Baseball Prospectus Needs Your Help! Check out our call for contributors!

Baseball’s two publically accessible governing constitutions send us scrambling to their pages for very different reasons, and usually with very different results.

If you find yourself heading for the rule book, you’re probably doing so in a state of confusion and probably some anger. When you dive into the much weightier collective bargaining agreement, well, first of all, you’re probably also confused. Let’s face it; readers of this site probably don’t have to look up much of what happens in the flow of the game (in the case of the rule book) or the baseball calendar and off-field choreography (in the case of the CBA). But you might be intrigued by what’s in there anyway.

The big difference is in the satisfaction. If you’re a lifetime fan and have to go to the rule book, you’ll probably be a little let down. You’ll probably find some non-answer that’s the best you can do in a complex game that tries to accomplish all it’s trying to accomplish while remaining a low-contact sport. Look into the CBA, and you’ll probably find something cool. You’ll probably find something that even if not accompanied by much of an explanation, reveals something about how the game works behind the scenes.

Last week brought us back to the CBA for sort of a weird reason—not that there are a lot of normal reasons to be exploring it. The Rays were in Boston and had voted not to play a split doubleheader on Thursday to make up a rainout. Their starting pitching was worn out, beset by injury and, so the belief went, in no position to pitch 18 innings.

While the epilogue is that they won the game, the story was in the fact that the Red Sox were given special permission in the CBA to disregard the visitors’ desires.

Article V, C. Additional Scheduling Agreements

(1) Split doubleheaders may be included in the original schedule pursuant to Section E below. Provided that neither of the Clubs involved in the proposed rescheduled game has already played or has been rescheduled to play a total of three split doubleheaders (exclusive of any splits in the original schedule) in that championship season:

(a) each Club shall have the right to reschedule any postponed game as a split doubleheader when ticket sales for the game at the time of postponement exceed, in any respect, the number of comparable tickets available to be exchanged by the Club for the balance of the championship season, and both the postponed and rescheduled game occur in the last regularly scheduled series between the two Clubs at the Club’s park; and

(b) when there is no practical alternative to doing so, the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs shall have the right to reschedule a postponed game as a split doubleheader to be played in, respectively, Fenway Park and Wrigley Field, even if the criteria set out in subparagraph (a) above are not met. Scheduling a postponed game as part of a conventional doubleheader will not be considered a practical alternative.

In short, while this was hardly the Rays’ final visit to Boston, given the exception, the Sox were able to claim no reasonable alternative and have their two games on Thursday. The two small and historic ballparks got the exceptions, though the also diminutive Marlins Park didn’t—not that they’d have much trouble packing two sets of ticket-holders into one single-admission twosome.

For every one of these little undiscovered nuances of the CBA that makes the news, there are another few that you never hear about but might come up sometime in the near or distant future. And there are some that just serve as fun pieces of trivia within a 311-page document that you sometimes wonder if anyone even read before signing.

So for the rest of this season and however long the nuggets keep jumping off the page, we’ll be giving you a little tour of the lesser-known elements of the CBA. It won’t be a weekly series or even a monthly, just an occasional foray into the more unusual elements of baseball’s governing text, whether it’s in the news again or not.

For today’s first installment, let’s keep the focus where it’s been—on these one-team (or two-team or three-team) exceptions to the rules that apply to everybody else.

Did you know: There are only six teams mentioned in the body of the CBA?

Every team name appears on a two-page list of acknowledging parties at the end, but the actual CBA itself mentions only six teams—all as exemptions to the rules. The Red Sox’s lone mention came up this week, but here are the other five.

Cubs: A travel exemption in addition to the doubleheader rule

Article V, Part C. Additional Scheduling Agreements

(9) Getaway games shall not be scheduled or rescheduled to start later than 5 P.M. if either Club is required to travel for a day game, scheduled the next day, between cities in which the in-flight time is more than 11/2 hours. In each season, the championship season schedule may contain six exceptions to the rule in the immediately preceding sentence provided that the traveling Club is traveling to Chicago to play the Cubs and the in-flight time does not exceed 21/2 hours.

This actually came up, not really as a newsworthy matter but more as an occasion of grumbling, when I was covering the Astros a couple of years ago. The Astros were starting to draw badly after some of their roster demolition and were strongly against hosting day games during the week. And given the Cubs’ restrictions of a city ordinance that has them playing Friday and Saturday day games, I think people were more upset with the Astros for scheduling a 7 p.m. game the night before.

Houston to Chicago is only about a 2 hour and 10 minute flight, so the Astros were allowed to play their 7 p.m. game in Houston, head to the airport, and fly to Chicago for what I’d guess was a 3 a.m. hotel arrival and a day game the next afternoon.

Diamondbacks, Marlins, Rays: Rehab travel cost savings

Article VII: Expenses and Expense Allowances, Part G: Allowances for Disabled Players

(3a) A Player who performs prescribed rehabilitation work at the Club’s spring training facility during the championship season shall receive first-class jet air and hotel accommodations in accordance with Article VII(A)(1), the full in-season meal and tip allowance under Article VII(B)(1), and reimbursement for the actual cost of a mid-size rental car in accordance with Section G(7) below, regardless of whether his Club is at home or traveling on the road. In addition, any Player with at least five years of Major League service who performs prescribed rehabilitation work at the Club’s spring training facility also shall be entitled to receive first-class jet air and hotel accommodations for his immediate family, and reimbursement for the cost of a family-size rental car in accordance with Section G(7) below, provided that the anticipated or actual duration of the rehabilitation work is at least 20 days.

(3b) Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(a) above, Players on the Active List of the Arizona Diamondbacks, Miami Marlins or Tampa Bay Rays, within the meaning of Article XXI(A) of the Basic Agreement, who perform prescribed rehabilitation work at the Club’s spring training facility during the championship season and whose in-season residence is less than or equal to 50 miles (measured by Google Maps driving distance) from the Club’s spring training facility, will receive the in-season meal and tip allowance when their Club is on the road only if their in-season residence is a hotel or motel, and will not be entitled to: (a) hotel accommodations; (b) the in-season meal and tip allowance when the Club is at home; or (c) reimbursement for the cost of a rental car. Such Players whose in-season residence is more than 50 miles from the Club’s spring training facility must be offered first-class hotel accommodations reasonably proximate to the facility. A Player who declines such accommodations will be treated for purposes of this paragraph 3 as if he lives less than or equal to 50 miles from the Club’s spring training facility. A Player who accepts such hotel accommodations will be treated in accordance with paragraph 3(a) above.

The perks of being close to your spring training home don’t end when the trucks move out in late March. First of all, this is a tremendous level of specificity, bargaining for the family size car in part (3a). As with many things we’ll explore in the CBA, I would have loved to be at the table when the size of the rental car was negotiated. And second of all, great product placement for Google in the latter part.

But it really is a nice amount of change saved by the Diamondbacks (20.9 miles from their complex by Google Maps), the Rays (77.7 miles by Google Maps), and the Marlins (82.7 miles by Google Maps). First-class air and hotel for the immediate family can’t be cheap.

And the only other team mentioned in the text of the CBA is the…

Athletics: Revenue sharing exception

Article XXIV—The Revenue Sharing Plan, Part A. Definitions

(15) As set forth in Attachment 26, the top fifteen Clubs by market rank shall be subject to a revenue sharing disqualification in the 2013-16 Revenue Sharing Years. In 2013, market-disqualified Clubs will forfeit 25% of the net revenue sharing proceeds they otherwise would have been entitled to receive under the combination of the Base Plan and the Supplemental Plan. In 2014, market-disqualified Clubs will forfeit 50% of the net revenue sharing proceeds they otherwise would have been entitled to receive under the combination of the Base Plan and the Supplemental Plan. In 2015, market-disqualified Clubs will forfeit 75% of the net revenue sharing proceeds they otherwise would have been entitled to receive under the combination of the Base Plan and the Supplemental Plan. In 2016, market-disqualified Clubs will forfeit 100% of the net revenue sharing proceeds they otherwise would have been entitled to receive under the combination of the Base Plan and the Supplemental Plan. Beginning with (but not before) their first full season of operation in a new stadium, the Oakland Athletics shall be subject to the same percentage revenue sharing disqualification that applies to other market-disqualified Clubs in the given Revenue Sharing Year.

So Bud Selig can’t get around to solving the A’s’ stadium issue, but it still gets a shoutout in the CBA—appropriately, as a vague eventuality.

The idea here is fairly simple. Oakland is in a huge metro area—maybe the fifth-largest in the United States depending on what you count. That would be a disqualifier for revenue sharing even though Oakland is clearly the little brother in that metro area. The Angels, White Sox and Mets—all attendance and popularity runners-up within their own metro areas—are disqualified. But the A’s, with such a bad stadium situation, are excepted and profit greatly from revenue sharing.

Even if that new stadium is in another part of the San Francisco Bay Area, that exception will be gone.

Downloads: MLB Rule Book | Collective Bargaining Agreement (both .pdf)

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
Fascinating look at the inner workings of the stranger business side of baseball. Looking forward to this series.
wondering how these exceptions compare to the previous CBA.
Also fun to think about how things can go wrong, such as if

1.Google maps goes out of business during the cba then what?
2. Interesting that the A's lose the exemption even if they stay in-market and nothing related to ballpark size.