One agent said Major League Baseball’s proposal to the players union Tuesday was similar to the hard-line approach a team might take in salary arbitration.
A team tells a player he’s so bad that he will need to take a pay cut. The player gets upset with his agent. The agent gets upset with the team. Everyone yells at each other for a few days, then an agreement is reached.
Advertisement
The best bet remains that the league and union will land in a similar place, if for no other reason than the cancellation of the 2020 season would damage both sides and leave the sport in perhaps an even worse position than it was after the strike of 1994-95. As bad as the backlash was for that work stoppage, the public reaction to a lost season in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and a national economic crisis likely would be worse.
Meanwhile, the question remains: What is the path to a resolution?
The union wants the league to honor the March agreement stipulating that players would receive their salaries on a prorated, per-game basis. The league wants a new agreement to account for a season that will at least start without fans, but its initial proposal of a tiered salary structure drew nearly the same reaction from the players as its earlier suggestion of a 50-50 revenue split:
No chance.
While the union will not officially reject the proposal until after it consults with players, that outcome seems all but guaranteed.
“We want to play baseball. This pandemic is going to have a profound impact on all of us. Players are willing to make sacrifices and surely will to get back on the field. However, we will not sacrifice our principles or the future generations of players to do so,” said Andrew Miller, a member of the union’s eight-man executive subcommittee.
“While I’m disappointed in where MLB is starting the discussion, if this is truly about getting the game to our fans, I have confidence we will find common ground. I know that our players will do their part.”
Under the proposal, the highest-paid players would take the greatest reduction (a $35 million player would earn a maximum of $7.84 million) and the lowest-paid players the smallest hit (a minimum-salaried player at $563,500 would receive $262,000), sources said. Players and agents viewed the plan as an attempt to divide the union membership based upon income levels and were adamant it would not work.
Advertisement
Negotiations likely need to be near completion next week if baseball is to begin its second spring training in mid-June and its season by early July, as both parties intend.
“I have never seen a collective response like I’m seeing today from the players,” one agent said. “They are livid.”
Another agent said, “It’s such a shame there is so much distrust on both sides that we can’t be pragmatic adults. There’s no way MLB would think that proposal would get a favorable response from the players. It’s ‘right back at you, screw you.’ And where are we? They’re playing a pretty dangerous game of chicken.”
Yet considering the growing tension between the parties in recent years, drawn-out negotiating tactics — including initial offers that appear unrealistic — probably should not be a surprise.
The next move, seemingly, belongs to the union.
One option for the players is to reject the proposal out of hand, daring the league to improve its offer if it wishes to salvage the season. Another is to make an aggressive counterproposal that at least would further a conversation. The union could insist upon prorated salaries but possibly offer deferrals and also push for further proof of MLB’s financial duress.
The two sides also remain apart on health and safety protocols, the union said, but those matters are unlikely to produce as much acrimony.
MLB officials want the union to take the latter step rather than continue acting in a manner they perceive as obstructionist.
“We made a proposal to the union that is completely consistent with the economic realities facing our sport,” MLB said in a statement. “We look forward to a responsive proposal from the union.”
Companies in other industries are asking their highest earners to sacrifice for those who make less, and major-league clubs and the commissioner’s office are taking a similar approach with non-playing employees.
Advertisement
An agent, however, pointed out that the comparison to the union is not apples to apples. The players, by establishing performance and accumulating service time, earn the right to higher salaries through defined mechanisms such as salary arbitration and free agency. And with their earlier acceptance of prorated salaries, they already had agreed to a significant reduction that would amount to almost 50 percent under the league’s proposed 82-game schedule.
The additional cuts the league proposed Tuesday would range from 8 percent to 55 percent and average 33 percent, and that’s including shares players would receive from a postseason pool that could grow to $200 million if the World Series is completed, sources said.
The postseason bonus, based upon each player’s adjusted salary, would go to every player regardless of whether he participates. Overall salaries, though, would be reduced if a second wave of the pandemic forces the cancellation of any part or all of the playoffs. The league’s proposal at this point does not include a plan to expand the postseason but left open the possibility of such a discussion.
In the meantime, some on the players’ side openly doubt whether certain superstars — for example, Yankees right-hander Gerrit Cole and Angels center fielder Mike Trout, the two-highest earners for 2020 at $36 million each — would even play for slightly more than 20 percent of their normal 162-game salaries, as would be the case under the league’s proposal.
Consider: Cole’s wife, Amy, and Trout’s wife, Jessica, are pregnant, and the players might be uncomfortable being away from their spouses in the middle of the pandemic. Both already enjoy long-term financial security; Cole is signed through 2028, Trout through 2030. They have not made their plans known. But without them, or any of the game’s other high-paid stars, the product would be watered down.
“Here’s where I think MLB is screwing this up,” one agent said. “They are approaching this like a CBA negotiation. CBA negotiations usually happen in the offseason where players are disconnected, not paying attention and the deals are agreed upon before the season, so they don’t feel any financial impact unless they are a free agent the next year and get screwed.
“Since their whole paycheck is on the line and there’s nothing else going on in their lives, they’re completely invested, they’re getting educated and they’re following every step. It’s eye-opening for a lot of them. They’re seeing a greedy side of the owners and (commissioner Rob) Manfred that they have ignored in the past. This is gonna spill into the CBA negotiations for next year and the players are gonna take a stronger position.”
Advertisement
But for now, another agent still expects a compromise on the season.
“I told our guys, ‘Don’t be knee-jerk. There is going to be a lot of pushing and shoving in the media with messaging and all that. Ride it out. We’ll see where we’re at near the end of the week,’” the agent said. “Like everything in baseball, nobody really turns over the cards until the very end.”
The league showed its early hand Tuesday. The players are up next. And the stakes are only growing higher.
(Photo: Victor Decolongon / Getty Images)