By Mike Steffanos May 28, 2020
There has been quite a
bit written the past couple of days about how the Player's Union has reacted to
the rather outlandish proposal MLB dumped on them this week. As Jeff Passan wrote for ESPN yesterday, the
extreme position taken by the owners had the opposite effect that MLB probably
hoped would happen. Union moderates that supported reaching a compromise the
most were alienated and more or less driven back into the arms of hardliners.
If you haven't been
closely following what's been happening in the negotiations, here is the basics
of what MLB offered the players Tuesday:
- The salary structure starts with a prorated salary based on games played. If 50% of the schedule is played, then no one would receive more than half of their 2020 salary. But that's only where the cuts begin.
- Players making the League minimum salary would get 90% of their prorated pay. In a half-season example, a player at the bottom of the scale would make about 45% of what they would have if this was a normal year.
- For anyone making even
a dollar more than the minimum, pay is further cut to 72.5% of
prorated pay. For those making over a million, they will only receive 50%
of their prorated salary. The cuts get more drastic at higher pay levels.
Those at the top of the scale, with negotiated salaries of over $20
million, only receive 20% of their prorated salary. In other words, in a
half-season scenario, they would only receive $2 million.
I haven't read a
single pundit who believes that MLB's offer is serious. While it is normal in
negotiations to stake out a position that you know you can't get and try to
come to terms at some sort of middle ground, this is far beyond that. If you
were a star ballplayer with years remaining on your big money contract, would
you risk your life and career for 10% of your pay? If it was me, assuming that
I haven't spent every dollar I've already made, I'd sit the year out.
4 comments:
If I were Max Scherzer, I'd sit out too. The problem is, like with politics, you have to assess what they are offering for now, but what it will mean for the future. How could accepting anything even close to that backfire on the players down the road.
Maybe the owners shouldn't have an antitrust exemption after all; they act like Chinese dictators.
Prove me wrong, owners. Make the players a fair, no strings attached to 2021, offer.
Well said. Totally agree
The thing that has always bothered me the most is the owner's refusal to open their books completely because, if they continue to refuse exactly how much money they are making, I don't believe them when they cry poor mouth. One of those rare times when I agree with Scott Boras.
It's pretty frustrating to listen to them complain about revenues when the values of franchises keep going up.
Post a Comment