The owners believe they control the schedule and can cancel games without rescheduling and refuse to pay players for games lost. The Major League Baseball Players Association believes those points are now a part of the negotiation.
“The alternative is to take a deal that we and the players feel is not a fair deal. That’s the only alternative,” union negotiator Bruce Meyer said Tuesday. “Either take a deal that the players don’t feel is fair or continue to fight. At the end of the day, as you know, it’s the league’s lockout, and they can decide to end it whenever they want. The players really don’t have a choice.”
As the lockout begins its unpleasant second phase, here’s a look at the big issues and where each side stands.
Service-time manipulation
A shortened schedule introduces fresh questions about service time, which already was a key issue in these negotiations: The more games that players miss, the longer they will have to wait to become free agents.
Before Tuesday’s announcement, the owners and players had made some progress. A new model would incentivize teams to promote capable young players to the majors by awarding draft picks to clubs, and MLB agreed to give a full year of service time to any player who finishes first or second in rookie of the year voting. But nothing about that proposal is final, and the players are skeptical that draft picks would be enough to persuade teams determined to delay the start of their young stars’ progress toward free agency.
To discourage teams from tanking to get the first pick in the following year’s draft, both sides have suggested a lottery to determine the top of the draft order. MLB’s latest proposal included a five-team lottery; the players want the first eight picks determined this way.
Owners desperately want a 14-team playoff that would squeeze top dollar out of their television partners. But the players worry such postseason expansion would dampen, rather than encourage, teams’ willingness to pay to improve their rosters: Why sign a free agent who might be worth a few extra wins if you probably will qualify for the playoffs anyway?
Max Scherzer, a member of the union’s executive subcommittee and a star pitcher now with the New York Mets, said Tuesday that the players were willing to entertain a 14-team playoff if it included enough incentives for teams to try to win their divisions. Scherzer said the players suggested a format that addressed those concerns, but the owners didn’t accept it.
Minimum salaries, bonus pool
One of the union’s stated goals was to increase the percentage of payroll given to younger players. MLB’s latest proposal was for a minimum salary of $700,000 for all players who have yet to reach arbitration, along with the ability for players to negotiate higher salaries with their clubs. The minimum salary in 2021 was $570,500.
The owners also agreed to the union’s suggestion of a pre-arbitration bonus pool to reward high-performing young players. But the sides never got close on how big that bonus pool should be. At last check, the owners had proposed $30 million, while the players were at $85 million.
The competitive balance tax (or luxury tax) thresholds continue to be a major sticking point. Teams with annual payrolls that exceed this figure must pay a tax on the amount they go over, with increased penalties for those that exceed the threshold in consecutive years.
The owners argue a higher threshold allows high-revenue teams to outspend small-market ones, therefore reducing parity in the sport. The players argue the owners are treating that number as a salary cap rather than what they believe it should be: a check on runaway spending. They say the higher the threshold is, the more money that teams will commit to free agents to remain competitive.
MLB’s most recent proposal called for that threshold to be set at $220 million in 2022 and increase to $230 million by the end of the five-year deal. The players’ latest offer was $238 million in 2022, with that growing to $263 million by the last year of the agreement. The 2021 number was $210 million.
At last check, the union had dropped its proposal to change the revenue-sharing system by which small-market owners receive money from big-market teams each year to level the financial playing field. MLB argued that revenue sharing is an owner-created structure that does not have to be collectively bargained. The players had proposed a process by which small-market teams that improved their local revenue would be rewarded with greater revenue sharing.
The players initially asked to expand salary arbitration to all two-year players, a proposal the owners rejected entirely. The union’s willingness to drop it appeared to be a sign of progress as talks went beyond Monday night and into Tuesday morning.
But while the players saw that as a major concession, the owners argued that it was never a possibility. With negotiations now off, the first two series of the season canceled and the future uncertain, it remains to be seen whether the issue is raised again.