Detroit Tigers: How the looming work stoppage could alter their offseason

With reports of a labor dispute and inevitable MLB lockout, this offseason may look different than initially planned for the Detroit Tigers

It’s a slimy crevice of baseball–issues of collective bargaining will very shortly be filling our favorite publications and social media timelines for the latest updates regarding the current CBA, which is due to expire on December 1st. For the Detroit Tigers, this could mean a drastically different offseason than expected.

In a recent article by Ronald Blum of the Associated Press, he calls a work stoppage “almost certain” on December 2nd; a development that is expected to have several domino-like repercussions that could affect free agency, trades, and potentially the structure of a 2022 season.

As Blum notes in the same piece, a lockout would represent the first stoppage in 26 years, although some would argue that the 2020 season presented a stoppage of sorts. Given how the pandemic was handled and how long it took to agree to play, it is fair to assume a lockout is likely given the issues that are on the docket for discussion.

The Detroit Tigers were poised to make several moves to address their needs this offseason; including shortstop, catcher, and starting pitching. Save the catching position, which our own Danielle Obal outlined nicely here, the market for their needs is expected to be strong; well-balanced with suitors and talent.

Let’s review this expected work stoppage, as well as the potential incoming changes with the next CBA, through a Detroit Tigers lense to see how the club might be conditioned heading into the 2022 season.

If this year’s winter meetings are canceled, the trade market may be more scarce for the Detroit Tigers

According to a report from NY Daily News’ Bill Madden, the winter meetings, which typically happen in mid-December, are likely to be canceled in response to the expired labor agreement.

The winter meetings, of course, have a vast impact on the game but trades are a major part of the meetings as well. Fans have often pleaded that the organization would do more to acquire talent through all available avenues. More recently, trades have not been a factor after the club sold off its largest and most expensive assets in 2017.

Surely, trades can happen outside of the meetings, but often the face-to-face interaction coupled with the chaos of having every organization present can create a flurry of transactions that may not otherwise exist.

Perhaps the impact for the Detroit Tigers in this facet is somewhat limited, though; we have heard GM Al Avila recently speak about the organization’s reluctance to trade away future talent in exchange for present talent already.

Certainly, nobody feels that Spencer Torkelson or Riley Greene would get traded this winter, and fans are still skeptical about the organization’s ability to reel in a trade haul (see JD Martinez), but for a club looking up at the Chicago White Sox in the AL Central, it is evident that free agency and prospect promotions cannot be the sole source of big-league talent. No winter meetings may hinder the trade avenue.

Changes to team control could change how the Detroit Tigers use their top prospects

Frankly, the rules around service time manipulation need to change. It’s bad for the player and it’s bad for the product, and it’s likely something that will be addressed as part of the upcoming negotiations.

The Detroit Tigers, of course, have two of the top 10 prospects in all of baseball in Spencer Torkelson and Riley Greene; both of whom are on the cusp of the major leagues. The club could theoretically keep both down for a short time before calling both up, which would give the team an extra year of control.

If that rule is changed, however, and there is no longer an incentive to keep the organization’s best players on the farm, it is fair to wonder if the Detroit Tigers could choose to be more aggressive with their assignments out of spring training.

It is also likely that team control, in general, might change from the current six-year control structure in which a player would earn league minimum their first three years and settle in arbitration the next three years if an agreement cannot be made to avoid it. I’d love to see the control go from six years down to four, which would allow players to hit free agency at a younger age and perhaps increase the likelihood of them landing two big contracts rather than one; especially as the game shifts to a younger player base.

Owners would likely try to fight the same or a similar rule as longer team control is much more cost-effective. Additionally, there is the potential for unintended consequences. First, it is fair to wonder if shortening team control would hinder smaller market teams from maintaining a sustainable competitive product. Additionally, a shortened team control window would effectively devalue prospects as capital; thus altering the trade market in a way that may discourage trade activity.

So, then, Tork and Greene may not only be affected on the front-end with regards to their possible debut, but a new CBA may also affect their team control, their value in any trade after they debut, and ultimately their free agency window.