MLB finally getting around to negotiating, through deadline it set

Where the sausage is being made. (Jtesla16 / Wikipedia)

As the MLB-imposed lockout appeared destined to coast past the MLB-imposed Monday deadline that it deemed necessary to preserve Opening Day, it became abundantly clear that most of the sport’s most prominent voices stopped buying what Rob Manfred was selling long ago. Everybody lined up to kick Manfred and the owners, from Ken Rosenthal

Fans might be divided on that question, based upon their rooting interests. But they seem fairly unanimous — and aligned with the players — in their contempt for Manfred. In past labor negotiations, fans generally have been quick to blame players, viewing them as lucky to be paid at all for playing a child’s game. Many fans today, however, are well aware the owners are much wealthier than the players and part of the industry for much longer. And every time Manfred opens his mouth publicly, he only makes matters worse.

He called the lockout “defensive” when it was nothing of the sort. He said the strategy was intended to “jumpstart” negotiations, then waited 43 days to make an offer. He claimed the owners could make more in the stock market than with the resales of their clubs. He portrayed himself as a master negotiator, practically a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize, while his negotiations were going nowhere.

… to Andy McCullough

It has also become common to point out all the other avenues of diversion available to the average consumer. The streaming services. The doom-scrolling. The other sports. People like Formula 1 now, it seems.  It is easy to get diverted from baseball. And that is a shame: For all its imperfections, the game itself — nine innings, three outs, 60-feet, six inches — is perfect. The best advertisement for Major League Baseball is a big-league baseball game.

It would be great to watch one on March 31. Too bad. Looks like you can’t. The owners won’t let you. It stands to reason they won’t sacrifice an entire season. Then again, it stood to reason they wouldn’t waste a winter only to ruin a spring. It does make you wonder. If they don’t care about games in April, why should you care about games in May?

… to Jeff Passan:

Arbitration has always been a contentious process, and players were livid when they learned MLB celebrated tamping down salaries by awarding a championship belt to the team that did it best. During spring training in 2020, when MLB was reeling from widespread criticism by players that Manfred had been too soft on the Houston Astros for cheating during their championship run, he referred to the World Series trophy as a “piece of metal” in an interview with ESPN’s Karl Ravech.

“‘Piece of metal’ was the Gulf of Tonkin,” one longtime baseball man said. “It was the aha moment for everyone. And then he did it again recently with everything about how owning a team isn’t that profitable. Treating players like they’re stupid has never worked. It’s never been a great approach.”

Here’s a good column from Yahoo’s Zach Crizer, and another one at Baseball Prospectus by Marc Normandin. Even league-friendly reporters like Bob Nightengale and Buster Olney ran out of ways to spin the lack of movement toward the union. Chelsea Janes of the Washington Post ran with it in a direction that particularly intrigued me, a fan of civic institutions

… and I would’ve loved to see elaboration on that topic, but Major League Baseball appears like it actually wants the last part of its name.


As some predicted, only the deadline forced movement from the league. It remains to be seen how much ends up being a continuation of the status quo versus gains for the league or union, but the big developments include:

Postseason expansion: Major League Baseball pushed for 14 teams, while the players want to limit it to 12. Their stance makes sense, both for reasons economic (they should keep further expansion as a bargaining chit the next time around) and aesthetic (postseason expansion is stupid). The league has already sold both forms, and 14 is more than 12, so that explains that.

Minimum salaries: It seems like there might be a standoff between the size of the postseason and what pre-arb players are making.

Luxury tax penalties: According to Bob Nightengale, the league is dropping its draconian penalties for teams that exceed the competitive balance tax threshold …

… but it only makes sense if the league is willing to also raise the threshold, and that part is less clear.

And with that, I’m going to bed. I figure we can use this is an open thread for developments, following up when these elements become fixed, if it’s safe to assume they will.

Take a second to support Sox Machine on Patreon
36 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joliet Orange Sox

They have called it a night. MLB has moved their deadline to 5 pm. I am not sure if that is the deadline to avoid cancelling games or the deadline to avoid changing the deadline again.

knoxfire30

Absurd they are going to go to 14 teams, these owners will have absolutely steam rolled players if they get a 14 team playoff to sell, let alone all this does is give them every excuse in the world not to spend, 80 wins is gonna get teams in every year. Aside from deliberately tanking basically if your team is just healthy you can go 80-82… sad day for baseball they’ve completely destroyed the meaning of a 162 game season, and theyve penalized the good/great teams by forcing them into an absurd playoff structure to try and win a world series.

HallofFrank

Expanded playoffs is a win for the players, if they get the structure right. If the incentives are strong enough to get a top seed then you shouldn’t have to worry about mediocre teams being content. The difference in being a wild card and, under at least one proposal, getting a first round bye is immense.

On the flip side, an expanded playoffs helps (not the whole puzzle, but one piece) curb tanking. Mediocre, bubble teams would have more incentive to spend/try (instead of tear it down), since there’s a higher likelihood that they’ll make the playoffs. Recent examples are teams like the A’s, Cubs, and Nats (although it may be too late for them now) come to mind—I wonder if they take their current approach with an expanded playoffs? At the very least, there’s more incentive to try than before.

In an expanded playoffs, I don’t think many—if any—teams would just be content with 80-82 wins. More slots means more competition, in addition to other incentives the playoff structure might hold. I *do* think more mediocre teams would try, something like what we’ve seen the Reds and Royals done in recent years—which has become almost an anomaly.

knoxfire30

I just completely disagree. Baseball playoffs is basically a who gets hot situation… mediocre hot teams can destroy good teams that play ok… you are punishing the elite teams for winning the right to be in the postseason by winning a lot more games over 162. A team like the sox are a perfect example in a 4 team AL playoff they would probably have to improve with 7 teams getting in they can stand pat with huge holes in RF, 2nd, SP and be all but guaranteed a playoff spot. Owners have proven time and time again they are gonna take the profit and not put it back on the field.

knoxfire30

If twitter is right it seems moot, cause it looks like its gonna be 12, which I still think is too many teams getting in but its better than 14.

HallofFrank

We can both agree that owners are going to take profit and not put it back on the field, if they can help it. But I don’t think elite teams are necessarily punished, as there are ways to arguably put them in a better position than the current system (byes, picking opponents, etc.). And there are, of course, some drawbacks (I don’t love the optics), but March Madness gives a good example of a playoff structure that encourages chaos and upsets and it’s arguably the most-watched playoffs relative to the sport.

Importantly, though: my argument is *not* that this playoff system is the best for the best teams, but that it’s good for players. With a good structure, expanded playoffs should encourage more spending by (a) increasing the incentive for good teams to get better and (b) increasing competition (that is, teams actually trying to win). That *should* mean more money to Free Agents, and therefore more money in player’s pockets.

knoxfire30

You see it as “it will encourage spending” I literally think the opposite is true, when you put 14 teams in the playoffs the luck factor goes thru the roof, why spend 250 mil on an elite team when 120 mil gets you in and you have your shot to roll the dice.

soxfan

I think you’re both right. It incentives owners to raise the floor because there’s less need to bottom out to get better, but it caps the ceiling by limiting the upside of super teams.

The question is will the increase in the floor result in more net spending than the ceiling cap will reduce it. I don’t think anyone knows that which is why I think this is exactly the type of structure that should be approached carefully because of unintended consequences not unlike the service time manipulations.

HallofFrank

I really don’t think it caps the ceiling. Quite the opposite, in some cases. A first-round bye is an immense advantage in this system. In the current system, the White Sox, for example, have little incentive to spend more (unless another AL Central team really ramps up spending). They are huge favorites to win their division, and they really don’t gain much by being the 1st seed. Under expanded playoffs with a first-round bye, that’s an enormous prize to play for.

soxfan

That’s fair. It all depends on structure and incentives, but you’re right – a first round bye would be a tremendous incentive for an owner interested in championships.

snoopy369

I think this is exactly right from soxfan – more playoff teams makes it a bit less interesting to go after a superteam, but hopefully incentivizes the “do we rebuild or do we retool” teams to retool. It’s still a bit of a random walk though who makes it to even the top 14 – the “constantly retooling” White Sox of the 2008-2017 period were mostly out of the top 14 still, despite their efforts to compete, and while some of that was either bad management or bad luck, it shows the difficulty teams have of keeping even in that 80-82 win range.

Realistically, expanded playoffs are about one thing: money for the owners, which the players have to try and extract their part of. That’s why they push back on it – not because they care all that much or because they’re thinking about owners spending more or less money really, but it’s about making sure they get as much of a concession as possible for giving this win to the owners.

HallofFrank

Again, that’s only true if you have a bad structure. Under the one MLB proposed in November, the best team in each league would get a bye. The 2nd best team would get to pick who they play in a 3 game series. The 3rd best team would get to pick who they play in a 3 game series. To me, that involves less luck than the current system.

Look how it would have played out in ’21. The Rays would have gotten a bye (instead of losing in the first round). The Astros would have gotten to pick their opponent (probably Mariners, instead of playing the White Sox). And the White Sox would have gotten to pick their opponent (probably Blue Jays?). If I’m the White Sox or Astros, I’d much rather take my chance in a 3 game series vs. a worse opponent—in some cases, *much* worse.

Plus, let’s not discount the fact that expanded playoffs would allow genuinely deserving teams to make it in. In ’21, the Jays won 91 games and the M’s 90 games—neither made it. Surely, there would sometimes be undeserving teams, but this cuts both ways.

LamarHoyt_oncrack

Knox I think you are spot on, personally. You can feel Jerry envisioning the possibility of competing for a playoff spot with a 20th ranked payroll. “So you’re telling me there’s a chance!”

I think we’ve seen enough the past two years of them getting to the playoffs only because of the godawful division they were in. They are the most overhyped team in MLB while being legitimately at best the 5th or 6th best team in the AL. Maybe all owners wouldn’t spend less, but ours certainly would. I know the Braves did win last year without a high payroll, but that rarely happens. The Astros have been to the ALCS 5 straight years. Teams that build winners with owners that are willing to actually put money behind them do way better in the longer run. Hence why the ChiSox have one WS appearance since 1959, thanks mostly to Ebeneezer Reinsdorf.

roke1960

Rob Manfred is the best thing to happen to the players. His utter stupidity, arrogance or whatever it is has turned everyone against the owners. He really needs to go.

itaita

Just a passing comment about why F1 is gaining steam in the US. It has a pretty good TV deal with ESPN atm and the Drive to Survive reality show.

Its like one products owners has an interest in growing the sport cause they see the profits in it and the other owners see their sport as some detriment to their own profits.

Papa Giorgio

Crizer really skewered Manfred in that Yahoo article. When you read all the crap he’s said/done over the years all compiled in one article, it really strips away any romanticism and beauty in the sport and narrows it down to profit and greed.

Josh Nelson

No surprise on the four teams

Blow my Gload

how long does it take to rule on a grievance? And why is the answer, ‘at least 4 years’?

jmoney

I want baseball back, but the owners getting this 14 team playoff at very little expense or offering few concessions on the other issues just leads me to believe that professional players can never win a CBA dispute. Only the NBA can IMO and that’s because one player can make such a difference.

itaita

The NBAPA routinely gets washed in the CBA. Probably the 2nd weakest ahead of football.

metasox

I always thought basketball could be some kind of player-owned league. Small teams dominated by a few players, little need for much of a farm system, and ubiquitous standard sized arenas mean outside ownership should offer less value

soxfan

What if – and hear my out – the regular season is already meaningless?

We already have “Sunday lineups.” Billy Hamilton contributing on a playoff team, bastardized extra inning rules, and a revolving cast of AAAA relievers mopping up meaningless innings in meaningless games because the algorithm can tell us within a reasonable degree of certainty which teams are going to make the playoffs and which aren’t. The baseball regular season is basically a probabilistic risk analysis in the park.

When I remember 2021, I’ll remember that the White Sox made the playoffs, but I’d sooner forget the actual playoffs. Mostly I’ll remember Yermin Mercedes’ April, Jake Burger’s recovery, Lance Lynn bulldogging his way to a top-3 Cy Young finish, and Yasmani Grandal breaking OPS expectations.

2021 was a great year to be a White Sox fan, and that was validated by the playoff appearance, but the real meaning was the spectacles we saw along the way.

joewho112

I have no idea what point you are trying to make

metasox

I often just skim comments. But because of yours I actually re-read the prior one – so thanks for that. Nearest I can tell, the baseball regular season is further evidence of a simulation as it is a paradox, simultaneously meaningless and from which all fan meaning is derived.

soxfan

The results are predictable – only a few organizations build competitive teams while a lot of organizations are actively trying to lose and there’s almost no advantage to being stuck in the middle – therefore the process by which we select the postseason teams is largely meaningless and – to within a reasonable degree of certainty – could be replaced with a spreadsheet.

That said, baseball is fun to watch and the spectacle of it will be remembered after the end-of-season standings are forgotten. What was the Sox record the year Mat Albers hit an extra-inning double against the Mets? I don’t remember, but I remember the Mat Albers hitting an extra-inning double against the Mets.

Last edited 2 years ago by soxfan
metasox

I can see the point. Baseball has a disconnect in that the regular season rewards teams for winning a grueling marathon while the post-season rewards them for winning a sprint. So in that sense, the top teams are not necessarily poised to win in the post-season. As many have said, it is about who gets hot.

I feel some of the angst of rewarding successful regular season teams comes down to spending – a sense of unfairness that some small spending team shouldn’t be able to so easily overcome a big spender. If baseball had more parity in spending (and thus likely in on-field results), I don’t think people would necessarily feel so strongly about how many teams make the post-season or that the regular season seems too meaningless if more teams make the post-season

soxfan

The point I’m trying to make is a counterpoint to the opposition of expanded playoffs because it diminishes the meaning of the regular season. My point is that that complaint shouldn’t be given much credit because the regular season is already pretty meaningless. It’s too long, there are two many fringe players being relied on, and the cookie-cutter approach to team building and management brought on by the rise of analytics has made regular season results pretty predictable. It’s not until the playoffs that the heightened impact of small sample sizes, the desire to win every game, and oddball managerial strategies really come into play.

The 2016 Cubs/Indians World Series was one of the most compelling series in recent memory because the managers were so active and because the usage decisions (especially around the bullpen) were so out of the ordinary because they’d be impossible to keep up those usage trends over 162 games.

So why not expand the playoffs and see what happens when teams are forced to complete rather than play out the string

Buehrlesque

I agree there are reasons to be wary of the expanded playoffs. I really want to see the final format before critiquing it though. It seems like it’ll be 12 teams now, which likely means the top two teams from each league get a bye. That’s at least some advantage/reward for regular season success. It’s better than just a free for all of equal footing for all teams.  

phillyd

I would be okay with 14 teams if they also shortened the regular season. Won’t happen.

Buehrlesque

I’d be OK with 14 teams and a shorter season if those ghost wins were involved.

As Cirensica

I have a bad feeling. Really bad feeling.

roke1960

It looks like the owners have no intention of making a fair deal. They realized that they were being portrayed as the bad guys (and rightly so) and they tried to change that. But now they look even worse because I think everyone sees right through their charade. I hope the players have to resolve (and finances) to stick to their guns. The owners are getting just what they want. Now they will expect the players to cave. I sure hope the players hang tough.

roke1960

I just wish there was some way that the fans could organize a nationwide boycott of attending games after this charade is over. The players would still get paid, but the owners would lose all the gate revenue. I know that is not as big of a hurt as losing television revenue, but it would cause some pain to them. They are literally ruining baseball right now, and the sad part of it is I don’t think they care.

HallofFrank

Yep. It’s super frustrating. There’s really no way for fans to support the players alone. It’s also why it’s so regrettable that both sides have taken to the media to make their cases. On one hand, I get it: you want fans on your side. On the other, I don’t: it ultimately doesn’t matter which side fans take. If fans turn on either party, both parties lose.

It’s a terrible outcome for MLB. But maybe better than players getting shafted again. So let’s hope the players get the deal they’re looking for.

Trooper Galactus

Question for Rob Manfred: