Someone Needs to Get Creative
I've been thinking and writing a lot about the ongoing negotiations between MLB and the Players. I'm not a fan of the way that either side has been negotiating, but I've been a lot harder on the owners for several reasons. I've been really turned off by their overall strategy going back to early May when this whole kerfuffle got underway. I detailed my suspicion that MLB purposely maneuvered us into this current space in my post last Friday. The gist of it is that I believe they wanted to have the negotiations drag along endlessly until we reached a place where the only possible resolution was a short season at full prorated pay.
The Commissioner has the power to set the length of the season, the only thing really stopping this right now is that the players would have to agree to the expended Playoffs that the owners want. If a few more weeks drift by in this current impasse, MLB could probably get the Players to agree to that by offering a large enough piece of the Playoff pie to them. The only real problem for MLB Club Owners is that the continued negative publicity over this ugly public fight masquerading as bargaining is likely to do a lot more damage to baseball's reputation with the public each week that goes by.
I've argued previously that it is very much more in the Club Owners' interests to get this resolved quickly and score some public goodwill from getting the game back on the field. Players have a short-term interest in all of this, primarily what they will make in 2020 and however much is left in their relatively short careers going forward. Most of these Owners are presumably in it for the long-term. They should be interested in doing whatever they can to keep the game on the field and public perception of the game as positive as possible. Instead, they seem to be only focused on short-term losses. I just can't understand why stewards of a multibillion dollar industry are allowing themselves to be so myopic.
As bad as the Owners have been, at times it's easy to overlook the failure of the Players Association to do anything more than to continually demand full prorated pay for however many games are played. I wrote a few days ago that, if I was a player, I would be seriously wondering whether Tony Clark was the right guy to lead this Union going forward. After by all accounts getting burned badly in the previous Basic Agreement negotiations, the MLBPA has shown an almost stunning lack of imagination in their proposals back to MLB.
Let's play a game. Tony Clark has been handed his walking papers and, after careful consideration, you have been selected to take his place. You take a hard look at what's been going on for the past month, and quickly realize that there is clearly no way that MLB is going to allow anything more than a very limited amount of regular season games at full prorated pay. Do you continue to insist on it, or do you attempt to be more creative?
Right now both sides seem to be negotiating for 2020 with an eye on the Basic Agreement that will be expiring after next season. As head of the union, would you ask MLB to make some concessions on the upcoming Basic Agreement for the payroll cuts that they are seeking for this season? Some items that might be discussed:
I've argued previously that it is very much more in the Club Owners' interests to get this resolved quickly and score some public goodwill from getting the game back on the field. Players have a short-term interest in all of this, primarily what they will make in 2020 and however much is left in their relatively short careers going forward. Most of these Owners are presumably in it for the long-term. They should be interested in doing whatever they can to keep the game on the field and public perception of the game as positive as possible. Instead, they seem to be only focused on short-term losses. I just can't understand why stewards of a multibillion dollar industry are allowing themselves to be so myopic.
As bad as the Owners have been, at times it's easy to overlook the failure of the Players Association to do anything more than to continually demand full prorated pay for however many games are played. I wrote a few days ago that, if I was a player, I would be seriously wondering whether Tony Clark was the right guy to lead this Union going forward. After by all accounts getting burned badly in the previous Basic Agreement negotiations, the MLBPA has shown an almost stunning lack of imagination in their proposals back to MLB.
Let's play a game. Tony Clark has been handed his walking papers and, after careful consideration, you have been selected to take his place. You take a hard look at what's been going on for the past month, and quickly realize that there is clearly no way that MLB is going to allow anything more than a very limited amount of regular season games at full prorated pay. Do you continue to insist on it, or do you attempt to be more creative?
Right now both sides seem to be negotiating for 2020 with an eye on the Basic Agreement that will be expiring after next season. As head of the union, would you ask MLB to make some concessions on the upcoming Basic Agreement for the payroll cuts that they are seeking for this season? Some items that might be discussed:
- Eliminate draft pick compensation going forward. MLB offered this for the upcoming off-season in their latest proposal. The idea of penalizing a team for signing a top free agent always seemed out of place in a labor contract. The Luxury Tax has worked pretty well in keeping big market teams from going overboard with payroll, more so than fear of losing a draft pick.
- Seek rules to stop the practice of tanking. Even some folks in management are starting to realize that rewarding teams that cut their payrolls to the bone with the express purpose of finishing at the bottom of the standings and getting higher draft picks is giving the game a huge black eye. Particularly troublesome are the teams that have done this over more than one season. Realistic minimum spending requirements on payroll would benefit both the players and the perception of competitiveness in the game.
- Institute rules against manipulating service time. The best young players resent being treated in this manner, the fans hate having to wait to see them. It feels manipulative and petty.
Those are some ideas, I'm sure you as the new Union Head could come up with some of your own. The idea would be to get creative and stop insisting on a longer schedule with full prorated pay that you know you can't get. Or, conversely, you could follow the lead of your predecessor Tony Clark. Then you, too, can see negotiations grind to an unproductive halt, and soon we will be looking to find your replacement. The ball is in your court.
Back to the real world, where Tony Clark still holds onto his job, I wonder how much longer he clings to the full prorated pay mantra. I understand he is under pressure, answering not only to a large group of players who hold differing beliefs, but also to agents like Scott Boras who hold power commensurate to the number of players they represent. Still, the extraordinary times we live in demand creativity and vision from a leader. We're still waiting for Mr. Clark to demonstrate that he possesses those traits. Yeah, MLB has behaved quite badly throughout these negotiations, but that doesn't let Tony Clark off the hook if these talks fail to move forward.
If I am the players, I would continue and allow the season to play out in some form or another. But then I would hold the concession in my back pocket for the next labor agreement and take a hard line stand when it is easy to make it look as if owner greed is the only issue on the table.
ReplyDeleteI hear you, but for the first time in many years I think there's a real chance of a strike again. Start saving your money, because the way baseball is going the value of franchises might drop far enough for us to buy the Mets. We can do a Doubleday/Wilpon partnership. I call Doubleday
ReplyDeleteSo i am definitely a owner's management guy...
ReplyDeleteManipulating service time is smart business...
that rule exists today... Owners should not be penalized for applying a rule... is it too high (the number of games) I cant say but even I who would run the mets differently would never have brought up Pete alonso regardless of losing the 50 HR year at the expense of a extra year of service...
Why does everyone complain at the outlandish salaries and then want against the rules that keeps salaries down...
They can collectively bargain this but if thats the rules then manipulate them as teams see fit...
the compensation picks is something totally different... I dont know if teams should be penalized for losing their players or not but I like the rules where you would lose not the current selection but a 1st round pick
I say players should be ranked using some scale and depending on where they rank that the compensation. If betts is lost by free agency then lose a 1st round pick but if a Reliever is loss maybe a 3rd round pick ...
what needs to go away is the competitive draft pick for lower markets... why should they get more younger players because of their locations... they usually are in the lower half of the draft anyway... draft better with the picks you have... give them more tv money I dont know but I dont want them to have more players.... Tampa bay makes a killing off these...
Eddie - you are so right. I hate the competitive compensation picks. Mkaes no sense. Especially since St. Louis who sells out most of their games and wins just about every year gets one. How does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteThey should change the compensation landscape. You can be really good, break down, and be very underpaid for your career. Look at how little Syndergaard has been paid to date and how much he has accomplished. An injury that ends a career, in a case similar to his, and he gets stiffed. Harvey got stiffed. Two great seasons, little bucks. If Jake had gotten hurt, before his long term deal, he gets screwed. Pay them more, faster, And cap the upper $$ of mega deals somewhat to offset that.
ReplyDelete