urbanSTL

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑

Jan 31, 2021

Not to mention that this proposal gives Manfred a ton more authority to unilaterally stop the season.

This contract is subject to federal or state legislation, regulations, executive or other official orders or other governmental action, now or hereafter in effect respecting military, naval, air or other governmental service, which may directly or indirectly affect the Player, Club or League and subject also to the right of the Commissioner to suspend the operation of this contract during any national emergency during which Major League Baseball is not played.

I keep saying, and I guess I'll have to keep doing so over and over:
it is not the players who want revenue sharing, and the players’ share of revenue has not fallen over time according to the MLBPA’s own economists (spoken on the record to journalists). The MLBPA is absolutely fine with the revenue model. They are fine with MiLB players getting screwed. They are fine with limits to international free agency. They are fine with the amateur draft and slotted bonuses. All of those things funnel more money to MLB players (at the expense of non-MLB players and owners).
What they want is something that no professional athlete in the world has: fully-guaranteed long-term contracts, no matter what, with an effective salary floor but no cap, with clubs paying all expenses to stage the sport and develop the players, and salaries that rise 10% per year across the board. They’re not going to get all of those things, because no one does. But they refuse to bargain on any of them. So the owners cut where they can — FAs — as they not only allowed to do but actively incentivized by the CBA to do.
Somehow the CBA is sacred when the players want it to be, but not when they don’t. Convenient.

It also pulls up arb salaries, which are calculated relative to the MLB mean (not median)
I’m not even sure the "middle class" gets paid less now than before. Who are we talking about? Old players get paid less, because they don’t take steroids anymore so they stop being productive players earlier. And as a direct consequence of that, young players get paid a LOT more, both because of earlier extensions upping salaries in the early years, but also allowing many of them to get to FA at younger ages because they are getting called up sooner to replace the no-longer-productive vets (seriously: there have been way more 26-27 year old free agents in recent years than I can ever recall before). Everyone else probably gets paid more once adjusted for inflation.
There’s this weird dynamic where nobody wants their team to be paying Dexter Fowler $18mn as a 34 year old, but they also want the "middle class" to keep getting paid. I don’t really see how that’s supposed to work. The Dexter Fowlers of the world are the middle class.

"Why are people acting like the CBA doesn’t exist"
Because the country is still in a state of emergency, as are all 50 states and all US territories (inc DC). There is an effective travel ban into and out of Canada, and highly-restricted travel into the US as well. The CBA gives the owners rights under such circumstances… not just the players. Specifically, the owners can suspend the season at any time under a state of emergency, and under the CBA the players salaries are tied to games being played. So:
"The union doesn’t have to agree to anything to get their full season salaries"
isn’t true, and never has been true, which is why they kept negotiating last year. They need to convince the owners to play a full season, not the other way around. Which is why the MLBPA keeps emphasizing "full season", both in their negotiations and in the media: that’s a bargaining position, not a statement of rights. If that was their right they wouldn’t bother asserting it so often. Just as a reminder, here is Paragraph 11 of the Uniform Player Contract under the current CBA:

This contract is subject to federal or state legislation, regulations, executive or other official orders or other governmental action, now or hereafter in effect respecting military, naval, air or other governmental service, which may directly or indirectly affect the Player, Club or League and subject also to the right of the Commissioner to suspend the operation of this contract during any national emergency during which Major League Baseball is not played.

But even if it was true, the league could just not reschedule games postponed due to Covid (inc by local restrictions, so bye-bye to the entire Blue Jays season), and restrict salaries pro rata when that happens. Which it will. Probably a lot, especially if the season starts on time.
So the likelihood of getting a full season’s salary without some kind of concession from the players is basically zero. A slightly expanded playoff — realistically, we’re talking about a maximum of 22 extra games (total) across MLB, for which the players will also get a significant percentage of the revenue, with the owners offering to pay full salaries for 240 games from the regular schedule that now won’t be played — is the most minimal concession the owners can ask for. It isn’t even really a concession.
But if the players want to keep trying to make the owners as poor as they can I guess that’s their choice. I’ll just laugh at them when there’s a work stoppage and then a long period of declining payrolls after that happens, because it’s all so predictable. Until the MLBPA starts bargaining like partners instead of like adversaries they’re never going to get an improved situation. Every American union makes this mistake eventually, and it always makes them much weaker after it occurs.

But also, they don't want that
They want younger players to be put onto MLB rosters sooner, and they want older players to keep getting paid for longer.
If a young player isn’t graduated to the bigs at the first sign of good performance in the upper-minors then it’s "manipulation". If an old player isn’t signed to a multiyear deal then it’s "collusion". But one of them takes a roster spot away from the other one.
I honestly don’t think the MLBPA even knows what it wants. It has so many conflicting interests within its own coalition that I think they’re trying to deflect blame towards the owners for their own inability to reach consensus. That’s always a bad position to be in during a negotiation.

Yes, but marginal improvements will matter more
Right now, it doesn’t matter if you’re an 84 win team, or any total below that number. With expanded playoffs getting to 84 wins is a big deal. So teams who project from 78-84 wins (which is almost all of them) will have an incentive to add wins on the margin, thus boosting the salaries of mid-level vets and reducing tanking. More 80ish win teams and fewer 62 win teams seems like its good for the fans and the players.
Moreover, with more playoff rounds marginal advantages will more matter in terms of changed World Series odds (small percentages cumulate), so even teams that project to win 95 games will have an incentive to keep adding.
Additionally, fewer teams will have very long playoff droughts, which will help nearly all franchises maintain fan interest in perpetuity.
Lastly, winning your division will still matter, since the division-winners are the top seeds in the first round, and thus get to play every game at home. A top-seed losing in the first round will be pretty rare, as it is in other sports; a mediocre division winner losing sometimes will keep the sport spicy.