The new Collective Bargaining Agreement is kinda good, but mostly bad for the Yankees

(Mike Stobe/Getty)
(Mike Stobe/Getty)

Earlier this week, MLB and the MLBPA worked out a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, which will cover the 2017-21 seasons. The owners will reportedly vote on the new agreement on December 13th, which is merely a formality. Once they give the thumbs up, the new CBA will be ratified and everything will be good to go.

The new CBA won’t have any direct impact on this offseason. Teams are operating under the old rules, so they still have to give up their first round pick to sign a qualified free agent. The new luxury tax rules will affect decision-making for sure, though that’s only a matter of degree. The luxury tax threshold went up, so here’s the new payroll target. That sorta thing.

Looking over the details, it sure seems like the owners got the better of the players’ union this time around. This is the second straight CBA that appears to favor the owners. Not a great decade for MLBPA leadership, I’d say. The Yankees do benefit from the new CBA, at least somewhat. There are definitely some negatives as well, however.

The Good

1. The revenue sharing savings are significant. The new CBA removed the Performance Factor from the revenue sharing system, which will save the Yankees a ton of money. Long story short, the supplemental revenue sharing pool, which is based on market size, has been eliminated. Because the Yankees are in the largest market and generate the most revenue, they were contributing the most to the supplemental pool.

The Yankees and every other team still have to pay into the basic revenue sharing pool — each team dumps 34% of their net revenue into the pot, which is then paid out to the 30 teams equally — so they will still be forfeiting a big chunk of change to small market clubs. The supplemental pool, which is determined through the Performance Factor, is gone now. The Yankees get to keep that money, which likely measures in the tens of millions. Simply put, the Yankees now have a lot more money available to them. It’s not going to revenue sharing anymore.

2. The draft pick compensation rules aren’t as harsh. The free agent compensation rules are a little convoluted — they’re tied to revenue sharing and the luxury tax now — but they guarantee teams will be able to keep their first round pick when signing a qualifying free agent. Because the Yankees don’t receive revenue sharing money, they’ll have to give up their second highest pick to sign a free agent. If they paid luxury tax in the most recent season, they have to give up their fifth highest pick too.

Those terms are much more favorable than the current system. First round picks are mighty valuable, both in terms of expected return and the associated draft pool money. The second highest pick, which will usually be a second rounder, is not going to be something that stops a team from signing a qualifying free agent. The Yankees tend to spend in bunches. When they sign qualified free agents, they sign several at once, a la the 2008-09 and 2013-14 offseasons. They can do that and still keep their first rounder. Pretty cool. (Or they could sign one qualified free agent each offseason and still keep their first rounder. That’s pretty cool too.)

The Bad

1. The luxury tax threshold didn’t go up that much. The luxury tax threshold did not rise until year three of the current CBA, the one expiring this offseason. The threshold was $178M in 2011, the final year of the old CBA, and it remained $178M in both 2012 and 2013 as well. It wasn’t until 2014 that it jumped to $189M, where it has remained since.

Under the new CBA, the luxury tax threshold will rise to $195M in 2017, so right off the bat that’s a $6M increase. By the end of the new CBA, the threshold will be $210M. That’s a $21M increase over five years. The expiring CBA featured an $11M increase over five years. Compared to the current CBA, the new one provides a much larger long-term luxury tax threshold increase. Hooray!

The problem is the threshold still isn’t rising as quickly as payrolls around the league. In 2012, the first year of the current CBA, the average payroll was $95M, or 53% of the $178M threshold. Only one team was over the threshold that year (the Yankees, duh). The Phillies were the only other team within $15M of the threshold. By 2016, the final year of the current CBA, the average payroll rose to $131M, or 69% of the $189M threshold. Six teams were over the threshold (Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, Cubs, Giants) and another (Angels) was within $10M.

See the problem? Payrolls are growing at a faster rate than the luxury tax threshold. Nathaniel Grow explained last year that the players are receiving a smaller piece of baseball’s total revenue right now than they have at any point in the last two decades. I can’t imagine that’ll change with the new CBA, especially since it comes with such high tax rates — a first time offender that is at least $40M over the threshold gets hit with a 62.5% tax rate — that the luxury tax effectively acts as a soft cap.

I could be wrong, but it seems a lot of people are assuming that once the Yankees get under the luxury tax threshold and reset their tax rate, they’ll spend big again and go back over. I’m not entirely convinced that’ll happen. Hal Steinbrenner insists the Yankees don’t need to spend $200M to field a winner, and it wouldn’t surprise me if staying under the threshold is a long-term goal. If it is, all that revenue sharing money the team is saving won’t go into the roster. Payroll will remain essentially unchanged.

2. The international free agency system is awful. Gosh, how badly does the new CBA screw over international players? As is, the new agreement effectively prevents Shohei Otani from coming over until 2019, when he’ll be 25 and no longer subject to the hard cap. How impossibly stupid. MLB and the MLBPA should want players like Otani in the league. Instead, they put together a deal that actively pushes him way. So dumb. So very dumb.

Anyway, the international hard cap takes away New York’s ability to flex its financial muscle in that market. One of the reasons the Yankees went on that massive spending spree during the 2014-15 international signing period was because it might have been their last chance to spend huge, and sure enough, it was. Rumblings of an international draft are not new. They’ve been around for years. We got a hard cap instead of an international draft, which is just as bad.

Because the hard cap isn’t enough, teams will also have to forfeit a chunk of their spending pool to sign qualifying free agents. So yeah, the Yankees only have to give up their second highest pick, but they also have to give up at least 10% of their bonus pool to sign a player. That stinks. It stinks for the teams because they can’t spend freely, and it really stinks for the kids trying to get signed. Their earning potential is so limited now. It’s a shame.

* * *

The owners go into CBA talks every five years with the same goal: cut costs. They accomplished that this year with the international hard cap, and also by giving teams less of a reason to increase payroll thanks to the harsh luxury tax rates. Mission accomplished for the owners.

The new CBA helps the Yankees because they’re going to save a boatload of revenue sharing money behind the scenes. An absolute ton. It also hurts them by marginalizing their financial might, both internationally and on the MLB roster with the luxury tax. Depending on which side of the table you sit, the new CBA is either really good (owners) or really bad (pretty much everyone else) for the Yankees. Each new CBA keeps whittling away at their financial advantage.

Attendance, the Shift, and Other Random Stats [2016 Season Review]

(Presswire)
(Presswire)

At long last, our 2016 Season Review series comes to an end today. Every year I wrap the season review up with a post on some random stuff I found interesting or caught my eye or whatever. Just stuff that’s worth touching on but isn’t worth a full post, you know? Some quirky stats and whatnot. Time to put a bow on the season review. Here’s our last little bit of 2016 coverage.

Attendance

Attendance at Yankee Stadium was down this season. We all saw it. We watched on television. It wasn’t entirely unexpected either, even after the wildcard berth a year ago. The Yankees have been mostly mediocre the last few seasons and that doesn’t exactly sell tickets. Here are the attendance numbers the last few seasons, via Baseball Reference:

  • 2012: 3,542,406 (43,733 per game) — swept in ALCS
  • 2013: 3,279,589 (40,489 per game) — Mariano Rivera‘s final season
  • 2014: 3,401,624 (41,995 per game) — Derek Jeter‘s final season
  • 2015: 3,193,795 (39,430 per game) — lost Wildcard Game
  • 2016: 3,063,405 (37,820 per game) — missed postseason with no farewell tour

It’s worth noting the Yankees were second in the AL in total attendance this season behind the Blue Jays (3,392,099) and sixth in all of MLB in attendance. It’s not like they were near the bottom of the league or even middle of the pack. Relative to the rest of the league, attendance was very good this year. Relative to Yankees’ standards, attendance was down. Especially considering the attendance numbers are tickets sold, not tickets used. There were large swaths of empty seats late in the season.

On a per game basis, the Yankees’ attendance this past season was their lowest since drawing 36,484 fans per game in 1998. Not too many folks wanted to see a 114-win juggernaut, I guess. In all seriousness, the relatively low 1998 attendance is because there is a lag between team performance and attendance change, historically. Got a great team? The big attendance spike comes the following season, not that season. (The 1999 Yankees drew 40,651 fans per game.) That’s because most tickets are sold before the season and early in the season.

The Yankees made the Wildcard Game last year and there were reasons to feel good about the team coming into 2016, but they got off to a slow start, slow enough that they sold at the deadline. That’s a pretty significant event that could have an impact on attendance. Sure enough, the Yankees drew 38,588 fans per game before the trade deadline and 36,515 per game after the deadline. Can’t say a drop of 2,000 fans per game surprises me. The team essentially threw in the towel.

It’s possible if not likely attendance will drop again next season, even though a mediocre team with young players is far more exciting than a mediocre team loaded with veterans in my opinion. Given their attendance this year, it’s not unreasonable to think the Yankees could draw fewer than 3,000,000 fans in 2017 for the first time since 1998. If it happens, it happens. Whatever.

The Shift

Over the last few seasons the Yankees have become one of the most shift happy teams in baseball. According to the fancy Baseball Info Solutions data I have access to through CBS, the Yankees used the seventh most shifts in baseball this season, though they were close enough to bunch of other teams that they were a few more David Ortiz and Chris Davis at-bats away from being third.

Overall, New York’s performance with the shift was not great, at least according to the data we have. Chances are the team sees something different with their internal data. Here are the numbers, via FanGraphs:

No Shift All Shifts Traditional Shifts Non-Traditional Shifts
Yankees .284 .304 .301 .329
MLB AVG .298 .297 .298 .293

A shift qualifies as a traditional shift if one of three things happens: three infielders on one side of the infield, two players are significantly out of position, or one infielder is playing in the outfield. If any of those three conditions are met, it’s a traditional shift. Anything else is considered non-traditional.

Anyway, those numbers in table are both AVG and BABIP. They’re identical because strikeouts, walks, and home runs are not included in the shift data. Interestingly enough, the overall MLB batting average was essentially the same when there was a shift and no shift on this past season. You’d think batting average would be lower with the shift since that’s the whole point, but nope.

For the Yankees though, their overall AVG/BABIP allowed with the shift employed was 20 points higher than without the shift. That’s backwards. The whole idea is bringing down your AVG/BABIP allowed by using the shift. This could be a statistical blip, but last season the Yankees allowed a .292 AVG/BABIP without the shift and .322 with. The year before it was .298 vs. .299, and the year before that it was .302 vs. .304.

Over the last two seasons the Yankees have allowed a much higher AVG/BABIP while employing the shift than without, according to the numbers we have. That’s a problem! The shift should be helping your pitchers, not your opponent. I don’t know what the problem is either. Bad positioning? Pitchers not executing? A bad pitching plan? It could be many things. This has happened two years running now. The shift upped the opponent’s AVG/BABIP by 20 points this season. Last year it was 30. 30!

Does this mean the Yankees should stop shifting all together? Of course not. That’s an overreaction. Intuitively, placing your defenders where the batter is most likely to hit the ball is a very smart thing to do. I’m surprised it took teams so long to start doing it regularly. For all we know the AVG/BABIP numbers we have above are wrong. Remember, this stuff is being recorded by human stringers watching video, so there is scorer bias.

I’m not sure I fully buy the huge gap in AVG/BABIP the last two years, but based on the eye test, I won’t argue with anyone who says the Yankees allow more hits with the shift on than without. If the numbers we have are even close to right, this is something that has to be fixed. Can’t keep shooting yourself in the foot like that.

Ellsbury and the First Pitch

Ellsbury. (Presswire)
Ellsbury. (Presswire)

One thing I neglected to mention in Jacoby Ellsbury’s season review was his propensity to swing at the first pitch this season. He became such an extreme first pitch hacker at times that even Michael Kay noticed and commented about it. Here are the numbers, with an assist from Baseball Savant:

  • 2013: Swung at the first pitch in 23.9% of all plate appearances.
  • 2014: 27.6%
  • 2015: 31.0%
  • 2016: 30.5%
  • MLB AVG in 2016: 28.3%

Those are all instances in which Ellsbury swung at the first pitch. It includes balls in play, foul balls, and swings and misses. If he swung at the first pitch, it’s included in those numbers regardless of outcome. That isn’t just the percentage of first pitches put in play.

Ellsbury didn’t swing at more first pitches this year than last year. Fewer actually, but by a tiny little amount. Compared to two and three years ago though, Ellsbury is swinging at way more first pitches these days. Swinging at the first pitch is not inherently a bad thing. In fact, I advocated for doing it more often coming into the season. Many times the first pitch of the at-bat is the best one to hit. Why let it go by? It’s not like starters pitch deep into games these days. You’re going to get to the bullpen eventually.

Swinging at the first pitch so often wouldn’t be so bad if Ellsbury had hit well in those situations. He hit .298 with a .131 ISO on the first pitch in 2016. That seems pretty good, especially compared to his overall season numbers (.263 AVG and .111 ISO). The problem is the league averages were a .346 AVG and a .236 ISO on the first pitch this year. Ellsbury was well below that. He rolled over and grounded out to second on a ton of first pitches.

Ellsbury has never been a guy who works deep counts. (He actually set a new career high with 54 walks in 2016.) He’s up there to swing and that’s fine. Hits are better than walks. He just hasn’t hit much the last two years, and when you’re not producing as expected, a lot of quick one-pitch outs gets mighty frustrating. Had Ellsbury hit, say, .350 with a .200 ISO on the first pitch, I don’t think anyone would care. But when his numbers are that far below league average, it gets old in a hurry.

Differences of Opinion on Baserunning

Depending who you ask, the Yankees were either one of the better baserunning teams in baseball this season, or one that was below average. They were successful with 77% of their stolen base attempts, fifth best in baseball, but they also attempted only 94 steals, which was 23rd most among the 30 teams. The Yankees took the extra base (first-to-third on a single, etc.) only 37% of the time, the fourth lowest rate in baseball.

So the Yankees didn’t take the extra base all that often — obviously that is largely due to personnel, because guys like Brian McCann and Mark Teixeira and Alex Rodriguez aren’t burners — but they were sneaky efficient at stealing bases. They just didn’t do it often. Here’s what the all-encompassing baserunning metrics say:

Hmmm. Which one is correct? I lean towards BRR myself. The eye test told me the Yankees were not a good baserunning team overall, mostly because they had so many slow players. They didn’t take the extra base often, didn’t advance on wild pitches and similar opportunities all that much, and they didn’t steal often either.

The difference in BsR and BRR boils down to the way the two stats are calculated. Both essentially compare the team’s actual baserunning success to their expected baserunning success — how often does a runner go first-to-third on a single hit to that location? That sort of thing. BRR includes some more adjustments for ballparks and things like that, which are important.

You’re welcome to feel differently, but I agree with the BRR number more than the BsR number based on everything I saw this season. The Yankees weren’t a great baserunning team at all in 2016. Teixeira, A-Rod, and McCann are all gone though, and with the new infusion of younger players, this number will hopefully tick up in the future. Baserunning is a weird thing. It’s easy to overlook but it’s very obviously important, and it can often be the difference in an individual game. It’s something the Yankees can improve going forward, for sure.

Friday chat reminder

The new Collective Bargaining Agreement has been hammered out and the Winter Meetings begin next week. Seems like a good day for a chat, no? See you all at 2:30pm ET.

Mailbag: Carter, Granderson, Pineda, Arenado, Doolittle

The mailbag returns from the Thanksgiving break with eleven questions. I hadn’t checked the inbox in so long that there was a question asking whether the Nationals could have interest in Brian McCann. True story. RABmailbag (at) gmail (dot) com is the place to send us questions.

Carter. (Dylan Buell/Getty)
Carter. (Dylan Buell/Getty)

Many asked: What about Chris Carter?

The Brewers are planning to non-tender Carter later today unless they can trade him before the deadline, which seems unlikely. The 29-year-old right-handed hitter put up a .222/.321/.499 (122 wRC+) batting line this past season, during which he led the NL in home runs (41) and strikeouts (206). That’s Chris Carter. Dude is going to hit some bombs, draw walks (11.8%), and swing and miss a ton.

Milwaukee is opting to non-tender Carter rather than pay him a projected $8.1M salary through arbitration in 2017. Teams are unwilling to pay big for one-dimensional sluggers nowadays. That’s why Carter is getting non-tendered for the second straight offseason, why Mark Trumbo was traded for peanuts last year, and why Pedro Alvarez had to wait forever for a new contract last winter. Homers are cool, but you better be able to do other things too.

The Yankees have an opening at DH right now — I mean, they could use another young player there, but it seems unlikely right now — and Carter could certainly fill that role. He’d give the team some much needed power too. Carlos Beltran led the Yankees with 22 homers last season. Yikes. The last time the team leader had that few home runs was the strike-shortened 1995 season, when Paul O’Neill hit 22.

Carter can be had a cheap one-year contract — he made $2.5M this year and I don’t think he’ll get much of a raise even after leading the NL in dingers — so he fits what the Yankees need in that sense. I am hesitant because a) he can’t play defense, and b) he strikes out so much. The Yankees are probably going to have to put up with some deep Aaron Judge slumps next year. How many more strikeouts do you want in the lineup?

Right now, I’d have Carter third on the DH wish list at best. Beltran and Matt Holliday are my top two preferences. Carter is ahead of Mike Napoli and Brandon Moss for me though. All three guys will end up giving you the same production, and Carter will come the cheapest. He’s not a must sign for me at all. He’s a backup plan at DH.

Many asked: What about Jay Bruce or Curtis Granderson?

Yes on Granderson, meh on Bruce. The Grandyman is forever cool with me. He’d fill that DH void and also provide extra depth in the outfield. Also, the Yankees are really short on left-handed power right now, and Granderson would help in that department for sure. There’s only one year left on his contract at $15M, and while that’s pricey, it’s not a deal-breaker. Among trade targets, Granderson is at the top of my DH list.

As for Bruce, he’d be an okay option at DH, I suppose. His numbers have really taken a nosedive the last few years for whatever reason. He would add left-handed pop and could also play the outfield (and even some first base), and heck, he’s six years younger than Granderson. And cheaper too (one year at $13M). In reality, it’s basically a toss up between the two. They’re similar. I prefer Granderson because a) he’ll get on base more, b) he’s been healthier the last few seasons, and c) he’s been here before and there will be no adjustment period, presumably. Just my preference.

Granderson. (Elsa/Getty)
Granderson. (Elsa/Getty)

Eric asks: Is there any chance that the Rockies, White Sox, Pirates, Marlins, Royals, or Astros sign any of the free agents who rejected qualifying offers, thus moving the Yankees up in the draft order? Assuming this isn’t affected by a new CBA.

It won’t be affected by the new Collective Bargaining Agreement. We know that now. The Astros are said to be in the mix for Edwin Encarnacion, and even if they don’t sign him, they could make a run at another qualified free agent like Jose Bautista or Ian Desmond to add offense. I wouldn’t call it 50/50. Maybe it’s more like 30/70 the Astros give up their first round pick to sign a free agent? I can’t see any of the other teams doing it though. They’re more likely to tear things down than make a real go-for-it move. The Yankees hold the 17th overall pick in the 2017 draft right now, and with any luck, the ‘Stros will give up their pick and New York will slide up to 16th. (Assuming the Yankees don’t give up their first round to sign a free agent.)

Frank asks (short version): With the free agent reliever market about to go insane, wouldn’t a Michael Pineda move to the bullpen be something to think about?

I think it’s worth considering at this point. Pineda’s about to enter his sixth year in the organization and he’s only thrown two full seasons because of various injuries. Both seasons were league average at best. Pineda has his pluses (misses bats) and minuses (far too hittable), and over a full season, the minuses seem to outweigh the pluses. I think he’d be pretty excellent in relief, to be honest. Airing out the cutter/slider combo for an inning at a time could be devastating.

There are two potential issues. One, Pineda would probably resist such a move in his contract year. His earning potential as a starter, even a league average one, would be pretty big. If he puts together a few strong months and finishes with, say, a 3.50 ERA (3.70 FIP) in 180 innings, he could be looking at a very nice contract. And two, the Yankees probably need him as a starter right now. Putting Pineda in the bullpen would almost certainly require adding a starter. I couldn’t imagine the Yankees going with Masahiro Tanaka, CC Sabathia, and three kids next year.

Steven asks: I’m not that interested in what we’d get back in return, I’m sure there’s some 19 yr old I never heard of who can throw 90+, but what teams could legit benefit/be interested in obtaining Brett Gardner?

Three teams immediately jumped to mind: the Nationals, Giants, and Cardinals. Washington needs a center fielder and Gardner would fill that role. (They don’t necessarily need a leadoff hitter anymore thanks to Trea Turner.) They’ve reportedly been talking to the Pirates and Andrew McCutchen, so they’re thinking big. The Giants need a left fielder but not a leadoff hitter because they have Denard Span. In that huge ballpark, they need a left fielder who can go get the ball, and Gardner can do that.

The Cardinals might be the best fit because they need both a center fielder and leadoff hitter. They’re moving Matt Carpenter down in the lineup to help replace Holliday, and they need someone atop the lineup who can get on base. St. Louis also doesn’t have a true center fielder on the roster. They’ve been playing Randal Grichuk out there and that can’t last. Gardner helps them offensively and defensively. The Indians are another possible suitor, I’d say. Depends on Michael Brantley’s shoulder as much as than anything.

Mike asks: The thought of having a prospect package large enough for Trout and the news the Yankees have given thought to trading Headley got me thinking, what about Nolan Arenado from the Rockies? What would a potential package look like and would the Rockies do it?

I don’t think they would trade him. The Rockies do have a history of locking up their star players. They signed both Todd Helton and Troy Tulowitzki, two homegrown megastars, to massive contract back in the day. Carlos Gonzalez got a big extension too. Nolan Arenado is next in line for a Helton/Tulowitzki deal. He is so insanely good and I feel like people don’t realize it because he’s stuck on a crappy team and his numbers get discounted due to Coors Field.

If the Rockies did make Arenado available, oh yes, go get him. He’s a 25-year-old cornerstone player who does everything but steal bases. Will he hit .294/.362/.570 at sea level like did at altitude last year? No, but if you believe in the park factors, he’s still 25% better than average offensively and is just now entering his prime years. I think Arenado still has another level in him, and considering he’s already a +5 WAR player, there might be an MVP in his near future. (His teammates might cost him that MVP though.)

I can’t really answer what it would take to get a player like this, a bonafide star three years away from free agency. This is like the Paul Goldschmidt question three weeks ago. Guys like this almost never get traded. The Yankees would have to put Gleyber Torres on the table — if you’re the Rockies, why would you trade Arenado without getting Torres? — plus a bunch more. Good prospects, too. Not Torres and crap. And it’d be worth it. Arenado’s a top five player in my opinion.

Rich asks: Sean Doolittle. What do you think as a another LH option for the bullpen?

Doolittle is exactly the kind of reliever I don’t want the Yankees to acquire. He’s had some shoulder problems the last few years and he throws basically nothing but fastballs. That’s usually a bad combination. Doolittle had a fine 2016 season, pitching to a 3.23 ERA (3.45 FIP) with 29.0% strikeouts in 39 innings, though I feel like it’s all downhill from here. His contract is not prohibitive at all ($19.5M from 2017-20 if the club options are picked up) but the prospect cost might be given the state of the bullpen trade market. When there are better relievers available in free agency for nothing but money, go for them, not Doolittle.

Kenneth asks: What’s your thoughts on potentially a trade for Tony Watson. I live in Pittsburgh and he along with Cutch and J-Hey have been in trade rumors. Wondering if you think he could be an interesting guy to add to the back of the pen.

The Doolittle logic applies to Watson — just sign one of the top relievers and keep the prospects. Watson is one year away from free agency and for some reason his ground ball (43.8%) and home run (1.33 HR/9) rates really took a step back in 2016. I mean, everyone’s home run rate went up in 2016, but his was 0.52 HR/9 from 2013-15. That’s a big jump. Could just be a fluke for all I know. Watson would be worth a longer look in a non-mailbag setting if, you know, there weren’t so many good free agent relievers available.

Sam asks (short version): I get why people say you couldn’t use relievers the way Miller was used in the post-season over the course of a regular season, but what if you constructed your pitching staff to have a guy you planned on using 40-50 times, for 120 premium innings?

It’s a great idea, in theory. The player would have to a) buy into that role, and b) be someone you could extend three innings and remain effective. A lot of relievers are relievers because they couldn’t go multiple innings. If you find the right player, that’s definitely a bullpen role I’d like to see. He’d be someone you could count on to give your other relievers a rest every few nights, and when you do run into those tight games, you can use a quality reliever for more than one inning at a time. Everything in baseball is trending towards using pitchers less and less, so I’d be surprised if someone tried this nowadays, but it’d be awesome to see. It’s a great way to maximize a quality reliever and a roster spot.

Michael asks: If the Pirates are open to trading Josh Harrison (we know the Pirate-Yankee trading history), would it make sense to pursue him given his team control and club options?

Harrison is surprisingly expensive! I thought the Pirates got a better deal when they signed him long-term. They owe him $7.75M next year and $10.25M the year after before his club options kick in ($10.5M and $11.5M). That’s a decent chunk of change for a guy who hit .283/.311/.388 (87 wRC+) this year and has been a +1 WAR player for two years now.

I’m not sure how much versatility Harrison offers at this point — he’s been a full-time second baseman for two years now — and if his bat keeps going backwards, he’s suddenly an expensive platoon player. I’m not surprised the Pirates are looking to move him. Back when the Yankees had a seemingly limitless payroll, Harrison would make some sense. But with the luxury tax plan in effect, that’s a pricey roll of the dice.

Carlos asks: With the lifespan of most stadiums these days getting shorter and shorter, could you ever foresee a day when the Yankees move away from the Bronx?

No. Not out of the Bronx. I think they’re too ingrained in the city and the culture at this point. It’d be like moving the Cubs to the South Side or something. The Yankees may one day build a new ballpark elsewhere in the Bronx, but I’d be surprised if the team ever moved to Manhattan or even Brooklyn. Relocating the Bronx Bombers is not something that should happen.

Thursday Night Open Thread

Now that the new Collective Bargaining Agreement is in place, teams around the league are finally going to get serious about their offseason. There’s no more mystery. Among those teams are the Yankees, who seem poised to do something at the Winter Meetings next week. What exactly? I’m not sure. We’ll find out soon enough.

Anyway, here is tonight’s open thread. The Cowboys and Vikings are the Thursday NFL game, all the hockey and basketball locals are in action except the Knicks, and you’ve got a bunch of college basketball on the docket too. Discuss any and all of that right here.

CBA Details: Disabled List, All-Star Game, Luxury Tax, Free Agent Compensation, More

MLBPA chief Tony Clark. (Boston Globe)
MLBPA chief Tony Clark. (Boston Globe)

Last night MLB and the MLBPA agreed to a brand new Collective Bargaining Agreement, meaning teams can finally move forward with their offseason plans. More and more details about the CBA are starting to trickle in, so let’s round ’em all up and analyze. This all comes via Ronald Blum, Ken Rosenthal, Stephen Hawkins, Jon Morosi, Jon Heyman, and Joel Sherman.

Disabled list reduced to 10 days

The 15-day DL is now the 10-day DL. The 7-day DL for concussions and 60-day DL are unchanged. The new 10-day DL means we’ll see fewer teams play shorthanded going forward, which is something the Yankees (and especially the Mets) have done from time to time. We also might see an uptick in “phantom” DL stints. Got a young starter who needs his workload kept in check? Stick him on the 10-day DL with an upset tummy and let him skip a start without playing shorthanded.

All-Star Game no longer tied to World Series

Thankfully, the All-Star Game will no longer determine homefield advantage in the World Series. It’ll instead go to the pennant-winning team with the better regular season record. Hooray for common sense. That’s still not a perfect solution because of unbalanced schedules and all that, but it’s the best possible solution, I think. Certainly better than alternating leagues each year or tying it to the damn All-Star Game.

Rather than homefield advantage in the World Series, players will instead play for a pool of money in the All-Star Game. That’s a pretty good way to get them motivated. No idea what that pool will be, but I hope it’s substantial. Like $1M per player on the winning team. Something like that. Want guys to play hard in the All-Star Game? Putting a million bucks on the table is a good way to do it.

Luxury tax details

The complete details about the luxury tax system … ahem, the competitive balance tax system … are now available. The thresholds the next five years are as reported yesterday: $195M in 2017, then $197M, $206M, $209M, and $210M in subsequent years. Here are the tax brackets:

  • First time offenders: 20% (up from 17.5%)
  • Second time offenders: 30% (remains the same)
  • Third time offenders: 50% (up from 40%)
  • $20M to $40M over threshold: 12% surtax
  • $40M+ over threshold (first time offenders): 42.5% surtax and first round pick moves back ten spots
  • $40M+ over threshold (repeat offender): 45% surtax and first round pick moves back ten spots

So a team over the luxury tax threshold three straight years and at least $40M over the last two years would be taxed at 95% (50% plus 45% surtax). It’s not a hard salary cap but it might as well be. That’s a major deterrent. Come 2019, when the tax threshold is $209M, the “soft” cap will essentially be $249M. Anything over that results in a 62.5% tax for first time offenders.

Also, those tax rates will be phased in next season. Apparently MLB is treating 2017 as something of a transition year for teams at or over the threshold. That doesn’t matter for the Yankees. They’ve been over the luxury tax threshold ever since the system was put in place, so they’re getting hit with a 50% tax right off the bat, plus whatever surtax applies depending on their payroll. My guess is they’re less than $20M over the threshold in 2017, so no surtax.

Free agent compensation and qualifying offer details

The qualifying offer itself remains relatively unchanged. It’s still a one-year contract set at the average of the top 125 salaries in baseball, and the player must be with the team the entire season to be eligible for it. There are two changes to the qualifying offer: players can only receive it once in their careers, and now they have ten days to accept or reject the offer rather than seven.

The free agent compensation rules are a bit convoluted now. Here’s how it works:

  • Signing team receives revenue sharing money: Forfeits their third highest draft pick. Keep in mind this is not necessarily their third rounder.
  • Signing team paid luxury tax during most recent season: Forfeits second and fifth highest draft picks, plus $1M in international bonus money.
  • All other teams: Forfeit second highest draft pick plus $500,000 in international bonus money.

Got all that? The Yankees are going to be paying revenue sharing always and forever, so the first bullet point doesn’t apply to them. Once they get under the luxury tax threshold, they’ll only have to give up their second highest pick plus $500,000 in international money to sign a qualifying free agent. I doubt that’s enough to scare them away from top free agents. It shouldn’t be, anyway. Now here are the rules for the team that loses a qualified free agent:

  • Players signs deal worth $50M+: Former team gets a compensation pick after the first round.
  • Players signs deal worth less than $50M: Former team gets compensation pick after Competitive Balance Round B, which is before the third round.
  • Former team pays luxury tax: The compensation pick is after the fourth round regardless of contract size.

This basically means older players like Carlos Beltran will never get the qualifying offer, ditto good but not great relievers. Those guys never sign deals worth $50M+, and the risk of them accepting the qualifying offer is not worth the reward of essentially a third round pick. This system should also eliminate free agents getting hung out to dry like Ian Desmond last year. That’s good for the union.

International free agency

As you know, there is now a hard cap on international spending, which is just awful. That was one of the last places the Yankees could really flex their financial muscle. The spending cap next year will be $4.75M for large market teams like the Yankees, $5.25M for mid-market teams, and $5.75M for small market teams. Well, I guess assigning the bonus limit by market size is better than using regular season record. The hard cap still sucks.

Because a hard cap isn’t enough, international players will now be exempt from the hard cap at age 25, not 23. They pushed it back two years. Jeff Passan confirmed with a team official that this applies to Shohei Otani, who is only 22. Rather than be posted next offseason, as expected, he has to wait until 2019 (!) to come over and not be eligible for the hard cap. So dumb. So, so dumb. Hopefully MLB comes to their senses and makes an exception for him (and other similar players). MLB and the MLBPA should want dudes like Otani playing their game.

(Aside: I wonder whether the hard cap will push some international free agents to play overseas for a few years, where they can make more money, then come over to MLB once they turn 25. Seems like a possible unintended consequence.)

Minimum salary

Reports indicated the minimum salary would increase substantially with the new CBA, and, well, that didn’t happen. The league minimum will rise from $507,500 in 2016 to $535,000 in 2017. That’s a 5.4% increase in year one of the CBA. The last two CBAs had a 16% increase in year one. Womp womp. The minimum salary will increase to $545,000 in 2018 and $555,000 in 2019. The players get cost of living increases in 2020 and 2021. Woof. Swing and a miss, MLBPA. Swing and a miss.

Miscellany

Here are some other miscellaneous details from the new CBA.

  • Players no longer accrue service time while serving drug suspensions. In the past players accrued service time during drug suspensions, but not suspensions under the domestic violence policy.
  • MLB will play regular season games outside the United States and Canada¬† as early as 2018. London and Mexico are the leading candidates. MLB has played regular season games in Asia and Australia in the past.
  • Roster limits remain the same. Teams will have a 25-man roster from Opening Day through August 31st, then from September 1st onward they can carry up to 40 players. Hooray for that.
  • The Performance Factor of the revenue sharing system has been eliminated. That is going to save the Yankees a boatload of money behind the scenes. Wendy Thurm explained the system a few years ago.
  • Chewing tobacco is banned for new players. Current players are grandfathered in and can still use it. Kinda silly, but whatever.

So, from the looks of things, the owners scored big wins with the luxury tax system, international free agency, and the minimum salary. The players get more lenient draft pick compensation rules and also a shorter disabled list, which means more call-ups through the season. They’ll also benefit from the international hard cap because it ostensibly means less money for amateurs and more money for big leaguers. I dunno, seems like the owners got the best of the players with this one.