Thread by @EugeneFreedman

I spent some time thinking about this overnight. It's a very curious proposal in that it relates to jobs that are outside of MLBPA's bargaining unit. Frequently unions will make proposals for minimum staffing levels, both to ensure that their members are not burning out, but 1/

https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1493400168657473541

not too high to deny their members the opportunity to work overtime (for extra money) or create a situation where there have to be rolling layoffs because of overstaffing in a downturn.

But, here, MLB is proposing something that affects minor leaguers only, not bargaining 2/

unit employees. Consequently, as I mentioned earlier in the week (See thread below) regarding minor league salaries, I believe this is a permissive subject, that either party may choose not to negotiate without a duty to bargain attached to it. 3/

https://twitter.com/EugeneFreedman/status/1492562610184757248

So, why would MLB propose limiting minor league jobs in a proposal with the union representing major league players, particularly when the union could just say "no" and management could neither insist to impasse over the subject nor unilaterally impose their last, best offer 4/

if the parties were to reach impasse over the CBA in its totality?

In a CBA that will distribute billions of dollars, why are the owners proposing to restrict something that costs them a total of $2.5M in salaries? 5/

https://twitter.com/DALLASBRADEN209/status/1493429234030632965

I actually think it's pretty complicated as to why, so bear with me on the rationale.

My theory relies on the conclusion that MLB did not lock the players out to prevent the players from playing nor did they lock the players out to put financial pressure on them to reach 6/

agreement quickly (although that might be a tangential benefit). No, they locked the players out to also lock out Steve Cohen and the Dodgers from signing more free agents during a period when the CBT is not in effect.

The CBT sunset in the last CBA and although in the 7/

absence of a lockout the terms and conditions of employment of the expired CBA continue in full force and effect, the CBT would not be one of those conditions because it explicitly expired on its own.

So, how are these two things related? MLB is trying to get agreement with 8/

the PA to reduce the maximum number of minor league players on the "domestic reserve" and the supplemental "international reserve" terms that do not appear in the current CBA as far as I can tell.

These would restrict team management from spending a few extra marginal dollars 9/

to have a larger minor league system than their competitors. It wasn't that long ago that some teams had an extra afflicted team in high-A or low-A so that they could develop more players, leading to the possibility of finding another rare gem of a major league player. 10/

But, that's no more. With MLB's takeover and contraction of the minor leagues, MLB restricted each franchise to one team at each level.

But, there are risks to doing that. What if a franchise wanted more? What about the teams/cities that lost a franchise? Could they sue to 11/

attempt to overturn the long-existing, but never quite rational anti-trust exemption that baseball and only baseball enjoys. In the absence of the anti-trust exemption, baseball would be at risk of losing lawsuits by their own owners for unfair restraint of trade. All you'd 12/

need is an Al Davis-type owner in MLB. At the present, MLB is preventing Steve Cohen or even the Rays from having extra minor league teams to prevent those teams from having a competitive advantage, either by money or by ability to develop players.

13/

But, they can do more. A CBA is an automatic exemption from the anti-trust laws. Unions and employers are free to negotiate things that violate anti-trust laws and that's okay. If the union agrees to limit the number of players entering the profession, it provides legal cover 14/

to MLB in future lawsuits (perhaps even current ones) by minor league owners who lost their franchises or will in the future. It provides cover against an Al Davis-type owner who wants to challenge the anti-trust exemption because he wants his team to gain a competitive 15/

advantage by spending more and hoarding minor league talent.

Technically the same is true about the length of the draft (unlike the NFL or NBA) players don't go directly into the bargaining unit out of the draft, so the draft is a permissive subject. Unions can negotiate 16/

barriers to entry into the bargaining unit, but in the case of the minor league MLB draft, the negotiated restrictions place restrictions outside of the BU itself. The same goes for the draft slot money restrictions.

All of these things are to restrict ownership, like the 17/

lockout itself. They are less about negotiating working conditions for the bargaining unit employees. One could say they aren't at all.

So, what if MLB could restrict owners and at the same time get legal cover protect the anti-trust exemption? That's what this proposal does.18/

Yes, this proposal is cynical. It's gross. What MLB is doing to the minor leaguers is awful. They need a union of their own. And, that's a completely separate subject.

But, MLBPA should not agree to this. They should just say "no" to this proposal. That said, they may agree 19/

to something on this subject merely to extract agreement on other matters that directly benefit their members, which is cynical in its own right. /end