CBA Madness: Draft, IFAs, HGH, More


Bud Selig and MLBPA head Michael Weiner smile after taking the screws to the future of baseball. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)

Baseball officially announced its new Collective Bargaining Agreement this afternoon, a five-year pact between the owners and players’ association. The deal ensures at least 21 consecutive years of labor peace, which is great for the sport. I’m not so sure we can say the same about the rest of the deal though. Many of the changes will hurt baseball, especially in the long-term.

We’ve already recapped changes to the luxury tax, Type-A and B free agents, and the elimination of the Elias rankings, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. All of the CBA news below comes courtesy of the best reporters in all of sports, our beloved baseball writers. Props specifically go out to Jeff Passan, Buster Olney, Bill Shaikin, Ken Rosenthal, and Danny Knobler. This is not a full recap, but Maury Brown has the entire CBA available. Let’s start with the most significant changes…

Draft Spending Limitations

  • There is no hard slotting, but teams are given a “draft pool” by MLB that they aren’t supposed to exceed. Teams that do exceed their pool by 5% will be taxed at 75%. Spending in excess of 5-10% will result in a 75% tax and a loss of the next year’s first round pick. Spending in excess of 10-15% results in a 100% tax and and loss of first and second round picks. Spending in excess of 15% results in a 100% tax and the loss of two first round picks. That’s harsh.
  • Something called the “Competitive Balance Lottery” gives extra picks to the small-market and low-revenue clubs. Six draft picks immediately after the first round will be given to the ten teams with the ten lowest revenues via a lottery system. A team’s odds of winning the lottery will be based on its winning percentage the prior season. There will be another lottery with six additional picks after the second round for the clubs that miss out on the first set of picks. These Competitive Balance Lottery picks can be traded, but other picks can not.
  • If a player drafted in the tenth round or later signs for $100k or more, the extra money counts against the team’s draft pool. I’m not entirely sure what that means, but I think it means you can sign a player drafted in the tenth round or later for $100k and it will not count against your pool. Don’t quote me on that.
  • The draft signing deadline has been moved up from August 15th to sometime between July 12-18th, depending on the All-Star Game. The college coaches will appreciate this.
  • Drafted players can only sign minor league contracts now, and the top 200 prospects will be subject to mandatory drug testing.

International Spending Limitations

  • Each team will be allowed to spend $2.9M on amateur free agents this year, or a hundred grand less than the Yankees gave Gary Sanchez in 2009. Starting next winter, the worst teams will be allowed to spend ~$5M while the best teams get to spend ~$1.8M.
  • Starting in 2013-2014, teams will be able to trade their international spending cap space, thought clubs will only be able to acquire an additional 50% of their cap. So if the Yankees are limited to a $3M cap, they can only trade for an additional $1.5M.
  • Players under 23 years old and with less than years of professional baseball experience will be considered amateurs and count against the spending cap. That means guys like Yoenis Cespedes and Japanese veterans will be treated as a true free agents. Japanese players run through the posting system will not count against the cap.
  • Players must register with MLB’s scouting bureau in order to be eligible to sign. That should cut down on the number of age and identity fraud cases. The top 100 prospects will be subject to drug testing.
  • A worldwide baseball draft is a “significant possibility” by 2014, and there are incentives in place for both sides to negotiate terms in the future.

Long story short, the MLBPA sold out its future members for the sake of its current members. The draft and international spending limitations are severe and will drive young talent away from the game, and you’ll see legitimate two-sport guys like Zach Lee and Bubba Starling be pushed to college by the spending restrictions. Teams also have little incentive to run a baseball academy in Latin America now. We’ll see the real impact of these changes in five or ten years, when there’s a sudden lack of young talent and barely enough real athletes to play the middle infield. Anyway, here is the lest of the CBA news…

Draft Compensation Changes

  • The following players are Type-A free agents but will be treated as Type-B free agents for the remainder of the offseason: Matt Capps, Francisco Cordero, Octavio Dotel, Ramon Hernandez, and Darren Oliver. A team will not have to give up a draft pick to sign them, and their old team will gain just one supplemental first rounder.
  • The following players are Type-A free agents but will not be treated as “modified” Type-A free agents: Heath Bell, Michael Cuddyer, Kelly Johnson, Ryan Madson, Josh Willingham, and Francisco Rodriguez. A team will not lose a pick to sign them, however their old club will still receive two picks. One will be a first round one spot after the team that signs them, the second a supplemental first rounder.
  • These changes can all be seen on our 2012 Draft Order page.
  • Players must still be offered arbitration if their former club wants to receive draft pick compensation. The deadline to offer arbitration is tomorrow, by the way.

Blood Testing For HGH

  • Players will be tested next Spring Training to determine their energy levels, and those test results will be discarded. Tests will be taken on non-gamedays unless the player volunteers to do it the day of a game. They’re essentially going to test the test, just to see how the players respond physically after giving blood.
  • Once the two sides see how the players respond, they will then determine how and when to proceed with in-season testing. Offseason testing will begin next winter, and the tests will not be random. There has to be reasonable cause.

Instant Replay

  • Replay will be expanding to include fair-or-foul plays as well as “trapped” ball plays. MLB and the umpires’ union must still discuss the final details. Hooray for this.
  • There will also be an “improved process for challenging official scorer decisions.” So now David Ortiz can complain about his RBI total without interrupting his manager’s press conference.


  • Players will no longer be allowed to use those low-density maple bats that shatter and turn into dangerous sharp, flying objects.
  • The Great Gazoo helmet, which Frankie Cervelli wears following all his concussions, will be mandatory by 2013. The new version will be less bulky and hilarious looking.


  • The minimum salary will rise from $414k this past season to $480k next season, and it will climb to $500k by 2014.
  • The top 22% of players (in terms of service time) with fewer than three years of MLB service will be considered Super Twos. Those folks are arbitration-eligible four times rather than three. It had been the top 17% previously.

New Policies & Programs

  • A new tobacco policy will be instituted, preventing tobacco products from being visible during interviews, interactions with fans, etc. Uniformed personnel can still use chewing tobacco, but the can can’t be visible and a wad of chew in a player’s cheek will draw a slap on the wrist from the union.
  • A “program of mandatory evaluation” is in place for players that commit alcohol-related offenses, including DUIs.
  • There will be some kind of “social media policy,” basically taking all the fun out of MLB players on Twitter.
  • Something called “market disqualification” says the top 15 markets will not be able to receive revenue sharing money by 2016, the final year of this deal.
  • I can’t believe they actually had to write this into the CBA, but there is now a policy in place that protects union members from discrimination stemming from their sexual orientation.


  • Participation in the All-Star Game is mandatory unless the player is injured or otherwise excused by the commissioner.
  • Rosters will expand to 26 players for “certain regular or split doubleheaders.” I kinda like that.
  • The extra wildcard team and expanded playoff setup will be instituted immediately, so there will be two wildcard clubs per league next season. It will in fact be a one-game playoff.

The owners get rather drastic spending restrictions on amateur players as well as expanded playoffs while the players get an increased minimum salary, more Super Twos, and better free agent compensation rules. Everyone wins … as long as you’re an owner or a union member.


  1. DERP says:

    Fuck Bud Selig and whoever else was responsible for this.

  2. Freddy Garcia's 86 mph Heat says:

    Replay is the only good thing here.

    • MattG says:

      I dunno. It will be interesting to see how the umpires place the runners after their first reversed ‘trapped ball’ call.

      It will also be interesting to see what the runners do. Under this rule, if I see a ball bounce, I am going to run no matter what the umpires call, right?

      I am not sure I like it.

      • KeithK says:

        Exactly. Trapped ball or ball right on the line. There will have to be some significant guidance in the rules about runner placement, which will inevitably add a lot of subjectivity if a foul call is reversed. Unless the rule does something simple like award an automatic single and one base for those situations.

        Another example of “keep going”. Runner on first, center fielder dives and catches a ball. It’s ruled a catch but it’s really close to a trap. Does the CF throw into second to ensure the force out? If the original ruling (catch) is overruled, is the runner out because the CF threw in to force him out? Does the runner get the benefit of the doubt since he only went back to first because the umpire originally called the batter out?

        I don’t like replay in general. But situations like this can turn this rule into a very bad one. In some cases you almost need to do a schoolyard style “do over” in order to be fair to both sides.

        • Genghis says:

          It’s not that hard. If the play is ruled a “catch”, the play continues as if it’s a catch until the play is over. If the “catch” is later overturned to be a “trap”, all runners get a base tagged on, per some policy.

          A play with an overturned call is not the same play as if the call were made right the first time. It’s a fundamentally different sequence of events. You don’t go back and edit the original play with a different causal event but with the same results.

  3. Total says:

    as long as you’re an owner or a union member.

    Well, exactly who is supposed to gain out of a deal between…wait for it…owners and union members? (if you say ‘fans’ or ‘future players’) I am going to respond with a BZZZT! noise.

    • MattG says:

      It’s not so much that the players sold out their not-yet-unionized brothers, but the owners sold out their heirs. If baseball does not attract the best talent, popularity, and value of the franchises, will wane.

      • Ted Nelson says:

        Not to say that they might not screw up, but owners are aware of this. They are aware of what happened in Puerto Rico. There are hundreds of millions of dollars on the line. I’d guess that they looked into it and are comfortable. Doesn’t mean all owners agree or the majority is right. However, I find it disingenuous to assume the owners are so dumb that they haven’t considered things that seem obvious to us common fans. That they haven’t looked into this in much greater depth than we have.

        • Plank says:

          How do you know owners are aware of this? Did you talk to them?

          It’s a simple question. I’m just being rational. Not a dick at all.

          • YanksFan says:

            You would believe that these are business who are rich. Most people that rich are not stupid. Nor is it likely that it is inherited. Therefore, i would trust that the majority of the owners or their well-paid lawyers have looked into various permutations.

  4. Dan2 says:

    Way to go bud! Additional opportunities given to low revenue teams to spend more money. Think they will spend what they don’t have, idiot!

    • Soriano is a Liar says:

      And on top of having no money, weak teams with extra draft picks will be unable to really get the best value out of them even if they do have money (ie Pirates, Nationals, etc), which kind of kills that idea before it even started.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      Small market teams routinely spend more than $5 million in the draft. They routinely spend more than or close to that on one player.

  5. Tom Zig says:

    I’d rather have the old CBA. The good changes are drastically outweighed by the bad changes.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      Like what? Seriously asking.

      • Tom Zig says:

        recommended slotting for the draft and unlimited budget for IFA signings were good things.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          Yeah, it’ll be interesting to see.

          The IFA I’m not sure about, but I don’t mind the draft. Levels the playing field by making it more about scouting/strategy and less about spending.

          • Plank says:

            How do you know the draft rules level the playing field? This is utter conjecture.

            • Bryan says:

              At a macro level, the new draft rules are conducive to more cyclical success and the greater parity that it brings.

              At a micro level, teams’ spending in the draft is regressively capped, where the losing teams get to spend more than the winning teams.

  6. Gonzo says:

    I guess what makes me a little perturbed is why didn’t the Yankees go apeshit this year and outspend everyone in the draft and IFA?

    They way this reads, I would be shocked if there isn’t a worldwide draft instituted in 2014.

    • I wouldn’t be too concerned about the Yankees IFA spending this year, they are always in the top 3-5 at the very least. They just sign a huge ton of mid-range guys instead of the big names unless they really like someone.

      • Gonzo says:

        My point is that they should have went out of their way to spend more if they knew their ability would be curtailed so soon. If they spend in-line, it’s still impressive, but not my point.

  7. Plank says:

    The 15 teams in the biggest markets can’t collect revenue sharing money.

    Who will this effect? Marlins (maybe) Nationals, Orioles, A’s.

    Anyone else?

  8. MattG says:

    Maybe I am just a romantic, but I don’t think the 7 year-old in the DR has expectations of becoming a millionaire in MLB. I think he just likes to play baseball.

    The academies, scouting, and so forth will still be there. They’ll just have to settle for $250,000 bonuses instead of $1.5 million.

    On the domestic side, where else but MLB can a 17 year-old get a six or seven figure pay day? The NFL only drafts 224 kids a year–is that really going to be more attractive to the 2 way player?

    • Soriano is a Liar says:

      I think what’s more attractive to 2-way players is that they can get lucrative scholarships to QB at big colleges. Even if they don’t get drafted into the NFL, they still get a free education at a top notch and expensive school, plus all the benefits of being a star college athlete. Sure, it won’t drive every two way player away, but we already see players choose a scholarship over entering the long and tedious MLB farm system. This can only increase those number of players, and hard slotting ensures that if a high drafted two way player goes to college, his team is screwed because they were forced to use a high pick on him instead of drafting him lower down to mitigate that risk, because of MLB’s desire to see “the top talent get selected first”.

      • MattG says:

        Are you saying they won’t play baseball in college too? I actually don’t know the answer to that…do division one athletes play multiple sports?

        Even if not, this just doesn’t affect a lot of kids. They will have football scholarships, baseball scholarships, and a minor league bonus to consider. The kid with the commitment to Stanford to play quarterback, but instead signs a contract with a MLB team, is pretty uncommon.

        • theyankeewarrior says:

          A lot of it has to do with the parents of young, up-and-coming athletes. If they don’t see those big bonuses awaiting their kids, they might not be able to convince them to even continue playing baseball.

          The point is to entice kids to play the game, and making less money is no way to do that.

          Football and Basketball are already much more popular than baseball amongst young American kids.

          This will only make it worse.

          • Ted Nelson says:

            The bonuses are still going to be big. It’s a marginal thing.

              • Ted Nelson says:

                This article.

                • Ted Nelson says:

                  Please stop being ridiculous. When the new limits still being millions of dollars appears literally in the article we’re discussing don’t be a douche and ask for a source. When I ask for one it is because I legitimately feel you are introducing information that is questionable and needs to be cited.

                • Plank says:

                  I’m afraid I need hard data and not logical conclusions based on what is available.


                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    The hard data is literally in this article.

                    Why have you flipped out to this extent because I asked you to cite your sources when making claims that need to be cited? You seriously might consider getting help.

                    • Plank says:

                      I don’t see that data you are referring to. Please quote form an impartial source. APA format is ideal, but MLA format will do in a pinch.

          • toad says:

            I don’t get this concern. First of all, I don’t believe that too many kids are making finely honed decisions about what sports to play in high school based on financial prospects. Second, there are baseball scholarships also. Third, if we are going to assume that these kids are making hyper-rational decisions, then, assuming they are equally skilled, they’d be idiots to play football in preference to baseball.

            Baseball has higher pay and longer careers, and baseball players almost surely have a longer life expectancy than NFL players.

    • thenamestsam says:

      I think there is some evidence based on what happened in Puerto Rico that deflating the bonuses given to players does impact the level of talent coming out of a country. Sure the 7 year old still loves baseball, but the 16-year old kid who needs to help his family may decide to go get a job instead.

      Here’s a link to a baseball prospectus (free) piece discussing the potential impact of a world draft that shows the decline in Puerto Rican talent after being added to the draft. Not entirely conclusive, but it seems reasonable that if you artificially deflate the price of something the supply is going to dry up somewhat, no?

      • MattG says:

        “if you artificially deflate the price of something the supply is going to dry up somewhat”

        That certainly sounds reasonable, but the counter argument is that you can’t deflate it to the point that it doesn’t still kick the snot out of every available alternative. That 16 year old kid? What’s he going to do–waiter at a resort? Load up sugar trucks? For one, I don’t know that Puerto Rico is brimming with industry, and for two, he’s 16; what’s he got for education?

        I am certain it is more complicated than this and you are right to some extent. I am equally certain that it is inaccurate to say, “You’re killing the sport! They’ll get rich doing something else!”

        • thenamestsam says:

          I agree with you that it’s a complex issue, but I’m not sure it’s correct to say that playing baseball actually kicks the snot out of the alternatives on an expected value basis. Sure if you get signed, it’s way better than being a waiter, but most guys making the choice are far from certainties to get signed.

          We can imagine a simplified world where each player has x chance of getting signed to a contract worth $y. Then he chooses to work instead of practice baseball and try to get signed if x*y is less than the amount he could make in an alternative engagement (waiting tables, say). What this agreement does is lower y for everyone. This means that x*y is going to be less than that cutoff point for some players when it wasn’t before. For the top talents its still going to be worth it to practice and try to become baseball players, but for guys where it was already a close consideration, this will change some minds, and losing those marginal kids gradually erodes the talent base.

          • Ted Nelson says:

            If you’re going to use Puerto Rico as the only example to prove your point I’d like to see a much more in-depth analysis.

            I agree with your theoretical construct, it’s just a matter of assigning actual values. I am not at all convinced limiting IFA to still be millions of dollars per team is enough to limit the talent. Especially when that talent was there before, and without looking at the numbers I’m going to guess that IFA bonuses have eclipsed inflation by a ridiculous amount the past 10-20 years.

            These kids are also getting benefits from buscadores before they ever sign. It’s possible that the real decision making process for a 12, 13 year old kid more comes down to working a crap job and attending some crap school vs. getting to play baseball for a living (already basically having it as a profession with a buscador long before signing). With the slight chance of a million dollar payday only being a negligible concern.

            • Plank says:

              People don’t work for you. He doesn’t need to conduct a study to appease you. You can ask for sources, but no one is under an obligation to you. Either agree, disagree, or find it yourself. Unless it’s preposterous, which this isn’t, you can’t dismiss his thoughts because you haven’t seen clear numbers.

              • Ted Nelson says:

                Mind your own business.

                thenamestsam makes the same comment I made below.

                Not everyone freaks out like you do when someone points out that they made a mistake.

                • Plank says:

                  I apologize. I didn’t mean to interrupt your lecture.

                  What mistake did I make? You are constantly asking me to prove that the Yankees and MLB are more profitable than they were 5 years ago. We’ve had this discussion ad nauseum. You don’t think so, and it shows you are an idiot.

                  Every time I write something, you say the same thing, and it just makes you look more and more like an idiot.

                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    Please stop the personal attack. It’s totally unnecessary.

                    You don’t understand the difference between revenue and profit, but you keep insisting I am an idiot.

                    I am not lecturing anyone. As I said the person I commented on literally agreed with my critique of their comment just below this.

                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    If it is so well known that teams on the whole are more profitable now than 5 years ago that someone who even dares to ask for a source substantiating this claim is an “idiot”… You should be able to find a source in 2 seconds. It’s been days and you haven’t provided one source…

                    You may be absolutely right. I have no idea. I am just asking for a source. Not only have you not provided one, but no one else has stepped up to your defense with one. If it’s such a well know reality… Just show me a source.

      • Genghis says:

        It wasn’t the reduced bonuses due to the draft that killed Puerto Rican talent; it was mainly the fact that players could no longer be signed at 16, and receive the benefits of early development. A world draft would create the same sort of problem once again, but I don’t think the new CBA itself is changing the minimum signing age.

        • thenamestsam says:

          That’s an interesting hypothesis, and one that this arrangement might allow us to test if it wasn’t likely that a worldwide draft was being introduced soon. I think its going to be hard to prove one way or the other based on Puerto Rico since both things happened at the same time. Why do you think it was the minimum age and not the reduced bonuses that had the effect?

      • Fernando says:

        +100. The numbers of kids playing basketball rather than baseball in PR has increased, not surprisingly after PR’s were added to the draft.

  9. Brian S. says:

    “Preventing large market teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies from spending overslot on the draft is obviously a huge advantage in their favor! The Yankees are also the cause of global warming, AIDS, and world hunger.”
    -Dave Cameron

    • Soriano is a Liar says:

      Dave is right to a point though… this does hurt big spending teams, it just hurts teams with low ability to spend even more. That said, I wish he could write his typically excellent articles without taking potshots at big money teams. It’s not like his Mariners are in the poorhouse.

  10. Plank says:

    Yankees are really getting their hands tied with this. If they spend more on major leagues, they will have an even higher luxury tax rate. If they spend more on the draft or IFA, they will lose their ability to use those markets in future years and more importantly will have to pay more revenue sharing.

    I think they best way for the Yankees to use their financial advantage at this point is to raise their major league payroll by a lot and stay within the bounds of IFAs and draft spending limits. Their revenue sharing payments are huge. Decreasing that number will give them a lot more money to play with.

  11. Rey22 says:

    Wow. Soccer and basketball fans must be thrilled about this. Outflux of athletes from baseball and influx in those sports coming very soon. Sad.

  12. Robert says:

    Can MLB/MLBPA say lawsuit? When does the first agent or player sue them for Anti-Trust voluations?

    • Need Pitching says:

      baseball has an antitrust exemption, I doubt Congress will take that away so kids can get bigger signing bonuses. This is much less restrictive than NBA draft rules anyways.

      • Plank says:

        You think Congress would uphold the anti-trust exemption?

        I can’t see why, unless Clemens goes back and signs some more baseballs in the hall.

        • Need Pitching says:

          they haven’t taken it away yet, why would that change now??
          Doesn’t matter anyways, NBA without the exemption has a more restrictive draft slotting system and that has been allowed to stand

    • viridiana says:

      Big market teams that opposed these provisions (with Selig’s gag order we don’t know wha that may be) should sue.
      Just another in a long list of rules changes Selig has implemented to benefit small market teams– who are now favored in countless ways.

      • Ted Nelson says:

        MLB is the only of the three major team sports without a cap. Big market teams still have it better there than other sports.

        I would guess they will not even think of suing because they enjoy monopoly power that could be taken away from them, resulting in not only sharing their revenues but sharing their markets with teams that move from undesirable small markets. NY metro area has over 20 million people while many MLB markets have like 1 million people.

        • Plank says:

          I’d like to see hard data that shows “Big market teams still have it better there than other sports.”

          NY metro area has over 20 million people while many MLB markets have like 1 million people.
          I also require indisputable data showing this to be true. Chop chop.

        • Spaceman.Spiff says:


  13. Spencer says:

    I don’t see how any of this is good for Yankees fans. A CBA that drastically limits the Yankees financial advantage, cuts the organization’s primary source of young, high-end talent (IFAs), ensures that it will be the only team to pay luxury tax for years to come while continuing to supply the league with more than half of the revenue share dollars and makes the playoffs more of a crap shoot really stinks.

  14. Plank says:

    To get around the rules, can the Steinbrenners buy a team in each country and if they have a player the Yankees want to sign, just “sell” them for a nominal fee? I always think about that with and NPB team. If the Yankees own the team with Darvish (or any player they want), they can him for free.

  15. Thomas says:

    I think they need to change how the CBA is determined. The major problemis that there are only two representatives the commissioner (who represents the owners) and the MLBPA head (who represents the players). I think they need to add two new members to the discussions. The four person committee would be:

    1. The commissioner who represents the league, not the owners. His job is to put forth the best possible product to the fans by looking at keeping competitive balance, drug testing, rules, fairness, ect. Additionally, as the person in charge of the league, he is unbias and helps moderate between the next 3 people.
    2. The MLBPA head who represents the current set of players. Thus, he wants higher salaries, no cap, more super 2, etc.
    3. The owners head who represents the owners, obviously. Thus, he wants lower salaries, restrict draft spending, luxury tax, revenue sharing, etc.
    4. The incoming players head who will serve the best interest of new talent joing the league whether by amatuer IFA, rule 5 draft, or Japan/Cuba IFA. He is paid by a portion of their initial contract. Therefore, he want no draft or IFA cap, no posting, etc.

    I think unless MLB gets someone to represent the incoming players and makes the commissioner an unbias figure who wants the league to have the best possible product, the fans and the incoming players will always be screwed and the MLB will suffer a decline.

    • Robert says:

      This CBA is Collusion along the owners to keep down contracts.

      • KeithK says:

        No. The players agreed to it so by definition it’s not collusion. Legally anyway.

      • viridiana says:

        With so many provisions clearly aimed against the Yankees and other big market tems, somebody should take this to court. Could go all the way to the Supremes.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          They are monopolies allowed to operate without competition. The Yankees are lucky to have a monopoly in NY, while Tampa is unlucky to have a monopoly in Tampa. If the monopoly power goes away, the Yankees will likely have to deal with competitors in the NY market besides the Mets. The market is 20x the size of some other MLB markets.

          • Plank says:

            I’d like some documentation showing conclusively that the Yankees are lucky to be in NY. Without it, your words mean nothing.

  16. Dennis says:

    We can still spend on the IFA it will just cost us draft pics. I doubt the Yankees let a Montero or a Sanchez go because they are afraid to lose a 2014 first round pick. And think about this, if all teams offer the same amount of money where would a young Dominican kid want to play, for the New York Yankees or the Pittsburgh Pirates.

    • Need Pitching says:

      Pirates. quicker path to the Majors and quicker path to arbitration and free agency where the big money is.

      • Dennis says:

        ever heard of brand awareness go Google it. These kids know Yankees they wear Yankees caps, they WANT to play for Yankees.

        • Need Pitching says:

          then why don’t all IFA’s sign with the Yankees, hell Felix chose Seattle over the Yankees. They can sign with the Yankees after they reach free agency, and some may sign as amateurs because of the brand, but their agents/advisors will sure as hell steer them to the teams with the quickest path to the majors. With smaller signing bonuses, most will choose to find the big bucks as soon as possible over any kind of branding.

          • Dennis says:

            because the money is different do you not read I said if the money is the same.I’m sure the next 15 year old Montero cant wait to join the Pirates minor league system instead of playing for his idols on the Yankees.

            • Need Pitching says:

              1)the money is not the same, teams with worse records will have a higher cap, after next year

              2) even without that, players will make more in the long run if they choose a quicker path to the majors, so again, the money is not the same

              3) King Felix turned down big money from the Yanks to sign with Seattle. Not every player wants to play for the Yankees, and even when they do, most players will still choose the path with more potential money, and a better chance to reach the majors

              • Dennis says:

                So why does anyone sign with Yankees. You being a child psychologist who obviously knows what these kids want to do with their lives at 15 years old. And Felix is just one example tell me another where someone picked another team for less money and became a major league star.

                • Need Pitching says:

                  the IFA’s that sign with the Yankees generally sign because the Yankees offered the most money, such as Montero and Sanchez. I’m not saying I know what the kids want, but there have been many IFA’s over the years that the Yankees tried to sign, but signed elsewhere. The bottom line is, the Yankees will have less than other teams to spend on IFA’s, so the money will not be equal, and the Yankees path to the majors will be slower than with lesser teams, so the players would make less in the long run. Players generally are going to follow the money.

    • Plank says:

      Not true.

      If they spend too much on IFAs, they can’t spend above a certain amount total or per player the next year in the IFA.

      • Plank says:

        And they have to pay more in revenue sharing.

      • Dennis says:

        I don’t see that stated anywhere all it says is you lose draft picks.

        • Plank says:

          I don’t know what to tell you. It’s clear as day. Do you want me to cut and paste?

          • Dennis says:

            please do.

          • Mike HC says:

            I didn’t see that either. The way I read it, is that international free agent signing have a hard cap that you can’t out spend that. There is no penalty if you spend too much on IFA’s, because you are simply not allowed to do it.

            • Plank says:

              Under f. International Talent Aquisition

              Excess of Pool Penalty (Tax on Overage/Draft Picks)
              ? 0-5% – 75% tax
              ? 5-10% – 75% tax and loss of right to provide more than one player in the next signing period with a bonus in excess of $500,000.
              ? 10-15% – 100% tax and loss of right to provide any player in the next signing period with a bonus in excess of $500,0000.
              15%+ 100% tax and loss of right to provide any player in the next signing period with a bonus in excess of $250,000.

              Under Revenue Sharing:

              b. The fifteen Clubs in the largest markets will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing by
              2016. The revenue sharing funds that would have been distributed to the disqualified Clubs will
              be refunded to the payor Clubs, except that payor Clubs that have exceeded the CBT threshold
              two or more consecutive times will forfeit some or all of their refund.

              • Dennis says:

                Thanks. I though you meant in this tread not the agreement. Anyways if you notice it says 75% is more than 1 player . So theoretically they can exceed for “special player” 2 years in a row.

              • Mike HC says:

                I just read this article. Probably should have read the actual agreement before commenting.

              • Need Pitching says:

                so it looks like in this system, it might make sense for the Yankees to load up and just pay the penalty in a strong IFA year and then have to mostly sit out on the top talent the next year. They could still spend big on elite IFA talent, but it will just be more expensive and they won’t be able to do it every year.

                • Dennis says:

                  That would seem to be the best strategy.

                  • Dennis says:

                    This year was a weak year so in this new system it would have been perfect year to not overspend. The Only negative would be if you “miss” on one of these kids you cripple yourself for talent for 3 years.

                    • Need Pitching says:

                      but it seems like in 1 year they could sign as many players for as much as they wanted, with just having to pay more because of the tax, and being severely limited in the next year
                      For example, year 1 sign several big IFA’s regardless of cost and exceed cap by more than 15% (doubling the cost of the signings with the tax), then in year 2 stay under the cap and be limited to under $250,000 bonuses, Year 3 – repeat year 1 big spend, Year 4 – repeat year 2 limits, etc

  17. Plank says:

    I wonder if teams will intentionally not sign their first round pick so they have more money to play with for the others, or some other strategy. A whole new market inefficiency has just been born. Who can figure it out first?

  18. Azzmat says:

    Scott Boras got screwed royally !

  19. Bronx Byte says:

    They should have signed off on a rule to have 28 players on a roster until May 15 and no more than 32 players on a team during September instead of 40. It would be OK to have 40 players on the team but 8 of them would only travel and work out with their team to get used to major league conditions.

  20. KeithK says:

    The draft and international spending limitations are severe and will drive young talent away from the game, and you’ll see legitimate two-sport guys like Zach Lee and Bubba Starling be pushed to college by the spending restrictions.

    Baseball might lose out on some of those two sport athletes, which would be a bad thing for the game. But from the perspective of the owners, driving a kid to go to college first might be a good thing. Signing a kid who has two or more better risk than signing someone right out of high school. You get the certainty of more information and don’t have to pay for the development costs.

    I could see this having some effect on the quality of minor league ball, especially at the lower levels. But we’ll have to see.

    • Lots of team prefer to sign the youngest kids they can so they can stop them from any bad or detrimental habits they might pick up in college. That extra control a team has over development means a lot to a lot of teams. This also gives you certainty that they are doing what your organization thinks is best for their development. It’s not just black and white.

  21. UncleArgyle says:

    Seems like bad news for the Yankees, Red Sox and Latin Kids. Good News for competitive balance.

    • mustang says:


      I’m sure the Yankees and Red Sox will be just fine and the talented Latin kids will still make there way to the big show.

      No need to be looking for any bridges to jump off.

      • A-Rod's Wingman says:

        Wrong again. If teams have little incentive to teach the game to Latin American kids thn the talented one’s would never even have the skillsets to make it up here.

        • Plank says:

          Someone has read Outliers.

        • mustang says:

          Those baseball academies aren’t going anywhere. Maybe the Yankees might close shop, but the lower market teams will step right in.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          What on earth are you talking about?

          Those kids are getting taught by buscadores long before they sign. They aren’t just pulled off the street and handed millions of dollars.

          And $1 million is still a whole lot of incentive to teach a kid the game after he’s signed, even if it’s not as much as $2 million.

          This is yet another example of presenting as fact what is not fact.

          • mustang says:

            2 for 2

            Keep it going.


          • Plank says:

            What’s your source on this?

            • Ted Nelson says:

              Did you really suggest above that I look like an idiot for responding the same way to all of your comments?

              You might take an English class to gain an understnading for what needs to be cited and what does not.

          • Jimmy McNulty says:

            Where did I insinuate any of what you said? You told Plank to take an English class to know what needs to be cited and what doesn’t, perhaps you should take a rhetoric class to learn what a strawman is.

            What I said: If no one teaches them the game they won’t have the requisite skills to make it up here. Since you are the most ornery simpleton I have ever met, so I guess I have to explain this to you. MEANING, teams have baseball academies set up in the Dominican and other Latin American countries, they take kids in and teach them the game. There’s basics of fielding, throwing, hitting, and base-running that every IFA has before he’s signed. Yes, some are more raw than others, but they all have skill that’s on par with at least an average high schooler by the time they’re signed. There’s a hell of a lot of instruction that goes on before a kid takes a high school field, and as you know there’s a hell of a lot that happens afterwards that lets the kid get to the show. If there’s less incentive to have camps down there for young kids there’s fewer kids that will come up here.

        • Rainbow Connection says:

          So you’re saying the Yankees and Sox will NOT be just fine?
          And the talented Latin kids will NOT make it?

    • vinny-b says:

      a salary cap would’ve been better for competitive balance, then this horsesh*t. This is not the answer.

      that said, i may stop watching baseball. The draft, and following young players via the system, maintaining following young players via a top farm system, is my fave part of being a baseball fan.
      And now Selig pulls the rug out from under all of this.

      over dramatic? No. Only the facts.


      • Need Pitching says:

        overly dramatic? YES! There will still be a draft and farm systems, the players will just sign for smaller bonuses (and in some cases with different teams)

  22. Mike HC says:

    They really went hard at evening the playing field when it comes to incoming talent, both with the draft and the international free agents. No longer do the Yanks and other large market teams have a huge advantage, or an advantage at all really when it comes to incoming talent. I guess this move does just kind of bring things closer to the other big leagues, NFL and NBA.

  23. A-Rod's Wingman says:

    Yankees should install a new stool pigeon in the commish’s office. Get rid of this amateur spending nonsense.

  24. Peter R says:

    Wow. Totally agree with Mike that is will drive the best talent away from the game. Very, very sad.

    I am not sure that I agree that it will allow teams to shut down academies…as the signing bounus they can give out still to people will still be a great deal of money compared to other avenues of employment in those countries.

    Everything looks not too bad except for the spending limits for draft and international agents. I am sure the players will have “sore thumbs” or “bruises” to get out of the All-Star game…unless injury means DL.

  25. Juke Early says:

    Dateline Nov. 22, 1963

    All we need are 3 things -

    • time machine
    • Selig in an open limo in the Big D
    • + you know who

    Make the trade: get rid of a bum & get back a great new comissioner

    Rod Serling Jr.

  26. Plank says:

    3. Article XX(B) free agents signing minor league contracts who are not added to the
    Opening Day roster or unconditionally released 5 days prior to Opening Day shall receive
    an additional $100,000 retention bonus and the right to opt out on June 1.

    What’s an Article XX(B) FA?

  27. Rich in NJ says:

    Selig continues to do everything he can to help the Brewers.

  28. Dan says:

    What happens if a team signs a Type A free agent and loses this first round pick and also spent over in the draft. Does the draft pick they were going to lose anyway because they spent too much in the draft just go to the team that they signed the player from? Or do they lose an additional first round pick in the following year?

    • Dennis says:

      Comrade Bud probably takes the next highest pick.

      • Ted Nelson says:

        MLB is not a capitalistic system at all… It is not a free market, it’s monopolistic.

        Bud Selig is also a figure head who reps the owners. He can’t just shove his agenda down their throats without their approval.

        • Plank says:

          MLB is not a capitalistic system at all… It is not a free market, it’s monopolistic.

          Bud Selig is also a figure head who reps the owners. He can’t just shove his agenda down their throats without their approval.

          I’m going to need some data to back this up conjecture. Please respond post haste.

  29. mustang says:

    ” long as you’re an owner or a union member.”

    Welcome to Collective Bargaining in the USA today!!!!!!

    • mustang says:

      BTW those “future players” will still be making a shit load of money to play a game 6 months out of the year.

      Shed No Tears.

    • A-Rod's Wingman says:

      You don’t understand how employee or employer relations do you? It’s not that they aren’t getting paid its that they aren’t getting their fair share. Collective bargaining is also something you don’t understand either.

      • mustang says:

        I been a union member for 14 years and in this environment union members have the following choices:


        2- cuts in pay and benefits especially medical

        3- Strike (which may lead to losing your job)

        4- Make some concession for future employee in order to help out the current ones.

        This is the short version but I think you can get the idea.

        • Plank says:

          All unions aren’t the same. MLB is more profitable than ever. This isn’t some dying industry.

          • Ted Nelson says:

            Again… if you’re going to make this claim, please show us where you’re coming up with these figures. The NFL and NBA unions have complained that they don’t even know how much teams are making. Revenues and profits aren’t the same thing. Perhaps you do have correct information, all I ask is that you share it.

            • Plank says:

              Again, I’ll refer you to the last time you ignored my response.


              I’m sorry if you can’t see that from the available information, it’s clear teams are making more money. That’s on you, not anyone else.

              I can’t help if you are not smart enough. I’m growing wary.

              • Ted Nelson says:

                They are private organizations that do not report earnings. It is not clear to anyone but them how much they net. If it is so abundantly clear, cite one source. You have yet to do that.

                • Plank says:

                  If you don’t want to believe that the Yankees and other teams make more money than they did in years past, then good for you. You are wrong (and clearly an idiot), but go for it.

                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    I am an idiot because I don’t want to believe some anonymous poster on a blog? Interesting. I would say the exact opposite. If you have a source, just post the link.

                    • Plank says:

                      You’re an idiot because you aren’t able to look at the available information and reach the only logical conclusion based on that information.

                      I said (then you said as if it were your thought (another trend I’m noticing with you)) that the Yankees keep their financial info closely guarded. You admit that the info isn’t available exactly as you want to see it. Then you say you don’t believe it cause you can’t see it.

                      They have more ticket revenue, more central money disbursement, and high TV ratings. Oh, yeah, they also have a new baseball stadium. All of that means more money.

                      Similar conclusions can be drawn for nearly every team in the league.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      “You’re an idiot because you aren’t able to look at the available information and reach the only logical conclusion based on that information.”

                      The information is not available. These are private organizations. That revenues went up like 1.5% does not mean profits went up. If costs went up by more than 1.5% profits actually went… down.

                      Who is the idiot again?

                      “I said (then you said as if it were your thought (another trend I’m noticing with you)) that the Yankees keep their financial info closely guarded. You admit that the info isn’t available exactly as you want to see it. Then you say you don’t believe it cause you can’t see it.”

                      What on earth are you rambling about? They are a private company. Are you honestly patting yourself on the back and accusing me of stealing your idea that they don’t divulge their financials?

                      Again… who is the idiot again?

                      “They have more ticket revenue, more central money disbursement, and high TV ratings. Oh, yeah, they also have a new baseball stadium. All of that means more money.”

                      What sort of understanding of finance and economics do you have? Are you really not aware of the difference between revenues and profits? Are you really not aware that the Yankees and MLB as a whole are not the same thing? MLB doesn’t have a new stadium, the Yankees do.

                  • YanksFan says:

                    I’m getting sick of your ramblings. Ted has said you do not understand the difference between revenue and profit. He is 100% correct. Before you start on me, I am a CPA.

                    Revenues I do believe are up. But there are fewer seats in the new stadium with higher prices. Now, how about what you are missing. EXPENSES. You don’t think tha NYY may have hired more employees? You don’t think that they’ve given raises to their old employees? You don’t think that a lot of the new revenues have to go to pay the debt on the new stadium?

                    That’s just the NYY. IDK if you can say that TV & radio deals have gone up for all other MLB teams. Attendance has not gone up for all MLB teams. What are the price structures for the other MLB teams to keep the fans around.

                    • Plank says:

                      Before you start on me, I am a CPA.

                      I’ll try to reply, but hopefully your CPA magic doesn’t deflect everything I say.

                      I absolutely understand the difference between revenue and profits. Since the Yankees don’t disclose their profits or revenue, but their revenue can be approximated from available information, it can be a good approximation for profit since their payroll hasn’t changed significantly in over 5 years.

                      Attendance has not gone up for all MLB teams.

                      You’re either knowingly lying or don’t know enough about baseball. The information is publicly available and shows clear increases in attendance nearly every year.

                      Average ticket price has also gone up league wide and on the Yankees every year. This information is also publicly available.

                      What does it mean if ticket prices increase and more of them are sold? In my tiny non-CPA brain, that leads me to believe they are making more money.

                      Use your CPA magic to reach another conclusion.

            • Jimmy McNulty says:

              Jesus Ted, the sale of the Dodgers is expected to clear a Billion dollars. I think Forbes last valued it at UNDER a Billion dollars, so I’m pretty sure someone if someone’s taking a franchise that’s basically being fire sold and paying a good chunk more than what it’s worth that they’re making good money. Also there’s this article:


              Exact quote:

              “The average MLB franchise is now worth $523 million, an all-time high and 7% more than last year.”

              Yes, those are estimates, but Forbes seems to be pretty good at this kind of stuff. I’ll take their word over your’s.

              God you’re fucking stupid. The reason why the NFL and NBA don’t want to show the players their books, because if the players saw the books they’d probably ask for more money. If you’re facing a lockout and the players’ and public’s idea of your value is LESS than what it actually is, why not show the books? What do you have to lose?

          • mustang says:

            “MLB is more profitable than ever. This isn’t some dying industry.”

            You can say that about most big corporations (Verizon comes to mind) that’s not going to stop them from trying to screw their works.

            Its business and whoever said business is fair.

            • Plank says:

              Verizon can hire and train new workers to perform the same job. MLB can’t.

            • Jimmy McNulty says:

              Yeah, didn’t know you were a working man getting the shaft and realized that you’re getting the shaft, but most importantly WHO is giving you the shaft. Most working people who get the shaft don’t blame their bosses…you do, and I’m glad to see it. Apologies for being a dick earlier (Wingman), but MLB players are workers too. We shouldn’t take their boss’ side over theirs, we wouldn’t want them to take our boss’ side. It’s okay if they make millions to play the game because baseball makes billions.

      • mustang says:

        ” It’s not that they aren’t getting paid its that they aren’t getting their fair share.”

        Some may argue that baseball players are already well overpaid and that some unproven young talent making big $$$ is more then fair.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          Fair share isn’t equal to total salary. If the revenue is generated by the players, they have an understandable argument that they don’t want the fruits of their unique skills and hard work line the owner’s pocket. GM could hire different line workers to make its cars, but MLB owners would be unlikely to make the same money with inferior players (especially since the superior players could form their own league). The balance of power lies far more with athletes than typical union members.

          • mustang says:

            Well said and done.

            Your right I concede.

          • Plank says:

            The balance of power lies far more with athletes than typical union members.

            Why do you make this claim? What facts do you have to back this up?

          • Bryan says:

            “but MLB owners would be unlikely to make the same money with inferior players (especially since the superior players could form their own league). The balance of power lies far more with athletes than typical union members.”

            In that vain, players can’t make the same money without the MLB. The MLB will still survive with inferior players, but superior players won’t survive without the MLB and make the close to the same money even if they start their own league. Even if these superior ones hire savvy businessmen to run their league, the LT viability of such a league would be tenuous – it’s unlikely that the players hold the balance of power over the owners.

            Look at the current NBA lockout, no way Lebron, DWade, Kobe etc can make anywhere near the same money LT playing pick up games against each other. Neither will they make the same money playing in Europe or Asia. David Stern and the owners know they hold the balance of power over the players – the owners can either operate an inferior league, or they focus their time on their other business interests.

            Athletes are employees, where their main income comes from their playing salaries. These owners do not rely on their teams’ income to pay the bills.

            Lastly, as you said the MLB is a collection of geographical monopolies. The essence of a monopoly is the absence of competition, caused by high barriers to entry into the market such as expensive set up costs, excessive cost of operations etc. These players wouldn’t have the money to start their maverick league. Even if they get investors to start one for them, the MLB have all the prime locations, with exclusive stadium rights.

  30. craig says:

    Does this perhaps increase the interest in Darvish & Cespedes by large market teams?

    This is the remaining area they can flex their financial muscles without being penalized.

  31. Ted Nelson says:

    I prefer the “pool” to hard slotting, so I’m fine with that. Allows for more strategy. Should benefit the best run teams, and I have liked the Yankees “spread the wealth” strategy the last couple of drafts.

    I am also fine with measures meant to increase competitive balance such as the extra draft picks for poor teams. MLB is a monopoly system. In a competitive system I would expect more teams would crop up in large markets like NY, LA, Chicago. (NY metro has about 20 million people… while many MLB markets are closer to 1 million.) In order to have teams to play and preserve their monopoly rights I believe teams like the Yankees absolutely should be asked to level the playing field. It is in their own best interest. It is my belief that they would rather have to help the Rays, for example, out a bit financially and with extra draft picks than have them more to, say, New Jersey or Connecticut to compete in their own backyard.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      I am more opposed to the “competitive balance” on the IFA side, which penalizes good teams rather than penalizing teams lucky enough to be located in larger markets. (There is also the running a good business angle, but I think that’s fairly marginal since the $ incentive is already there… purposefully making less money than possible to get an extra sandwich pick doesn’t seem likely to me.)

  32. DB says:

    It would be awesome to see the Yankees just screw over the league by reducing their payroll to under the luxury tax and just letting their prospects develop. It would be nice if in a few years the Yankees could have a rotation and bullpen made up of guys still in arbitration (ie. Nova, Banuelos, Betances, Noesi, Robertson…) and start moving toward doing the same with their lineup (ie. Nunez, Montero, Gardner). Then the Yankees could have a few years where they aren’t basically paying for some teams entire payroll. It wont happen, but it would be funny to start hearing teams complain that the Yankees aren’t spending enough after so many years of complaining about how much the Yankees money gives them a huge competitive advantage.

    • Plank says:

      The league would like nothing more than for that to happen. The Yankees not spending money will lead to less money for the players (and thus more money for the owners) both directly in their lower payroll and indirectly in lower competition for FAs.

      Yeah, becoming like every other team would really show those owners.

      • KeithK says:

        It would be awesome if the Yankees farm system could consistently produce top tier talent who could simply be plugged into the lineup and rotation on a yearly basis. But that’s just not going to happen. The business of developing prospects is just too unreliable.

        And it’s not like the Yankees would suddenly decide to cut ticket prices and concessions because the payroll dropped to $150M. Hank and Hal would simply pocket a larger slice of the pie.

  33. Art Vandelay says:

    question, i never heard the MLB guys fighting over percentage like nfl and nba, when the nba says they want a split, what does that mean ? they get to split all the earnings withe owners ? on top of their salary every splits with all the players the % they get ? or wha ?

  34. Tom Swift says:

    I wonder if the best young international players will choose to play in foreign leagues (such as Mexico or Venezuela or even Cuba) until they hit 23 so that they can sign as free agents not subject to the cap. That’s taking a huge risk with injury, but the best players may be able to buy insurance against that risk and hope to reap a windfall down the road.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      It’s an interesting idea.

      I don’t see it for the top players. When they’re 16 they can still get a couple of million bucks (until an international draft if that happens). I don’t see them waiting 7 years… by which time if they are actually going to develop (and they’d have to develop to command anything approaching Yoenis/Yu sort of money, it’s not just injury risk but also development risk) they could be close to hitting arb.

    • KeithK says:

      Guess that depends on how much the Mexican, etc. leagues pay for young kids (which is probably not much but I don’t know). Even with caps on international signings it’s probably in a kid’s best interest to sign with a MLB team. He’ll still get a signing bonus that amounts to damn good money. He doesn’t have the risk factor of waiting five or seven years to cash in. If he’s good enough to cash in as a FA at 23 then he’s probably better off working through the system for those years and getting to the big leagues, where the real money is.

      Even if it makes rational sense to wait (from an expected earnings perspective) for most international amateurs the guaranteed signing bonus is going to be more attractive than a potential windfall later.

      As for insurance, how would an insurance company price that risk? I don’t think we have enough hard data for that. If a player could even get such a policy it would probably be prohibitively expensive.

    • JAG says:

      It’s a good thing for the MLB that they instituted more disincentives to falsify age, otherwise there might well be incentive to do the reverse of what is done now and lie to make yourself older so you can sign as a free agent but still benefit from MLB development.

  35. Dale Mohorcic says:

    Does Michael Weiner have the worst hair/bald combo ever?

  36. Jamey says:

    I get the feeling Selig’s just stacking it up so he can walk away & enjoy the “Wow I can’t believe things were BETTER with Selig as Commish!” when people inevitably blame his successor for the problems he created.

  37. I don’t understand the crying that this is terrible for the Yankees. It does nothing substantial to touch their biggest advantage which is that they have the financial wherewithal to sign the best proven Major League talent once they hit free agency.

    This does actually hurt the small market or disadvantaged (think Blue Jays) teams who invest huge amounts into player development and gives boosts dumb teams like the Orioles.

    I mean a lottery for some teams to get supplemental picks instead of increasing revenue sharing? Come on.

    Another thing this does is demolish all the academies the very active teams like the Yankees, Mariners and Braves have built. There’s no incentive and if you have to submit players for a list why are you going to do all that hard work? I saw something about IFA being ranked, how is that even going to work in a good fashion?

    As for the changes in the draft, I think they are pretty silly. MLB’s interest was in having the “best talent go in order” but that is pretending that there is some sort of consensus talent order outside of the top 5 in any year. And honestly, I do not see how this is a huge concern given the way that player development works in MLB. Teams have widely varying boards and completely different methods/wants/etc. The Red Sox under Theo did not get no doubt elite talent in the 18th round, they got good talent and hope they can sign the player.

    These changes aren’t really good for anyone except the White Sox who already operate on the cheap as possible player dev scale.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      “Another thing this does is demolish all the academies the very active teams like the Yankees, Mariners and Braves have built.”

      Because they’re going to pay these kids less money overall they have no incentive to develop them?

      • Need Pitching says:

        I would think it would create more incentive, same players, lower cost.
        If a worldwide draft is instituted, however, that would have a major effect. If MLB were smart, they would make sure the academies were continued by centralizing them under MLB control instead of team control.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          Yeah, this is a good point. I think before deciding what impacts will result, we have to wait to see exactly what changes are made. MLB could easily be blindsided by unintentional consequences, but they could also make moves in anticipation of some of these consequences.

      • The whole reason teams build and sustain academies is so that they can find the best talent and not share. It is not to play nice with other teams. This is killed by this ominous. People involved in both sides of Latin American development are already upset about the changes.

        I realize you like to play devil’s advocate and are of course smarter than the rest of us combined but if you had been paying attention today you would see that there is real concern about this. There is no incentive to build and run these academies as they presently exist.

        • Need Pitching says:

          except unless and until a worldwide draft is instituted, the new CBA really doesn’t prevent teams from signing the players they develop at their academies, it mostly just means the players will be forced to sign for lower bonuses

        • Ted Nelson says:

          Again… you are presenting speculation as fact. How these rule changes will influence things is open to interpretation. Different people will have different theories. It’s pretty unlikely that MLB thought this through and decided to ruin the Latin American talent source.

          That there will be less money doesn’t mean that there will be no money. There will still be a lot of money.

    • vinny-b says:

      I don’t want to win buy buying all the best FA players. And it doesn’t work anyway.

      if MLB insists on keeping with these new rules, they’ll lose me as a fan.

      I have zero interest in following perpetual old teams, filled by mercenaries. If the Yankees can’t field talented young teams (as they are now), there’s no incentive for me to watch.

      • I don’t want to win buy buying all the best FA players.

        That’s your personal thing and frankly pretty silly.

        And it doesn’t work anyway.

        Except that it actually tends to work. Who has it not worked for?

        • vinny-b says:

          every Yankee team in the 1980′s, for starters.

          • Need Pitching says:

            so winning in 2009 had nothing to do with signing the two best available starting pitchers (arguably) and the best available hitter????

            Regardless, the Yankees will still draft players, still sign IFA’s, and still develop their own players

      • Ted Nelson says:

        The Yankees aren’t going to suddenly stop acquiring amateur players.

  38. vinny-b says:

    what Selig and the lesser owners want to do, is compose a set of rules which will make the Yankees older and worse.

    this accomplishes this. And add Boston, Philly, to the list as well.

  39. Wowww says:

    This horse shit rule had to be because of last years draft… Kids were getting paid 8 million dollar bonuses in the second round for Christ sake…(Josh Bell) this isnt the way to fix that… they need to revise this or watch the game of Baseball decline. I understand lowering bonuses but not to this extent.

  40. Mike R. says:

    I’m all for competitive balance like in the NFL, but these spending caps will only hurt teams like the Pirates where the Draft/IFA is the only place they can really funnel the $.

  41. deadrody says:

    Horrible. You want less of something, tax it.

    In other words, you want less talent coming into baseball via the draft and international free agency ? You got it.

  42. Charles says:

    “Something called the “Competitive Balance Lottery” gives extra picks to the small-market and low-revenue clubs. Six draft picks immediately after the first round will be given to the ten teams with the ten lowest revenues via a lottery system. A team’s odds of winning the lottery will be based on its winning percentage the prior season. There will be another lottery with six additional picks after the second round for the clubs that miss out on the first set of picks. These Competitive Balance Lottery picks can be traded, but other picks can not.”

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to just have the 10 teams with the worst record get put into the lottery for that? Lowest revenue is nice, but it doesn’t mesh well considering theres a ‘pool’ that you can’t go over.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      I could easily be totally wrong, but my reading of it was that your “pool” varies depending on your draft position. So my understanding is that the extra pick would mean extra money to spend.

      Teams have little control over their markets and lots of control over their record, so I prefer rewarding teams that are at an unfair disadvantage largely beyond their control over rewarding failure. (The IFA rules seem to reward failure, but I suppose it’s basically like instituting a weakly organized draft for IFAs where the worst teams are at an advantage.)

      • Plank says:

        Teams have little control over their markets and lots of control over their record

        I’d like to see some literature to document your supposition.

        • viridiana says:

          I think Selig’s enormous hypocrisy is reflected in this rule. He is flat-out giving bonus picks to low-revenue teams. So this is not a way to help teams that have performed poorly, as the amateur draft as a whole does. So if the Yanks or Phillies are so hurt by those rules that they become second tier teams they would still not get extra picks. The small market teams already helped immensely in other ways would get these picks.
          Frankly, I think this wholke new CBA is so prejudicial to the interests of some teams that it should — and will – be challenged in court.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.