clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

MLB has made a new offer to players, and it’s not any better than the last one

New, 134 comments

Come on, owners. Get real.

Photo by @WillByington / www.willbyington.com

We should be talking about Spring Training 2.0 this week and a season starting around July 4.

Instead, we have ... nothing. Well, just a little more than nothing. Here’s something that happened Monday morning:

At first blush, this seems like it might indeed be something. After all, owners said they wouldn’t counteroffer the players’ last proposal, and this is... a counteroffer.

Here’s one of various reactions from national writers, and I tend to agree:

Owners might also have decided to make this offer because back in March, they agreed to bargain “in good faith” if conditions were such that games would have to be played in front of no fans, which appears to be the case. If no such bargaining took place, players might have a good case for a grievance they could win.

Here’s a better breakdown of what players would be paid in the latest proposal:

And further to the idea that owners are simply posturing:

Craig is probably correct. However, since an offer has been made to players, they should absolutely counter-offer. That also protects them in case a grievance is filed, they don’t want to be accused of not bargaining in good faith.

What I continue to fail to understand is this: Owners claim they have a cash-flow problem. We’re never going to know for certain whether this is true or not because owners are never going to open their books. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that this is true. In that case, the players should ask for full pro-rated salaries, with a portion deferred — maybe for up to three or four years — to help out with owners’ cash flow problems. If a proposal like that is rejected, then you will know that “cash flow” isn’t really the issue here.

And this is bad:

And this is worse:

The warning I posted from former Commissioner Fay Vincent earlier this morning about dividing the players is still valid:

“It cannot be done. It’s the same thing I told the owners in 1994 (before the strike) “if you shut the game down, you’re going to war with the union and that union cannot be broken,” Vincent said. “It looks like it’s 1994 all over again. I don’t think anyone has learned their lesson.”

The owners, in particular, have not learned their lesson. In my view, they are to blame for this impasse. They ought to set up that 76-game season and pay the players full pro-rated salaries. Period.

Get it done. Play ball.