The Boston Red Sox Sunday, June 14, 2020 * The Boston Globe MLB players resigned in negotiations; owners depict them as entitled Michael Silverman In a sign of a complete communications breakdown, Major League Baseball players displayed profound frustration in rejecting the owners’ latest proposal Saturday night. Saying that their stances “have fallen upon deaf ears,” union chief Tony Clark released a statement saying “it unfortunately appears that further dialogue with the league would be futile. It’s time to get back to work. Tell us when and where.” The union and the commissioner’s office do agree that commissioner Rob Manfred has the power to mandate a 2020 season of any length. Based on prior talks, it appears Manfred probably will come up with a regular-season plan of virtually the shortest length possible, around 50 games, beginning in July and ending by late September. Presumably, the owners will agree to pay players the 100 percent prorated rate they agreed to March 26. The owners say approximately 50 games at 100 percent pay is the limit of their ability to absorb the revenue loss that will ensue from playing in front of no fans. Prior proposals of 82, 76, and the latest, 72 games, all featured guaranteed percentages that essentially mirrored what owners would pay out at 50 games. Late Saturday evening, MLB issued a rejoinder that displayed as much tension and ill will as Clark’s statement, which is saying something. MLB expressed its disappointment that “the MLBPA has chosen not to negotiate in good faith over resumption of play after MLB has made three successive proposals that would provide players, Clubs and our fans with an amicable resolution to a very difficult situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.” MLB depicted the players as an entitled lot, that their claim “to virtually all the revenue from a 2020 season played without fans is not fair to the thousands of other baseball employees that Clubs and our office are supporting financially during this very difficult 2020 season. We will evaluate the Union’s refusal to adhere to the terms of the March Agreement, and after consulting with ownership, determine the best course to bring baseball back to our fans.” Clark’s statement reiterated the union’s consistent desire to abide by the March 26 agreement and play as many games as possible. “Players agreed to billions in monetary concessions as a means to that end, and in the face of repeated media leaks and misdirection we made additional proposals to inject new revenues into the industry — proposals that would benefit the owners, players, broadcast partners, and fans alike,” the statement read. The owners did not listen, and furthermore, said Clark, “In recent days, owners have decried the supposed unprofitability of owning a baseball team and the Commissioner has repeatedly threatened to schedule a dramatically shortened season unless players agree to hundreds of millions in further concessions. “Our response has been consistent that such concessions are unwarranted, would be fundamentally unfair to players, and that our sport deserves the fullest 2020 season possible. These remain our positions today, particularly in light of new reports regarding MLB’s national television rights — information we requested from the league weeks ago but were never provided.” The rejection, while expected, is the latest example of how the sport has problems that extend well beyond how to stitch together a baseball season during a pandemic. Besides a season of dubious respectability given its length, another byproduct laid bare by the negotiations is how the relationship between the owners and players has unraveled even further, as evidenced by Clark’s statement, as well as industry sources. The deteriorating tenor and lack of movement from entrenched positions offer a concerning bellwether for next winter’s CBA negotiations, one that will serve to increase concerns of a work stoppage that could threaten the 2022 season. Attached to the owners’ third formal proposal Friday was an excoriating letter from Dan Halem, the commissioner’s office chief negotiator, to the Major League Baseball Players’ Association’s chief negotiator, Bruce Meyer. In the letter, Halem used biting sarcasm to call into question the union’s dedication to bargaining in good faith. “I acknowledge up front that I must have misinterpreted your June 6th letter,” Halem wrote to Meyer, as reported by The Athletic and ESPN. “I thought the letter reflected a willingness on the part of the Association to discuss in good faith the economics necessary for the Office of the Commissioner to waive its right under the March Agreement to resume the 2020 season only when there are, among other things, no restrictions on fan access. After reviewing the Association’s counterproposal, I stand corrected.” In the proposal embedded within the communique, the commissioner’s office offered the players a 72-game regular season where they would be paid between 70 percent (guaranteed) and 83 percent (if the postseason is completed) of their prorated 2020 salaries. The amount of guaranteed money remains approximately the same — roughly a 30 percent reduction of prorated salaries — as what was offered in the owners’ prior proposals of 82- and 76-game schedules. At the heart of the dispute is a March 26 agreement where the sides negotiated that the players would be paid 100 percent of their prorated salaries. The agreement contains a clause calling on the sides to discuss, not negotiate, in good faith alternative compensation if games are played before no fans. The union says there has been discussion of alternative compensation, but that the players are under no obligation to negotiate off of 100 percent without first being convinced by financial information from the owners, details which have not been provided. Halem went right at the union on the matter. “We are convinced that the Association has purposely failed to fulfill its obligations under the March Agreement, and has deprived the Clubs the benefit of their bargain in the March Agreement, all while continuing to enjoy the lucrative benefits the Clubs agreed to provide the Association in return,” wrote Halem according to The Athletic. “. This failure to act in good faith has caused enormous damage to the sport.” In a statement, a Players Association spokesperson offered a tart retort: “Mr. Halem’s self-serving letter is filled with inaccuracies and incomplete facts. We will respond to that and the league’s latest proposal in short order. It should not be forgotten however that even MLB admits that our March Agreement does not require players to agree to further pay cuts. Indeed, as Mr. Halem agreed in a May 18 letter to [union executive director] Tony Clark: ‘The Association is free to take the position that players are unwilling to accept further reductions.’ Pat Houlihan, MLB legal counsel, similarly acknowledged in his May 22 letter to the Players Association: ‘We agree with the Association that, under the Agreement, players are not required to accept less than their full prorated salary.’ ’’ No cracks have emerged in the players’ resolve to stick by the March 26 agreement and be paid their full prorated salaries versus share the burden with the owners for the revenue losses that would ensue by playing in front of no fans. Besides the March 26 agreement, central to the players’ stance is that they are the ones assuming the physical risks of reentering the workforce at a moment when COVID-19 is still, to varying degrees, affecting wide swaths of the country. The players are concerned that the owners are trying to divide their ranks with an eye toward hammering out a more favorable collective bargaining agreement. The current CBA expires on Dec. 1, 2021. By not abandoning hardened positions, each side is essentially flexing its approach to the next round of CBA talks. In their prior two proposals, which have gone from 114 to 89 games, the players agreed to the owners’ desire to expand the playoffs, with the number of teams to increase from the current 10 to as many as 16. The players do acknowledge that the March 26 agreement empowers Manfred to impose a schedule. Expanding the playoffs cannot be unilaterally imposed based on the current CBA. Should MLB establish a short season of approximately 50 games, the players can be expected to withdraw their support for an expanded postseason. The owners do not want the playoffs to extend into November, which is what the players’ earlier scenarios proposed. One reason is the owners’ team of experts forecast a surge in COVID-19 cases when the weather turns cooler and threaten to not allow the postseason, a rich source of revenue because of national television contracts, to be completed. Good time for baseball to try some rules changes Peter Abraham There will be a baseball season one way or another. Commissioner Rob Manfred has the power to mandate the players to return, but his preference would be to make a deal with the Players Association. The reasons for that are plentiful, starting with clearing the path for the sides to agree on a new collective bargaining agreement before the 2022 season. But Major League Baseball also needs to work with the union on rules changes, and a shortened season would be a good time to experiment. If a season is forced on them, the players are unlikely to cooperate with other matters. Some new rules are already in place. A 26-man roster was approved along with a three-batter minimum for pitchers. Position players won’t be allowed to pitch until extra innings or if a team is leading or trailing by at least six runs.