Article: How Will The New CBA Affect The Twins?

[Nick Nelson]

Just hours ahead of the December 1st deadline, Major League Baseball and its Players Association were able to agree on a restructured Collective Bargaining Agreement, ensuring labor peace through 2021.

 

The new CBA is largely similar to the one it replaces, with a few distinct alterations. Today, we'll look at at some of those changes, and what impact they might have on the Minnesota Twins specifically.The exact details of the renewed agreement – reached under the watch of MLB commissioner Rob Manfred (pictured above) – aren't public, but plenty of details have trickled out. From what we know, here are the biggest changes:

 

Luxury Tax Threshold Increases

 

What Changed? In 2017, the spending threshold at which teams start getting penalized will rise from $189 million to $196 million. It will continue to jump each year until 2021 when it reaches $210 million.

 

Twins Impact: It's a move that is conducive to higher player salaries, since big market clubs will have slightly less limitation on how much they can dole out. Unless the Pohlads suddenly decide to pump another $90 million into payroll, this won't directly affect the Twins, except that salary inflation league-wide may accelerate a little.

 

Shorter Disabled List Stints

 

What Changed? The minimum DL stint is being shortened from 15 days to 10 days.

 

Twins Impact: The idea here is that when a player is a bit nicked up, his team will feel less handcuffed in making a DL move to get some extra help. It's particularly pertinent for starting pitchers, who stand to miss one less start by returning five days earlier than before. The Twins had no shortage of ailments and injuries on their staff, so this should prove helpful for them.

 

(Some have suggested that teams could take advantage of this system by placing a starter on the DL and having him miss one turn – basically giving him a breather – while bringing on an extra reliever in the meantime. Will a Minnesota team that's been as arm-needy as any utilize this strategy? Would it be frowned upon?)

 

New International Spending Caps

 

What Changed? The previous system involved soft caps in the form of bonus pools. If exceeded, the offending team was penalized 100 percent on overages, with limits imposed the following year. Now, there are hard caps, which will vary by team but generally sit around $5 million.

 

Twins Impact: Based on their previous international spending habits, the Twins won't have trouble staying under the limit, which greatly levels the playing field in that it prevents a team like the Dodgers from being able to say 'screw it' and splurge for $45 million to gather up all of the premier foreign young talent, damn the consequences. That's good news for teams like Minnesota, but not so much for these young men and their earning potential. (Boy, does this look like a major capitulation by MLBPA.)

 

One other interesting element of this new arrangement is that teams can trade away percentages of their cap. If Derek Falvey and Thad Levine are committed to using the international free agency channel extensively, then don't be surprised to see them exercise this capability and acquire more flexibility. Or vice versa.

 

(It's worth noting that international players become exempt from these rules when they turn 25, or they've played six years in a pro league. So this wouldn't alter the pursuit of a player like, say, Byung Ho Park.)

 

Free Agent Compensation System Overhauled

 

What Changed? Teams no longer must forfeit a first- or second-round draft pick in order to sign a free agent who rejected a qualifying offer.

 

Twins Impact: Players HATED this rule, and with good reason. For all but the most elite qualifying free agents, it was a stifling burden. However, it worked out pretty damn well for the Twins over the years. As they watched homegrown stars leave via free agency, they stockpiled high picks, leading to the additions of players like Jose Berrios (comp for Michael Cuddyer) and Glen Perkins (Eddie Guardado). Now, the compensation will generally be a third-round pick.

 

Only once did Minnesota sign a free agent with the draft penalty attached. Bringing in Ervin Santana cost them their second-rounder in 2015, but because of this they also got him for less than they otherwise would have. Maybe a lot less. Of course, you will also recall the situation in 2014 where Kendrys Morales elected not to sign until June due to a barren market, and Minnesota was able to eventually snag him. So, those kind of situations won't be happening anymore.

 

Offensive Rookie Hazing Banned

 

What Changed? When it comes to the age-old ritual of dressing up rookies in funny or embarrassing costumes, there have been some lines drawn. A new policy outlaws "dressing up as women or wearing costumes that may be offensive to individuals based on their race, sex, nationality, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristic."

 

Twins Impact: We'll never see another picture like this one, of Pat Neshek:

 

Download attachment: neshekrookiehaze.jpg

That is not a complaint.

 

No More All-Star Home Field Stipulation

 

What Changed? The All-Star Game no longer decides World Series home field advantage.

 

Twins Impact: Well, obviously, they now no longer need to worry about the outcome of a meaningless midsummer exhibition game dictating whether they play Game 1 at Target Field when they reach the big show this October.

 

Or, some October. Hey, a guy can dream.

 

Click here to view the article

[nytwinsfan]

One of the things I've heard about is that the draft bonus pools (amateur, not international) were reduced, especially for the #1 pick, which sort of sucks for the Twins. Especially with the extra compensation round A pick at 30-something, will the Twins still be able to use some of that extra money to get a higher-upside guy in the comp round or round 2, as teams like Houston and the Braves have done in the last couple years?

[theBOMisthebomb]

The per diem was reduced so maybe Sano will be able to cut weight.

[pc-Ray]

That rookie hazing ban is going to sting, but someone still has to carry the Barbie treat bag, right?

[olivia11]

Is it possible that the money they got in the Justin Haley trade will go toward the International Spending Cap? 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Is it possible that the money they got in the Justin Haley trade will go toward the International Spending Cap? 

 

I'm kind of curious about that too.  If they want cash, by all means get it, but be able to use it to make the team better elsewhere.

[clone52]

I don't see how the international spending cap is a capitulation by the MLBPA.  Why would current players want teams to spend ridiculous amounts of money on unproven players.  It seems to me like the MLBPA would rather that money go to current players, or player development or whatever.

 

In the NFL, wasn't the player's association in favor of limiting the value of rookie contracts so those rookies didn't take up all the cap space and reduce available salaries for veterans?  Seems like the same logic would apply here.

[mikelink45]

I am glad to have this summary but at the level that the Twins operate there really is no impact on the team.  

[Nick Nelson]

 

I don't see how the international spending cap is a capitulation by the MLBPA.  Why would current players want teams to spend ridiculous amounts of money on unproven players.  It seems to me like the MLBPA would rather that money go to current players, or player development or whatever.

If the belief is that the money not being spent on amateur international talent will go toward the team's payroll, then sure. I think there's a general sense that it'll mostly just go back into owners' pockets.

[Vanimal46]

 

I don't see how the international spending cap is a capitulation by the MLBPA.  Why would current players want teams to spend ridiculous amounts of money on unproven players.  It seems to me like the MLBPA would rather that money go to current players, or player development or whatever.

 

In the NFL, wasn't the player's association in favor of limiting the value of rookie contracts so those rookies didn't take up all the cap space and reduce available salaries for veterans?  Seems like the same logic would apply here.

In theory that was how it was supposed to work in the NFL... But that's not the case. With the lower rookie salaries, it's now easier for teams to cut a player earlier. And they still cut expensive veterans at will. 

The Wall Street Journal reported that the average career length for NFL players has shrunk by two and a half years since 2008....

“The way the CBA is structured now, it’s really no different from any other workforce in that you want to find the healthiest, youngest, least-expensive talent and infuse it into your corporation,” said Tennesse Titans GM Jon Robinson. 

The thought process of the NFL's Age Problem is detailed here. 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

If the belief is that the money not being spent on amateur international talent will go toward the team's payroll, then sure. I think there's a general sense that it'll mostly just go back into owners' pockets.

 

Of course it goes back in their pockets. 

 

The international limits are terrible for the players. Every way you can drive up salaries, drives up all salaries. Every way you restrict what employees can get, owners get more. That's how business works.

[clone52]

 

In theory that was how it was supposed to work in the NFL... But that's not the case. With the lower rookie salaries, it's now easier for teams to cut a player earlier. And they still cut expensive veterans at will. 

The Wall Street Journal reported that the average career length for NFL players has shrunk by two and a half years since 2008....

“The way the CBA is structured now, it’s really no different from any other workforce in that you want to find the healthiest, youngest, least-expensive talent and infuse it into your corporation,” said Tennesse Titans GM Jon Robinson. 

The thought process of the NFL's Age Problem is detailed here.

 

Umm, being able to cut a player earlier is helpful to the veterans.  Sure, you can still cut veterans early, but you don't have a Top 10 draft bust eating up a significant portion of your salary cap.  

[Vanimal46]

 

Of course it goes back in their pockets. 

 

The international limits are terrible for the players. Every way you can drive up salaries, drives up all salaries. Every way you restrict what employees can get, owners get more. That's how business works.

Yep. The owners aren't dumb... They've been seeing salaries trending way up for the best international talent... This was their way to make the best players cost-effective and save them millions of dollars in the process. 

[Vanimal46]

 

Umm, being able to cut a player earlier is helpful to the veterans.  Sure, you can still cut veterans early, but you don't have a Top 10 draft bust eating up a significant portion of your salary cap.  

But the money is not going to the veterans in the NFL... Only the stars of the NFL see that money with their second contracts. Way more often than not, as soon as a player gets on the wrong side of 30, they're cut. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Umm, being able to cut a player earlier is helpful to the veterans.  Sure, you can still cut veterans early, but you don't have a Top 10 draft bust eating up a significant portion of your salary cap.  

 

did you read the article? Veterans aren't getting 2nd contracts, for real money or at all, because rookies are cheaper.....there are less veterans getting a bigger piece of the pie. 

[clone52]

 

But the money is not going to the veterans in the NFL... Only the stars of the NFL see that money with their second contracts. Way more often than not, as soon as a player gets on the wrong side of 30, they're cut. 

 

And the big money going to stars with their second contract is far, far better than it going to unproven rookies.  At their second contract, the player is a veteran and has proven he belongs.  NFL players don't bemoan that Von Miller got a huge contract, he deserves it.  Its stupid when guys like Jamarcus Russell, Darius Heyward-Bey and Vince Young get rediculous rookie contracts.

 

 

[nicksaviking]

 

I don't see how the international spending cap is a capitulation by the MLBPA.  Why would current players want teams to spend ridiculous amounts of money on unproven players.  It seems to me like the MLBPA would rather that money go to current players, or player development or whatever.

 

A high tide floats all boats. The MLBPA wants any and all contracts to be high as it always helps the players when negotiating new deals via free agency or likely in this case arbitration.

 

Except for those 25-year-old scrubs down in A ball with a wife and young child who likely will never get to the MLB. Screw those guys, they should be happy to play for way less than minimum wage. No need to try to help them with the new CBA.

[Vanimal46]

 

And the big money going to stars with their second contract is far, far better than it going to unproven rookies.  At their second contract, the player is a veteran and has proven he belongs.  NFL players don't bemoan that Von Miller got a huge contract, he deserves it.  Its stupid when guys like Jamarcus Russell, Darius Heyward-Bey and Vince Young get rediculous rookie contracts.

Agreed. So let's bring this back to baseball: 

Now with the international cap, let's say owners across the league save $15 million as a result of the cost-effective international talent coming in. Where's that $15 million going to go? 

There's already the system in place where a player is cost-controlled by a team for 6 years. Will that money go towards the 34 year old free agents out there? 

[clone52]

 

Agreed. So let's bring this back to baseball: 

Now with the international cap, let's say owners across the league save $15 million as a result of the cost-effective international talent coming in. Where's that $15 million going to go? 

There's already the system in place where a player is cost-controlled by a team for 6 years. Will that money go towards the 34 year old free agents out there? 

 

I'm not really talking about the old guys.  I'm moreso talking about the guys getting their first contract after arbitration.

 

I could be completely wrong.  Maybe the MLBPA really wants the owners to spend a boatload of money on international players.

[diehardtwinsfan]

honestly, the international cap had more to do with competitive balance.  Like it or not, you have to have some of that in professional sports, or at one point the entire sport suffers.  It would have been nice though that in favor of a cap, they fixed minor league wages... that's what the MLBPA should have angled for there.

[Vanimal46]

 

I'm not really talking about the old guys.  I'm moreso talking about the guys getting their first contract after arbitration.

 

I could be completely wrong.  Maybe the MLBPA really wants the owners to spend a boatload of money on international players.

I hope you're right. I certainly don't know the right answer either. If the money just goes into the owner's pocket, that would be the worst case scenario. 

[Vanimal46]

 

honestly, the international cap had more to do with competitive balance.  Like it or not, you have to have some of that in professional sports, or at one point the entire sport suffers.  It would have been nice though that in favor of a cap, they fixed minor league wages... that's what the MLBPA should have angled for there.

Is it really going to help with competitive balance though? Sure, in the past the Dodgers of the world could offer the most money and recruit the top international free agents to come on board. 

If the top player from Cuba has 10 offers for the same salary, he could still choose the Dodgers over a small market team like the Reds. 

[clone52]

 

I hope you're right. I certainly don't know the right answer either. If the money just goes into the owner's pocket, that would be the worst case scenario. 

 

Reading up a bit more on it, it sounds like this was middle ground.  The owners wanted an International Draft and ended up with this instead.

[clone52]

 

Is it really going to help with competitive balance though? Sure, in the past the Dodgers of the world could offer the most money and recruit the top international free agents to come on board. 

If the top player from Cuba has 10 offers for the same salary, he could still choose the Dodgers over a small market team like the Reds. 

 

Yeah, but he could choose the Reds.  If the Dodgers were offering double the money of the Reds, he'd never choose the reds.

[nicksaviking]

 

Is it really going to help with competitive balance though? Sure, in the past the Dodgers of the world could offer the most money and recruit the top international free agents to come on board. 

If the top player from Cuba has 10 offers for the same salary, he could still choose the Dodgers over a small market team like the Reds. 

 

That's true, but that's no different than with free agency. At least now the top 10 players from Cuba can't all go to the Dodgers because they won't have the cap room.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Is it possible that the money they got in the Justin Haley trade will go toward the International Spending Cap? 

Unlikely, and perhaps impossible.  Teams can't trade from their bonus pools until the signing period begins on July 2nd, and I believe trades have to be settled within 6 months.

 

And as a practical matter, Rule 5 picks aren't worth that much -- maybe the Twins netted $100k cash with their Rule 5 deals?  And bonus pool money is worth more than its cash number, so that would translate to a pretty trivial sum (~$30k?) of bonus pool money.

[Nick Nelson]

 

Reading up a bit more on it, it sounds like this was middle ground.  The owners wanted an International Draft and ended up with this instead.

This is my understanding. And therein lies the capitulation. 

[Rosterman]

And the Rule 5 was increased to $100,000 - which is a healthy cost to a team looking to possibly stash a player - it comes with a major league minimum salary for a season, too. So you better hope that you keep them around longer than the Twins, say, kept J.R. Graham and ended up losing a Sean Gilmartin, perhaps, in the equation. I believe there were fewer Rule 5 picks (outside of San Diego) than in the past this season.

 

The dress-up can be a thing of the past. Pies in the face, dumping the cooler. Okay. Maybe the champagne baths for post season clinches. Okay. But the dressing of rookies brings baseball down to the level of professional wrestling, so to speak, and few actually get to partake in the full effect unless photos are distributed. Better to leave it to the players to do short-sheeting and saran-wrap around toilet bowls in the wee hours of hotel stays, U guess.

 

The All-Star game continues to have problems. The fan voting doesn't exactly work. The need to have a representative from each team isn't necessary. But if it is going to be a showcase, than maybe it should showcase the truly best...the leaders in all offensive and pitching categories from the season before, make sure Cy/MVP/RookieYears are there for sure. Let it be the farewell tour for those stunning vets, I guess, too.

 

It just keeps getting further and further from an actual game.

 

Maybe the minor league All-Stars should play the actual game with the big league guys just doing hat tipping, expensive signings and such.

 

I kinda liked the idea that the game meant a little something, like homefield advantage, in the World Series.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And the Rule 5 was increased to $100,000 - which is a healthy cost to a team looking to possibly stash a player - it comes with a major league minimum salary for a season, too.

The $100k is the up-front payment, but at any point the player can be returned for $50k, so it's really only a net $50k investment to make a Rule 5 pick.  That's still peanuts for every MLB team.

 

And the Rule 5 player's minimum salary is offset by whatever player they would be replacing on the 25 man roster.  If the Twins didn't pick Haley, they'd just give that spot and its salary to someone like Pat Light, or sign another vet for even more than the minimum salary like Abad last season.

 

If teams don't make a Rule 5 pick, it's not about money -- it's about having a better use of the 40-man / 25-man roster spot.

Edited December 14, 2016 by spycake

[Lonestar]

Under the old CBA, didn't teams get different international spending caps based on their record and now they get the same amount. So in the first year of the new CBA, the Twins would be hurt because their spending pool and competitive advantage will be smaller than it would have been.