Here's an AP Article outlining the respective positions of the parties on the main issues:
https://apnews.com/article/mlb-sport...e134f034bd2d5b
This is going to get done. There are hree where there's any meaningful divide:
Quote:
SALARY ARBITRATION
MLB: Would keep current system or replace it with salaries based primarily on award recognition and career Fangraphs WAR, saying the change would address MLBPA’s concerns about paying younger players based on value. Players currently eligible for arbitration under the expired CBA would be grandfathered and have the choice of salary arbitration or the new system.
MLBPA: Would lower eligibility to two years of major league service, its level from 1974 through 1986, when it increased to three years. In the expired agreement, it was three years plus the top 22% by service time of players with at least two years but less than three years.
|
Quote:
SERVICE TIME
MLBPA: Made proposals aimed to prevent what it says is service-time manipulation, including allow accruing of service time for rookies for award
|
These two would likely be taken out a single shot - i.e. significantly expanding what qualifies as an season of service time for arbitration purposes. I think it presently requires 172 days on the roster (season is 187 days long). Make that 120 days with a maximium amount of years earned in a single season being 1 (so someone can't earn 4 seasons in 3, for instance). It would do a lot to prevent service time manipulation. Make it 90 if need be; that would require teams to wait until the ASB essentially to call up guys and that's a big ask if a player is truly ready to play. Most teams wouldn't do it.
Get guys to arb more frequently and easier and the players won't dig their heels in on the compensation once they get there.
Quote:
LUXURY TAX
Threshold was $210 million in 2021, with tax rates of 20% for first offender, 30% for exceeding in consecutive years and 50% for exceeding in three or more consecutive years. Surcharge for exceeding $230 million and $250 million.
MLB: Proposed raising threshold to $214 million in 2022 and offered an option of a $100 million payroll minimum funded by a 25% tax on payrolls above $180 million. Tax threshold would rise to $220 million in final season.
MLBPA: Proposed raising threshold starting at $245 million for the 2022 season and eliminating non-tax penalties.
|
I don't expect there's universal agreement on the salary floor but in the end, if the owners have to scrap the floor and eliminate the non-tax penalties (which are just used to fund the revenue sharing FOR the floor) and give a little bit on the starting luxury tax threshold, they'll do that. Enough wealthy teams would be fine with an increase and enough cheap teams will be fine not having to navigate a floor.
And again, this is posturing by PA, IMO - they'd ultimately be fine with that non-tax penalty being put in if it just creates a pool for the 'poorer' teams to spend from. Sooner or later the middle class of MLB FAs is going to get squeezed out and a situation like this will help them get paid. This would help more players than eliminating it would, even if the alternative would help the high end of the market get paid more. At some point the PA will understand this.