Thread by @EugeneFreedman

I want to start Monday off with dispelling a narrative I've read that the MLBPA wants major changes to the CBA as compared to MLB. I would characterize the changes proposed by each party to be (as they've been reported recently) as within the scope of the existing language. 1/

The Union is proposing to speed up the qualification for salary arbitration. This could be qualified as a major change as it would affect a significant number of players, but it's also something that was previously in the CBA in the 70s and early 80s. Plus, the parties have 2/

historically adjusted the Super-2 qualification. So adjusting it to all players with 2+ years of service time, while significant, isn't out of the scope of normal proposals. Also, in light of service time manipulation, it makes sense with their overall objective. The other 3/

My daughter missed her bus. Be back in 20

proposals related to paying players in their pre-arbitration years seem to be gaining traction with management. Although they are far apart on the funding, they seem to agree on the general concept. The other service time issues are more complicated and I don't think we have 4/

a good understanding of them publicly. The Union has also proposed reduced revenue sharing, because that money is merely used for profit, not for plowing back into the product. It also wants to deal with tanking, which is both a salary distribution issue, but it's also 5/

the biggest things the fans care about. If they know their team won't be competitive for 3-5 years (like the Orioles), what's the point in going to games or watching them on tv or even following baseball at all. That should be a joint interest because it's about growing the 6/

game.

But, unlike the one Cardinals pitcher's comments yesterday, management is not merely proposing maintaining the status quo. Because, the status quo does not include expanded playoffs. That is a management desire because of the significant television revenue that comes 7/

in each additional round of playoffs. If you recall, MLB slow rolled the 2020 restart negotiations. It wasn't until more than half of the season was lost that it became apparent that MLB was delaying things because it wanted an agreement for expanded playoffs in 2020 AND 2021. 8/

It wanted expanded playoffs to be norm heading into these negotiations. Instead, they agreed to a one year expansion and a change to a flat playoff share for players (rather than the gate receipts system that has been in effect for decades). When they were negotiating COVID 9/

protocols for 2021, MLB again pushed for expanded playoffs. Both times they actually tried to argue with a straight face that it was worth nothing more to them than adding a DH in the NL, something that both parties actually want. They have finally ceded that linkage. 10/

As we continue to frame the issues between the parties, it's always critical to note that the Union has already proposed expanded playoffs, while management has said it refuses to talk about changing the service time requirements for arbitration. Again, this is not a simple 11/

both sides are not agreeing or neither party is moving issue. It's asymmetrical.

Another asymmetrical issue is the CBT. The CBT has expired. It sunset. It went away under the expired CBA. It didn't just go away because the CBA expired. The expired CBA would be in full force 12/

and effect but for the lockout. No, the CBT actually terminated at the end of the regular season. That means any new CBT is really a new creation of the parties. Yes, it's something that they have lived with for decades now, but the Union doesn't need it. Yet, it has already 13/

proposed a new CBT structure. Management is the party that wants a CBT, yet it has proposed an increase of less than 2% for the upcoming season. Meanwhile shared revenue from national TV will increase by ~30% this year - as reported by @BizballMaury @forbes.

The Union is 14/

proposing comprehensive proposals addressing the players' interests and management's interests. Meanwhile, management is accepting as a given that it interests are going to be in the next CBA, but refusing to talk about some of the key issues the Union has put on the table. 15/

From that perspective, we cannot accept a narrative that the Union is seeking major changes to existing system. Both are seeking changes. Both have interests in seeing changes. But, a narrative that only describes the Union's changes as major and merely accepts management's 16/

is faulty.

Management cannot accept the status quo themselves. Having no CBT and no playoff expansion would be seen by the league as a terrible result from these negotiations. /end