[ESPN] MLB suspends spring training, delays Opening Day at least two weeks

If they wait long enough, no season at all is guaranteed.

 

The only entity that can cancel the season is the owners/commissioner.

If they wait to the point that only 50 games can reasonably be played, and the owners approve full pro-rated salaries, it’s up to the players to play... if they don’t, it’s a strike.

I expect the players will consider accepting this latest counter offer.

 

Technically true, but the March Agreement gives the players the right to not play if three conditions are not meet which is likely going to continue to be the case. So it would likely not be a strike.

 

Spoiler

In a letter accompanying Major League Baseball’s latest proposal to the Players Association, deputy commissioner Dan Halem addresses top union negotiator Bruce Meyer in a biting tone that reflects the continuing ill will between the parties.

The five-page letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Athletic, includes a lengthy section entitled “Resolution of Dispute” that details three months of the league’s frustration with the union’s approach to the talks. From his opening paragraph to Meyer, Halem is on the offensive.

“I must have misinterpreted your June 6th letter,” Halem tells Meyer. “I thought the letter reflected a willingness on the part of the Association to discuss in good faith the economics necessary for the Office of the Commissioner to waive its right under the March Agreement to resume the 2020 season only when there are, among other things, no restrictions on fan access. After reviewing the Association’s counterproposal, I stand corrected.”

Not until the third page does Halem detail what he calls the league’s “Final Counterproposal for 72 games,” in which the players would receive 70 percent of their prorated salaries for the regular season and up to 80 percent if the postseason is completed. The financial guarantee of the offer is the rough equivalent of the guarantee the players would receive if commissioner Rob Manfred exercises his right to impose a season for as few as 48 games at full prorated salary.

If the postseason is completed, the players can earn approximately $300 million more under the league’s proposal than they would in a schedule of 50-odd games. But the union almost certainly will reject the offer because of the similarity of the guarantees and its insistence on receiving 100 percent of the players’ prorated salaries.

Though Friday’s proposal was not necessarily a final overall offer, it might well mark the last time MLB is willing to consider a season as long as 72 games. Each passing day potentially cuts into the length of the schedule, particularly given the owners’ insistence that the playoffs be completed on schedule, citing the potential for a second wave of COVID-19 in the fall and the reluctance of broadcast partners to reschedule their October postseason windows.

In his letter, Halem takes exception to what he calls, “the Association’s rhetoric that players ‘remain opposed to any further pay cuts,’” saying the players were never entitled to be paid in the first place because Manfred had the authority to suspend all contracts once President Trump declared a national emergency on March 13.

Responding to Halem, a PA spokesman said: “Mr. Halem’s self-serving letter is filled with inaccuracies and incomplete facts. We will respond to that and the league’s latest proposal in short order. It should not be forgotten however that even MLB admits that our March Agreement does not require players to agree to further pay cuts. Indeed, as Mr. Halem agreed in a May 18 letter to Tony Clark: ‘The Association is free to take the position that players are unwilling to accept further reductions.’ Pat Houlihan, MLB legal counsel, similarly acknowledged in his May 22 letter to the Players Association. ‘We agree with the Association that, under the Agreement, players are not required to accept less than their full prorated salary.’’

Halem, however, writes the discussions leading to the March agreement between the parties that the league made it “crystal clear” to the union that the clubs would not be forced to resume play without fans because it would not be economically feasible. He adds the agreement awarded the players “hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of benefits” in service time and salary advances even though the league could have chosen not to negotiate, citing the national emergency.

Then, once again, Halem revisits the ongoing dispute about whether the language in the agreement calls for a subsequent negotiation on pay if the league could not resume the season with regular fan access – and he suggests that a number of player agents believe the union to be in the wrong.

Halem mentions two conversations between Manfred and Clark in which Clark confirmed his understanding that another negotiation would take place if the season at least started with parks empty. He also cites another conversation between a high-ranking union official and high-ranking MLB official, then refers to differences on the players’ side, saying, “We believe that many of your player agents understood, both from the language of the March Agreement itself and from briefings by the Association, that there would be another negotiation over player salaries if play could not be resumed with fans in all ballparks.”

The commissioner’s office believes the union’s stance on pay effectively prevents a negotiation. Without a back-and-forth discussion on that central point, Halem says, “We recognize this has essentially been a negotiation with ourselves.”

“You suggest in your letter that the Association’s 89-game proposal at full daily salaries ‘is made in the interests of settlement,’” Halem writes. “However, the parties are not engaged in settlement discussions, and it is unclear what exactly you are trying to ‘settle.’ Nevertheless, it is clear to me that the parties’ differing interpretations of the March Agreement has been a stumbling block to negotiating a resolution that is in the interests of both sides.”

Halem then notes “two particular problems.”

The first is Meyer’s assertion in a recent letter that the league “owes” it to players to play as many games as possible when the March agreement states the clubs are under no obligation to play “any games” given the continuing restrictions on fan access in all 30 major-league parks.

(Meyer, in his June 5 letter obtained by The Athletic, did not use the word, “owes,” but said, “the league’s cynical tactic of depriving America of baseball games in furtherance of their demand for unwarranted salary concessions is short-sighted and troubling.”)

The “other problem,” Halem says, is Meyer’s refusal to address reduced salaries for games without spectators.

“We are convinced that the Association has purposely failed to fulfill its obligations under the March Agreement, and has deprived the Clubs the benefit of their bargain in the March Agreement, all while continuing to enjoy the lucrative benefits the Clubs agreed to provide the Association in return,” Halem said. “. . . This failure to act in good faith has caused enormous damage to the sport.”

The safety and medical challenges players would face while playing during the COVID-19 pandemic is another area of contention.

Before explaining the league’s proposal for 72 games, Halem says the union, while citing the “extraordinary burdens and risks” being asked of players, is taking positions that actually increase that risk.

The union wants to extend the regular season beyond September, even though MLB’s medical advisor is among those warning of a second wave of COVID-19 in the fall. “You have not provided us with any information from your COVID-19 expert (if you have one) that disputes that view,” Halem writes; the PA says it has its own experts.

Halem notes the union also wants the league to schedule as many doubleheaders as possible even though one of the primary objectives of the health and safety protocols under discussion is to limit the time players are together in the clubhouse and on the field.

In concluding his letter, Halem says the union should tell the league by Sunday whether players will accept the proposal.

Anyone following along already knows the answer.

 

This is dumb. Turner is not going from paying $350MM/yr to $1B/yr. They signed a $1B deal in total - it could be 2 years or 3 years or who knows what else, and it could cover different amounts of games. MLB has been pretty clear about how important the postseason TV dollars are to their total revenues, so nothing here in surprising.

 

The Major League Baseball Players Association has rejected MLB's latest proposal and will not counter, sources tell ESPN. In a letter to the league, the union asked MLB to inform it of how many games it intends to play and when players should report.

From MLBPA letter: "If it is your intention to unilaterally impose a season, we again request that you inform us and our members of how many games you intend to play and when and where players should report. It is unfair to leave players and the fans hanging at this point."

From MLBPA letter: "We demand that you inform us of your plans by close of business on Monday, June 15." This isn't to suggest Monday will be the end of this and we'll know what sort of baseball season there will be, but the players are asking for a season and asking by Monday.

"Given your continued insistence on hundreds of millions of dollars of additional pay reductions, we assume these negotiations are at an end.” — Bruce Meyer of the MLBPA to Dan Halem of MLB, in a letter today

Union negotiator Bruce Meyer, in a letter to deputy commissioner Dan Halem, says, “We demand you inform us of your plans by close of business on Monday, June 15.” Meyer adds “there remain several open issues that will need to be addressed soon” on health and safety protocols. Correction: The open issues concern on-field rules, player transactions, rosters and other items, not health and safety protocols.

 

This is a joke. Unemployment sky high, people stressed on how to live, and owners and players screwing around as usual on money. GTFO.

 

I trust the players more than the owners typically. Players say prorated which is typically fair. But with game attendance going to be half of a normal year, much less revenue per game and the prorated angle is not an equal argument. I haven't read up on all the mlb current events so maybe I am missing something. But on the surface, I am not seeing it.

 

I support the players

 

Let The_Conquistador, global industrialist, negotiate this deal!

Easy fixes:

1. Don't limit the number of fans who can attend games. Then there's no need to reduce the players' pro-rated salaries. With our increased knowledge of the risks of COVID, the vulnerable group of people 75 y/o and older with major underlying health concerns, likely represents a tiny fraction of ticket holders anyway.
2. Give the players a percentage of the revenue based on a sliding scale of what comes in
3. Any dollar amounts needed to bridge the gap can roll into a note from the owners to the players that is payable based on the same sliding scale in future years.

With my leadership, we'd be drunk and celebrating home runs at Minute Maid by next week! Of course, I'd be in the Lexus Field Club and most of you would be in the nosebleed seats, but that's beside the point.


GOOD DAY

 

I have no love at all for the MLBPA, you can only f**k over the young for so long before it bites you in the ass.

However the owners made absolutely no attempt to negotiate. They knew they had the hammer because could get what they wanted simply by doing nothing. They had a number and they refused to budge on it, even if they masqueraded it out there as multiple different offers. With the entire country starving for sports, and a much uglier labor negotiation looming they still chose to play hardball. The whole ordeal is stupidly shortsighted.

I don't think players are completely without fault, their initial response to the 50/50 offer still rubs me the wrong way, but the owners look much worse in this. I think the next negotiation is gonna be a bloodbath and the owners are gonna lose far more money in the long term when the sport's overall popularity starts to plummet. August-October is baseball's time, and the NBA is dragging their nuts all over the leagues face. The sport is gonna get MLS level coverage nationally.

 

lol i'm over this, just cancel the season

 

players aren’t taking any deal that their cut depends on revenue unless owners open their books, there is a ZERO percent chance of that happening