Major League Baseball

MLBPA boss Tony Clark breaks down the CBA

Published Dec. 9, 2016 1:10 p.m. ET

Ken Rosenthal

NEW YORK - I said it before and I’ll say it again: It is impossible to assess the impact of a collective-bargaining agreement until we see how the players and owners respond to the new rules.

No one knew how much certain free agents would be damaged by the qualifying offer when the concept was introduced in 2012. No one can predict with certainty how the latest CBA will affect various markets.

Still, there is a whole lot of predictin’ going on.

And Tony Clark, the first former player to head the players’ union, is drawing more criticism for this agreement than his predecessors Michael Weiner, Donald Fehr and Marvin Miller ever did for any of theirs.

The most pointed criticism is coming from a number of player agents, the people who normally are in lockstep with the union when it comes to defending players’ rights.

I sat down with Clark at the union’s offices in New York City on Friday to discuss the new deal.

Q: Is there any one component of the deal that you are most proud of?

A: At least what I’ve learned is that you take a look at the entire deal in an attempt to appreciate how all of the pieces fit. Oftentimes taking one part of the deal and critiquing it is doing a disservice to how that piece along with any number of pieces may affect how the industry moves or doesn’t move.

When you sit down and determine whether or not to shake hands on a deal, you look at that total picture and appreciate trying to find common ground, trying to land on a fair and equitable deal where some of your concerns were addressed and some of their concerns were addressed. I feel like we did that in the aggregate.

Q: The All-Star Game. It will not determine home-field advantage for the World Series anymore. How did that come about?

A: There has been some dialogue for a while as it related to that game and how it manifested itself late in the year in the most important games of the season. It was beneficial to have a conversation about that, (given) the experiences over the last 10 years and benefit of making a change moving forward.

Q: I was told the players really wanted this to change.

A: (smiling) It has been a topic of discussion for some time.

Q: The 26-man roster (from April to August). Reduced roster size in September. Why didn’t that happen?

A: That (also) has been a topic of conversation for some time. There are challenges all around the issue, (which is) why we haven’t been able to find common ground on that.

As we worked through all the moving pieces in attempting to come to an agreement, it was one we weren’t able to get agreement on at the time. But history would suggest that we’ve had conversations about roster size outside of a bargaining year, conversations mid-term and at other times. I anticipate that being a possibility.

Q: On the international draft. Did baseball indeed offer unrestricted free agency for an international draft?

A: The tradeoff that owners asked for in return for indirect compensation was not a place we were willing to go.

Q: Why were the players so opposed to an international draft?

A: You have a conversation with guys about the cosmetics of there being a draft in one area and not another. But you get to a point where -- and the players appreciated this -- the dynamic that exists between domestic and international is different enough where . . . the conversation becomes difficult. It’s not quite that clear and clean.

Q: The one complaint you hear about the current international system that seems to be valid -- at least from the outside -- is that it’s corrupt. We know what the buscones (agent/trainers in Latin America) do. We know how the system works. By not having a draft, it seems like you’re indirectly supporting that system, or at least not condemning it.

A: We don’t believe that a system fixes or changes those who have decided to corrupt it. You mentioned buscones. I would suggest there are a number of people involved in that conversation. We are interested in having a system in place -- and I think it will play out this way – that creates an environment that is positive for all those involved.

That requires additional considerations over what’s being done now. It also requires due diligence to be done when and if there are lines crossed that shouldn’t be crossed. That should be the case internationally as well as it is domestically. Some of the things fundamental to that conversation exist on the domestic side, too.

You’re not going to have anyone say, “I’m all in on corruption and illegal dealings,” but I don’t think that’s a system issue. I think there are improvements that can be made and we are more than willing to work through those to create as positive a system as we can.

Q: The system that you agreed to -- the new one -- has a hard cap. You know this as well as anyone: This union has historically opposed hard caps, and very strongly. Why in this case did you agree to one?

A: It became a conversation that we spent a lot of time on with players in an effort to appreciate a system that provides cost containment, much like it does based on our experiences on the (domestic) amateur side, while allowing flexibility to navigate those aggregate dollars.

You have a system where individual clubs have individual pools of dollars. They have the ability to assign those dollars, trade those dollars, if they have an interest in any particular player or players. They have the ability to sign players below a certain dollar amount that don’t count toward those pools.

Q: $10,000?

A: And that $10,000 currently accounts for, give or take, 40 percent of the international signings altogether. There is still flexibility there. There is still opportunity for teams that have interest in the international market -- not every team does -- to work within that system to continue to access talent.

Q: One criticism has been that you sold out those players, the international amateurs. Those players are not in the union, mind you. But how would you respond to that?

A: It’s interesting. We now have two systems (domestic and international) that should function similarly despite the fact that one is a draft and one isn’t, all against the backdrop of growth in the industry and those aggregate pool dollars continuing to climb.

You’ll have those who have strong opinions on one side of the equation, those who have strong opinions on the other side of the equation. We didn’t make any decisions in a vacuum and appreciated the player input and involvement along the way.

Q: Draft-pick compensation. Obviously major changes here. The one question would be, Why would you put so much emphasis on that, when it only damaged – arguably – a handful of players each year, and other areas like the competitive-balance (luxury) tax might have a greater impact on salaries going forward?

A: The system that was in place affected more than just the players who were affected. We had to appreciate the interests of the other side, the interests we had in making improvements in other areas, and balance that equation at the table.

Those economic pieces aren’t solely tied to CBT and thresholds and tax rates. It also tied to revenue sharing, which is also tied to the benefit plan and pensions and medical – it’s all inter-related. You take one in isolation, it’s a delicate proposition.

Q: But why was that one so important?

A: It was important because of the experiences we had, the players it affected. It was part of the improvements we were looking to make.

Q: The thresholds. Some have said they aren’t high enough, though in the previous agreement you didn’t have any increases in the final four years and you have increases in every year here. Why couldn’t you get them higher?

A: Because it’s a negotiation.

Q: What was your goal? What did you want to accomplish?

A: It’s safe to assume that you want to create as much flexibility as you possibly can against the system that is in place. The competitive-balance tax was designed to be a system that addressed a team that ran away from the other teams with respect to payroll. That’s always what it was, always what it has been, always what it will be. And that’s what it is here.

It’s a very important part of the conversation. And it was here, too. As all the other moving pieces started to fall in place, it was one of the last issues that needed to be addressed.

In 2011, we (thought) ... if we had a number of teams that had moved into the conversation with respect to those thresholds, then the industry was doing well. We look at this the same way. The increases to the thresholds this go-around were different than the last go-around, provide additional flexibility while taking into account the premise of the CBT.

Q: Shouldn’t the thresholds better reflect the rise in revenues? It doesn’t seem that they’re keeping up.

A: The thresholds against revenues as it relates to club behavior, as it relates to the experiences in the market, are all the things that we look to take into account. That is why where we started was much higher.

Q: The new penalty structures in the CBT -- for third-time offenders, 50 percent on every dollar above the threshold, then 62 percent after $20 million above, 95 percent after $40 million above. The argument there is that they serve almost as a de facto cap. How much are you concerned about that?

A: When we sat down and bargained in 2011 and there was a move to a 50 percent tax, we attempted to appreciate what that was going to do with respect to club behavior. It’s no different now than it was then. We’re doing our best in whatever predictive model we can put together about what’s going to happen moving forward.

It was interesting if you back and read the articles about what those decisions were going to do, and now two days after an agreement is reached, and what this one is going to do moving forward.

(Note: In 2011, some in the media warned that a 50 percent tax would inhibit spending, but a number of high-revenue clubs proved willing to pay the penalty.

(Also: Clark wouldn’t say it, but union officials privately believe that the high-revenue teams that previously were willing to pay the 50 percent tax in the previous agreement will be willing to pay at the 62 percent level in this one.

(So, by the final year of the agreement, when the threshold is at $210 million, the union theorizes that a number of teams could hover close to $250 million, avoiding the maximum penalty for going $40 million over the threshold. The union would consider that a good outcome).

Q: The union has always felt that a rising tide lifts all ships, that if you have the big spenders spending, it’s going to raise all salaries. How concerned are you that the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox will not spend to the levels you expect -- that this will stifle them?

A: We are hopeful that teams continue to compete and put the best team on the field against the backdrop of (the CBA). We’ve always wanted a system that acknowledges the differences between the different teams. That is a concern we have every time we sit down at the table. It’s something we’ll be watching as we move forward here, the same way we did the last round, the same way we did the round before that.

Q: The cap on the international amateurs, the greater restrictions on the competitive-balance tax. People say that could open you up the next time to management saying, “OK – cap,” and being more aggressive about it. You’ve given them an opening. Might they plow through?

A: That would not be the right assumption to make.

Q: With BAM (Major League Baseball Advanced Media) and everything else MLB has going on, their revenues are soaring. How concerned are you that the players are not getting their share?

A: It’s something we always pay attention to. We want the industry to grow. We want the industry to do well. We want to ensure that with that growth, that the players receive their fair share. We have and will continue to watch what’s being done in an effort to make sure that fair share of the industry continues.

Q: The pace of the negotiations. Management consistently said that you didn’t engage, you weren’t responsive, and that nothing of significance happened until the very end. How would you respond to that? Was that a strategy of yours?

A: No. Here’s what I’ve learned: Every round of bargaining has its own challenges, its own ebb and flow to it. Each subsequent bargaining round has become more complicated than the last as a result of the industry and how it has changed.

This one was no exception. Each of the last three bargaining rounds had different circumstances that led to an agreement. A caveat that is often missed -- we met more often, earlier, than in any bargaining round that I can recall being a part of . . .

We landed in the right place.

Q: As I’m sure you know, a lot of agents have expressed frustration that they weren’t included in the process - not all, but quite a few. What was your approach with the agents?

A: There are 400-plus certified agents. We communicated with a number of them along the way. We were unable to communicate with all of them all of the time. Were there communications? Yes. Was their input offered? Yes. Was their expertise and experience offered? Yes. And that will continue to be the case.

I’m confident that each time you negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement that there are going to be challenges with respect to those who may have been involved and those who may have been less involved.

It’s unfortunate that those concerns have resonated in the fashion that they have. But the irony here is that communication is one of the things I am most committed to. We wouldn’t have been able to find the common ground we did had those communications in general been anything but what they were.