MLB Notebook: Players paying the price for new CBA; Yanks rolling the dice on rookies

The ink is barely dry on the current collective bargaining agreement between Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association – one season down, four still to go – and already, there are problems. Potentially big problems, in fact.

The players, much to their chagrin, are discovering that the language they agreed to in regard to the luxury tax threshold is having the same chilling effect as a de facto salary cap, which the union has steadfastly opposed for decades.

The combination of higher tax rates and the potential for loss of amateur draft picks as well as international pool money may have contributed to a slowdown on the free agent market. A number of franchises who usually spend freely – the Dodgers, Cubs, Yankees to name the three most obvious examples – have largely stayed out of the market, intent on re-setting their tax rate for next winter’s class featuring, among others, Bryce Harper and Manny Machado.

If you believe that theory to be true, then players have no one to blame but themselves for agreeing to an economic structure that incentivizes careful payroll spending. How did union chief Tony Clark and the players not see this coming?

And if the players want to find someone to blame, they need look no further than the nearest mirror.

Former Red Sox outfielder Brandon Moss, in a recent interview on MLB Network, squarely accepted the responsibility.

“We’ve given the owners and teams an excuse not to pay top free agents, to have a reason to say, ‘No,’ ‘’ said Moss, now back with the Oakland A's. “The only reason those things are there is because we bargained them in. If you run too good a deal out there in a bargaining agreement, of course the owners are going to jump on it.

“Everybody wants to look up and scream, ‘Collusion!’ Everybody wants to look up and scream, ‘This isn’t fair.’ But sooner or later, you have to take responsibility for a system you created for yourself. It’s our fault.’’

Some, predictably, aren’t seeing it that way. On Friday, respected player agent Brodie Van Wagenen of CAA, alleged that the slow-play of the free agent market “feels coordinated, rightly or wrongly.’’

Van Wagenen went on to suggest that perhaps the best response from the union and its players would be a partial boycott of spring training. While most teams have reporting dates for pitchers and catchers in another 10 days or so, those are “voluntary’’ dates; the CBA includes language that suggests the true “mandatory’’ reporting date is Feb. 24.

Would a delay of 10 days or so accomplish anything? Perhaps it would draw attention to the plight of out-of-work players, but at a time when baseball is struggling to remain relevant, how much sympathy would exist on the part of fans? And after 24 years of peaceful co-existence, does baseball really wish to return to the 1980s and 1990s, when work stoppages – or the threat of some – seemed to take place every few seasons?

The new CBA isn’t the only factor at work. There are other variables contributing to the current landscape.

Take a look at the last two World Series champions: the 2016 Chicago Cubs and 2017 Houston Astros. What do they have in common? Simple – they bottomed out, purposefully, in order to get to the top.

Both the Cubs and Astros weren’t the least bit interested in remaining competitive five years before they realized their goal of becoming champions. To the contrary, both franchises understood that the best way to win in the long-run was to lose in the short-term.

That way, they would qualify for top draft picks. Houston obtained the left side of their infield (third baseman Alex Bregman and shortstop Carlos Correa) and George Springer that way, while the Cubs landed former MVP Kris Bryant, slugger Kyle Schwarber and Javier Baez through the same method.

Obviously, these players alone didn’t make the Astros and Cubs winners. But they now help form the nucleus of their respective clubs, and should help both remain pennant contenders for years to come.

Take a rebuilding team like, say, the Chicago White Sox or, famously, the Florida Marlins. Why would they invest in even a mid-level free agent this winter and pay him $8 million in 2018 so that the team can win 76 games instead of 68? It’s far more sensible to build around homegrown players and qualify for a Top 5 draft pick the following summer.

Add in the sport’s fascination with young (and by definition, cheaper) players, and here we are. It’s no surprise that the aforementioned powers – Cubs, Yanks, Dodgers – are all saving their money for Harper and Machado, who will, not incidentally, both be 26 when they file for free agency next November. It’s not just that they’re supremely talented; part of the reason they’ll be so in demand is that they’ll just be entering their physical prime, with far less risk of breaking down over the course of their next mega contracts.

Free agency may be evolving before our eyes. A concept that was introduced more than 40 years ago wasn’t meant to remain static forever.

Charlie Finley, iconoclastic owner of the dynastic Oakland A’s of the 1970s, challenged his fellow owners to allow for every player to be eligible for free agency every year. His fellow owners envisioned chaos and immediately rejected the idea – much to the relief of Players Associate head Marvin Miller, tellingly. But Finley correctly understood the laws of supply and demand would result in many players earning less.

Some 40 years later, more than one in every five players on a major league roster filed for free agency last fall, and as spring training beckons, the vast majority don’t have jobs.

Maybe that’s temporary, and maybe this off-season is some sort of aberration. But the players – and their union – can take a sizeable slice of the blame pie, and know that the bad labor agreement they signed off on still has four more long years before expiring.

***********
And speaking of teams unwilling to spend big, we give you the New York Yankees.

It appears, with each passing day, that the Yankees are perfectly content to go into spring training with two rookies set to man two critical infield positions: Gleyber Torres at second and Miguel Andujar at third.

"We're more than prepared to go into spring training with what we have,'' said GM Brian Cashman recently.

The Yanks shipped off second baseman Starlin Castro as a payroll offset in their trade for Giancarlo Stanton, while unloading third baseman Chase Headley to San Diego. Free agent Todd Frazier, who took over third in the final two months, hasn’t been aggressively courted to return.

The Yankees did sign utility infielder Danny Espinosa this past week, but the rookies remain the favorites.

Of course, Torres and Andujar are no ordinary rookies. Torres, in particular, is a consensus Top 5 prospect throughout the game. Andujar isn’t held in quite the same regard, but he’s managed to crack Top 100 lists by Baseball America, ESPN, and MLB.com.

The Yankees – like the Red Sox – have done a fine job integrating young homegrown stars over the last few seasons. Think: Gary Sanchez, Greg Bird and, of course, Aaron Judge.

But this would seem a particularly risky gambit for the Yankees. We’re not talking about a No. 5 starter or part of a platoon. The Yanks, who fell a game short of the A.L. pennant last October, are ready to entrust half of their infield to two players with little exposure.

Torres played just 23 games at Triple A last year before missing half the season with Tommy John surgery on his non-throwing arm. And though he got a brief cameo in New York, Andujar was playing in the Florida State League as recently as 2016.

Still, the Yankees are insistent that they’re going to remain under the luxury tax threshold, and don’t have the flexibility to add more experienced candidates to flank shortstop Didi Gregorius.

As lethal as the rest of the New York lineup is, the uncertainty at second and third is reason enough to not crown the Yankees prematurely.