Newsstand

This afternoon, the MLB Players Association presented the league with its counter-proposal about how to launch the 2020 season, ESPN’s Jeff Passan reports (Twitter links).  Details of the proposal included a 114-game regular season that would end on Halloween, an opt-out clause that would allow any player to sit out the season, and a potential deferral of 2020 salaries if the postseason was canceled.  Evan Drellich of The Athletic (Twitter links) has further updates, specifying that the 114-game season would begin on June 30, and that an expanded playoff structure would be in place for both the 2020 and 2021 seasons.

Players would also receive a $100MM salary advance during whatever type of training camp takes place this summer, as some ramp-up time is inevitably required in advance of the season getting underway.  This $100MM payment is similar to the $170MM advance payment that players received this past March as an advance on their 2020 salaries.  As per the March agreement, that $170MM in salary would be all the players would receive in the event of a canceled 2020 season.  Since both payments are an advance, the total $270MM would be factored into salaries received during any 2020 regular-season games.

A separate total of $100MM in salary would deferred in the event of a canceled 2020 postseason, with that $100MM coming from player contracts worth more than $10MM (before being prorated).  This money would be deferred into two payments, scheduled for November 2021 and November 2022.  Players making less than $10MM wouldn’t defer any salary, so in a sense, this proposal from the players’ union has some very minor resemblance to the sliding-scale pay plan floated in the owners’ first proposal, in that the game’s higher-paid players would be taking more of a financial hit than lower-paid players.  Of course, that is where the faint similarity ends, as the owners’ plan proposed that every player would take some type of a pay cut, whereas the players are still set on receiving all of their prorated salaries, if not immediately this year.

Players who are considered “high risk” candidates for COVID-19 would be able to opt out of playing this season while still receiving their entire prorated salaries.  Joel Sherman of the New York Post adds that the “high risk” designation also extends to players who have spouses, children, or other live-in family members with pre-existing health conditions.  For players who don’t face a “high-risk” situation but still don’t want to play in 2020, they will receive service time but no salary.

The early response to this proposal is apparently not positive from Major League Baseball’s point of view, as MLB Network’s Jon Heyman hears from an ownership source that the MLBPA’s offer is a “non-starter.”  The players similarly rejected the owners’ first proposal just as rapidly, so it isn’t a surprise that the league isn’t immediately jumping on board with the first counter-offer.

The two offers differ greatly enough that the only real common point of agreement is an expanded postseason.  The owners have been particularly keen on ensuring (and getting to) the playoffs as quickly as possible, due to the threat of a second COVID-19 wave and given how much of baseball’s national TV revenue is attached to postseason action.  The players’ offer to defer some money in the event of a canceled 2020 postseason is at least a nod to that possibility, though the league will surely balk at just pushing the financial burden into 2021 and 2022.

The players’ idea of extending the regular season through October also won’t be a welcome idea, as the playoffs wouldn’t be concluded until the end of November.  This also runs the risk of more of the baseball regular season and postseason conflicting with NFL games, which won’t bode well for Major League Baseball in terms of maximizing television ratings.  (Of course, this assumes the NFL season will also proceed as currently scheduled.)  One interesting wrinkle is that the players’ proposal includes a “willingness to consider” — as per Sherman — participation in such “revenue generator” events like the All-Star Game or a Home Run Derby, which could take place during the offseason or even the postseason.

As expected, the MLBPA is sticking to its stance that players should receive the prorated portions of their 2020 salaries over any sort of regular season.  With a 114-game plan on the table, that will mean more salary paid (roughly 70% of the original salaries) for more regular season games, which isn’t likely to sit well with owners who are already claiming to be facing $4 billion in losses if an 82-game season was played without fans in the stands.

The only nod towards salary reduction of any sort would be if a player opted to sit out for non-health related reasons, as that player then wouldn’t be paid.  While it stands to reason that most players want to get back on the field, it can’t be ruled out that a sizeable number of players might prefer to just remain at home.  Even if they or their loved ones aren’t facing any elevated risk of the coronavirus, it certainly doesn’t mean that no risk exists, especially since the simple act of gathering in any sort of larger group increases the chance of contracting the disease, no matter how many proposed health and safety protocols might be in place.

There has been “no evidence of progress” in the discussions between MLB and the MLBPA as the two sides negotiate the economic provisions of a potential 2020 season, reports Jon Heyman of MLB Network. As such, there’s no reason to believe the parties will reach an agreement ahead of the “soft” June 1 deadline.

That said, Heyman adds that there’s still hope to begin the season on the weekend of July 4 as intended, though for that to become a reality the two sides will need to come to an agreement in the next ten or so days. Heyman cites June 5-9 as the target dates for a deal.

In a later Tweet, Heyman states that despite the lack of progress in negotiations, there seems to be a prevailing sense of optimism that ultimately a deal will be reached; both players and owners recognize the steep consequences that a cancelled season could have for the sport. Frankly, there’s too much to lose if the parties can’t find common ground, and such an outcome would certainly cause considerable short- and long-term damage to MLB.

After the owners submitted their economic proposal on Tuesday, the players came away thoroughly dissatisfied with their side of the deal, namely taking issue with the sliding scale pay cuts that would further reduce player salaries. It’s also been reported that players are also in favor of a season with 100 games or more, up from the 82 proposed by MLB. However, given the league’s insistence on wrapping up the regular season by October 1 for various reasons—as reported by Heyman—that scenario seems far-fetched.

While it’s encouraging to hear that there’s optimism that the two sides can iron out their differences and arrive at a compromise, the fact remains that time is running out; if Independence Day is to remain a realistic target date, there’s just about a week to reach an agreement. After that point, the feasibility of a substantial season begins to decline.

Needless to say, both sides will need to make concessions in order to ensure a 2020 season is played. And with the negotiating parties still far apart, it might be a big ask to close that gap in short order. For the time being, we’ll wait with bated breath to see if the players and owners can find common ground.

The MLBPA’s counter-proposal to the league’s economic plan is expected to be sent this week and, according to multiple reports, it will wholly reject the sliding scale mechanism offered Tuesday by ownership. Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic report that the players will not budge on prorated salaries and will instead counter with a longer season — likely in the range of 100 games. Ken Davidoff and Joel Sherman of the New York Post suggest that the proposal will include more than 100 games, with Sherman tweeting separately that the union could seek to play as many as 110 games. Doing so would seemingly require pushing regular-season play into October.

It’s not clear at this point what compromises will be offered by the Players Association. Sherman and Davidoff indicate that “many” members of the union appear open to deferring salaries beyond 2020, though, which could help ownership to avoid an upfront hit. Rosenthal and Drellich detail some other potential compromises that have been “loosely” discussed.

League owners have contended that losses without fans in attendance could be so great that it’s not worth playing games if players are paid at prorated levels. A presentation was made to the MLBPA at one point in an effort to illustrate those claims, but the players’ side has remained skeptical. ESPN’s Jeff Passan writes that the union recently submitted another request for documentation providing transparency into local and national television revenue, sponsorship revenue and projections from teams. The union also did so back in March.

Clearly, the league has not accommodated that request. Max Scherzer, one of eight players constituting the MLBPA executive subcommittee, tweeted a firm aversion to even “engag[ing] with MLB in any further compensation reductions” and adding that “MLB’s economic strategy would completely change if all documentation were to become public information.”

While both sides are surely motivated to eventually resume play, both have put forth offers that will obviously be rejected by the other party. The players “essentially pledged to ignore the league’s proposal and instead offer one of their own,” Passan writes, illustrating the extent of the MLBPA’s dissatisfaction with the sliding scale. And if the league contends that prorated salaries without fans would require operating at a loss on a per-game basis, owners are likely to be equally dismissive of an expanded schedule without further salary reduction.

So, is there a middle ground to be reached at all?

The players feel that the league’s proposal effectively asks them to take an average 38 percent pay cut on top of the prorated salaries to which they’ve already agreed, as FiveThirtyEight’s Travis Sawchik recently outlined (Twitter thread). The hit would’ve been larger for baseball’s best-paid players, of course; the game’s highest-paid players would earn in the $$6-7MM range prior to postseason bonuses. League-minimum and pre-arbitration players would’ve taken a lesser hit but still received only about 46 percent of their full-season salary (92 percent of their prorated salary).

Sawchik suggests a 19 percent cut from prorated salaries would be a middle ground, so it’s perhaps no surprise that The Athletic report contains speculation about players taking an 81-game prorated salary but still playing 100 total games. That arrangement would amount to players taking a 19 percent hit on top of their prorated agreement.

The strong language from Scherzer last night casts some doubt upon whether the players will genuinely consider additional cuts, especially if the union plans to truly hold firm on its request to see additional documentation from ownership. As things currently stand, it’s hard to believe the league will consider the reported union counter any more than the union considered the owners’ sliding scale. Significant ground needs to be covered before an agreement is reached.

10:55pm: The MLBPA does indeed plan to send its proposal to the league by week’s end, Passan tweets.

10:22pm: Nationals ace Max Scherzer, the team’s union representative and a member of the MLBPA executive council, issued a statement on Twitter, saying: “After discussing the latest developments with the rest of the players there’s no reason to engage with MLB in any further compensation reductions. We have previously negotiated a pay cut in the version of prorated salaries, and there’s no justification to accept a 2nd pay cut based upon the current information the union has received. I’m glad to hear other players voicing the same viewpoint and believe MLB’s economic strategy would completely change if all documentation were to become public information.”

8:46pm: Some players held a call today and were “pretty galvanized” in their distaste for MLB’s proposal, Heyman tweets. It’s in question whether the players will even make a counteroffer, Heyman and Chris Cotillo of MassLive.com hear.

10:11am: Major League Baseball presented its long-awaited economic plan to the Players Association yesterday, and the union’s reaction was predictable: extreme disappointment. As reported by ESPN’s Jeff Passan and Jesse Rogers, the sliding scale proposed to players would see the game’s league-minimum players would be paid about $262K of their would-be $563,500 salaries — roughly 46 percent (owners surely prefer to portray it as 92 percent of their prorated salaries in an 82-game season). The game’s top stars would be earning just over 22 percent of their full-season salary (44 percent of their prorated salaries). Many see the scale as an effort to create a divide within the union (lesser-paid players versus well-compensated stars).

The MLBPA is expected to reject the league’s proposal and counter in the coming days, per Passan and Rogers, with one point of compromise being a longer season. Playing more games would increase revenue available to owners and thus provide the players with a larger portion of their salaries. Interestingly, Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic report (subscription required) that the league’s sliding-scale proposal did not include the expanded postseason format that many were anticipating.

Expanding to a 14-team postseason format in 2020 would create additional revenue, and the players have previously been said to be amenable to such a schedule. Opting not to include it is strange, as the 14-team format originated with the commissioner’s office; it’s hard not to wonder if the league’s omission was an effort to make the players’ side include a league initiative in its counter, then claim it as a compromise upon accepting. Regardless of the motives at play, the timing of a counteroffer from the union is unclear. There’s no meeting between the two sides today, USA Today’s Bob Nightengale tweets, but agents, players and the union will discuss the proposal among themselves. The New York Post’s Joel Sherman writes that the two sides left yesterday’s meeting without a followup scheduled.

Players have had a wide range of reactions to the proposal, but they’re generally unified in rejecting the sliding scale structure — at least in its present form. Andrew Miller, one of eight players on the union’s executive subcommittee, told Rosenthal and Drellich that he’s “disappointed in where MLB is starting the discussion” but spoke with optimism about the possibility of finding a palatable middle ground. Mets righty Marcus Stroman tweeted yesterday, “This season is not looking promising,” while Brewers lefty Brett Anderson blasted the league for its efforts to make the game’s “best, most marketable players potentially look like the bad guys.”

Several agents spoke to Drellich and Rosenthal about player reaction to the proposal, with one indicating the “collective response” was unprecedented and that players are “livid.” Another scoffed at the very notion that MLB would present a proposal it knew would be so immediately rejected, lamenting that “there is so much distrust on both sides that we can’t be pragmatic adults.”

That distrust seems to be the core of the issue. The MLBPA has repeatedly cast substantial doubt on the league’s persistent claims that revenue losses are so substantial that this level of pay reduction is effectively a necessity. At the same time, teams have seemingly yet to provide the player side with sufficiently transparent evidence of that claim. MLB Network’s Jon Heyman tweeted late last week that an internal memo sent by the union to its players expressed frustration over the fact that Major League Baseball has still not responded to a March 13 request for financial documentation outlining the extent of revenue losses without fans in attendance. There’s no indication that has changed.

On the one hand, it’s easy to imagine that there’s a degree of legitimacy to ownership claims that additional cuts are necessary to mitigate losses in a season without gate and concession revenue. Is this extent of additional reductions in their proposal truly reflective of their economic picture, though? That seems doubtful, and the MLBPA claims it has yet to see sufficient evidence in this arena. Teams’ reluctance to open the books isn’t surprising, particularly given the manner in which both sides habitually and strategically leak “private” documents. (We’re all following along with this ugly billionaires-versus-millionaires quarrel for a reason, after all.) Perhaps the reluctance stems from the simple fact that their claims won’t be substantiated; perhaps it’s a lack of good faith that nothing will become public. Both could be factors.

Whatever the reasons, the rampant distrust displayed by both parties is increasingly unbecoming to a fanbase that is desperately craving some piece of normalcy amid a global pandemic that has created an unprecedented upheaval of everyday life. With every day that goes by, the optics of the situation deteriorate, and we inch closer to further delays of what will already be a truncated season. Both sides continue to express optimism about playing games in 2020 — Brewers owner Mark Attanasio did so yesterday, as did Miller in his comments to The Athletic — but the public back-and-forth became tired long ago.

6:01pm: Jesse Rogers of ESPN.com has more details on MLB’s proposed cuts, tweeting that a player on a $35MM salary would make roughly $7.8MM, someone at $10MM would earn in the $2.9MM vicinity and a $1MM player would pull in $434K. ESPN’s Jeff Passan has further info here.

5:00pm: “We made a proposal to the union that is completely consistent with the economic realities facing our sport. We look forward to a responsive proposal from the MLBPA,” MLB spokesman Pat Courtney stated (via Jon Heyman of MLB Network, on Twitter).

3:39pm: The MLBPA’s “very disappointed” with MLB’s proposal, Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic report (on Twitter). While the league offered to share more playoff revenue, the players still don’t feel as if they’d do well in this situation. They believe they’d still have to make “massive” additional cuts, Drellich tweets. Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times (Twitter link) adds that the two sides are also far apart on health and safety issues. The union higher-ups will hold further discussions with the players before deciding whether to continue with negotiations, according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post (via Twitter).

1:58pm: Major League Baseball owners have agreed to a revised economic plan for a shortened 2020 season and will present the proposal to the MLB Players Association today. Per USA Today’s Bob Nightengale, owners have scrapped the idea of a 50-50 revenue split and will instead suggest a sliding scale of pay reductions for players. Those with the largest guaranteed salaries would surrender the largest percentage of their salaries, while players with the smallest salaries would earn “most” of their guaranteed money, Nightengale adds.

Any league proposal figures to be met with some pushback from the players’ side. It’s hard to imagine that ownership will simply structure a reduction scale in such a fashion that players immediately accept. It’s notable in light of the early report on the proposal, too, that what constitutes “most” of a lesser-compensated player’s salary seems likely to be defined differently by owners and players.

Players, according to Travis Sawchick of FiveThirtyEight (Twitter links), have been amenable to the expanded 14-team postseason structure and are open to playing more games than in the floated 82-game schedule — both of which would create additional revenue for all parties. ESPN’s Jeff Passan suggested this morning that the MLBPA’s counter-proposal could indeed push for more than 82 games (Twitter link, with video). Deferred payments on 2020 salaries have been an oft-speculated point of compromise as well. Ownership is already deferring payouts of the signing bonuses in this year’s shortened MLB Draft.

It’s in everyone’s best interest to come to terms both on financials and health/safety guidelines as quickly as possible. The league’s longstanding hope has been for a mid-June reboot of training camps and an early-July start to the season — presumably over Independence Day weekend.

Had the initial March agreement between the two sides held up, that might well be more plausible, but that document confoundingly neglected to address what would happen should games be played in the absence of fans (or at least to address it in precise terms). As such, the MLBPA has been waiting on today’s forthcoming economic proposal for several weeks. The initial plan, the aforementioned revenue split, was rejected outright by MLBPA chief Tony Clark before the league could even formally present it.

Major League Baseball has provided the MLBPA with a 67-page document with proposed protocols for returning to play, per The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich. The document covers testing, gameplay conditions, spring training rules, intake processes, and more, an outline of which is laid out by Rosenthal and Drellich in their piece.

The “operations manual” is an important step in launching a 2020 baseball season. Obviously, the Players’ Union still must approve, the logistics for medical and auxiliary staff must be handled, facilities must be prepared, and there remains any number of blockades that might derail a return to play. Still, it appears as if Major League Baseball has done the legwork to answer many of the operational questions facing the league’s return to action.

A central topic covered in these pages appears to be continued social distancing for players. It certainly makes for an interesting “team” experience, with communal dining and any socializing beyond family members discouraged (but not, it seems, disallowed). Masks may be utilized everywhere except on the field, and players will do their best to maintain 6 feet of distance even in the dugouts, which the article explains, could extend into the stands, should the extra space be necessary. Players have begun to display their personalities with expressive shows of emotion and team celebrations more and more so in recent years (“let the kids play”), and it will certainly be interesting to see how players can continue to be themselves and form team bonds/personalities in such a restrictive social environment.

The most pertinent issues here relate to player testing, of which many protocols have been laid out, including the process for bringing players into spring training, traveling with the team, and what happens if a player does test positive for COVID-19. The league has also outlined ways to limit potential exposure and spread. The minutiae are also attended to here, with items like “Communal water and sports drink coolers/jugs are prohibited” and “Dugout phones will be disinfected after each use”. Spring Training facilities, meanwhile, will limit teams to 50 players, per Rosenthal and Drellich. It’s important to remember, too, that there is sure to be much more detail in the full document. Presumably, all the pertinent details will be released to the public once an official agreement has been reached between the league and players.

All in all, there’s a great deal of coverage here and it’s well worth reading Rosenthall and Drellich’s piece in full. As we continue to ponder the possibility of if baseball can resume in 2020, this document attempts to cover much of the territory for how play might resume. The next step will be seeing how the Players’ Union reacts to it.

Since the league shutdown in mid-March, the looming question hanging over Major League Baseball has been one of how a positive test or tests among players and coaches would be handled. Even earlier this week, as the league presented the the Players Association with a proposal to return to play, that aspect remained a critical unknown. This morning, Jared Diamond and Louise Radnofsky of the Wall Street Journal shed some light on those matters, reporting that MLB’s proposal would see players tested multiple times per week.

Major League Baseball, per the WSJ report, is confident in its ability to gain access to tens of thousands of test kits without depleting the supply available to essential frontline workers. The specifics of that arrangement aren’t clear, and detractors will surely argue that multiple tests per week for athletes, coaches, training staff and umpires could be better allocated. Granted, testing capacity is on the rise and could look markedly different by the time play resumes. Diamond and Radnofsky also write that the league will focus on acquiring primarily 24-hour tests as opposed to more immediate, rapid-result tests.

That, of course, comes with its own potential for pitfalls; an asymptomatic player, coach or umpire who tests positive would still have been in contact with others for a full day before learning of the diagnosis under that scenario. Paired with going a day or multiple days between tests, it’s not hard to envision infections spreading quickly.

Notably, Diamond and Radnofsky underline that a positive test would not result in a stoppage of play under the current proposal. Any person or persons who test positive would be immediately quarantined, while those who’d been in contact will be more closely monitored. Specifics on the protocol for contact tracing and increased or more aggressive testing in the wake of a positive test remain unknown.

With all that in mind, it’s not particularly surprising to see SNY’s Andy Martino cite an unnamed agent who states that there’s “no question” some players will opt not to play in 2020. He adds that no specific proposals on how exemptions for at-risk players would be handled — a debate that carries its own set of intricacies regarding service time and salary.

Some players with heightened risk due to underlying medical conditions have recently voiced a willingness to play, but others have been more outspoken about their concern. There are also many players with underlying conditions that aren’t public knowledge, to say nothing of family members and loved ones who could be at greater risk. Concerns figure to be prominent among coaching staffs as well, where numerous personnel are in their 60s and 70s — some with more troubling medical concerns.

Of course, there’s no situation where play resumes and the risk is wholly eliminated. The goal is to dramatically reduce the risk, and regular testing coupled with temperature checks and other regulations will work toward that end. In the Korea Baseball Organization, there’s been a ban on spitting, high fives and handshakes. Similar restrictions will likely be put in place in MLB, and although strictly enforcing them will be difficult, the players know it’s in their best interest to work to curtail those habits. USA Today’s Bob Nightengale writes that players and personnel will be discouraged from using rideshare services such as Uber and Lyft, and they’ll also be advised against signing autographs and taking pictures with fans at their hotels.

MLB is also wary of the potential for another notable wave of virus cases in the fall and winter, Nightengale adds, which is why the league ultimately scrapped a plan that would’ve seen postseason play push into December. The aim now is for an 82-game season with an expanded, 14-team postseason format that can be concluded in early November.

The health component is the most important piece of negotiations between the league and the players union — although it’s certainly not the only one. The two sides still need to reach some kind of agreement on salary, and players appear loath to accept a revenue sharing system that would represent even greater reductions than the prorated salaries to which they already agreed back in March.

2:00pm: The WBC will be pushed back to March 2023, pending the approval of the tournament board, tweets Joel Sherman of the New York Post.

12:44pm: The fifth World Baseball Classic, which had been set to take place in March 2021, has been canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and will not be played, Enrique Rojas of ESPN Deportes reports. There’s no official word on the tournament’s cancellation or when it will next take place, although Hector Gomez of Z101 Deportes in the Dominican Republic tweets that it could perhaps take place in 2023.

The 2021 WBC was slated to expand from 16 teams to 20 teams and would have taken place across three countries: the United States (Marlins Park and Chase Field), Japan (Tokyo Dome) and Taiwan (Taichung Intercontinental Stadium). Japan won the first two WBC tournaments, with the Dominican Republic taking the crown in 2013 and the United States capturing the first-place trophy in 2017.

All 16 of the entrants in 2017 were granted automatic bids this time around, while a series of qualifier tournaments comprised of teams from Panama, Nicaragua, Brazil, the Philippines, Germany, Great Britain, France, the Czech Republic, Pakistan and South Africa were slated to vie for the four newly created seeds.

Given that the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo were already pushed back a year and still remain in jeopardy even on that delayed timeline, it’s not particularly surprising to learn that the WBC won’t take place as scheduled. Still, it’s a disappointing blow for fans of the tournament. While it never reached the same levels of popularity in the United States, the WBC is wildly popular among fans in Latin American and Asian countries that participate. As Daniel Kim of MBC in South Korea tweets, the Korean team’s deep run in 2006 and 2009 helped to spur a baseball renaissance in South Korea that has led to steady growth in the KBO and increased popularity since that time.

In the United States, with a title to defend and an aggressive recruiting pitch from reigning tournament MVP Marcus Stroman that had elicited interest from the likes of Walker Buehler, Pete Alonso, Mike Clevinger and others, it’s possible we might’ve seen the strongest iteration of Team USA yet in 2021. Sadly, that no longer seems to be realistic, and WBC fans will have an indefinite wait for the next event as the organizing committee charts out a new course.