Change is in the Air

With the new ammendment passing, it certainly changes some things around the league. Jeremy (STL) wrote an article just before it was approved about a trade he made and how the new ammendments may effect the league and player value. Her it is.

St. Louis, MO.

St. Louis and San Francisco reached an agreement yesterday, just prior to the start of the 2030 season, which sends 3B Greg Nettles back to St. Louis in exchange for 3B Tommy Gravino and $8 cash. Although phenom Clete Boyer was expected to be the everyday starting 3B for the Cardinals this year, the sudden and unexpected deal for Nettles likely changes that scenario.

At the press conference today St. Louis manager Mike Schmidt appeared quite pleased with his team's recent trade. Schmidt has made no bones about the fact that he feels that Cardinals GM Jeremy Worst was rushing the talented Boyer into a starting role this season which he wasn't ready for. "The kid is only twenty-one, and he's just not ready to be a 500 to 600 at bats kind of hitter. His defense is outstanding; he could probably win a gold glove at his position right now, but both his plate discipline and ability to handle the nastier breaking stuff needs to improve. Clete simply needs more time to develop those skills."

"As for getting Netty, well that just gives us the luxury of being able to put Clete into positions where he can be successful. This way he won't be expected to carry such a big load for our team; at the same time he can still be an important contributor for our club." Such talk indicates that the 30 year-old Nettles--facing free agency at season's end--should see significant playing time this year, even if it comes at the expense of the rookie Boyer.

The move also strongly indicated that GM Jeremy Worst was heavily betting upon the league's passing of the new collective bargaining agreement. If at least two-thirds of Habla ownership fails to approve the measure, Worst could find himself in the unenviable position of having just traded for a rental player; a guy he might not be able to re-sign come this offseason. However if the new labor contract is approved, St. Louis would be virtually guaranteed of being able to ink Nettles to a new 4-year deal.

A calculated risk assuredly, but perhaps not the bold move some would have us believe. An increasing number of those close to the labor talks are convinced that the new deal will pass with a clear majority. If that becomes the case, teams might find themselves scrambling to collect as much talent, while its still available, as they possibly can. With enough foresight, experts say, there's no reason not to expect a team of being able to lock-up four, five, or possibly even more of their own superstar free agents to long-term deals within the same year--an impossibilty under the old system. Opponents of the new plan argue that with such players never even reaching the open free agent market, player movement (or as some call it, superstar movement) will slow down to a fraction of what it once was.

Proponents of the new plan call such a scenario patently absurd, claiming that although a team might be able to theoretically sign four Babe Ruth-type players within the same free agent year, there is no way they can continue to do so for any sustained period of time. They argue that teams indulging in this practice would quickly see their farm systems become "shell teams" manned by players with no realistic chance of ever playing at the major league level. And of course teams making such multiple re-signings a yearly occurence would eventually be forced--probably sooner rather than later-- into trading some of their own superstars to raise the necessary cash.

Some proponents go even further by claiming that player movement would increase under the new plan. As owners become increasingly attuned to the new financial realities of the game, they would be less inclined to part with their limited supply of cash, thus making it extremely difficult for teams to build large warchests in preparation for big free agent signing years. Even the naysayers of the proposed plan admit that such a scenario is possible, albeit an unlikely one.

Stanley Calbright, a business professor at Rutgers University and the author of a new book entitled The Changing $$$ of Habla, says that "the new system will better allow financially stable teams to hold onto their own talent pool of players, at least over the short to mid-term, say 3 to 5 years on average. Less and less will teams be forced into trading an impending free agent because they fear they won't be able to re-sign him. Under the proposed system they'll be able to keep that player because of the fixed costs associatied with free agency--the financial uncertainties of the open free agent market will no longer apply. They can plan ahead for a big multiple re-signing year by making needed trades or roster moves in advance, even up to several seasons in advance if a team is especially disciplined enough. Oh sure, teams will sti ll deal an impending free agent on occasion, but more due to poor planning or simple mismanagement rather than because of the practical limitations imposed under the old system. With the fixed costs of free agents a key feature of the new labor agreement, teams can better plan for future years simply because they'll have the advantage of roughly knowing what its going to cost to retain those player's services."

Regarding the recent Nettles trade, Calbright sees it as a good move on St. Louis' part. "Since the Giants--for weeks--had made known their eagerness to deal Nettles, without requiring picks or prospects in return, it made good sense for a team like the Cardinals to go out and get him before another club made a move."

"Once the season begins and teams start facing the realities of the new labor agreement, I expect you'll see a flurry of similar deals throughout the year and well into the next as teams begin to jockey and maneuver for their respective free agent futures. To employ an unfortunate cliche, its a complete paradigm shift; especially how teams in Habla are going to be built and maintained. The more quickly a team adapts to these changes, the better their chances of enjoying any form of sustained success."

Speaking directly about those changes, Calbright emphasizes that the goal for teams still remains the same; to put a winning team on the field. "Only one aspect of that process has changed, and that's free agency. Its still about acquiring talent, having pitchers who can throw strikes, fielders who can successfully catch and throw the ball, and hitters who can put the ball in play. However what's changed is that you're less likely to find available on the free agent market the kinds of players who can do those things exceptionally well. As before good players can still be obtained through trades, but that activity will now become the only real pipeline for player movement. The days of the big free agent signing are over. I envision the new market as being a place where a team can still find solid position help, or the occasional stellar reliever perh aps, but the chances of a significantly talented player--in the prime of his career--being available are simply unrealistic."

"Many would maintain that free agency has never been a statistically significant vehicle for superstar movement--at least not the kind of movement envisioned by its original creators. Although the demands and limitations under the old free agent system--most specifically the rules regarding the franchise player tag (which remain unchanged) and the limit of 1 pre-sign per team--were certainly major factors behind the trading of gifted players in the past, such players were rarely ever exposed to the actual market itself. In most instances such players were traded to a team who could afford to protect them, thus entirely bypassing the uncertainties of the open market. In that regard both the old and the new systems are very much alike."


AP Press Release