Players Reportedly Reject the 60-Game Proposal (UPDATES)

[See Updates Below]

I no longer feel like I have a reasonable enough handle on all of the inputs – and all the constituencies – to say whether accepting the owners’ 60-game proposal, complete with giving up the right to a grievance, expanded playoffs, uniform ads, etc., is a good idea for the players. I think the way the negotiations have gone, I certainly have my opinions on how certain parties have proceeded, but now that we sit here today, I can’t say I know what’s best for the players.

So, they vote. And they vote right now:

Source: MLB players are scheduled to start a virtual meeting in a few minutes to vote on the team owners' proposal to play a 60-game season.
Fuente: Peloteros MLB tienen programado comenzar una reunión virtual dentro de algunos minutos para votar sobre propuesta de 60 juegos.

— Enrique Rojas/ESPN (@Enrique_Rojas1) June 22, 2020

Your guess is as good as mine, but I wouldn’t expect the players to accept this proposal, given everything that preceded it, unless there were fundamental changes to the offer over the weekend. We heard about very minor changes, but not significant ones.

If the players reject this proposal, then the ball is in the Commissioner’s court to mandate a season under the March Agreement. Doing so would come at prorated pay for the players, but without them giving up the right to a grievance, and without expanded playoffs. Everybody gets less than they want, everybody is even angrier, and everything is uglier.

It remains possible that, if the players reject the 60-game proposal, that the Commissioner actually won’t have enough support to go the mandated route – he reportedly needs to get 23 owners on board, and there are at least six to eight owners who may not want to go that route. If it’s eight, they could sink the entire season. That is still on the table at this moment.

And none of that even touches on the health and safety planning and management that would have to be dealt with in either case where a season is attempted.

UPDATE: The vote once again got bumped back slightly, though I don’t think anyone expects the outcome to be any different:

The 38-member exec board votes today at 3 pm on MLB’s proposal built around a 60-g season, prorated pay. The expectation remains they reject. If so, will Manfred move to implement a season?

— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) June 22, 2020

If the players vote this proposal down, I don’t quite see how the league mandates a short season and also thereafter gets player cooperation on health and safety (and also gets enough owners on board with a mandated season).

UPDATE 2: It’s pushed back again. They’re trying:

after contact between the Commish Office and MLBPA, the union’s executive board has moved back its conference call from 3pm to 5pm.

— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) June 22, 2020

It’s crystal clear that the league knows the vote was going to fail, and they really, really don’t want that to happen (because of the ugliness that follows). But if you want the players to approve this deal and give up the grievance, then you have to have some more flexibility on the financial side of things:

MLB told union today that it has no additional flexibility to forgive any more than the $33M of the $170M that was given as part of the 3/26 agreement. So forgiveness only to players on split contracts (lowest earners)

— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) June 22, 2020

MLB also told union it swill not guarantee any salaries in the event games go unplayed. MLB would consider adding $ to playoff pool in 2020 or ’21. Previous offer was $25M.

— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) June 22, 2020

Please forgive a mistake: MLB today told the union that there would be NO additional for the playoff pool in 2020 or 2021. The June 17 MLB proposal was for $25M.

— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) June 22, 2020

UPDATE 3:  Teams are rounding up votes to give to their representatives at the moment, and the Cubs may wind up one of the few(?) yes votes:

From there, the player reps for each team, plus the executive board (38 votes total), will vote. Still not expected to pass overall, though, again per @JesseRogersESPN.

— Bleacher Nation (@BleacherNation) June 22, 2020

UPDATE 4: Vote taking place now. I suppose something I should do a little better job about describing more precisely: although a NEW agreement has always been extremely, extremely preferable, it is true that the “mandated” season would, in fact, also be taking place under an agreement with the players:

MLB-MLBPA March agreement includes (among other things):
-Fullest season that is economically feasible
-Accelerated spring training
-Full proration of salaries
-Split doubleheaders, expanded rosters, potential elimination of ASG
-Changes to postseason only w/player input/consent

— Marly Rivera (@MarlyRiveraESPN) June 22, 2020

UPDATE 5: There it is. As expected, players vote no:

Sources tell @JeffPassan and I players have voted against the league's latest proposal to play 60 games. The vote was 33-5 against.

— Jesse Rogers (@JesseRogersESPN) June 22, 2020

Now we see what happens next.

UPDATE 6: The players have released a statement, essentially saying they didn’t want to proceed on this proposal and will instead accept whatever MLB decides to do under the March Agreement:

The Major League Baseball Players Association today released the following statement: pic.twitter.com/1OnFBsoEjd

— MLBPA Communications (@MLBPA_News) June 22, 2020