One industry source lamented the state of the game hours before the negotiation teams of the players and owners met Thursday. The source noted that each side was angry and entrenched. Everyone is painted into a corner.
With the sport seemingly headed for at least some downtime, there is plenty of room for reflection, and now is a great time for everyone involved to ask themselves hard questions about how they contributed to a toxic working relationship, and what they can do to change it.
1. We can't focus on the bigger picture. The owners should be able to free themselves from the incrementalism of their sport because of their extraordinary wealth. Some of the owners have made small-minded decisions over the past couple of years, such as when the Oakland Athletics proposed to cut the salaries of their minor leaguers from $400 to $300 a week.
Even if the owners prevail in a long-term standoff with the players and end up with a slightly bigger pile of money, their product would be damaged, perhaps irreparably. Some fans would stay away for a long time. The owners need the players to be on board to build the sport.
The revenue the owners might sacrifice with a concession in the competitive balance tax would be more than offset by MLB growth.
2. Why are we trying to protect the system? The Baltimore Orioles have decided that it is better to cut their payroll to nothing, lose and pretend that they are selling a major league product. Is this really that different from the actions of players on the 1919 Chicago White Sox, who chose to take money over integrity and tanked the World Series?
The point of steadfast losing is to build a farm system full of top draft picks. The best, most exciting players are held in the minor leagues long past the time when they should be promoted, just for the sake of financial advantage, because MLB fosters a dynamic in which the best, most exciting players are held in the minor leagues long past the time when they should be promoted Kris Bryant and Jarred Kelenic are the most famous examples, but there is another in Baltimore, Adley Rutschman, who has been the Orioles best catcher for a long time.
These behaviors are not good for baseball. The owners should be as focused on ending them as the players are. Some agents and club executives laughed at the idea that the draft lottery would force teams to spend.
3. Where is the leadership? It is easy to imagine the leaders of big-market teams watching the shutdown with incredulity, because not everyone among the owners agrees privately with how these negotiations have played out. Will anyone among the dissenters speak up?
In the spring of 1995, with the players strike still going on, management created an absurd plan to sell teams on replacement players as a big league product. The ridiculous ploy was refused by Orioles owner Peter Angelos. He wanted to protect his organization's most significant asset, Cal Ripken Jr.'s consecutive game streak, and he recognized how hypocritical he would be. Angelos was willing to take a stand in that moment, and that undercut folly that should have never been attempted.
Baseball needs someone willing to stand outside the flock.
The cancellation of games resulted in a delayed start to the MLB season.
1. What happened to relationship building? During his time as commissioner, he talked about wanting to forge relationships with individual players. Through this labor mess he has fallen short. He needs to connect with the players better after the next labor deal is made. There is a strong perception among players that the people who work on the negotiating team don't care about the players at all. If he can, he needs to hit that head on. He cannot allow his frustration with the union leadership to affect his conversations with players. Less golf and more time in the batting cages might be the result.
He needs to build a group that is more diverse. During the Nine days of Almost Nothing in Florida, all of the people walking across the compound were white. That needs to change.
2. I can't let anything go. He needs a thicker skin. He needs to know that the criticism he gets isn't always personal. The players who attack him on social media are going after the person who sits in his place as the chief lawyer for those with real power, the owners who steer and dictate policies. Other Commissioners have learned that absorbing frustration is just part of the job. Every time Roger Goodell steps to the microphone, he gets booed. It is the way it goes.
But whether it was the player reaction or the media coverage, he can't seem to let it go. On Tuesday, in the midst of a devastating pivot point in baseball history, he was prickly in response to a question posed by Ken Davidoff of the New York Post. Davidoff is retiring from baseball coverage, and as he began to answer his question, he made a reference to Davidoff's past criticisms of him, and said with sarcasm that he will really miss the writer. The reaction was odd given the gravity of the moment. He needs to do better.
3. Why are we making this harder than it needs to be? No matter what happens, Manfred needs to make sure everyone on his side of the aisle keeps their competitive instincts in check for the sake of the sport. The players saw the wipeout of the negotiation for the owners in the aftermath of the 2016 labor deal. The fact that someone under the umbrella created a championship belt to celebrate success was not necessary. It was fun for baseball executives, but it made the players angry and made them think of a bat flip. It is important for everyone around him to know that it is better to be successful or fail.
1. How much ground can we make up? If you think that the buck stops with the leader, then the awful results of the 2016CBA talks for the players will fall on Clark. Clark made choices in those negotiations that caused the enormous loss of financial growth. Clark lost the ground the players are fighting to win back. Clark is not certain if he has fully owned that failure. He put the onus on the owners.
An oral history of the 1994 MLB strike. Tim Kurkjian.
If the owners move substantively and a better deal comes within reach, Clark, now working alongside Bruce Meyer, might want to admit his own mistakes and advise the players that what is on the table represents a suitable improvement. It might take 15 years or more to get back to where you were before. You cannot expect to get it all back at once.
2. Why did we not start this sooner? In the months leading up to the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the late union leader Michael Weiner worked through the complicated puzzles. Clark has taken a different approach in the past two negotiations, waiting and waiting before diving into the core issues.
The players are angry about the tactics of the owners. Is it possible the union would be better served by an engagement like that? Is the business relationship going to be improved by more consistent dialogue?
1. Who are we fighting for? The executive committee needs to assess whether there is a better way to get money into the hands of the middle class in the union, with negotiations between the two sides stalling.
The average middle-class free-agent contract has fallen by almost half in the last few years, from $11.8 million in 2014 to $6.2 million last winter. The group who will pay the most for the lost revenues of the owners will be veterans who are not stars.
The pool of money being negotiated to reward young stars won't necessarily help these players. Some agents and club executives agree that teams will continue to non-tender eligible players, which will only grow the free-agent pool, and the bonus money will go to the highest tier of young players.
The leadership of the union has maintained that it will never agree to a salary cap or a design that restricts what a player can make. Some agents note that the principle might not serve the interests of the rank and file.
The NBA union seems to think that it is too late for the players to propose a system that serves the interests of all tiers of players. The union has changed its stance before. Drug testing was rejected by the union leadership in the 1990s because of the principle of privacy rights. In the face of rampant performance-enhancing drug use, players convinced union leadership that the old stance didn't protect the interests of those who wanted to remain clean. The players wanted to be tested so that they didn't have to take drugs. The first drug testing program was agreed to by the union.
The middle-class players are losing ground as the highest-paid players are doing great. They need help in the future.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
