It's really an early market. The lockout tactic is making this happen. It's really the opposite of what it was intended to do. It was supposed to whipsaw the players who didn't have contracts, so that they put pressure on the Union to make a deal. But, so many players are 1/
signing early - those near the top and many in the middle of the market, that it is both protecting them long-term, and fixing club expenditures for 2022 ahead of the new CBA. The very top FA players won't have anything to worry about. They will get their big contracts for 2/
long terms regardless of what the CBA provides. Correa and Seager and Freeman have nothing to worry about. The guys who will have trouble signing will have the same trouble regardless. The extensions for guys like Buxton and Franco also take the new CBA out of the discussion. 3/
Different CBT, no issue. Different FA compensation rules, no issue. These are two middle payroll teams laying out long-term deals. They don't care what the future brings. I suspect they know that the new CBA will be closer to the current CBA than any proposal MLB has briefed 4/
them on or told them about where they want to wind up. I'm not saying there won't be changes. There will be changes, but the CBT threshold will likely go up (it definitely won't go down). FA will be nearly the same. Maybe a different eligibility, but not 29 1/2. Close to 6 5/
seasons of service time. The arbitration rules may change a bit around the fringes, but it will likely be years 2+-FA. It won't be a formula and percentage pay based on some "perfect" number. It will be built on comps and salary growth. Club compensation for FA losses will 6/
exist in all likelihood, but they won't be as severe as they are now for the majority of players. Neither clubs nor players like that, as much as it may hold down player values. It doesn't work for anyone as it is, except for a grand scale suppression of salaries. On an 7/
individual club basis it doesn't work when you want to sign a FA, unless they are a star. You won't read about it publicly, but the clubs are not happy with long rebuilds of their competitors who just pocket revenue sharing money in the meanwhile.

Anyway, this is a long 8/
thread to say that the individual clubs are on to the BS of a lockout as much as many of us on BaseballTwitter. And, the clubs have taken a lot of the air out of the balloon already. There will be even more signings over the next few days. Manfred has to be really upset. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with (((EugeneFreedman)))

(((EugeneFreedman))) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EugeneFreedman

13 Feb
This NYT interview with Dr. Fauci blows the biggest hole possible in @Ken_Rosenthal's reporting from 10 days ago. 1/…
In his article, @Ken_Rosenthal wrote, "The union, by scheduling its own discussion with the same officials for a later date, avoided hearing what the government representatives suggested to MLB, according to sources: a one-month delay, with the idea of getting players..." 2/
"in time to start the season."

Within a day or two the Union had its own meeting with government officials. That was already reported, although perhaps not as widely as the original pieces claiming the Union didn't want to talk to government officials. In a previous thread 3/
Read 13 tweets
7 Feb
In this article, Buster makes management's case for why the Union and players should want what management wants. It's a very weird way of presenting things. It pretends that this is not a management initiated objective. It pretends that the Union hasn't rejected it repeatedly 1/
But, rather than state the obvious - management really, really, really wants expanded playoffs, it goes through management's reasons (maybe Buster came up with them himself, but more likely they were fed to him by a management official) why it thinks expanded playoffs are such 2/
a great deal for players and the Union.

Obviously, management is holding on to hope that their objective to expand playoffs will still be accepted. It has been rejected twice because it is the major leverage the Union has for negotiations over the next CBA. 3/
Read 29 tweets
2 Feb
I made a mistake in the risk of the potential unilateral implementation in my thread last night. I do my best to get these things right when I make my long, impromptu threads. When I make mistakes of law, I seek to correct them. Here's the correction, as appended tot he original.
Someone asked me to explain this further. So, I'll try. In most bargaining there are duties and the parties cannot withdraw from negotiations. This applies in term contract (CBA) negotiations over mandatory subjects, mid-term bargaining subject to a CBA's reopener clause, and
mid-term bargaining over subjects not covered by the CBA. However, in this case, the mid-term bargaining is over matters already covered by the CBA. That means they can only be negotiated if both parties voluntarily agree to negotiate. In this rare instance, either party can
Read 7 tweets
2 Feb
I can't retweet Jon Heyman's tweets related to his incredulity that the MLBPA did not make a counter offer, but I can explain why, under labor law, they didn't. (He blocked me) That said, a lack of education on a subject should never preclude taking a position.

The parties 1/
have an agreement. It's called the CBA. It lays out all of the responsibilities of the parties, including the reporting dates for spring training, the start of the season, number of games, salary payment process, league rules, players' playoff share, and all other wages, hours 2/
and terms and conditions of employment. The duty to bargain is based on reciprocal requirements over mandatory subjects. Those mandatory subjects are all contained in the CBA. It is a permissive subject (meaning voluntary) to negotiate certain other things. One of those 3/
Read 18 tweets
1 Feb
Has anyone actually read FLRA caselaw?

"And once the agreements take effect, they purport to “irrevocably” block the government’s ability to challenge anything about the concessions to the ICE union for the next eight years."

This is completely wrong. 1/x
Under FLRA law, an agency can refuse to implement a "non-negotiable" provision at any time. Non-negotiable is a term of art in federal sector labor relations. It means a provision that if a provision of a proposal or implemented CBA directly interferes with management rights 2/
defined in 5 USC 7106, it can be invalidated. If an agency declares a provision non-negotiable during the term of the CBA, the burden is on the Union to enforce the provision, meanwhile, the CBA operates in the absence of the provision. The FLRA applies the same standard 3/
Read 5 tweets
31 Jan
Let's discuss this "proposal." MLB is proposing to pay employees exactly what they are entitled to under the season, but shorten their work schedule by ~5%. That's essentially a 5% raise. It moves the dates, which is essentially a push, although take note, MLB was unwilling 1/
to extend the dates of thee playoffs last season because of their TV contracts. It would seem that those TV schedules are no longer untouchable.

And, here's the kicker-expanded playoffs. This is a unilateral desire by management. MLB has wanted expanded playoffs for several 2/
years. It proposed them last year, reaching agreement, but only for one season. The MLBPA proposed splitting the TV revenue increases as part of the players' share of playoff money and MLB balked. That's why the deal was only for one year.

This remains the primary driver of 3/
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!