Even With Holdouts, Path to New CBA Runs Through Competitive Balance Tax

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”

During the just-expired CBA, the threshold grew from $195 million in 2017 to $210 million in ’21, a gain of 7.7%. In the owners’ final proposal before commissioner Rob Manfred’s artificial deadline to preserve Opening Day, the threshold started at $220 million for 2022 and grew to $230 million for ’26, a gain of just 4.5%. It may make more sense to compare the five-year increments starting from the endpoints of the previous CBA; by those measures, the gain was 11.1% from 2016 ($189 million, where it had been stuck for the previous two years) to ’21, and as proposed would be just 9.5% from ’21 to ’26.
That kind of “growth” was never going to secure a deal with the players, and yet for four of the 30 owners, namely the Reds’ Bob Castellini, the Tigers’ Chris Ilitch, the Diamondbacks’ Ken Kendrick, and the Angels’ Arte Moreno, even that was a bridge too far. Note that this wasn’t simply a group of small-market owners or low-spending teams banding together. As Drellich reported, “[A]t least some of the four owners took stances based on their personal feelings toward costs and baseball’s economic system, sources said.”
If the four teams have anything in common, it’s a lack of success during the last CBA. Over the course of the past five seasons, the Diamondbacks posted a .476 winning percentage, the majors’ 12th-worst, while the Angels (.473) were the 10th-worst, the Reds (.458) the eighth-worst, and the Tigers (.390) the second-worst. This quartet’s 20 team-seasons produced just two playoff teams, the 2017 Diamondbacks and the ’20 Reds; they combined for just one playoff win, Arizona’s Wild Card victory over the Rockies.
But while we can lump those four teams together in their sub-.500 miseries, the stories with regards to their payrolls — their final payrolls for luxury tax purposes, not Opening Day payrolls, with all figures throughout this piece via Cot’s Contracts — differ:
| Year | Reds | Rk | Dbacks | Rk | Tigers | Rk | Angels | Rk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | $108.4 | 25 | $115.9 | 23 | $207.2 | 3 | $188.6 | 7 |
| 2018 | $111.6 | 25 | $155.0 | 14 | $135.3 | 20 | $176.7 | 8 |
| 2019 | $150.5 | 15 | $138.0 | 19 | $128.9 | 23 | $187.0 | 10 |
| 2020 | $165.5 | 17 | $129.6 | 20 | $119.9 | 22 | $182.6 | 9 |
| 2021 | $144.2 | 17 | $109.4 | 21 | $103.9 | 23 | $199.0 | 8 |
| Total | $680.3 | 20 | $647.8 | 22 | $695.2 | 19 | $933.9 | 7 |
The Angels ranked among the game’s top spenders, though they haven’t paid the CBT since 2004. The other three teams are clustered in the lower half in terms of total payrolls over the past five seasons, though their arcs to those rankings are quite different. It’s worth reviewing the specific situations of each team for a bit more perspective.
Angels
Despite their big spending since Moreno took over in 2003, the Angels haven’t ranked among the top five in total payroll since ’13, and haven’t been higher than eighth since ’18. Their win-now approach has generally been underfunded, with a payroll concentrated on pricey position players at the expense of pitching, and questionable choices even when they do sign free agents hurlers (Matt Harvey, Julio Teheran, José Quintana). They’ve played in just one postseason series since Mike Trout debuted in 2011: the 2014 Division Series, where the Angels were swept by the Royals. The team has finished above .500 only two other times during his tenure (2012 and ’15). It’s felt as though Moreno’s intent is to squander the prime of this generation’s best player, and perhaps that of Shohei Ohtani, too.
The Angels play in the majors’ second-biggest market; via the expired CBA, they had a Revenue Sharing Market Score of 175 based on population, income and cable households, meaning their market was 75% bigger than the average one; the two New York teams had the highest scores at 235, while the Dodgers were also at 175. While they’ve been positioned to outspend most of their competition in the AL West, aside from Trout, Ohtani, and a few other instances, they haven’t spent their money well; in fact, the $2.79 million dollars per win that they paid over the past five seasons ranks as the majors’ highest. Spending less, or forcing their competition to, won’t overcome that kind of ineptitude. Compare their spending to the Astros, who have a Revenue Sharing Market score of 93, and who spent slightly more over the past five years ($962.6 million, sixth in the majors) but paid just $2.21 million per win (17th).
Diamondbacks
As Kendrick, the desert Steinbrenner wannabe, has occasionally accompanied his bluster with bouts of spending money, the Diamondbacks have gone through a couple of boom and bust cycles in recent years. In 2014, they ranked 14th in payroll ($124.5 million) but after hiring Tony La Russa to be Chief Baseball Officer, cut payroll in midseason by trading Martín Prado, Brandon McCarthy, and Gerardo Parra, and crashed to 98 losses. After hiring Dave Stewart to be general manager that fall, they dropped to 27th in payroll and then 23rd — then shocked the industry by signing Zack Greinke to a record-setting $206.5 million deal in December 2015. It didn’t help immediately, as they dropped back to 93 losses and changed GMs again (to Mike Hazen), but in 2017 they returned to the playoffs for the first time in six years. Since then, they’ve receded in terms of both spending and competitiveness, trading Greinke to the Astros on July 31, 2019, and bottoming out with 110 losses last year.
Kendrick has been vocal about wanting a salary cap that’s tied to overall revenues in the fashion of other leagues. It’s not hard to see why he would want to tamp down spending and keep the threshold low given his competition. The Diamondbacks play in a division that features the game’s top-spending team, the Dodgers ($1.1 billion over five years, with CBT paid in 2017 and ’21), as well as the Giants (ninth over that span at $914.9 million, and twice in the top four, with taxes paid in 2017) and Padres (16th overall at $758.2 million, but with taxes paid for the first time in 2021).
Reds
After four straight seasons of finishing last in the NL Central with 94 losses or more, the Reds appeared to be headed in the right direction, with a strong rotation supplemented by the addition of free agents Nick Castellanos and Mike Moustakas in early 2020. The team even broke through during the pandemic-shortened season, setting a franchise record for payroll (before proration), finishing above .500 and making the postseason for the first time in seven years. But as quickly as things seemed to come together, they were taken apart, with the free agent departure of Trevor Bauer, the non-tendering of Archie Bradley, the salary-dump trade of Raisel Iglesias, and the lack of a plan at shortstop helping to cut costs but leaving the 83-win team just outside the playoff picture in 2021. Had they spent just a bit more aggressively, they might have returned to the postseason.
The Reds play in one of the majors’ smallest markets; in fact, in the last CBA, they had the lowest Revenue Sharing Market Score of any team (51). Their motive for keeping payrolls suppressed might be the clearest of the teams here, even in a division where the one potential heavyweight, the Cubs, has thrust itself into a rebuilding plan.
Tigers
The Tigers have done the biggest about-face from among this group. After paying the CBT in 2016 and ’17, they tore up their roster in the midst of the latter season, trading J.D. Martinez, Justin Upton, Justin Verlander and even Justin Wilson as they sank from 86-win contenders to 98-loss basement-dwellers. They’ve been dreadful ever since while cutting payroll around the bad contracts of Miguel Cabrera (who’s signed through 2023) and Jordan Zimmermann (now gone).
The change in direction owes plenty to the transfer of ownership from Mike Ilich to his son, Chris. The elder Ilich paid big money to keep Cabrera and Verlander surrounded by a well-stocked roster in pursuit of a championship that alas never materialized, while the younger one has overseen a rebuilding process that has yet to come to fruition. The signings of Javier Báez (six years, $140 million) and Eduardo Rodriguez (five years, $77 million) signal that the Tigers are ready to spend again, but even in a division where none of their rivals are much of a threat to cross the threshold, their reservations about doing so stand out.
If there’s a single factor that unites these four teams, it’s not particularly apparent, and perhaps it’s a mistake to search for patterns when it’s merely ownership’s fits of pique that unite them. It’s worth noting that despite these owners’ intransigence towards raising the tax threshold, unanimity isn’t required to strike a deal; it merely takes three-quarters of the owners (23 out of 30) to ratify a new CBA. Doing so will take a tax threshold higher than $220 million to $230 million, that much is certain.
On that note, on Sunday the Major League Baseball Players Association presented its latest proposal in writing to the owners, its first since the deadline to preserve the March 31 Opening Day passed. Via Drellich, notably they did not move on their CBT thresholds, which in their March 1 proposal began at $238 million for 2022 and rose to $263 million in ’26, an increase of 25.2% over the life of the CBA. Nor did they move on their minimum salary proposal (growing from $725,000 in 2022 to $805,000 in ’26).
In their proposal, the players did lower their ask on the pre-arbitration bonus pool from $85 million to $80 million, and indicated a willingness to incorporate non-monetary penalties into the CBT (such as the loss of a draft pick for a repeater) if the qualifying offer system is scrapped. They also agreed to grant MLB the ability to implement three specific rule changes with 45 days of notice, starting with the 2023 season: the implementation of a pitch clock, larger bases, and restrictions on infield shifts.
Apparently disappointed that the players still aren’t caving to their every demand, the league’s response was predictably cranky, with MLB spokesman Glen Caplin voicing their frustration:
“We were hoping to see some movement in our direction to give us additional flexibility and get a deal done quickly. The Players Association chose to come back to us with a proposal that was worse than Monday night and was not designed to move the process forward. On some issues, they even went backwards. Simply put, we are deadlocked. We will try to figure out how to respond, but nothing in this proposal makes it easy.”
The league claimed that the size of the union’s bonus pool offer during verbal negotiations last week had been smaller, hence “backwards”; the union strongly denied their assertion. This is the second time in a week that the league has used the word “deadlock” to describe negotiations, which makes it feel as though they’re flooding the zone with that term in order to lay the groundwork for an eventual declaration of an impasse. Doing so would likely mean an attempt to unilaterally impose their terms, which in turn could lead the union to file an Unfair Labor Practices charge with the National Labor Relations Board over the league’s failure to bargain in good faith. Suffice it to say that scenario would make for a real mess.
The path to an agreement still appears to run through a threshold that both sides can live with. The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal reported that the league “is willing to increase the first competitive-balance tax threshold from $220 million if the Players Association makes moves in other areas.” The union thought it had done that with Sunday’s proposal. Lather, rinse, cancel some baseball games, and repeat.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
Moreno and Kendrick have been hard-liners for several years now. They were two of the guys who wanted to just cancel the season in 2020 rather than pay pro-rated salaries. I don’t think they’re gonna be happy with anything.
Castellini and Ilitch I know less about.
It’s kind of weird that they brought the deal to the owners and a certain number of owners were not even down with that miserly, lowball bid. Not because it was a lowball bid exactly, but because the owners and the negotiators were not on the same page. It would seem pretty important to get everyone on the same page!
Ilitch has experience cancelling an entire sports season over labor negotiations and it going well for owners
I absolutely would love to know more about this quote:
As Drellich reported, “[A]t least some of the four owners took stances based on their personal feelings toward costs and baseball’s economic system, sources said.”
If I’m understanding correctly, he’s saying their stance is not based on the arithmetic of their revenues vs costs but on something else. Some personal feeling toward “costs and baseball’s economic system?” Like, they feel it’s an affront for their workers to be paid a certain amount? How do they square that with their own compensation and capital gains?
Are they really saying they feel it’s somehow immoral or unethical for the players to get a greater share of revenue compared to them? If so, the arrogance is breathtaking. Especially from someone like Ilitch who is only where he is by the accident of birth.
I don’t know about Castellini and Ilitch but that definitely describes Moreno and Kendrick. They’ve got very Ayn Rand-ish worldviews, where they believe that value comes from capital rather than labor. It’s a very convenient worldview to have when you are capital rather than labor.
A more “Ayn-Randish” view would be that the players are paid only for their performance over a given year. It would solve this entire mess. However, people can’t stand the sight of the creators getting richer and them getting richer too, but not as rich. And, players don’t seem to be brave enough to truly “bet on themselves” and get paid for actual production rather than past production. The whole system is whack.
In “capitalism the unknown ideal” Ayn Rand actually argued wealthy people should voluntarily pay more in taxes because they have the most to lose if the status quo of society is destroyed. One example would be the French Revolution. But plenty of people just read The Fountainhead and or Atlas Shrugged and don’t get the full picture objectivism.
If sh*t really hit the fan, poor people wouldn’t have much reason to mess with each other; they know noone has anything worth steeling. Well to do folks often are easy to spot because of their indulgent conspicuous consumption.
It would only solve the whole mess if (a) we could define revenues, (b) agree on the players share of revenues, and (c) come up with a formula to divide those revenues appropriately. Since no one has even attempted to do this, I cannot understand why you are questioning the players on this topic. This is before we get to the unintended consequences of issues like how do you draw up a contract that ties a player to a specific team, for how long, and why the stronger teams wouldn’t have an exaggerated advantage since counting statistics will be part of any formula. I can’t fathom any owners agreeing to this system. But you blame the players. Amusing…..
Baseball owners are not creators, fanboi.
I allowed myself to be convinced that mediation wasn’t a good idea a month ago. But now maybe it’s time to revisit the idea.
It’s not binding. It can’t make any owner compromise. Isn’t it purely a cosmetic measure to make it look like action is being taken rather than a real solution? How does mediation get the owners to agree with each other?
Good piece. Fascinating that Moreno is one of the hawks. Owners are going to want to maximize the value of their spending, and minimize their overall tab, but I think part of the problem is the Rube Goldberg element of the CBA. You penalize signing teams with $ but also draft picks. The draft picks may eventually turn into low-paid younger talent, which keeps you from going into the market and bidding up a FA just to fill a need. Subsidizing tanking theoretically reduces the amount of bidders for a given player, but most of those tanking teams aren’t spending anyway, so all you are doing is giving them even more high draft picks, again, reducing the amount of young talent that could be available to a high spending team. I’m not suggesting high salary teams should have an advantage with draft picks, but by burying them in order to depress salaries on the high end, you end up creating incentives…to spend on the high end. Look at the Yankees shortstop situation. They may end up spending big, but they haven’t so far because they think they have a shortstop of the future.
By synthetically creating a hard cap, you end up having “have” teams doing salary dumps paid in young talent just to fill emergent needs–but the teams most likely to be able to afford those dumps are the wealthier teams. Salary dumps, whether it’s from tanking teams to wealthier ones, or by wealthier teams who are too close to the CBT threshold, unravel continuity. It makes for an inconsistent product, and a considerable number of teams where fans won’t spend because they know ownership deliberately will field an inferior product. I’m not say spend more on players, I’m suggesting that MLB and the MLBPA rethink their priorities.
Owners don’t have to be unanimous for a new deal. 23 of 30 I think? If that’s the case, maybe MLBPA isn’t asking for enough. It probably won’t take much to piss off another ownership group or two.
Then the owners could just sell, and be a just a baseball fan without the stress of ownership. If they care so much about baseball, maybe this is their best option? Money in the stockmarket is supposed to be safer and more lucrative than owning an MLB franchise anyway right Chumpfred?
This is the market speaking out against the liberal bias of the site. Replace the liberals and you’ll get more support.
Found the bootlicker!
Who will get more support for what now?
He somehow posted to the wrong article. (puzzled how you do that, tho’)
What the f@ck?
Posted this to yesterday’s article too, Mr. Ilitch
It was garbage the first time you posted it, Mr. Tiny Edgelord.
what if the saudis bought a team like they’re doing in Europe? personally i’d love to see Bob Nutting replaced with the crown prince.
Existing MLB owners get to approve any new owner which is why we don’t get any Saudi Princes, Russian Oligarchs or even Mark Cubans.
It’s also pretty damning evidence that this is a cartel and should be broken up.
Moreno made his GM trade away last year’s first rounder to get Zack Cozart off their books so they could stay under the CBT in 2020 while still signing Rendon. They currently have over $100,000,000 guaranteed in 2022 to players who were hurt for most of last year. It’s a team that would be hit the hardest by a more restrictive CBT, yet Moreno is actively trying to reduce his front office’s ability to put a more competitive team around Trout and Ohtani.
Hence the problem with allowing any rich idiot to buy a baseball team. It’s essentially just a matter of random chance or luck whether your favorite team is owned by an idiot or by a benevolent despot-type owner who just writes the checks and stays the f out of the way. Team ownership should be treated as a public trust, but sadly, it is not. My dream would be to see a league where every team is a corporation owned by the fans of that team, where no one person or group can have a controlling interest and the fans/shareholders elect a Board of Directors to hire the GM and set the budget.
It’s not just any rich idiot though, it’s rich idiots who are approved by other rich idiots and will thus follow their rules.
Still it’s tough to see them compared to the Astros as in the article. Cheaters and prior-tankers as they were during the time period considered.
Why have we gotten so used to the idea that it’s fair for one team to spend 4X or more than another, and still somehow think of it as a level playing field? We don’t allow one team to put more players on the field or start with an extra “ghost” run. We don’t allow one team to play all its games at home. Why is it OK in a sport for one team to outspend another by a multiplier of 4 or 5?
Teams in Col, Clev, Pitt, Mil, KC, Cin, Mia, Oak, TB, etc. are never going to be able to match the revenue streams of large market clubs. Currently, the small market teams rely on the pre-arb players for their operating model. Making small market teams pay more (by substantially raising the minimum salaries and establishing the bonus pool as currently proposed by MLB) without reining in the ability of the deep pocket teams will only hurt the competitiveness of a third or more of the league.
I have no problem raising the floor so young players get paid more, but I strongly support a vigorous CBT (which let’s not forget stands for Competitive Balance Tax). Fans of small market teams especially should support the CBT rather than be expected to produce more Wins per dollar.
I actually kind of like the CBT for this reason. But I also think that the minimum salary should be $1M and everyone should go to arbitration after their first year of service. And that there needs to be a more robust revenue sharing system.
Except that owners who receive revenue sharing don’t actually spend on their teams. The obvious is to determine what are revenues, what percentage players get, and establish actual salary cap with min/max.
Playoff appearances for each club over the past 21 seasons. Why 21? You choose. Choice 1: That’s how far back you have to go to get all 30 clubs in the playoffs. Choice 2: My eyes couldn’t handle the exercise after 21 seasons. There were 193 playoff berths in that span. I also marked each WS champion with a (*) and each WS loser with a (#). 2001-2011 had 8 playoff berths. 2012-2019 and 2021 had 10 playoff berths. 2020 was the crazy year.
NYY 16*##
STL 14**##
LAD 13*##
ATL 12*
BOS 11****
OAK 10
HOU 9*###
MIN 9
CHC 8*
SF 7***#
TB 7##
LAA 7*
CLE 7#
MIL 6
PHI 5*#
WAS*
TEX 5##
DET 5##
AZ 5*
CWS 4*
CIN 4
COL 4#
TOR 3
SD 3
NYM 3#
PIT 3
BAL 3
KC 2*#
FLA/MIA 2*
SEA 1
I think now would be a good time for a really well thought out article on how much advanced analytics have contributed to the current labour-capital imbalance.
I don’t think we have an option to be dumber going forward. But that’s an easy answer. Players accepted teams controlling talent fir excessive period of time because pot of gold was at the free agency rainbow. Analytics killed the pot of gold, but teams still want to restrict salaries forever AND don’t want to raise total player compensation at same rate as revenues grow.
No this isn’t about turning back the clock and getting dumber. Stopwatches are great, but how much did your factory worker of the early 20th century benefit from them? There is an interesting analytical exercise in quantifying who benefited and how much from analytics…
This would be like trying to figure out “who benefited most” from the adoption of a 40-hour workweek. You can’t quantify many of the variables, so it’s not an exercise that offers any value.
Owners aren’t going to move till they start losing May games.
Wouldn’t a bigger pre-arb bonus pool get more money to players than a higher CBT? Raising the CBT doesn’t address the fact that teams are loading up with cheap players. A higher CBT doesn’t mean that teams MUST spend more on old FA, just that they can… but they won’t. The young players are still not only the cheapest but also the best. The pre-arb bonus pool is money the league MUST spend on the players. If I was MLBPA, I would conceded on CBT and push for more pay for pre-FA players. Is there anything in these talks about arbitration salaries going up?
“The young players are still not only the cheapest but also the best.”
As a quick check here, there were 19 position players that contributed 5 + fWAR in ’21. 4 of them are pre arb guys. Not counting Tatis because of his big extension. 2 of them reach arb this year, the other 2 in ’23.
On the pitching side, 16 pitchers contributed 4+ fWAR. Not counting Alcantara because of his extension. 2 are pre arb, 1 reaching in ;22, the other in ’23.
So the evidence for your contention here is?
The biggest gain in current negotiations is getting the owners to increase minimums from the current $570 K to $700 K. Plus getting a bonus pool for them – where the largest discrepancy remains.
The push in the CBA level is to maintain some spending freedom commensurate with revenue growth at the top, but this impacts all players – maybe the mid-tier FAs more than the high end guys that are going to get paid anyway. 7 teams were within $5 Mil of the threshold this year. .
Yeah I didn’t have any.
What about arbitration-eligible players — I expect there are a lot more of those, though I’m just guessing again. Arbitration salaries have a ceiling that keeps them at below-FA-level value. Is there anything about raising arbitration salaries?
Agreeing to a federal mediator seems the most reasonable option at this point.
Doesn’t the article and the ensuing comments suggest that the union needs to decide what it wants to get and give on all the other pending issues, as well as the CBT, and get as close as they can before 4 more owners say “no” on further CBT increases, there is an impasse declared, and the then final offer imposed? The union can file another unfair labor practice if it wants, but that will only put into play for negotiations the previous two pending unfair labor practices that it filed. With all of the issues negotiated by that time in favor of the union (as well as in favor of the owners), there is no way that an arbitrator will ever rule that there “was a failure to bargain” as will be alleged by the union.
It’s time for the union to make decisions as to what is important to it, but more importantly to its player membership. Does it want to gain more for the pre-arbitration players or negotiate for more Scherzer type contracts? Either way, the players in between are going to be squeezed as they have been since steroids were largely eliminated (those players seldom any longer produce great numbers into their mid and late 30’s as they did in the steroid era) and the analytics made the teams realize they could get the same production as they would get from the mid-level player by using pre-arbitration players for a small percentage of the cost. The union can’t force the teams to make the bad contract decisions that they used to make during the steroid and pre-analytics era. Sorry but the “stars and scrubs (pre-arbitration players)” era has already arrived. As I have been arguing for elsewhere, I wish there was some balanced reporting here to that end.
It’s almost last call for alcohol.
We don’t need some inane article full of bullshit to show there isn’t bias. Do you need an article about how Salvador Perez should have been the MVP last year? Or about how Mookie Betts is actually the most valuable trade asset? Does every wild take based on nonsense deserve an article? You know, for balance? Or is it just your wild pet projects that deserve, for whatever reason, some contrived effort? How many words of bullshit would be enough for you?
Writing an article about how really all of this is more the players fault would be like writing an article about how teams rely too much on young players and need more veteran presence. It wouldn’t make sense. It would look incredibly stupid. If you opened your eyes you would see that, but some people have such an intense desire to be “the only smart one” in the crowd. Sorry, buddy, that’s just not what’s happening here. If there were a legitimate, interesting angle, someone would write about it. I can promise you that. They aren’t ignoring the wonderful, insightful angle just to piss you off. Get over yourself.
Once again, you are consumed with your own importance.