NEWSLETTER
The topic is critically important right now, so I’ll cover it here. But I’ll tell you – and you’ll probably tell me – I’m so freaking weary of it.
MLB’s owners approved of, and submitted to the players, an economic proposal for the season that would see players take pay cuts (off of their already-prorated salaries) on a sliding scale, with the lowest earners in the league seeing a cut of 10 to 20%, and the highest earners seeing upwards of 50% lopped off. On reflection, it was both an extremely aggressive ask by the owners, and also a wedge – intentional or incidental – thrust into the union’s ranks. So, sure, it’s one of those things that look good on paper as a negotiation tactic if all you care about is “winning” the negotiation.
Stupid naive me, I had hoped the goal would’ve been a good outcome for the sport and the fans, not just another chance to whip the players in a financial battle.
So, the players – now under the negotiating leadership of an experienced labor attorney, rather than union chief Tony Clark – will likewise respond ultra aggressively, as their “leaked” messaging yesterday confirmed. The short version you can read out there everywhere? The owners’ proposal is terrible, awful, a non-starter, oh and also we’re still far apart on the health and safety stuff (now being used as a negotiating cudgel rather than something that all sides should be treating as an important societal issue … cool, cool).
Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich have some behind-the-scenes reactions from agents, and, like the union, they are predictably unimpressed by the opening offer.
“I have never seen a collective response like I’m seeing today from the players,” one agent said. “They are livid.”
With @Ken_Rosenthal: https://t.co/qydG0lOiAO
— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) May 27, 2020
The overall tone of the piece is that a deal will eventually get done – certainly I’ve seen plenty of acrimonious negotiations ultimately resolve well enough – but it’s gonna be a lot more ugliness in the meantime. And if a deal doesn’t get completed by early next week, the timeline for a resumption of the season gets blown up.
One odd note from the piece is that the proposal does not include an expanded postseason, which I’d presumed (1) would be natural for a short season, (2) would be natural for the owners to want anyway (as they reportedly do for the future), and (3) would increase the projected revenue pool and allow for less cuts to the players. Are the owners just holding that back as a negotiating piece, even though it benefits everyone? Or can they not include it because they still have to negotiate broadcast rights for extra games? Just odd. I have no answer at the moment.
Other odds and ends from the start of negotiations:
Union leadership, many top agents and surely highly-paid star players are upset by MLB proposal (“barely worth a response”), but many lower-paid players may have different reax. Know this: 65% of MLB players make $1M or less and off prorated pay they still get at most a 15% cut.
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) May 27, 2020
Here is the updated news story with @JesseRogersESPN that covers the entirety of the league’s economic proposal, how it would work, what it says and how players reacted. Enjoy at @espn: https://t.co/1ZUgA01MNU
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) May 27, 2020
No surprise, the union didn’t like MLB’s first proposal, and it’ll be a battle, with predictable hand wringing on both sides. There’s not a lot of time (June 1 is soft deadline but June 5-10 is firmer) but remember this, both sides have too much to lose to blow this up over $!
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) May 27, 2020
