The baseball season is back! Rejoice! No time for bad feelings – it’s a celebration, and we’re all invited. I don’t really think the rest of this article is something you have to read right now, but I’ll level with you: I had already done the research for it, and it’s worth writing about, so before we descend into a non-stop festival of free agent signings and trades, you’re getting an article about a decision that the MLBPA won’t have to reckon with for a few months yet.

Before we got a merciful end to the CBA back-and-forth, a deal was proposed by MLB that would institute an international draft in exchange for eliminating the qualifying offer system. One detail of the reporting on this issue bugged me: at least one “industry source” gave an estimate for the value of the QO system that I found hard to believe:

1. It is difficult to know what dollar values the sides attach to the international draft or eliminating qualifying offer. Industry sources estimate QO to be worth $50m-$100m annually. Just because one side links two issues does not mean they are identically valued.

— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) March 9, 2022

I don’t doubt Drellich’s reporting, but that number sounded wildly high to me. A single-digit group of players receive the qualifying offer each year; they’d have to be losing $10 million per player to make the math make sense. The draft picks that teams surrender to sign those players aren’t worth that much. The highest possible estimate for the cost of those picks comes in around $8 million per player, and that’s for teams with a luxury tax bill (or CBT, if you’re into acronyms).

To settle this question, I decided to look at all of the free agents who have received qualifying offers since the first year of the current QO system, the 2017-18 offseason. I’ve previously estimated what teams pay per WARin free agency, which gave me a useful database to start the investigation. Read the rest of this entry »

And on the 99th day of the owners’ lockout, shortly after the umpteenth deadline set by commissioner Rob Manfred, Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association finally reached a deal on a new Collective Bargaining agreement, just in time to preserve a 162-game schedule. Players will report to camps by March 13 (except for those with visa issues); arbitration figures will be exchanged on March 22, with hearings taking place during the season; Opening Day is set for April 7; the regular season will be extended by three days to absorb one of the two previously canceled series, with nine-inning doubleheaders and off days used as a means of absorbing the other; and players will receive full pay and service time. We’re a long, long ways from all being right with the world, or even within the baseball industry, but yes, there will be a 2022 major league season.

BREAKING: Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association have reached a tentative agreement on a new labor deal, sources tell ESPN. While it still needs to be ratified by both parties, that is expected to be a formality, and when it is:

Baseball is back.

— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) March 10, 2022

Two days of close-but-no-cigar negotiations had the two sides drawing closer on core economic issues, but MLB’s insistence upon pairing the creation of an international draft with the ending of the qualifying offer system (aka direct draft pick compensation) set things back on Wednesday. Manfred responded by postponing (but notably not officially cancelling) another week of games, and the league stopped short of delivering a full counterproposal in the late afternoon, instead presenting the union with three options. Via ESPN’s Jesse Rogers:

[1] “Sign the CBA, including eliminating draft pick compensation [the qualifying offer system], and take some time to examine the international draft. If the union won’t implement within a couple years (by ’24?), the league can re-open the CBA.

[2] “Do the entire package without the draft which means without draft pick compensation.”

[3] “Take the original deal. League gets the international draft and draft pick compensation is eliminated.”

The union rejected the premise but made a counterproposal to remove the qualifying offer this year, contingent upon the two sides studying the parameters of the international draft further and setting a deadline to reach agreement or return to the status quo of qualifying offer and no draft. The union proposed November 15 for the date, but mere minutes after my morning update went live, The Athletic’s Evan Drellich reported that the two sides had agreed to a July 25 deadline instead. After a bit more back and forth on the numbers, the proposal was put to a vote, but while the union’s executive subcommittee unanimously voted against the proposal (8–0), the 30 team representatives who round out its executive board voted 26–4 in favor of it, with the Mets, Yankees, Astros and Cardinals dissenting. The owners ratified the agreement shortly after 6 pm ET by a unanimous 30–0 vote, and the lockout officially lifted just after 7 pm ET.

As for the details, not all of them are immediately clear, nor have all of them been fully reported. Here’s what we know so far. Read the rest of this entry »

While the discourse surrounding the details of a new CBA has largely focused on economic issues, Sunday offered a glimpse into its potential impact on the playing field. In their proposal that day, the MLBPA agreed to grant the commissioner the ability to implement a pitch clock, larger bases, and restrictions on the shift for the 2023 season with less offseason notice than previously allowed (45 days compared to a year), per Evan Drellich of The Athletic.

Though no element of the new CBA has been finalized, it does seem likely that the league will be free to experiment with rule changes, given little incentive on the players’ part to resist them when broader matters are at stake. Already, there’s been speculation about how they’ll impact the game, with much of it concerning the demise of the infield shift. On the fantasy side, articles have popped up analyzing which hitters would benefit. On the social media side, there have been memes — lots of them.

On the FanGraphs side — well, let’s give it a shot! It’s a few days overdue, but late is better than never. There’s no guarantee that the commissioner will outlaw infield shifts, but if he does, what happens? Will the game be nudged in the right direction, or will its supposed problems worsen instead? What do we want out of a plan to ban the shift, anyways?

A huge part of it isn’t related to any numbers, but rather aesthetics. Consider how baseball is both a symmetrical and stationary game. It’s true that team sports designate positions to players corresponding to offensive or defensive roles, but in most cases, they come with the freedom to mingle and roam about. In soccer, varying formations are regarded as tradition, not experimentation. In football, there are seemingly endless amounts of routes and passes for teams to implement. In hockey, they play hockey.

Baseball is different. For decades, fielders have remained loyal to their assigned districts, moving only to respond to an incoming ball; even then, they take caution so as not to disrupt an adjacent teammate. Fans, players, and coaches have long understood this. The shift, in this context, is an incongruity that evokes a feeling of discomfort. When a hitter sends a ball through a gap created by an infield shift, we tend to focus on the aberration (the shift) rather than the outcome (a base hit). Likewise, when a line drive is snared by a second baseman in right field, the same out appears unnatural. It’s no wonder numerous fans want the shift gone. It’s also no wonder that they attribute this disruption of baseball’s law and order to a myriad of issues. Read the rest of this entry »

At least from the outside, on Wednesday it appeared possible that after another marathon session of negotiations the owners’ self-imposed lockout might end in time to meet commissioner Rob Manfred’s umpteenth deadline and squeeze in a full 162-game season. The dollar figures from proposals by the league and the union pertaining to the new collective bargaining agreement’s core economic issues had converged into “split the difference” territory. Yet since Tuesday night, it had become apparent that the path to a deal suddenly hinged upon the union agreeing to the implementation of an international draft, in exchange for which the qualifying offer system (a.k.a draft pick compensation) would be eliminated. Long sought by the league, and long reviled by the players, the international draft was suddenly of vital importance for one side and simply too complex for the other to agree to under the pressure of deadlines and ultimatums. And so, around 6:30 pm ET on Wednesday, Manfred snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by announcing the postponement of Opening Day to at least April 14.

Manfred didn’t actually use the phrase “officially canceled,” as he did on March 1, nor did he hold a press conference. This time, he said via a statement, “Because of the logistical realities of the calendar, another two series are being removed from the schedule, meaning that Opening Day is postponed until April 14th.” Given what transpired in the days leading up to this week’s artificially-imposed and then delayed deadline, it’s clear not only that the schedule still has a bit of wiggle room via potential doubleheaders (likely with seven-inning games) and juggled off-days, but that the league understands that it can’t unilaterally dictate the length of the season. The ramifications for shortening the slate with regards to salaries, incentives, and service time will require another layer of negotiations, guaranteeing more headaches — particularly with the union having indicated that anything less than pay and service time based on 162 games could mean withholding approval an expanded playoff format for 2022.

As noted in my coverage on Wednesday, the now-familiar pattern — MLB leaking details of its proposal to the media in the dead of night, in time for the next day’s news cycle but before the players, wary of being pressured into accepting an agreement in the wee hours, could consult their executive board and respond — had the potential to create unfounded optimism about a deal. The international draft, which on Wednesday morning USA Today’s Bob Nightengale called “the last big remaining obstacle to reach a labor deal today” proved to be no small hurdle, either. Read the rest of this entry »

After another 24 hours of intense negotiations, MLB’s lockout of the players remains in effect. Just like the last time negotiations ticked past a league-imposed deadline, MLB announced that they had canceled a week (two series) of games, postponing Opening Day until April 14. That brings the total number of weeks canceled to two and series to four, with the possibility of more to come should the two sides not reach a compromise in their negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement.

It’s unclear whether these games will remain canceled, or whether some newly structured season will change the schedule. After all, the league canceled a week of games last week, then spent most of this week saying they would un-cancel them and play a full 162 if the two sides reached a deal by their new deadline. Plus, the length of the season, and the salaries and service time that go with it, is itself a matter of bargaining. But let’s take the league at their word and assume that we’re now looking at a 150-game season. Read the rest of this entry »

Remember back on March 1, when Rob Manfred canceled Major League Baseball’s March 31 Opening Day and the first week of games? And the week before that, when a league spokesperson threatened that canceled games would not be rescheduled, saying, “A deadline is a deadline. Missed games are missed games. Salary will not be paid for those games”? Apparently that wasn’t the real deadline to fit a full 162-game season into the calendar. No — and we’ll pause here so as to be heard over the sound of goalposts being dragged — that deadline was apparently Tuesday, and it’s been extended yet again. After lawyers for the league and the union huddled on Monday, MLB offered its latest formal proposal, and the two sides went back and forth for over 17 hours on Tuesday before pausing around 2:30 AM ET on Wednesday morning so that the union could speak to its board and respond with a counterproposal.

The two sides have converged on monetary issues, but significant gaps remain both there and on other matters, most notably the international draft. It’s possible that a deal could come Wednesday… or that the whole thing could fall apart, with more finger-pointing, and Manfred announcing the cancellation of more games.

Before digging into the details, it’s worth noting again that the length of the season and the ramifications that carries for salaries, incentives, and service time isn’t something that Major League Baseball can decide unilaterally. It’s subject to negotiation, which was why the passage of the March 1 deadline felt so significant, as any attempt to shorten the season would add another layer of complexity to the already contentious proceedings. Complicating matters — or calling the league’s bluff, depending upon how one looks at it — the union has indicated that anything less than pay and service time based on 162 games could mean that they won’t approve an expanded playoff format for 2022. Read the rest of this entry »

One of my favorites paintings is René Magritte’s The Treachery of Images. Basically, it’s a painting of the pipe with “this is not a pipe” written on it in French. While interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, one can argue that it makes two points. First, there’s the wordplay; a painting is not a pipe. But there’s a double-meaning you can take, too: the frequent incongruity between what a word says and what a word actually is. (If you’d like to read a lot more about this painting, Michel Foucault has just what you need!)

MLB’s competitive balance tax has a lot in common with Magritte’s pipe. It says it’s about competition, but without any mechanism to ensure that the proceeds improve competition. It says it’s about balance, but it has no way to ensure that balance. It’s described widely as a luxury tax, but it’s not that either. Luxury taxes, historically, have been directed at what economist Fred Hirsch termed “positional goods,” or goods that are highly prized based on their scarcity and prestige value. Labor costs in a labor-intensive field, though, aren’t really a luxury good, and MLB’s business is mainly putting teams of baseball players on the field. Everything MLB does stems from those games; if the teams didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be as much clamor for t-shirts with cardinals sitting on a wooden stick or ice cream served in a small plastic helmet with a creatively spelled abbreviation of “stockings” on it. Players are no more luxuries for a baseball team than leather is for a shoe company.

But let’s get to the competitive balance side of things. MLB’s argument is that the CBT is needed to increase competitive balance. Yet there’s very little evidence that it actually has increased competitive balance, and if anything, teams are farther apart since the CBT was implemented, not closer together. From 1984 to 2001, leaving out shortened seasons, the standard deviation of winning percentage was about 67 points. From 2002, the first year of MLB’s modern CBT, to ’21 (excluding the shortened 2020 season), that increases to 74 points; since the start of 2016, when salaries have been static, it’s 80 points. Read the rest of this entry »

The Competitive Balance Tax threshold has been central to the contentious collective bargaining agreement negotiations and the ending of the owners’ self-imposed lockout. The league and the players union have been further apart on that issue than on any of the other major ones, which helps to explain why last week’s optimism regarding a last-minute deal proved to be unfounded. Even with the owners’ offers to raise the minimum salary and improve the lot of pre-arbitration players — albeit not to the levels that the union was seeking — the minimal growth of the CBT threshold meant the owners’ final pre-deadline proposal was dead on arrival. Yet according to The Athletic’s Evan Drellich, four of the 30 team owners objected even to those threshold levels.

As noted several times in my coverage of the negotiations, the CBT threshold has not kept pace with revenues over the past decade and has increasingly been treated as a salary cap by owners. Recall this oft-circulated graph from The Athletic”

Read the rest of this entry »

Last month, I went over some possible playoff structures in an attempt to design a format that allowed for playoff expansion while still preserving the value of adding a star to the roster. I focused on 14-team structures for a couple of reasons: it was more of a challenge to make a 14-team system that didn’t grossly alter team incentives and I suspected that the players would be willing to accept the larger field if it helped them achieve some of their other negotiation priorities.

Well, we’re a month later, and there’s a little more clarity. While there is still a lot to iron out and little idea as to when the league and the players union might reach a deal on a new collective bargaining agreement, there seems to be some kind of very preliminary sorta-agreement on a 12-team playoff system, though ownership has apparently been very resistant to allowing the more highly-seeded teams any advantage outside of the traditional home field-based ones (meaning no knockout run or “ghost wins”). Read the rest of this entry »

As you’ve probably heard, Major League Baseball canceled the first two series of the 2022 season yesterday, after a self-imposed deadline to finish negotiations with the Major League Baseball Players Association on a new collective bargaining agreement passed with no deal reached. The two sides didn’t appear to be close to an agreement before negotiations ended; indeed, they remained far apart on several key economic issues.

The gulf between them is significant, but it doesn’t seem unbridgeable. Negotiations in three areas – compensation for young players, the competitive balance tax, and postseason expansion – will be key to reaching an agreement when talks resume. Those are far from the only issues that separate the two sides, of course, but they dwarf the rest; presumably a compromise in those three areas would precipitate a deal. Or at least, that was my assumption when I began to look at the differences. Let’s see just how far apart MLB and the MLBPA actually are. Read the rest of this entry »