Service Time: Fixing What Is Clearly Broken

Baseball had total control of all players until Curt Flood led to change. Clearly, it seems from the obvious manipulation of the current system by baseball management, a new form of change is now near. What that looks like will be up to the next CBA.

 

The game is negatively impacted when a team uses a lesser player in championship competition due to an ability to extend years of control for a player's years of service. Individual careers are also affected. Baseball owners and management would be stupid to not seek a continuation of the current system and would be even more pleased with a return to the good old days. The union has to see that there must be some changes. A compromise of sorts will need to be worked out between the players and owners that each can live with going forward after this season. We, the fans, will live with that system in the same manner as other changes that have occurred down through the decades.

 

A question that keeps coming back to me is how can people see a person's choice of employment, regarding location and working conditions, as reasonably tied down for a period of a decade. Why? There must be some parallels in different careers or jobs, but I cannot think of a job where one is tied to an owner who picks them and then controls their destiny for a decade or much more. Keep in mind that baseball is a closed system. 

 

I appreciate that owners deserve to make money like anyone else and repeatedly tell young people that they better hope that their employment offers some financial gain for their employer or they will soon be out of a job; no mon, no fun. However, I would expect to see a reduction in those service years in the next CBA. 

 

We can be certain baseball will survive no matter how radical a change. It is almost impossible to understand where the union will make a stand. If I had to draw an arbitrary line as the post discusses, a quick pick would be an age - free agency at 24/25. Then again, perhaps the union prefers arbitration years. Sure to be interesting.

I don't see the teams manipulating the system as some sort of moral disgrace. It's business. Both sides use loopholes at the drop of the hat if they deem it best for themselves. Both sides work out a system and agree to the conditions of the contract. 

Player contracts are a microcosm of the player-owner contract. If an individual player feels jilted by a loophole in the league contract, his beef should be with the player's association and the team he plays for. The player's association can negotiate the question when the next contract comes up. If the player believes his team did him wrong, he can take his services elsewhere when he becomes a free agent. 

As to terms of location and being to to an owner and a location for a decade, it's also part of being in a league system. It isn't a normal job. Buxton is as least as much an MLB player as he is a Twin. MLB rules are based on collective bargaining and play a large part in determining how much a player makes during his career. Part of being a successful league is having a degree of parity. In the long run, the continued success of the league makes both sides richer. 

To me, these questions are the business of the players and the owners. Both sides are equal. There are no real victims of immoral manipulation. It only becomes personal when and if it comes to a strikes or a lockout. 

I think a good solution may be that all players are FA at age 27 season, if they turn 27 prior to season starting then it would be that year, kind of like how they do little league age thing.  This would not matter how they were signed.  Then there is no cheap 3 years thing, every year is arbitration year, but there is no requirement that money goes up.  So if a player has a good year at say 23, they get a nice raise for the next season, but if they play bad then the next year it drops back down.  Of course contracts can buy these years out.  You could use something like WAR, not saying specifically that, but something like that to put them in pay brackets for arbitration.  Then boom 27 regardless of how many years at MLB level they are FA.  Part of plan would also take away option years, because there would be no need to require a guy being on MLB roster to get service time because they would be FA at 27 no matter what.

This would eliminate no manipulation of service time for even keeping prices low.  Only way you keep them low is if you do not play them.  I know a lot of teams would not like this route because they could lose those 3 super cheap years and few cheaper years of MLB play, but with the elimination of option years there is no forcing a guy on the MLB roster if you feel he is not ready.

No plan will be perfect and there will be flaws.  I am sure this one does.  I was mainly thinking on the fly without playing it out in my head how it can be exploited.  The biggest issue I can see is college players will have much less time in organization, which may push teams to drafting them less unless they are MLB ready or nearly ready.  Maybe there could be if they were college drafted you push to 28 or 29.  This would lead to less guys picking college over signing as a HS drafted guy, but not worried about that in this plan. 

You never mention that profit is climbing faster than pay..... as a fan, I'd rather the money go to players than owners. That's why this fan cares. I also want them, since they are humans and not cogs, to have more say in where they work and who their employer is. I know you don't agree, I'm merely answering your loaded,biased, question.

I did not mention it because I don't know if this is true and neither do you. Once again you take a hard stance on a conclusion that is a product of a poorly conceived conclusion. Revenue grew more than wages the last couple of years. You don’t know what happened to profit. Do you suppose the Cardinals expenses went up going from 250 to 400 employees. Did they perhaps spend less on players because other costs absorbed the available budget dollars? I mention the Cardinals because of an article where this was mentioned. All of the teams are investing in non-player employees and programs. The problem here is that you don't understand  an increase in profit does not insure an increase in profit.

Regardless, I am not the least bit concerned how the new CBA impacts player compensation or team profits. The context of my comments was a product of poster’s feeling bad for the players. MLB players are the most fortunate group of individuals on the planets. The suggestion that it’s too onerous they be tied to one team for a long period of time is ridiculous. They are perfectly willing to be tied (many even prefer) to be tied to one team as long as their income is maximized.

I also don’t measure the adequacy of compensation based on if it goes up every year. I don’t measure fairness based on if a company is profitable or not. My wife’s company is wildly profitable. She still gets paid based on what the market is willing to pay for her skillset. I ask questions like what would an alternative employer, in this case another league be willing to pay? The next highest paying league pays about 12% of MLB wages. This would lead me to conclude MLB players are paid very well. I ask would these players be happy with ¼ of the pay if that’s what revenue dictated. I have a hard time feeling like someone is not adequately compensated if they would be willing to do for ¼ of the wages.

I don’t care what happened the last couple of years. I look at how a given group has done financially over a decade or two or even longer if good data is available. In other words, how has MLB player compensation grown compared to other professions? How high is their compensation compared to other professions? When I do this, I find that MLB compensation grown at the same rate as every other American over the past 50 years, MLB players would earn $198,000 on average. Did we consider them disadvantaged or taken advantage of in 1970? Since then, there income has grown 22X more than the rest of America. I find the concept that they are not paid enough to be absolutely absurd.

I also don’t care about owner profits. That will be governed by market forces that they all signed up for. What I care about is all of the teams having a reasonable chance at success. I care about a good product on the field for as many teams as possible. Therefore, I am not worried about length of control. If players don’t find the $4.4M average salary adequate to relinquish the right to choose where they play their first 6 seasons, they have the right to pursue a different profession just like all of the rest of us.

I don't think that there is a totally fair solution for every player and every team so there is always going to be controversy.  I would like to see a floor and ceiling cap.  And how about making all players free agents by age.  I would propose a restricted free agency for all players at age 27 and 28, unless previously signing an extension,and unrestricted free agency at age 29.  If players want to use the restricted free agency (two year period) contracts would be restricted to one year contracts. Yes, teams could promise the player (against the rules of course) better things to come in the future, but there would be nothing to hold the team to that promise if the player got injured or went in the tank. If a player used the unrestricted free agency at age 27, he would be forced to use it again at age 28, however after signing his age 28 contract, he could sign an extension after that years all-star game.  Is this way off the wall?