NEWSLETTER
After a week+ of signals from the players and their surrogates that a revenue sharing plan for the 2020 season was not going to be acceptable, the owners have reportedly taken a much more advisable tack (well, to the extent you believe any pay cuts at all are necessary).
The economic plan submitted today by MLB will reportedly include pay cuts on a sliding scale, akin to those many organizations have undertaken with other employees – i.e., the biggest earners take the biggest percentage cuts, the lowest earners take much smaller cuts.
From USA Today:
MLB owners sending latest plan to MLBPA that includes sliding pay scale for players https://t.co/mdGOhbyac3
— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) May 26, 2020
Depending on the depth of the cuts, this could wind up a better deal overall for the players than the revenue share, which exposed the players to significant risk if, for example, the postseason wound up getting cancelled. From where I sit: the players are taking the health risk, and they should not also be asked to take a huge financial risk.
The particulars on the cuts are not yet out, nor are any other details on the plan. My guess is we’ll get a drip-drip through tonight, and I’ll update accordingly.
UPDATE: Strictly speaking, we knew the presentation to the players was going to be today, but I don’t know that it has yet been characterized as a “meeting,” for what it’s worth:
there is a meeting of MLB and the players today, so the sides are working to try to get a deal done
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) May 26, 2020
UPDATE 2: Heyman has tended to be pretty rosy on this stuff, so it’s worth noting that when he hears from the player side (well, likely from the player side) that there’s still work to do, it probably dampens the enthusiasm a little:
MLB players were never going to go for revenue sharing, especially with limited time to figure it all out. Hearing from some this is a bit better but there’s still a lot of work to do.
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) May 26, 2020
UPDATE 3: Just heard Jesse Rogers tell Waddle and Silvy that the pay cut proposed for the top earners is upwards of 30% (that’s 30% off of a half-year’s salary). So, for one example I’ll offer, instead of making $16.5 million this year, Anthony Rizzo would make only about $5.78 million. Still a lot of money, sure, but a small fraction of what he was expecting to make this year, and several million shaved off his prorated pay.
UPDATE 4: Not that you’d expect the PA to come out with a “dang, this proposal is great!” – it’s a negotiation, after all – but this sounds worse than I was hoping the proposal would look:
The MLBPA is very disappointed with MLB’s economic proposal today, source tells me and @Ken_Rosenthal, calling additional cuts proposed “massive." League offered to share more playoff revenue, but on balance, those dollars are small compared to what players give up, PA believes.
— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) May 26, 2020
If indeed the cuts at the top of the scale are 30% … that just seems like such an overreach by the owners. I reserve final judgment until we seem more about the rest of the proposal (i.e., the other terms and other dollars), but this looks rough.
UPDATE 5: I guess I do want to offer some general context from a former litigator; with the union’s negotiations now being run through a lawyer, it’s pretty standard for the response to *any* offer to be: holy shit this is so awful how dare you insult me like this you suck. It’s always over the top. It’s annoying, and it’s a not-insignificant part of why I left that profession. But it’s part of the process.
So anyway, you do have to keep that grain of salt in mind:
The MLBPA says the proposal involves massive additional pay cuts and the union is extremely disappointed. The union also says the sides are far apart on the health/safety protocols
— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) May 26, 2020
The union plan is to return to players for their thoughts before deciding whether to negotiate further on this financial concept.
— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) May 26, 2020
My guess is, based on that 30% report, the union is indeed really disappointed. That sounds like a huge ask by the owners. An overreach, even. But just because you’re seeing sabers rattle like this doesn’t necessarily mean this isn’t all expected behavior.
UPDATE 6: That point squares with this:
Worth noting: It’s the first day of this extremely important week and this is the first proposal from the league. That said, there is disappointment from the players, and to get anything close to what they want to play, MLB is going to have to move significantly off its proposal.
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) May 26, 2020
The owners, le sigh, were always going to propose something the players were not going to accept immediately. So they fight. I know I should have expected exactly this, though I do wish there were pleasant surprises today instead of more of the same bullshit we’ve seen in the baseball labor world for the past four years.
UPDATE 7: A good point here:
One thing I guess I don't really understand is why the owners are bothering trying to dictate which players get paid in any sort of agreement. Presumably they have a number they want to see in terms of dollars "saved" and the negotiations should be over that number. https://t.co/2ldqZtRlwy
— The Duality of Crait (@cdgoldstein) May 26, 2020
UPDATE 8 (Michael): And just for some further context on the proposed cuts …
Exact percentages in MLB proposal aren’t known, but people involved estimate the best-paid stars — Trout, Cole, Verlander, Scherzer, etc — might make about 20-30 percent of their full salary over 82 games plus postseason. So for Cole, for instance, that’d be not 36M but about 9M
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) May 26, 2020
UPDATE 9 (Michael): “The sides are determined not to let economics stand in the way of a season.” Please, oh, please, let that be true.
While union may not love MLB’s first proposal it’s important to note that this is simply that — a first offer. While there isn’t a ton of time — MLB is hoping to begin spring training about June 10 — the sides are determined not to let economics stand in the way of a season.
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) May 26, 2020
UPDATE 10: The full rundown of pay cuts:
Seen another way: 82-game prorated salaries vs. MLB's proposal
Full Proposal
prorated$285K $262K
$506K $434K
$1.01M $736K
$2.53M $1.64M
$5.06M $2.95M
$7.59M $4.05M
$10.1M $5.15M
$12.7M $6.05M
$15.2M $6.95M
$17.7M $7.84M— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) May 26, 2020
Couple more notes: About 65% of all players make a million or less. Minimum this year is $563, 500. That player would make $262K under proposal.
And, remember, players were advanced some salary whether they play or not.
— Jesse Rogers (@JesseRogersESPN) May 26, 2020
In other words, under this proposal, the majority of players would actually receive somewhat close to their prorated pay. But the higher-paid players? They would be receiving muuuuuch less than prorated pay. I mean, some of those cuts at the top of the pay scale are massive.
UPDATE 11: This seems a pretty important “oh by the way”:
MLB just sees this as an opening offer but also sees it as the ball being in the court of the players union. MLB abandoned their preferred revenue-sharing split. But union sees the cuts, especially for stars, as way too steep. One more thing: fans later would trigger adjustments
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) May 26, 2020
So in the unlikely, but possible, event that fans are back in the stands late in the year, that would lead to more compensation for players. As it should.
