the All Star Game decide home field in the World Series. Also like the 10 day DL.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Dec 1, 2016 14:21:05 GMT -5
New note being reported this morning, the All-Star Game will no longer decide home field in the World Series. Instead, players will compete for a pool of cash. I really want that to be literal pools, like inflatable kiddie pools with a bunch of bills blowing around in them.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Dec 1, 2016 14:47:58 GMT -5
New note being reported this morning, the All-Star Game will no longer decide home field in the World Series. Instead, players will compete for a pool of cash. I really want that to be literal pools, like inflatable kiddie pools with a bunch of bills blowing around in them. I'm taking it to mean a swimming pool made out of paper money and no one can convince me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 1, 2016 14:53:10 GMT -5
New note being reported this morning, the All-Star Game will no longer decide home field in the World Series. Instead, players will compete for a pool of cash. Was the level of competition really what was wrong with the game before 2002?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 1, 2016 14:56:49 GMT -5
The new $5M cap may actually benefit large market teams for superstar type players. If everyone is offering the same amount of money and you are from a poor economy, who's offer would you accept ?
The new limits might also force open a new can of worms that may come out at the winter meetings. If the Sox players were declared free agents then MLB would have no leg to stand on for any agent of players signed under similar package deals not to also be declared free agents. Urias, for example.
I also haven't seen a change in the required medical disclosures for traded players. San Diego is going to have a lot of difficulty finding dance partners. It's a small clique.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2016 15:33:52 GMT -5
Jeff Passan Verified account @jeffpassan Int’l bonus $ depends strictly on market size. Teams can trade every $ of their int’l pool. Teams can trade for up to 75% of theirs. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/mlb-mlbpa-agree-to-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.htmlThere are three tiers in spending allotment, per Jon Heyman of Fan Rag (via Twitter). Large-revenue clubs will have $4.75MM to spend, mid-tier teams can go up to $5.25MM, and the smallest organizations can tap $5.75MM. It's pretty ridiculous that large market teams get less $ for international signings. It seems like small market teams are the big winners in every aspect.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 1, 2016 16:08:17 GMT -5
The large market teams got the concession that the penalties for going over the luxury tax up to the hard cap threshold are much smaller. It's barely a disincentive for rich teams like Boston, New York, and LA.
Still, I really don't understand MLB's desire to create this codified stratification between large market and small market clubs though.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 1, 2016 16:57:37 GMT -5
So in order to have the best chance at winning with young controllable talent every year, don't spend any money ever.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 1, 2016 19:09:00 GMT -5
Jeff Passan Verified account @jeffpassan Int’l bonus $ depends strictly on market size. Teams can trade every $ of their int’l pool. Teams can trade for up to 75% of theirs. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/mlb-mlbpa-agree-to-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.htmlThere are three tiers in spending allotment, per Jon Heyman of Fan Rag (via Twitter). Large-revenue clubs will have $4.75MM to spend, mid-tier teams can go up to $5.25MM, and the smallest organizations can tap $5.75MM. It's pretty ridiculous that large market teams get less $ for international signings. It seems like small market teams arye the big winners in every aspect. That's crazy in my opinion. I get the caps to make it a level playing field, but this goes way too far. When you add the penalties for signing QO free agents, small market teams have a huge advantage.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 1, 2016 20:36:39 GMT -5
The real question is now-
Where does the line draw from say a big market, to a small market, to a mid market team?
Is it a set dollar figure that you have be under or can't be over?
Or is it based on a bracket that divides three different groups of each 30 teams into order with 10 teams sorting out each group?
All of this comes into play when players from other teams signs with a QO attached and it also comes into play with how much a team can spend in international amateur fee agency.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 1, 2016 20:40:42 GMT -5
“@jeffpassan: Source: New CBA includes ”death penalty“ for teams caught cheating internationally. MLB can penalize up to 50% of int’l pool $ through 2021.”
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 1, 2016 20:52:27 GMT -5
Jeff Passan Verified account @jeffpassan Int’l bonus $ depends strictly on market size. Teams can trade every $ of their int’l pool. Teams can trade for up to 75% of theirs. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/mlb-mlbpa-agree-to-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.htmlThere are three tiers in spending allotment, per Jon Heyman of Fan Rag (via Twitter). Large-revenue clubs will have $4.75MM to spend, mid-tier teams can go up to $5.25MM, and the smallest organizations can tap $5.75MM. It's pretty ridiculous that large market teams get less $ for international signings. It seems like small market teams are the big winners in every aspect. And "market" is a relative term here. Miami is definitely not a small market. Neither are Houston, San Diego, Tampa, and several others that claim "small market" status. They are just cheap owner/lower payroll teams. They're all billionaires. Some just aren't in it to win.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Dec 1, 2016 21:42:06 GMT -5
“@jeffpassan: Source: New CBA includes ”death penalty“ for teams caught cheating internationally. MLB can penalize up to 50% of int’l pool $ through 2021.” At this point I'm starting to think that an international draft would have been the better option here. I understand their logic in wanting to penalize teams for using "loopholes" but to potentially lose half your pool for several years? That's pretty harsh and I can't see any team trying to push the rulebook now.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Dec 1, 2016 21:53:21 GMT -5
Jeff Passan Verified account @jeffpassan Int’l bonus $ depends strictly on market size. Teams can trade every $ of their int’l pool. Teams can trade for up to 75% of theirs. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/mlb-mlbpa-agree-to-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.htmlThere are three tiers in spending allotment, per Jon Heyman of Fan Rag (via Twitter). Large-revenue clubs will have $4.75MM to spend, mid-tier teams can go up to $5.25MM, and the smallest organizations can tap $5.75MM. It's pretty ridiculous that large market teams get less $ for international signings. It seems like small market teams are the big winners in every aspect. And "market" is a relative term here. Miami is definitely not a small market. Neither are Houston, San Diego, Tampa, and several others that claim "small market" status. They are just cheap owner/lower payroll teams. They're all billionaires. Some just aren't in it to win. This is the one subject I've never understood in MLB. I get that some teams have more money than other teams, but basically every "small market" team is owned by a billionaire(s) who seem to not want to spend the extra money to win. It makes me think of the Blue Jays last offseason when they made it seem like they couldn't afford to bring back David Price. Rogers Communication is worth billions, and yet they give off the vibe that they can't afford a guy like him. Off topic but I wish baseball had more owners like Mark Cuban. He was willing to pay more for the Cubs than anyone, but MLB wouldn't allow him to buy the team because he's too outspoken. Guys like him just want to see their team win, and they're willing to do anything to make it happen. Baseball needs more owners who don't put off the facade of "We have money, just not enough money to pay an elite player in free agency."
|
|
|
Post by tallthrill on Dec 1, 2016 22:26:23 GMT -5
Jeff Passan Verified account @jeffpassan Int’l bonus $ depends strictly on market size. Teams can trade every $ of their int’l pool. Teams can trade for up to 75% of theirs.www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/mlb-mlbpa-agree-to-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.htmlThere are three tiers in spending allotment, per Jon Heyman of Fan Rag (via Twitter). Large-revenue clubs will have $4.75MM to spend, mid-tier teams can go up to $5.25MM, and the smallest organizations can tap $5.75MM. It's pretty ridiculous that large market teams get less $ for international signings. It seems like small market teams arye the big winners in every aspect. That's crazy in my opinion. I get the caps to make it a level playing field, but this goes way too far. When you add the penalties for signing QO free agents, small market teams have a huge advantage. When another Yoan Moncada type prospect comes along it will be interesting to see how much teams will pay to acquire the maximum additional int'l bonus dollars (75%*$5.75MM = $4.3125MM for small market teams). This might show how much the hard caps will dampen the international market and keep money that would have gone to Dominican kids in the pockets of owners.
|
|
|