The New CBA and How It May Affect the Braves

Last week, the Owners of Major League Baseball and the Player Union agreed to terms on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, avoiding a possible lockout. There's a lot to dive into and it's worth the effort to learn about this CBA, but if you want a quick-and-dirty look at how it pertains to the Atlanta Braves, here you go. Note - I'm not an expert on the ins-and-outs of CBA language so feel free to point me in the right direction if I go astray.

Scheduling
-I've talked about service time a great deal because for a team with so many young players, it becomes a bit of an important detail. Starting in 2018, it will be a bit easier to reach the needed 172 days to count as a full year of service. The regular season will increase from 183 to 187 days with off days accounting for the extra days along with the season beginning a bit earlier. That leaves a total of at least 16 days that a player will have to remain in the minors to buy an extra year of team control.

All-Star Game Fiasco
-Remember new Hall of Fame member Bud Selig's bright idea about making the All-Star Game count by awarding Home Field Advantage to the winner? Yeah, that's gone - which is awesome because why should the Braves be forced to not have home field advantage after winning 120 games in 2019 and going to the World Series where they beat the expansion Las Vegas Express? (ed: don't bet money on the last thing happening. 120-42 is nearly impossible)

Easier DL decisions
-Gone is the 15-day DL. In its place, welcome the 10-Day DL. Instead of worrying about losing your player for two weeks just to deal with a strain, you can lose him for a smaller time frame. I look at this as a good thing as a lot of players for those players who are good-to-go after a week or so on the DL, but have to wait it out.

Clubhouse Health
-This area was a well thought-out change that I hope, over time, is pushed down the ladder to the minors. Clubs will be required to provide a sports psychologist and a registered dietitian that can help provide guidance on nutrition and dietary supplements. The former is just smart as it helps remove the stigma of the big, manly men who can't seek out help to deal with the things in their life. Shocker: happier baseball players = more productive baseball players. The dietitian part, I believe, has become more and more important as the drug testing increasingly gets refined (more tests are included in this CBA). We have a lot of players who don't even understand what they are putting into their bodies. They are subsequently busted for PED offenses. That's not to say all players who have been busted fit into that, but some do and baseball (and its union) should be taking care of them to try to help them avoid costly suspensions. Unfortunately, the minor leaguers, who need guidance the most, will likely be shut out. Another helpful addition - no more hazing of rookie players. I know we all laugh when we see players dressed in drag, but really, it's 2016. Time to grow up.

Draft Pick Compensation Changes
-The qualified offer compensation system was a bust. While it fixed the issue of long relievers being offered arbitration when they were a Type A free agent, it ruined the markets of some very good free agents. Now, there are a lot of particulars involved here and I don't want to bog you down with all of the details. The Braves are unlikely to spend enough to reach the Competitive Balance Tax, or CBT, which begins at $195M in 2017 and gradually increases to $210M by 2021. CBT Payors receive the harshest punishment (lose second-highest and fifth-highest selections, plus lose $1M in international signing money) when they sign a free agent formerly offered a qualified offer.
-Specific to the Braves - and important to draft pick compensation - is that they are no longer considered a market disqualified team. Basically, that's a way of saying that instead of taking part in revenue sharing, the Braves could end up keeping it. Where this becomes slightly important is that it may mean that the Braves would forfeit just their third highest remaining selection in the amateur draft rather than their second-highest. The latter also sees its international signing bonus pool decreased by $500K.
-Further, receiving compensation also changes. Ignoring the CBT Payor Club, if the Braves are non-market disqualified, they could receive a pick immediately following the first round IF that player receives a contract worth at least $50M. What happens if the Braves become a market disqualified club or a player doesn't sign for at least $50M? That's not so clear just yet, but it looks like all other compensation would come after the Competitive Balance Round B concludes (after the second round).

The Draft Itself
-Remember how people said the Braves were tanking for the #1 pick? Well, it failed because of the second half surge and now, it won't even as valuable to tank. The bonus slot system has been tweaked to reduce such a difference between #1 and #2 and so on. In fact, the suggested slot bonus for the first overall pick is lower than it has been the last four years. While teams will still be incentivized to live within the limitations of a draft system in which going under-slot early allows a team to pay over-slot later, it shouldn't be as bad.

Going International
-Sad news: The Braves will not be able to avoid the punishment and restrictions from spending so much on the previous international signing period to get Kevin Maitan and others. So, for the next two seasons, the Braves will be limited to signing bonuses of $300K and lower (exempting bonuses of $10K and lower).
-Now, the good news. While the international draft was scrapped, something pretty amazing happened. For the first time, the players were open to a salary cap. Probably had something to do with getting tired of watching guys get $20-$25M guaranteed despite never playing in the majors. Instead of that, teams will start with a $4.75M bonus signing pool. Teams that receive a Competitive Balance Pick will have pools of either $5.25M or $5.75M based on where their pick is. Pools can grow with "industry revenue," but let's ignore that for the time being.
-Teams can trade up to 75% of their pools in the next two years and 60% after that. This part is key because the Braves will likely not get close to their $4.75M pool in July 2017 or July 2018 as they deal with their restrictions. However, they can be on the reverse side of what they did in 2015. That year, they traded players for bonus slots so that could increase their bonus pool allotment enough to avoid penalties on future years. Now, they can use their extra pool money to potentially get a prospect or two from another team.
-Foreign players under 25 fall under the scope of the international signing period. This might effect Shohei Otani the most. Otani is a freak of nature who hit 22 homers and had a 1.86 ERA in 140 innings last year. Otani doesn't turn 23 until next July. With the strict international limits meaning the most he could receive would be a shade under $10M, he'll stay in Japan until he comes of age unless an exception is built into the CBA at some point.
-By the way, if you are caught cheating - and the Red Sox were last year - you can lose up to 50% of your allotment for the life of the deal.

No Roster Changes
-There were rumors about a 26-man roster or alterations to the September callups. I've never been a fan of changing that as I'm one of the few that enjoys September callups - especially over the last two years of watching the Braves rebuild.

There will be more details released as everything is finalized, but this is a start. There are things to like about this CBA and the biggest one is that baseball assures itself of labor peace for another five years. There is just too much money to be made by everyone involved to chance it, but people get stupid. Luckily, everyone worked to a rational decision of compromise in this deal. Of course, there are already rumors that 2021 will see a nuclear war between the owners and players that will result in a strike, a lost season, the sky falling, and so on. But for now, let's just enjoy the ride.

Murray Chass Is A Bitter Man

There are times when I read an article where I curse the fact that FireJoeMorgan.com is no longer maintained. As I read each word of the aforementioned article, all I think is "if only this article got the FJM treatment, it would be both hilarious and infuriating instead of only the latter." I'd like to believe I have half of the talent those guys do, though that almost certainly is an inflated sense of self.

As I perused "A Name of Shame and the Hall of Fame" this morning, that thought process returned. Damn, if only Ken Tremendous and company were around for this. For brevity, I've excluded some sections of the post that would be filler otherwise and indicated so with an ellipses.

Is anyone here familiar with the name Dan Szymborski? Does anybody know Dan Szymborski? Has anyone ever spoken to or communicated in any way with Dan Szymborski? Does anyone know why Dan Szymborski hates me?

I doubt he hates you. He probably just thinks you're a bitter old hack that is an example of how some baseball writers are desperately trying to drag down the level of intellect and open-mindedness in the field while attacking anything that challenges previously accepted thought as heresy. I mean, hate is a pretty strong word.

I never heard the name Dan Szymborski until very recently. I had no idea who Dan Szymborski was. In truth, I didn’t know if his name was Dan Szymborski or Dan Szymbobski. But my grandson enlightened me.

My grandson scans the Internet much more than I do. He knows a lot more than I do, especially about web sites and digital dandies. When I asked him if he knew who Dan Szymborski was, he filled me in. Dan Szymborski, he informed me, though he didn‘t use the term – I have made it up and applied it to Dan Szymborski – is a digital dandy.

So, Murray Chass, who began his blog "Murray Chass on Baseball" in 2008 doesn't use the internet all that frequently and doesn't know how to google or use Wikipedia. Starting to see what part of Chass's problem is.

Chass, by the way, doesn't call his blog "a blog." He hates blogs.

It's still a blog, though. So, by extension, he hates his own blog. We share that in common.

Dan Szymborski has written for ESPN.com, which used to have more class than to have Dan Szymborski write for its web site. 

Yeah, because ESPN was the center of class in sports when it hired Rush Limbaugh to give his opinion on football. Or when Gregg Easterbrook complained about Jewish executives not being considerate enough of the Holocaust in 2003.

Dan Szymborski, my grandson further told me, came up with some cockamamie (again, my word) mathematical formula – yeah, one of those – by which he concocts player performance projections.

For clarification, it's called ZiPS. And he doesn't "concoct" the projection. The system he created and helps refine projects performance.

I don’t know what his system is – believe me, I don’t want to know – but presumably it prompted him to write an article for ESPN.com that produced the headline “Mike Mussina one of the casualties of a broken HOF voting process.”

Doubtful considering ZiPS has never been used (and never should be used) to come to a decision on whether a player is worthy of induction into the Hall of Fame. But Chass, who has been "blogging" since 2008, doesn't know what the system is nor can he bother to perform a ten second search to figure out what it is. You know...before wildly speculating, most journalists who honed their craft with The New York Times such as Chass would like to know what the hell they are talking about. But by his own admission, Chass doesn't want to know.

...

I had not seen his comments about me because unlike Szymborski, I do not use Twitter. I leave tweeting to the twits. 

Ha...ha...ha...don't use an universally accepted means for promotion and engagement because only twits like the Pope use it.

But my grandson researched Szymborski’s comments and came up with these:

• That he was *ever employed as a journalist is just embarrassing.
• Murray Chass hired to be on next ‘Survivor’ but it turns out to be just a ruse to leave him on an abandoned Pacific island. #2014hopes
• And yes, Murray Chass was given a Spink award. Which is like Jenny McCarthy getting the Nobel Prize for Medicine.
• Murray Chass is the Donald Trump of baseball journalism. That may actually be too unfair to *Trump*.
• Some of the bad sportswriters can at least claim to be decent *writers*. Chass writes like a third-grader.
• Every spink award winner except chass should get a second one. insulting to tell writers they are of equal honor to murray chass.

On second thought, maybe Szymborski does hate you. In his defense, I'm getting where he's coming from.

...

In the nearly 45 years I have been eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame, the most peculiar development I have seen is the growing movement to erase completely the limit of 10 players writers can vote for or failing that, an increase in the maximum number.

I don’t get it. What kind of standards can my colleagues have if they want to elect 12 or 15 or even 10 players whom they believe were good enough to merit plaques in the Cooperstown shrine? I voted for one player this year, Griffey. I thought there were some other good players on the ballot of 32 but no other great ones. I believe only the great ones belong.

Last year I voted for the three players who received the most votes – Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz. I did not vote for Craig Biggio, who was also elected, because I had heard too much from respected sources about his alleged use of PEDs and I don’t vote for players who have allegedly cheated.

The "full-ballot movement" Chass eludes to is a direct result of people like Chass who only vote for one deserving candidate for the Hall of Fame under the guise of respecting the "standards" of the Hall of Fame or not voting for deserving candidates because someone said they "cheated." By his own admission, he declined to vote for Biggio not because there was any proof, but "respected sources" alleged that the former Astro used PEDs. There were WMD's in Iraq, after all. Some respected sources told us. Everybody Loves Raymond is a funny program. Some respected sources told me so. 

By the way, they were wrong.

Ken Griffey Jr. is an incredibly deserving candidate and ought to be elected with 100% of the vote, but to look at this year's ballot and only come away with one candidate is why there's a backlog of candidates. Because the self-righteous blowhards like Chase choose to make it that way.

...

The full-ballot voters, on the other hand, haven’t given up. In fact, it appears they are just getting started. They are growing in numbers, and their views have filled the Internet in the weeks leading to the announcement of the 2016 election results.

They proudly post their ballots in their blogs, and many of them would list 12 or 15 names if they were allowed. But 10 will have to suffice for now.

What really bothers me is writers whom I have respected for their coverage are among the full-ballot voters. How can you cover baseball for years and think all of the players you mark on the ballot are worthy of the Hall of Fame? Standards, gentlemen, standards. Re-evaluate your standards.

One of the full-ballot voters, Richard Justice of MLB.com, quoted Joe Torre recently: “It’s the Hall of Fame. It’s not supposed to be easy to get into.” However, by voting for 10 players, Justice and the others are making it far easier for unworthy players to break through the Hall’s doors.

I agree that there is no need for an increase in the ballot size from a maximum of ten selected players to 12, but there wouldn't exist a backlog of candidates if people like Chass were doing their job. Sensible people can have sensible criteria for choosing which candidates should be in the Hall of Fame, but when those candidates double and triple in number because their colleagues choose to not vote in candidates out of some misplaced need to police the game, what do you expect will happen? Candidates will continue to fill their ballots while others that are available for election will add to it. 

By the way, does it strike anyone else as strange for Chass to mention "they proudly post their ballots in their blogs?" Why shouldn't they? You did.  

...

Those headlines represent opposite points of view on one of the best closers in history, Trevor Hoffman, and there is no right and wrong. It’s a subjective matter. The problem posed by the metrics monsters is that in their fantasy world there are not two sides. There is only one side, and it’s theirs.

Here's where things get really funny. What Chass doesn't get is that "metric monsters" don't even all agree. Their proudly public ballots are an example of that. But sure, continue.

This column will only incite further derogatory remarks about the writer, but someone has to tell what these geniuses are about.

They are arrogant, narrow minded and shallow. It means nothing to them that human beings play the game. They don’t talk to the people who play the game. They don’t need to. They have their computers and their statistical formulas, and they don’t have to emerge into the world where the sun shines on day games and the ball park lights illuminate night games.

Plus, they have a tendency to live in their mother's basement, eat a steady diet of Ramen and Funyuns, and drink Mountain Dew. 

If you didn't know, Chass really despises that people don't look at baseball as this romantic unexplained phenomenon. The idea that we can quantify it angers him to no end. But what about talking to the people who play the game, he screams. We ought to, certainly, and most with the credentials to do so will talk to players, but is Freddie Freeman going to provide much relevant commentary on advanced statistical analysis? He might, but I doubt it. Chances are Freeman, like most ballplayers, will spout some cliched answers that make you recall the bus scene from Bull Durham. 

Either way, it might surprise Chass to know that sabermetric writers absolutely love going to baseball games - even when it's sunny and our skin burns. Baseball in person is fun. We can bring our families (yes, we even procreate) and if it's not for work, we can turn off our analytical side and even enjoy the tried-and-true experience of seeing a baseball game.

Our love of baseball didn't just end because we compared John Smoltz's cFIP to Curt Schilling's. In fact, we love the game so much that we become obsessed with it. We dive deeper and deeper into it. Baseball is a drug and we don't care about giving it up. We need more and we need the highest quality. 

They especially detest baseball writers and the Baseball Writers Association of America, in large part, I believe, because we vote for the Hall of Fame and MVP and Cy Young awards and they don’t. I offer evidence of their view in the form of an online article I came across in my research for this column.

Written nearly two years ago by Luis Torres, a name unknown to me, it is titled “The Biggest Enemies of the Advancement of Baseball (Part 1): The BBWAA.” An excerpt, faulty grammar included:

The BBWAA are masters at creating narratives that obscure the facts. As long as they continue to do so, we will need to educate the public on what they’re doing so that they can learn to see right through it. Then the analytical writers of the world will be unhindered in elevating the public’s understanding of baseball. It WILL happen. One day, we will look back at the AL MVP voting and other injustices caused by the BBWAA, and shake our heads. Those writers that chose obstinacy over progression? History will judge them poorly, possibly even ridicule them. Just look at Murray Chass right now. As Dan Szymborski put it, he has declined into self-parody. They had the information at hand, and chose to ignore it. Fans today have access to a virtually endless supply of information and data on baseball. The writers know that we can do better than them, and they’re scared of becoming obsolete. After all, if the public figures out that their insider knowledge isn’t worth anything, what good will they be?

With the additional thought that it sounds frighteningly like an ISIS polemic threatening to take over the world, I rest my case.

For what it's worth, Luis Torres is on Twitter...which I guess makes him a twit. But Chass completely misses the point of what Torres said to make a rather absurd argument. "They," meaning people who seek to use analytical means to help justify their position, are, according to Chass, essentially jealous because the BBWAA has the ability to vote for postseason awards. His evidence, such as it is, only shines on Chass's ignorance of the underlying point. When the BBWAA do things like keep out a player only to prevent him from achieving "first-ballot" status (Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin), don't vote for Greg Maddux simply because he played in the steroid era, or make the lackluster argument that Jack Morris was a deserving candidate because you would give him the ball in a Game Seven - something is amiss with the BBWAA. 

When, as is the case with postseason awards, the BBWAA voters use stats to back up their position (such as RBIs for an MVP award), but choose to not use numbers with more analytical value despite the ease of accessing such data, it's a sign that something is wrong. Surely, Mr. Chass's votes for the Cy Young and MVP awards have been impacted by "metrics." This guy drove in 125 runs. This guy won 21 games. Whatever the case, it's not like you are arriving at your decision by just talking to players. You didn't decide who receives your vote solely by going to games. You checked the leaderboards. All Torres and others are asking is that you go beyond simply looking at the classic baseball card stats and make the leap into slightly more advanced stats, especially those that take into account the league, year, and parks you played in. 

In the same post that Chass is convinced that Jack Morris was a worthy candidate, yet Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina aren't, here is a example of how we can compare the three. FIP isn't all that advanced, but it makes for an easy graph to help show the difference. 

Stop being so subjective and vote in the candidates that fit within your own odd criteria, Murray Chass.

In the end, Murray Chass is an example of the BBWAA. Arrogant, narrow-minded, and shallow. Worse than any metric monster he can think of, Chass is convinced that he already knows everything he needs to and any new information is not worth his time. That's the basic problem with the old guard of the BBWAA. They have convinced themselves that the statistical analysis is hokum - a waste of time. Even Chass falls victim to the old standby that these NERDS are stuck inside on their computers crunching numbers all day.

It's fine for Chass to hate the way the game is headed. What is a concern is how Chass then holds his power as a member of BBWAA hostage when the game appears to not be up to his liking. The only good thing that can be said is that when the FireJoeMorgan guys were doing this, people like Chass dominated the landscape. Now, he's part of a vocal and increasingly petulant subsection that has to share the stage with the colleagues he seems to despise. The people who concurred with him are dropping each year either from retirement or enlightenment (or...let's face it...death).

So, I understand why Chass has been desperate to remain relevant and fight the good fight, however misguided. But instead of attacking those he doesn't understand and the analytical side of baseball that has progressed, it might behoove Chass to just give it up. Go to a game. Have a hot dog. And just let this whole BBWAA thing lapse and stop blogging. Just enjoy the human beings playing the game. Isn't that all he really wants anyway?

P.S. Not even touching that deranged ISIS comparison.