Mike's Mets - Focus On the Future if the Lockout Drags On

 

 By Mike Steffanos

As expected, the first proposal since the lockout began from MLB to the Players Association did nothing to gain any traction towards an eventual settlement. In fairness, nobody who covers the sport seemed to be expecting anything substantial from MLB and Rob Manfred. If there is anything hopeful for fans to find in the offer, it was simply that the process has been started again. I personally don't expect serious offers to be made this month, but even half-serious talking is better than none at all.

It's still my opinion that the pace of negotiations will be controlled by Manfred and MLB owners. They have a pretty good idea of what might move the talks forward and what players will see as a non-starter. As I wrote in my last piece, Manfred and company see their best chance of getting what they want — or at least denying the players most of what they want — as applying maximum pressure, which will only happen when games are canceled, and players are losing money.

This isn't a commentary on which side is more at fault for a work stoppage, although I have my own opinion on that. It's more reflective that the MLB side of negotiations is controlled by more militant owners that tend to be from smaller markets. They're still fuming that MLB is the only major U.S. sport that doesn't have a hard salary cap, and that outcome is highly improbable for this agreement. The chances of these owners agreeing to a substantially higher Luxury Tax or significant changes to how young players will be paid are almost as low as the players conceding on a cap.

So, while I'd be ecstatic to be proven wrong, I don't believe we'll see serious proposals that have any chance of moving the needle from Manfred and MLB until mid-to-late February. In the meantime, I expect them to continue with the usual delaying tactics: making offers that concede little or nothing to the players and then releasing self-serving statements bemoaning the players' stubborn unwillingness to accept their generosity.

Joel Sherman had a thoughtful piece in the New York Post on why he doesn't expect spring training or the regular season to start on time. Like me, Sherman doesn't expect much worthwhile negotiating to occur until the clock is close to striking midnight:

An optimist would say neither side is really going to show its best offers until a drop-dead date, and there will be a lot of rhetoric until then. But a drop-dead date is in the eye of the beholder (I think Casey Stengel said that first). Spring training camps are scheduled to open Feb. 16, the first spring games are Feb. 26, and the regular season opener is March 31.

When we see the two sides making proposals that spur bargaining rather than flat-out rejection, we'll know that we are finally in the endgame for the 2022 CBA. A couple of points that Sherman makes in his piece that I believe will affect whenever the season might start:

One thing on which management and players agree is that the 23-day hurried Spring Training II in July 2020 was too short, especially to get pitchers’ arms ready. 

...One agent theorized that MLB might just punt on April when it struggles to sell tickets, accept the losses then make up for those losses by just spending less on the remainder of free agency.

I've been reading items from various pundits opining that a late agreement might include a short spring training like we saw in June 2020, but that was in preparation for a 60-game schedule. Assuming that we're probably going to see a much longer season than that (knock wood), a month of spring training seems more likely this time around. I doubt that teams want to chance significant injuries to their starting pitchers, particularly after a couple of seasons where the pandemic severely disrupted normal routines.

As for the agent who thought MLB would be willing to give up on April entirely, that thought has been in my mind, too. COVID will almost undoubtedly be less of a factor as the weather warms. Also, as the agent noted to Sherman, April is a month when teams struggle to sell tickets, anyway. Losing that month would cost teams less than it would cost players. If MLB wants to put maximum pressure on the union, losing a month's worth of games would be one way to do it for sure.

Of course, if that happened, it could backfire on MLB if the players weren't willing to accept a shortened schedule and insisted that all of the games be made up. That could lead to a work stoppage that continued into warm weather months that MLB owners wouldn't want to see games lost. As bad as a late start to 2022 would be for the sport, a prolonged lockout that lasted into May or later would be a freaking disaster for the sport. As a life-long baseball lover, it would break my heart to see the warm months arrive with baseball still on the sidelines. As a Mets fan who spent decades waiting for the Wilpons to lose control of the franchise, that would be more bitter still.

To finish reading this article on Mike's Mets, please click here.