No, sorry, this is not an announcement that baseball is back. But for those hoping for a speedy return, take heart: MLB and its owners are finally engaging in a real, valid relaunch conversation with their players.
After floating the possibility of a canceled 2020 season, Rob Manfred confirmed multiple reports that he sent the framework for a relaunch proposal to union leader Tony Clark.
“At my request, Tony Clark and I met for several hours yesterday in Phoenix,” the commissioner said in a statement. “We left that meeting with a jointly developed framework that we agreed could form the basis of an agreement and subject to conversations with our respective constituents. I summarized that framework numerous times in the meeting and sent Tony a written summary today.”
Further details report that the 60-game plan, which would start the season around July 19 and include expanded playoffs in 2020 and 2021, upholds the March 26 agreement between the league and MLB Players Association that established if a 2020 season happens, players would get paid according to their contracts, prorated by the amount of games on the schedule.
This is crucial. Manfred’s reported framework recognizes the pay structure the league already agreed to, which the union was under no obligation to renegotiate. In other words, MLB’s latest offer was legitimate.
Making an honest deal shouldn’t be such a significant leap forward, but it is.
MLB representatives spent nearly two months laundering their message through the press by leaking multiple previous proposal terms before sending them formally to the union.
Multiple players (including those involved with the union) have told the Daily News that they’ve been learning about the proposals from news outlets and social media before they ever receive them formally.
MLB’s proposals varied in games played but stood firm in offering less than a full prorated amount, save for a league-mandated 48-game season that was less of an offer and more of a latent threat to the union to comply with a second pay cut.
Leaked emails from the league purporting alternate interpretations of the March agreement — the argument being that the players understood they would have to consider a second paycut if games were played without fans — but the emails curiously never came with the actual contract.
Owners claimed an inability to pay, which besides being a non-sequitur (try that line with your credit card), also conflicted wildly with public estimates of franchise earnings, as Baseball Prospectus columnist Rob Mains explained. St. Louis Cardinals team president Bill DeWitt III claimed — perhaps on the way to the bread line closest to his new $8.3 million Los Angeles home — that the team his father owns was in a business that “isn’t very profitable.” (Days later, MLB inconveniently landed a new TV deal with Turner Sports worth $3 billion.)
MLB used its whole playbook without opening up its accounting books, as Nationals ace (and union representative) Max Scherzer noted in May.
While the levity is appreciated, the framework should not be confused for a proposal, and the proposal should not be confused for an agreement — the MLBPA will gladly correct those assumptions, making it clear on Twitter that “reports of an agreement are false.” Even Manfred’s hedged suggestion that a framework was settled was disputed by the union according to The Athletic.
Also, Clark reportedly told Manfred that the 60 games he offered were substantially less than what the MLBPA wants (the union proposed 72 games last week). And, MLB’s framework is reportedly contingent on the union waiving a potential grievance against the league for some of the stuff you just read. Oh, and there’s still a pandemic, with an influx of coronavirus cases and hospitalizations across baseball markets in Texas, Arizona and Florida.
But, finally, just like Manfred’s purported face-to-face conversation with Clark, there’s a chance for an honest, direct conversation between the two parties. Both sides might finally be ready to play ball.