I've heard through the twitterverse there is also a cap on international signings, which really hurts the teams (Jays included) who have heavily invested in international scouting and development.

The tax rates for spending "over slot" in the draft, coupled with potential loss of draft picks for doing so are 2 other dreadful changes.

Under this new CBA, and the new draft rules, the dollars you have to spend are a finite resource.  How you use them is key and that puts the importance back on scouting.  The Jays ability to spend is reduced but they still can try and be smarter than other teams.

At least AA had a couple of years to fill the system before these brakes were put on.  

How do you think the Beede family feels today?  While we don't know the team limits for the new deal, I am sure he won't get as much dollars in three years as he could have this year.

The new CBA rules for the draft is basically hard slotting except the hard slot is on a pool rather than on a pick.  Teams with worse records will have more money to spend.

If a team can find players who will sign for less than slot, then they will have more dollars for players to go over slot.

If a team drafts a player who won't sign, then they can reallocate those dollars to a signable player.

Sam,

        Correct me if I'm wrong - but since the teams with the 10 lowest revenues get to share in the draft lottery & the Jays were 23rd, doesn't that qualify them to participate since there are only 30 teams.

• With the change in free agency compensation we will likely see more trades.  Instead of holding onto a type B player now and taking a comp pick you either have to trade the player or get nothing if they leave.  Plus, they cleaned up the compensation so it makes more sense.  Good move.
• Changing the Super 2 players doesn't make sense to me.  The problem is that teams were burying players in the minors over service time.  It's no better now, and perhaps it's worse (as if it's 22% instead of 17% you'll have to keep a player down longer).  Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't like it.
• I'm not getting too hung up on draft caps.  I think you'll see teams manipulate that as well.  For example, taking two top prospects looking for big money and then essentially punting your mid-round picks to fund it.  The good thing about this is we won't see any single team scooping up players that only fall over money.  The bad news is that the Jays were likely to be one of those teams.  It also may drive away a few multi-sport players.

Sam:

The minimum wage goes from $411,000 to $500,000 in a couple of years.

The players who qualify for arbitration as super 2's goes from 17% to 22%.

There is no restraint on salaries and the luxury tax threshold rises significantly in 2014.

The restraint on some free agents under the A and B system has been reduced letting those players get better deals.

Benefits have been improved.

The major give-aways were to minor leaguers and international players who are not union members.  In fact, if teams spend less on signing amateur players they may increase their budget for their major league team, another win for the players.

If the draft budget is cumulative instead of per pick, it's not really that bad and shouldn't dilute the talent.  Baseball will still have the richest draft of the major four sports and players will be able to demand their number.

Agree with the general sentiment on Int'l FA.  However, bonuses were poised to take off there.  The cap seems low though.  There has been a suggestion that Int'l Cap room can be traded between teams.  The cumulative cap would be $87m for the league - is that about what they currently spend as a group?

I've also heard that the comp picks to the 10 small market clubs can be traded - has that been confirmed.

My initial reaction to the new CBA was quite negative.  However, there is some intrigue about it and would like to consider it further before jumping to the common conclusion.

Just because a clause is a negative for the Jays, doesn't mean it isn't a good clause.  For example, draft pick compensation was created because poorer clubs needed to be compensated for being unable to re-sign their expensive free agents.  It didn't do this.  The new CBA attempts to ensure that only expensive FA's garner their former club compensation.

Reading a little more on the International Cap, it seems to still be a work in process with the $2.9m limit applying only to next year (or two) until a new system can be developed.

I never said it wasn't or that the CBA was devoid of positive elements. The draft pick compensation is one of the few positive parts of this CBA. And, as for this $2.9 million limit being temporary, this number is all we have to evaluate the CBA on right now and, in my opinion, that number is a joke.

Apparently there's still room for an International draft in this CBA and that will presumably part of the ensuing discussions.

I'm not sure that $87m for latin americans is less than they received last year.

Maybe not but 2.9 per team? didn't we spend about that much on Cardona?

I think we spent $2.4m on Cardona and certainly exceeded $2.9m cap.  My contention was that Latin America might not be worse off.  I wouldn't be surprised that $2.9m was chosen because it was the average and that, if a draft isn't brought in for 2014, cap limits will be tradable to ensure that the total investment in Latin America isn't reduced.

Mlb.com has the CBA, in its entirety. up for access.   Also River Avenue Blues has Maury Brown doing similar, as does this site.   If you have read all three through, and still have questions, welcome, join the crowd.   If you haven't read all three, DO SO; otherwise don't bother us until you have.

The draft limit is approximately $4.5 MM - $11.5 MM, depending on how many picks you have in the first 10 rounds.   That means A.A. can spend $4.7205 MM - $12.0635 in the draft (4.9%) without more than a 75% tax.   International signing limit is $2.9 MM with the similar penalties.   This, IMO, sucks.

"the rest - well - just a normal (but slightly rich) minor league contract..." ... Mylegacy 

 OR ...  have Rogers hire him as an intern selling telephones in the off season at a $Million  ...

 OR...   sign him to a personal service contract a la Gretzky - Skalbania ...

  OR...   have the Argos sign him for a $Million contract as a 2 sport guy and only have him hold on field goals ...

As per Baseball America ...   "The changes to the amateur scene also affect things internationally, with a cap for the 2012-2013 signing period. Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports reported that the cap will be $2.9 million for all teams in the first year, and it will be adjusted for subsequent years based on winning percentage."  (  http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/news/2011/2612639.html )

Now, for the next 6 weeks, we'll have a lot of 15 year old kids saying that they are actually 16 and signing contracts before the new rules apply .

I`m pretty skeptical of the impact of losing two sport athletes.  a) baseball`s draft is going to still be richer than any other sport b) we`re still talking about signing for millions or going to college c) they`ll be two sport athletes in college and may still choose baseball.  The may lose some, but it`ll be a marginal impact at the major league level.  As for the Dominican, $87m is still a lot of money, and I think it`s a precursor to a slotted draft.

The CBA takes away opportunities for competitive balance, but I`m not certain it empoverishes nations and diminishes the talent pool significantly.  But then, I`ll reserve judgement until i see the final product.

Now, for the next 6 weeks, we'll have a lot of 15 year old kids saying that they are actually 16 and signing contracts before the new rules apply .

The International Signing period is over.

what you are saying makes no sense though - if, for instance, the Twins were to sign Johnson - why should the jays not get a pick at that level instead of a later one since the Twins don't lose their own pick, there's no "protection" that's applicable

On the flip side, for these modified FA`s, it makes no sense that we should get access to top 10 draft picks as compensation when we wouldn`t under the old or new system.  I think the top 10 are `protected` for lack of a better term and that we`d get the next Twins draft pick.

I think the Mets are the team we want to sign KJ.

In the case of KJ not the new top 10 but the old top 15 rule applies.

I was not aware of this.  In fact, I have not seen anything in writing from MLB wrt the modified Type A's that would clarify things.  I'm only going off "twitter noise".

4. The extra draft picks for small teams feel like a concession thrown in last second to appease small market teams. 

That's a strange comment to make.  Who gets the draft picks forfeited by the teams going over the slot?   With the Competitive Balance Lottery, it now lets you trade certain draft picks:

Competitive Balance Lottery

A. For the first time, Clubs with the lowest revenues and in the smallest markets will have an opportunity to obtain additional draft picks through a lottery.

B. The ten Clubs with the lowest revenues, and the ten Clubs in the smallest markets, will be entered into a lottery for the six draft selections immediately following the completion of the first round of the draft. A Club’s odds of winning the lottery will be based on its prior season’s winning percentage.

C. The eligible Clubs that did not receive one of the six selections after the first round, and all other payee Clubs under the Revenue Sharing Plan, will be entered into a second lottery for the six picks immediately following the completion of the second round of the draft. A Club’s odds of winning the lottery will be based on its prior season’s winning percentage.

D. Picks awarded in the Competitive Balance Lottery may be assigned by a Club

MLB/MLBPA

4. The extra draft picks for small teams feel like a concession thrown in last second to appease small market teams. 

That's a strange comment to make. 

What's strange about that. Many comments say that the new CBA is more favorable to the big teams ("written by a Steinbrenner"). This lottery helps alleviate the concern somewhat that the smaller teams get fewer draft picks under the new system than the old. 

I think I end up seeing the spending restrictions as a net positive thing, long term. Sure, right now, the small market/money teams have ramped up spending on the draft and international signings. But long-term, why wouldn't big money teams flood into the same inefficiencies and remove the advantages that could be had? This is a pre-emptive strike against properly valuing draft picks and international players - they are clearly worth more than they got historically, but there is a proper level for each team. As with free agents, though, a team like the Yankees can simply bid higher, because they get more value out of a good player than Pittsburg or Toronto does. It was only a matter of time before they started to do this, and removed most of the surplus value available to other teams.

Also, the free agent compensation rules  - I don't mind this either. Acquiring a player so someone else could sign him and get you get a pick is a pretty convoluted way to go about things, and isn't particularly fair to players. I'd open up trading of draft picks right now though (traded picks come with the slot value attached). If you want a place where well run teams crush poorly run teams, look at draft pick trades over the years. It would be especially fun in baseball, with 50 rounds of picks to trade. I'd love a "Toronto acquires draft picks in rounds 3, 6, and 14-50" from Chicago in exchange for player X" type trade.

AFAIK, I thought only these new low-revenue, low-market picks were tradeable, not the rest of the picks in the amateur draft.

I think I end up seeing the spending restrictions as a net positive thing, long term. Sure, right now, the small market/money teams have ramped up spending on the draft and international signings. But long-term, why wouldn't big money teams flood into the same inefficiencies and remove the advantages that could be had? This is a pre-emptive strike against properly valuing draft picks and international players - they are clearly worth more than they got historically, but there is a proper level for each team. As with free agents, though, a team like the Yankees can simply bid higher, because they get more value out of a good player than Pittsburg or Toronto does. It was only a matter of time before they started to do this, and removed most of the surplus value available to other teams.

"Yeah I agree and said this on DJF yesterday.  There was nothing stopping the Yankees etc. from going hey, let's go crazy on the draft and IFA and blow the Pittsburghs out of the water there, if they so chose.  Now everyone is on the same level there."

I don't think it is necessarily true that it was only a matter of time before big market teams start to exploit the same innefficiencies as Toronto and Pittsburg.  If you are a big market club like the Yankees or Red Sox, your dominant strategy is to let other teams develop stars, and then pay to bring them over as free agents.  This leaves a smaller proportion of your roster that needs to be filled by minor league talent.  Conversely, teams like the Jays, as net losers in free agency (they lose more players than they gain) depend more on home grown roster solutions.

With fewer spaces to fill, home-grown talent is marginally less important to big market clubs than it is for smaller markets.  This is not to say that either the Yankees or Red Sox neglect their player development -- it is just that their incentive to spend on player development is lower than the small market clubs'. 

Given that the Red Sox and Yanks are going to overspend on free agency, the Jays' dominant strategy is to overspend on the draft.  So a cap on draft spending handcuffs teams (like the Jays) who rely on overspending on the draft as their dominant strategy, while allowing big market clubs full access to theirs.

The amount you can spend on the draft, international signings and roster payroll should all be combined, complete with luxury tax rules (if not an actual cap).

That way the TEAM can decide where to utilize its resources. If they want to spend more on the draft and less on the current roster, they can do so. If they want to spend the money itnernationally, they can... they just can't throw all the money everywhere like some rich teams coudl if they wanted.

As it is, it feels like teams willb epunished for using their money wisely.

With fewer spaces to fill, home-grown talent is marginally less important to big market clubs than it is for smaller markets.  This is not to say that either the Yankees or Red Sox neglect their player development -- it is just that their incentive to spend on player development is lower than the small market clubs'. 

I do see this point as well, I just recognize that much of the success of recent Yankee and Red Sox teams have been through the homegrown stars, rather than the free agents.  It might be less vital to team success, but ownership would absolutely love it if the Yankees could be just as good for 85% of the cost. Saving one $20 million/year contract would make the extra investment a no-brainer for them.

I don't see why there would be any more of an ethical conflict in that situation than there is in the NBA where an agent represents a number of players.  You cut the best deal you can for the player you are approached for first (usually the player with the highest bargaining power).   It is a soft cap, so it is not like a dollar paid to one player necesarily comes at the expense of another.  

From a player's point of view though, it might make me reconsider hiring an agent that represented too many prospects.

Gregor Chisholm reports that the Jays offered salary arb to four players. " Second baseman Kelly Johnson, catcher Jose Molina, right-hander Frank Francisco and right-hander Jon Rauch received offers, but right-hander Shawn Camp did not. "

 Strange that they worked Camp so hard to get him to 'B' status and then cut him loose .             

  http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111124&content_id=26038816&vkey=news_tor&c_id=tor

My understanding is that the International signing period starts in the summer, July 1st I believe.  Most of the more attractive prospects sign shortly after that date.  There is no end to the signing period but the players who sign late, as in now, are either late bloomers, lower graded prospects, or players whose status has been delayed due to identification issues.

It's just like free agency, the big dogs go first, and the marginal guys go at the end.

My understanding is that the International signing period starts in the summer, July 1st I believe.

Well if there's a start, there must be an end.  I'd thought it was a window, but could be mistaken.  If your right Gerry, then anybody who turns 16 after December 31, must wait until July 1 to sign.

I didn't find a full explanation but I found this on BA:

With the draft now complete, teams turn their attention to the other major source of amateur talent: the international market.

Scouting directors, assistant general managers and other chief decision makers will be making their way to Latin America in the coming weeks. July 2 is the first date when 16-year-olds from outside of the United States, Canada and Puerto can sign, and teams' top talent evaluators are getting their final looks at some of the top international free agents on the market.

Ì don`t think under any circumstance would a Josh Bell type go undrafted.