Will there be a 2022 season?

[jad]

I can certainly "relate to" negotiations (owner vs. worker). I just am aware that the financial situation of all these particular participants is way beyond anything I have experience with or ever want to have experience with.

[Nick]

Concessions I'm willing to make as an owner...

 

New CBA should benefit the majority of players.

 

1 Keep same accounting of service time but start arbitration in year 3 and players become FA in year 6. Teams can simply wait until May 15th or wherever the cutoff is before bringing up a player. So instead of 6+ years of control, owners will still have 5+ years of control. I think this is a major concession. It potentially benefits all incoming major leaugers.

 

2 Raise the minimum wage to $1M. It will cost each team around $15M per annum.

 

3 I would have the reverse of luxury tax penalties for non spending teams. So, each year if a team stays below a minimum spending requirement, that team is penalized for a percentage of underspending. That % would also increase annually as does the luxury tax. A team must go over the minimum spending limit to reset the penalty %, just as luxury taxes are calculated now. Question is coming up with the minimum amount. $100M?

 

Thoughts?

[Bellhorn04]

Concessions I'm willing to make as an owner...

 

New CBA should benefit the majority of players.

 

1 Keep same accounting of service time but start arbitration in year 3 and players become FA in year 6. Teams can simply wait until May 15th or wherever the cutoff is before bringing up a player. So instead of 6+ years of control, owners will still have 5+ years of control. I think this is a major concession. It potentially benefits all incoming major leaugers.

 

2 Raise the minimum wage to $1M. It will cost each team around $15M per annum.

 

3 I would have the reverse of luxury tax penalties for non spending teams. So, each year if a team stays below a minimum spending requirement, that team is penalized for a percentage of underspending. That % would also increase annually as does the luxury tax. A team must go over the minimum spending limit to reset the penalty %, just as luxury taxes are calculated now. Question is coming up with the minimum amount. $100M?

 

Thoughts?

 

Reasonable proposals.

[harmony]

Concessions I'm willing to make as an owner...

 

New CBA should benefit the majority of players.

 

1 Keep same accounting of service time but start arbitration in year 3 and players become FA in year 6. Teams can simply wait until May 15th or wherever the cutoff is before bringing up a player. So instead of 6+ years of control, owners will still have 5+ years of control. I think this is a major concession. It potentially benefits all incoming major leaugers.

 

2 Raise the minimum wage to $1M. It will cost each team around $15M per annum.

 

3 I would have the reverse of luxury tax penalties for non spending teams. So, each year if a team stays below a minimum spending requirement, that team is penalized for a percentage of underspending. That % would also increase annually as does the luxury tax. A team must go over the minimum spending limit to reset the penalty %, just as luxury taxes are calculated now. Question is coming up with the minimum amount. $100M?

 

Thoughts?

Any spending floor should be averaged over at least three years. Money spent in a non-contending season is money that cannot be spent later as a contender. If the non-contending team is under the floor for one season that team must make up the difference by spending at least that much over the limit in subsequent years.

 

As a longtime union member who was forced kicking and screaming into management five years ago, I am not surprised at the slow pace of negotiations.

 

Neither side has reason to cave at this point. Negotiations should produce a resolution when the parties confront a drop-dead date on a timely start of the regular season.

[Bellhorn04]

Any spending floor should be averaged over at least three years.

 

That's a good modification.

[moonslav59]

2 Raise the minimum wage to $1M. It will cost each team around $15M per annum.

 

Thoughts?

 

Rasing to $1M sounds about right, to me, but that's about $430K more to maybe 15 players on most teams, unless you mean to everyone on the 40 man, then it might be 20-30 players for most teams, or about $9-$14M additional salary cost to most teams.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Any spending floor should be averaged over at least three years. Money spent in a non-contending season is money that cannot be spent later as a contender. If the non-contending team is under the floor for one season that team must make up the difference by spending at least that much over the limit in subsequent years.

 

 

Makes sense -- maybe the "tax" is that money not spent on players goes back into the general fund (to the other teams). But how does the language differentiate parts of a team's budget? They still have to pay non-uniformed employees, and sub-contractors to mow the lawn, paint the walls, etc.

[mvp 78]

@NBCSEdgeBB

MLB, MLBPA meet for around 90 minutes on Tuesday

[notin]

@NBCSEdgeBB

MLB, MLBPA meet for around 90 minutes on Tuesday

 

But how many of those minutes were spent facing each other?

[vegasbob]

44 more days to my predicted March 18th "Done Deal " day , leading to an April 15th Opening Day, missing about 2 weeks of games. Maybe as important as the deal points is the term of the new CBA . While it has been awhile with no stoppage , the fanbase truly hates this disruption of the typical off season much less on season cycle of activity.

 

Just a question--Is there a Brian Flores equivalent in MLB just waiting in the wings ?

[mvp 78]

44 more days to my predicted March 18th "Done Deal " day , leading to an April 15th Opening Day, missing about 2 weeks of games. Maybe as important as the deal points is the term of the new CBA . While it has been awhile with no stoppage , the fanbase truly hates this disruption of the typical off season much less on season cycle of activity.

 

Just a question--Is there a Brian Flores equivalent in MLB just waiting in the wings ?

 

In a recent interview with Sportsnet's Shi Davidi, Cora said his interview process with most MLB teams was positive before the Red Sox hired him as their manager in November 2017.

 

"In my experience, I interviewed with Texas, San Diego, Arizona, the Mets, Detroit -- last year with three -- I never felt I was interviewed because I was a minority," Cora told Davidi. "I always thought that I had a chance. The people that run those organizations stayed in touch with me and were very supportive, so I appreciated that."

 

There was one outlier, though, and it still rubs Cora the wrong way.

 

"There was one organization that interviewed me for another job and I felt it, they just interviewed me because I was a minority," Cora said. "It felt like s---. I was like, ‘F--- this s---.' "

 

Cora felt his brother was a victim of the rule, as well. Cora said he remembers Joey Cora, an 11-year MLB veteran and current Pittsburgh Pirates third base coach, being interviewed by an MLB team that didn't know where he went to college.

[jad]

In a recent interview with Sportsnet's Shi Davidi, Cora said his interview process with most MLB teams was positive before the Red Sox hired him as their manager in November 2017.

 

"In my experience, I interviewed with Texas, San Diego, Arizona, the Mets, Detroit -- last year with three -- I never felt I was interviewed because I was a minority," Cora told Davidi. "I always thought that I had a chance. The people that run those organizations stayed in touch with me and were very supportive, so I appreciated that."

 

There was one outlier, though, and it still rubs Cora the wrong way.

 

"There was one organization that interviewed me for another job and I felt it, they just interviewed me because I was a minority," Cora said. "It felt like s---. I was like, ‘F--- this s---.' "

 

Cora felt his brother was a victim of the rule, as well. Cora said he remembers Joey Cora, an 11-year MLB veteran and current Pittsburgh Pirates third base coach, being interviewed by an MLB team that didn't know where he went to college.

 

I doubt he used the phrase "victim of the rule." All you lose then is the time it takes to interview.

[oldtimer]

With the owners requesting a federal mediator, some settlement will be proposed to the Players union. They may choose not to accept it, but then would appear to be the party holding up the agreement such that the sentiment would turn in favor of the owners. I wonder how long it will take to mediator to recommend a plan. We are already close to the CBA impacting the season so it would be good to see real progress, but I doubt that will happen.

[Elktonnick]

With the owners requesting a federal mediator, some settlement will be proposed to the Players union. They may choose not to accept it, but then would appear to be the party holding up the agreement such that the sentiment would turn in favor of the owners. I wonder how long it will take to mediator to recommend a plan. We are already close to the CBA impacting the season so it would be good to see real progress, but I doubt that will happen.

The players will be blamed if they refuse to accept federal mediation. The details of any proposal is secondary at this point to the basic issue of accepting a federal.mediator or not. The players will lose any moral high ground if they refuse a federal mediator especially in this climate. They would be well advised to agree to mediation.

[mvp 78]

@EvanDrellich

Sources: MLB has told the MLBPA it will not make a counter offer after MLB two days ago saying it would.

 

Why would the players do this?!?!?!?!?

[jad]

What good is a mediator going to do? If MLB were arguing in good faith (and if history is any indication, they NEVER have done that), they would start by opening the books. As for your notion that "the players will be blamed", why not just say "I myself will blame the players." Then explain in detail why you would.

[mvp 78]

What good is a mediator going to do? If MLB were arguing in good faith (and if history is any indication, they NEVER have done that), they would start by opening the books. As for your notion that "the players will be blamed", why not just say "I myself will blame the players." Then explain in detail why you would.

 

Two theories I've seen:

 

1. MLB is doing this as a ploy for public perception. They believe the MLBPA would turn down a federal mediator and want to make the union look bad.

2. Owners are not on the same page. Bringing in the mediator will bring the ownership group together so that they can actually figure out what to bargain on.

[moonslav59]

@EvanDrellich

Sources: MLB has told the MLBPA it will not make a counter offer after MLB two days ago saying it would.

 

Why would the players do this?!?!?!?!?

 

Hardball posturing, maybe.

[mvp 78]

When I was involved with a negotiation that had a federal mediator, here's what happened.

 

1. Negotiator met with both sides together just to explain his purpose.

2. Negotiator met with each side separately to see what the pain points were and where flexibility existed.

3. Negotiator then went back to each side and had a plan for how to split the baby (so to speak). "If side A gives up X, side B will back down on Y."

4. Both sides agreed to a deal and moved on with their lives.

 

For me, this happened towards the very end of a negotiation after there had been several meetings. For this to happen so early on in the negotiations is weird IMO.

[Elktonnick]

When I was involved with a negotiation that had a federal mediator, here's what happened.

 

1. Negotiator met with both sides together just to explain his purpose.

2. Negotiator met with each side separately to see what the pain points were and where flexibility existed.

3. Negotiator then went back to each side and had a plan for how to split the baby (so to speak). "If side A gives up X, side B will back down on Y."

4. Both sides agreed to a deal and moved on with their lives.

 

For me, this happened towards the very end of a negotiation after there had been several meetings. For this to happen so early on in the negotiations is weird IMO.

 

Joel Sherman just made the point that they have been at it for 42 days. So is that early in the negotiations when Spring Training is so close and the proposed start of the season is less than two months away? If the players say no to an impartial federal mediator, are they really interested in a negotiated settlement or are they too fractured themselves to agree on anything? No conclusions on my part just questions.

[Bellhorn04]

Joel Sherman just made the point that they have been at it for 42 days. So is that early in the negotiations when Spring Training is so close and the proposed start of the season is less than two months away? If the players say no to an impartial federal mediator, are they really interested in a negotiated settlement or are they too fractured themselves to agree on anything? No conclusions on my part just questions.

 

I don't think it's too early at all.

 

Last year Red Sox Truck Day was February 8.

[S5Dewey]

When I was involved with a negotiation that had a federal mediator, here's what happened.

 

1. Negotiator met with both sides together just to explain his purpose.

2. Negotiator met with each side separately to see what the pain points were and where flexibility existed.

3. Negotiator then went back to each side and had a plan for how to split the baby (so to speak). "If side A gives up X, side B will back down on Y."

4. Both sides agreed to a deal and moved on with their lives.

 

For me, this happened towards the very end of a negotiation after there had been several meetings. For this to happen so early on in the negotiations is weird IMO.

 

1, 2, 3, and 4, yep, yep, yep, and yep.

 

But I'm not sure this is early in the negotiations. If a mediator solved the issues next week we'd say it was late in negotiations.

 

As I've said, once both decides to get a settlement more gets done in the last four hours than in the previous four weeks.

[mvp 78]

Joel Sherman just made the point that they have been at it for 42 days. So is that early in the negotiations when Spring Training is so close and the proposed start of the season is less than two months away? If the players say no to an impartial federal mediator, are they really interested in a negotiated settlement or are they too fractured themselves to agree on anything? No conclusions on my part just questions.

 

They've been at it? MLB basically turtled for weeks at a time and let the MLBPA hang out in the wind. If they were at the negotiating table for 42 days, the point would make sense, but they really on met 3-4 times and discussions were relatively brief each time.

[oldtimer]

Joel Sherman just made the point that they have been at it for 42 days. So is that early in the negotiations when Spring Training is so close and the proposed start of the season is less than two months away? If the players say no to an impartial federal mediator, are they really interested in a negotiated settlement or are they too fractured themselves to agree on anything? No conclusions on my part just questions.

 

My take is that the owners are a group of relative equals who get together and discuss the various points of contention for them in reaching an agreement with the players union. They have a template to start with which is the previous CBA. I would wonder if they have a majority vote on issues or whether you they tend to support the most conservative among them when developing a offer plan.

 

On the other hand, there are a lot more players involved and with probably a lot more disparate issues. What's good for a first year player, a star or a player getting into their last playing years has to be quite different. Do they have a democratic majority vote on offerings? The players get advice by their representatives, but self interest might trump providing a united front.

 

The mediator process described by MVP sounds correct and one would assume the series of meetings outlined would take a while to accomplish. Any plan facilitated by the media would have to be passed back to both the owners group and the players union. There is also the case where the plan the mediator develops after his meetings will be rejected by one party or another.

 

With the clock ticking, I don't personally expect that the season will start without some delays.

[Elktonnick]

My take is that the owners are a group of relative equals who get together and discuss the various points of contention for them in reaching an agreement with the players union. They have a template to start with which is the previous CBA. I would wonder if they have a majority vote on issues or whether you they tend to support the most conservative among them when developing a offer plan.

 

On the other hand, there are a lot more players involved and with probably a lot more disparate issues. What's good for a first year player, a star or a player getting into their last playing years has to be quite different. Do they have a democratic majority vote on offerings? The players get advice by their representatives, but self interest might trump providing a united front.

 

The mediator process described by MVP sounds correct and one would assume the series of meetings outlined would take a while to accomplish. Any plan facilitated by the media would have to be passed back to both the owners group and the players union. There is also the case where the plan the mediator develops after his meetings will be rejected by one party or another.

 

With the clock ticking, I don't personally expect that the season will start without some delays.

I think you have right. It is obviously easier for 30 owners to achieve consensus than 1200 plus players. This point has also been made by Sherman and others. Time is short if one wishes the season to begin on time.

[S5Dewey]

My take is that the owners are a group of relative equals who get together and discuss the various points of contention for them in reaching an agreement with the players union. They have a template to start with which is the previous CBA. I would wonder if they have a majority vote on issues or whether you they tend to support the most conservative among them when developing a offer plan.

 

Isn't this collusion? Or does the exemption from the anti-trust act allow the owners to collude?

[oldtimer]

Isn't this collusion? Or does the exemption from the anti-trust act allow the owners to collude?

 

I don't see it as collusion at all. This is just an industry group developing a plan they think they can live with it an offering it to a players union who is also asked for their opinions. I have no faith there will be good faith negotiations on either side. That would mean making concessions on both sides. This appears to be a case where neither side is willing to make meaningful concessions. This situation could lead to a long outage until the financial pain brings more cooperation for the long term good of baseball.

[notin]

I don't see it as collusion at all. This is just an industry group developing a plan they think they can live with it an offering it to a players union who is also asked for their opinions. I have no faith there will be good faith negotiations on either side. That would mean making concessions on both sides. This appears to be a case where neither side is willing to make meaningful concessions. This situation could lead to a long outage until the financial pain brings more cooperation for the long term good of baseball.

 

Agreed.

 

We don’t call it collusion when the players get together to set their demands…

[jacksonianmarch]

You’re not starting off on equal footing when the owners can literally take zero revenue from games being played and still be fabulously wealthy and you’ve got the majority of players needing to bring home a paycheck to pay the bills. The players will always cave over time when the owners have nothing to lose.

 

The players have already made concessions. Giving up on arb and pre arb years of control was a huge win for the owners

[S5Dewey]

I don't see it as collusion at all. This is just an industry group developing a plan they think they can live with it an offering it to a players union who is also asked for their opinions. I have no faith there will be good faith negotiations on either side. That would mean making concessions on both sides. This appears to be a case where neither side is willing to make meaningful concessions. This situation could lead to a long outage until the financial pain brings more cooperation for the long term good of baseball.

 

Here's a legal definition of collusion.

...where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating.

It seems to me to fit the bill. The owners as individuals have conspired with other owners to "develop a plan they think THEY can live with". They are in essence individual owners colluding to establish a joint bargaining position.

If this happened in any other industry, say if the owners of auto makers got together to set a "contract they could live with" for all plants, it would be collusion. That's why GM, Ford, etc. have to negotiate separately with their workers.

 

It's obviously collusion. I'm just wondering if the anti-trust exemption frees MLB owners from collusion charges when they develop a plan THEY can live with which will apply to all players regardless of team.

Edited February 6, 2022 by S5Dewey