Thursday, May 14, 2020

Bringing Baseball Back

When MLB owners presented the players with their proposal for an 82-game season to begin in July, people were obviously excited.  Finally there was optimism about the prospect of their actually being a 2020 baseball season.  Then it became obvious that the players were going to reject the deal, which made everybody freak out and leave us all to wonder if this could all break down over money.

For some reason, whenever the money issue comes into question, people are quick to side with the owners and accuse the players of being "greedy."  The Governor of Illinois went so far as to say he's "disappointed" in the players for "holding out for these very, very high salaries and payments during a time when I think everybody is sacrificing."  He also brings up the fact that there's nothing for people to watch on TV, so evidently he thinks the players have some sort of civic duty to simply sign on the dotted line.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as Gov. Pritzker would seemingly like it to be.  And, since the owners were the ones who came to the table first, it's easy to make the players out to be the bad guys...even though they want to get back on the field as much as the owners do!  But there's no way the players were going to accept this deal.  And they shouldn't have!

I think the owners knew that, too.  What they were doing was giving them a framework from which to begin negotiations.  Both sides know how disastrous a lost season would be, especially if there actually was a path back and it all fell apart.  That would be even more devastating than the 1994-95 strike and cripple the game economically (beyond the damage coronavirus has already done).

They both have incentive and desire to get back on the field.  And there's certainly common ground that can be found.  Money wasn't even brought up in the first round of negotiations, and it likely won't be until the end.  Frankly, there are more pressing issues before the players can even begin thinking about taking the field again.  And remember, it's the players who'll be assuming all the risk.  Not the owners.

But, of course, it's easy to blame the players.  It's easy to call them "greedy" when you don't understand what the owners are actually proposing and how it affects the players.  If you look a little deeper into it, though, you can see the players' position.  Which, frankly, I agree with.

The big sticking point seems to be the proposed 50-50 split of revenues.  MLBPA Executive Director Tony Clark said all along that was a non-starter.  Especially since, in the players' minds, this has already been settled.  They've already agreed to prorated salaries based on the number of games that actually do get played this season.  So, in an 82-game season, they'll get half their salary.  Gerrit Cole's $36 million will become $18 million.  Done deal.  So why negotiate it again?

More significantly, the players object to any financial model that ties their salaries to revenues.  The NFL, NHL and NBA all have that model, and it's roughly a 50-50 split in each.  The NFL, NHL and NBA also all have salary caps.  MLB, of course, does not.  And the players aren't going to agree to anything that resembles one (such as a revenue split).

Their fear is that if they agree to this now, the owners might try to force a salary cap on them when the current CBA expires after the 2021 season.  The salary cap was the major sticking point that led to the infamous eight-month strike 26 years ago.  The players didn't want it then, and they don't want it now.  Yes, they risk losing their entire 2020 salaries if there are no games at all.  They understand that.  But that doesn't make them any more willing to accept anything less than what they've already agreed to.

That's the biggest sticking point.  No one knows how much money both sides stand to lose.  The numbers that the owners have presented are nothing more than estimates.  So, it's entirely possible that the players could end up making more in a 50-50 split.  It's also possible they'd end up making significantly less.  Most likely, things will end up close to even.  But can you really blame the players for not wanting to go into the season not knowing?

If you put it in simpler terms, the players' argument makes even more sense.  Their salaries aren't tied to revenues.  When the owners are making money, they don't get any of it.  So, now that the owners stand to lose a bunch, they suddenly expect the players to share their pain?  That's not what they agreed to in the CBA, so why should they be OK with that?

Yes, the owners are responsible for paying many more people than just the players.  And, yes, some teams have had to lay off or furlough employees because of the financial situation that this pandemic has caused.  But, once games resume, they'll still get paid from the national and local TV contracts.  They obviously won't make as much playing in empty stadiums, where they won't get revenue from tickets, concessions, parking, etc.  But they risk losing the TV money, too, if there's no season at all.  And that would be a much bigger financial blow to some franchises than paying the players their already agreed-to prorated 2020 salaries.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the players will be the ones assuming the highest risk.  Even in empty ballparks, they'll still be out there on the field, throwing and catching the same ball as everybody else.  They'll be the ones making tags on opposing base runners.  They'll be the ones who are quarantined and out of action for two weeks if they test positive...on top of all the other injury potential after two months of inactivity before an incredibly short second "Spring" Training.

And the players are also the ones who'll be losing half a season of their careers (at least).  That's time they aren't getting back (even if it does count as service time).  So they've got all the reason in the world to want to play.  Which they do.  Don't think any of this means they don't.  But they're not gonna come back at all costs.  Not when there are so many unknowns (from both a health and financial standpoint).

Everything else in the owners' proposal seems reasonable and likely hasn't gotten too much push back from the players.  National League purists might not like the universal DH, but you know the players will have no issue with it.  Regionalized schedules to reduce travel, while still focusing mainly on divisional play?  Makes sense.  Expanded rosters and more playoff teams?  Absolutely!

With both sides in agreement on almost everything else, it seems hard to believe that they won't be able to figure out the one sticking point.  Neither one would be stupid enough to let it all fall apart over money.  Because everybody wants baseball in 2020.  The players.  The owners.  And especially the fans.

No comments:

Post a Comment