Mike's Mets - A Sliver of Daylight

One of the top blogger's in the business is back. Mack's Mets welcomes back Mike's Mets with previews of some of his recent posts.

A Sliver of Daylight

By Mike Steffanos June 02, 2020

I'm not ready to throw a party yet by any stretch, but I actually found a little glimmer of hope in the latest news on the negotiations between MLB and the players. In multiple reports, including this piece by Joel Sherman in the New York Post, we read that MLB has come back to the Players' Union with an offer to play a season of 30-60 games and pay the players their full prorated salaries. The essence of this offer would be that the players aren't asked to make a further concession on pay, while MLB would satisfy their objective of getting to the playoffs faster.

Don't get me wrong here. I know this offer isn't going to fly. The players are quite unlikely to agree to play such a limited number of games, and I'm sure that MLB understood that before making the offer. What I find slightly hopeful here is that there has finally been an offer that has some room in it for actual bargaining to take place.

I think this process has gone on long enough for us to have a fairly good understanding of what both sides are looking to achieve:

• The players want to play as many games as can be squeezed in, even if the Playoffs get pushed back into November, with pay prorated for number of games played. Essentially, for them at least, more games = more money.


• The owners wish to play fewer regular season games, feeling that their main chance of profit this year is getting to the Playoffs and successfully completing them.

There are some other issues involved, too. Players are worried that fewer games could damage their value if they are up for contract renewal or free agency. If a season of 30 - 60 games is played, one prolonged slump can really put a player in a weaker negotiating position. There's a real possibility that some players would elect not to risk their health and future earnings potential for the small amount of money involved, particularly if MLB sets a game slate at the lower end of that 30 - 60 number.

The owners claim that every regular season game played without fans will be a money loser for them. They want to get the Playoff slate in, and worry that a second wave of COVID-19 could take place this fall and force a cancellation of the Playoffs. It's impossible to verify the owners' claims that they would lose money for each regular season game, as the vast majority of clubs have closed books, but it's at least clear that they do want to limit the regular season as much as possible.

My personal thoughts on the length of the regular season is that a really low number of games would almost certainly hurt the legitimacy of any Playoffs that follow. Obviously anything that happens this year will fall far short of the 162-game marathon that constitutes a normal MLB season, but the closer you can get to it, the more legitimate the Playoffs will be. The half-season that's been bandied about in recent offers sounds about the best compromise right now, given how much time has already passed.

Putting that aside for a minute, the fact that MLB offered the players what they're looking for, prorated pay, is the first significant offer in this whole negotiation. The Union could at least make a counteroffer for more games and offer MLB something in return. The idea of some deferred money has been tossed around and could be a possible point of compromise from the Players' side.

There's still a long way to go to play ball this season, but any small nugget of hope is welcome at this point. Still, any optimism is tempered by the current animosity on both sides and, in particular, the way MLB keeps negotiating through the press. Another article by Joel Sherman in the Post speaks to the rancor between MLB and the Union over the - God help us all - infamous "smoking gun" email. For some reason, MLB's position is that the Union has agreed that further salary concessions would be needed. Meanwhile, the Union's position is that acknowledging that their could be additional talks if games were played without fans, doesn't require them to agree to concessions. I found the quote from Union Chief Tony Clark summed it up perfectly:

“We have never denied that MLB has the ability to come back and try to persuade us to change that agreement based on their economic concerns. They’ve tried unsuccessfully. In fact, Rob confirmed [Sunday] that, ‘We can pay you 100 percent of salary right now.’ This is all part of the league’s attempts to negotiate through the media instead of focusing on how to bring baseball back to its fans.”

As I pointed out previously, it seems like the most radical, hardline folks on the ownership side are in control of the negotiations at this point. They seem intent on scoring points in the press, as with the whole silly "smoking gun" email kerfuffle, rather than getting to the hard negotiating required to come to a deal. I hope that the cooler, more moderate folks on both sides can try to move negotiations forward. Otherwise, everyone loses - players, fans and team owners.

Any owner who doesn't realize that a complete no-show by baseball this season severely harms their business is a fool. Meanwhile, the Players need to see that if the sport takes a hit, it's only going to hurt their chances to make money, both in future contracts and in off the field endorsements. We're still waiting to see some real, prolonged negotiating.

One last point on this subject. I've read that the owners are wary of pushing back the playoffs for a month due to possible conflict with Network TV Schedules. I don't know,  but it seems unlikely to me that the networks will have new shows ready to debut as usual in September. I suspect that it will be pretty easy to make way for Postseason baseball, even in November. Especially if they have months to plan for it.

Continue reading by clicking here.