MLB’s lockout is finally over, although details regarding the late stages of collective bargaining talks are still emerging. One revelation late in the process was that the league was not only requesting that the MLBPA drop previously filed grievances against the Rays, A’s, Pirates and Marlins (which pertained to their usage of revenue-sharing funds), but also to drop a $500MM grievance filed in wake of return-to-play negotiations in the Covid-shortened 2020 season. Stephanie Apstein of Sports Illustrated reports that the MLBPA did indeed drop the 2020 grievance but did not drop the grievances against the Tampa Bay, Oakland, Pittsburgh and Miami franchises.
The now-dropped grievance pertaining to the 2020 season was filed in May 2021 and saw the union seek $500MM in total. The grievance alleged that MLB negotiated in bad faith during return-to-play negotiations and had not done everything in its power to play as many games as possible. The league originally indicated that it hoped to fast-track any subsequent proceedings so they did not impact the looming collective bargaining talks, but that clearly never came to be. The MLBPA was seeking what amounted to 20-plus games worth of retroactive pay, contending that those games could have been played had the league made its “best effort” to return to play, as had been previously agreed upon. That suit will now be put to bed, it seems.
As for the others, the initial grievances were filed in Feb. 2018, alleging that the teams had not sufficiently dedicated their revenue-sharing funds to improving the on-field product. Revenue sharing is collectively bargained, and the spirit of the issue is intended to be one of competitive balance; that is to say, those funds are technically intended to help small-market clubs keep pace with their larger-market peers. The grievances were expanded in subsequent years, as the union continued to contend that those teams were not properly utilizing those funds.
The Rays, notably, authored multiple winning seasons during that time and did put forth a fairly sizable two-year, $30MM offer to sign Charlie Morton. The other three clubs in question spent at more minimal levels and, in the cases of Pittsburgh and Miami in particular, did not enjoy the same level of on-field success. Those organizations figure to contend that said revenue-sharing funds were allocated to other important organizational measures that improve the team, even if not directly through adding to the current Major League payroll (e.g. investments in player development, analytics, international scouting and other less-tangible areas).
Precisely what the union is seeking in relief and just when the grievances might eventually be resolved — either by an arbitrator or, should commissioner Rob Manfred agree that sanctions are needed, by punishing the clubs in question — are not yet clear.
Sounds fair, though I don’t think they should win the suit against the Rays unless there’s an agreement on how that revenue sharing money needs to be spent that was violated. The Rays are smart enough to win without a huge payroll; no reason to punish that unless a contract was violated.
It has to be equal. Regardless of the team records, if the competitive balance money is supposed to go to players that means all teams.
Surprised they chose to keep that suit and drop the other one, feels like they’d have an easier time proving their case with the other lawsuit than with this one.
The other one is a non-recurring (hopefully) problem that affected everyone around the world. The one they kept is a systematic issue that largely contributed to this lockout in the first place.
Ahhh, I disagree, the owners not negotiating in good faith is a pretty major thing for them to be worried about, I’d think they’d want to nip that kind of behavior in the bud as soon as possible. I’d say that contributed as much to the lockout if not more.
30 owners insisted on dropping one suit, whereas a minority cared about the suit they can keep.
As an A’s fan, GOOD! Eff John Fisher!!! Eff Billy Beane!!! EFF MONEYBALL!!!
Makes sense. Hard to prove the owners could’ve made more games happen. At least to what I understand the legal threshold is. It was a pandemic, who knew what could happen?
Nutting being a cheapskate is well documented through plenty of publicly available resources. In this case a few others were as well.
MLB owners letting the guys pocketing their money face the music for doing so is a good thing.
The thing is, they offered an 84 game season at one point, for less than pro-rated play during 2020. So they wanted the players to play for less than their contracts called for, even after proration. So the case is by no means without merit.
I don’t get why they should get prorated salary. If the owners lose money from concessions etc…why should the players not take a loss since they own almost half the league revenue?
The 2020 grievance was problematic in the context of the pandemic. How the owners defend the grievance has a lot to do with what it’s worth to the players.
If MLB used the actual language in the March agreement which referred to the “economic feasibility” of playing games without fans, then they open themselves up to discovery as they’re basically claiming an inability to pay. All their local TV contracts could be discovered. That in itself might have more value to the players.
The other grievances will hopefully be resolved between MLB and the players, but if not, an arbitrator can also order discovery if there is a claim of inability to pay. This grievance is about spending, though. Not about discovery.
The players could potentially file more grievances almost right away against several clubs, or just add onto the existing claims.
In all of these talks, virtually nothing was done to address the lack of spending, and that’s a big fail on the part of the players. Big fail.
I sincerely hope the players win the grievances against the cheapskates. It would set a message that revenue sharing money is for payroll and form a de facto salary floor.
Nice insight on the discovery. I remember reading something to that effect. Once the owners said they couldn’t pay they might have to actually prove it. Bad move by whoever said they couldn’t pay.
That whole process completely fell off the radar. There was a hearing in September, probably a status conference, and no word of anything since.
MLB asked to expedite the process, possibly to short circuit discovery, but obviously that didn’t happen.
Maybe the players got what they wanted, or maybe they got shot down, which would make the grievance useless. We don’t know Nothing leaked, which is rare.
I sincerely hope the truth comes out and let the chips fall where they may.
Good, make these guys prove they didn’t pocket the funds.
The fans don’t need to know, but the players do. Trust is an important thing, but it has to be earned.
“The Rays, notably, authored multiple winning seasons during that time and did put forth a fairly sizable two-year, $30MM offer to sign Charlie Morton. The other three clubs in question spent at more minimal level”
(Khris Davis – APRIL 18 2019 – Signed a 2 year $33.5 million contract extension with Oakland)
Yes, but Pittsburgh’s biggest signing ever occurred 22 years ago and was Jason Kendall. Wrap your head around that and try to defend the Pirates.
Bob Nutting really needs to get the Donald Sterling treatment and be forced to sell.
He extended Marte Andrew Liranio Walker had burnet Happ for a 3 year stretch
Agreed Julio, I don’t know how in the heck ANYONE can defend Bob Nutting.
This is bad, biased reporting.
Since 2018:
A’s payroll = $358MM
Marlins payroll = $315MM
Tampa payroll = $276MM
Pirates payroll = $273MM
Until this year when the Pirates bottomed out at a $47MM payroll and the Rays had a $71MM payroll, even the Pirates were beating them and it wasn’t particularly close.
Tampa only signed Morton BECAUSE of the grievance. And then they let him walk even when he said he wanted to stay.
The Rays are more of a problem than the other teams. The Rays are famous for keeping their prospects down much too long – none of the other three teams are known for that. The Rays are famous for offering extremely team friendly deals (which is smart when it’s Longoria and maybe not great when it’s Moore), none of the other teams are known for that. The Rays (because they’re smarter) manipulate much more and game the system much more. To me, the Rays are the epitome of what’s wrong with baseball if I’m the MLBPA. The other teams just need to spend more. The Rays are borderline cheating the system (again, if I’m working for the Rays, I’m trying to do exactly this – but make no mistake, they’re taking advantage).
Not sure why the author tries to paint the Rays in a better light than the other teams. At best they’re equal. But probably the answer is they’re worse offenders than any team.
The 2020 grievance probably would have netted the players more overall money, but the grievance against the A’s, Rays, Pirates and Marlins likely has more long term repercussions for revenue sharing should it be successful.
A Cap&Floor system fixes this issue.
With that said, I’d love for the Marlins to be forced to pay more for players. As for these four teams, it’s kind of hard to take a 2020 grievance serious with these teams considering that three of them made the playoffs in 2020 – one of them nearly won the World Series.
How can anyone seriously tell the Rays that they need to spend more to win? Really?
The team grievances are from 2018. No idea why they’re not resolved by 2022, but they aren’t.
And it’s not about spending to win. Specifically, it’s about receiving revenue sharing money from the league which is supposed to be spent on payroll, and then not spending it. The Rays receive roughly $50MM a year in revenue sharing. The last 4 years their team payroll has averaged $69MM. The Rays get more than most teams.
That what all 4 grievances are about – not about winning – about accepting money they’re supposed to spend, and then not spending it.
They were allowed to spend it in ways on the team that they chose to…not necessarily payroll, but also player development, etc. The Rays have done a great job at developing players. It’s going to be hard to claim that they haven’t spent their money wisely for the organization. If the argument is payroll, they have a strong case against it. A’s will too. And the Marlins clearly have developed a stable of young pitchers.
Therefore, if it’s not about winning, then how can it be about payroll? Nobody said it had to be payroll. It was clearly understood as the teams being able to spend in their organization that they felt improved the organization. It’s going to be hard to prove that they didn’t.
They need to prove they spent $45MM to $50MM a year on player development. They have not.
The MLBPA is saying it’s about payroll. In the grievances. Don’t ask me. Ask them. If it was clearly understood, four grievances would not exist.
We’ll see how it turns out. Like I said, it’s hard to tell the Rays to spend more. I can’t imagine if their management didn’t take Snell out early, and went on to win it all. This would’ve looked even more ridiculous.
We’ll see. The grievances haven’t been dismissed – in four years – so they’re not completely baseless. And the MLBPA refused to drop them now – that probably means something. I don’t think it is hard to tell them to spend more. Are you saying the Rays don’t wish they kept Morton this past year? That likely makes them the WS favorites. $15MM in payroll could’ve made a big difference for them this year. I imagine die=hard Rays fans wish they spent to keep Morton. Would a $86MM payroll instead of the $71MM they spent kill them? No. Would it have helped them? Quite possibly.
Greedy. Sneaky. Not being as honest as can be = playing the loop holes.
Who really needs those humans who think like that. It is OK because i can?
The last time i went to a MLB game was in the early oughts. I hated how goofy is was with the noise and lights and scoreboards demanding i cheer. I hadn’t been in twenty years.
I live 2,300 miles from a MLB ball park. I am blacked out. Over 2 thousand miles and i am in the black out area? Sorry about being all over. Back to the top . . . Greedy. Sneak . . .
Wow, how are you blacked out? Are you sure they just don’t have coverage in your area? Have you tried MLB TV? I would imagine from the distance you are, you should be able to get all 30 teams with the MLB TV package.
I am glad baseball is back. Now we can talk baseball!
Go Marlins!
Bullpen needs help. Lineup may need one more tweak.
Potential lineup:
SS-Rojas
2B-Chisholm
DH-Cooper
1B-Aguilar
CF-Garcia
RF-J. Sanchez
3B-Anderson
LF-de la Cruz
C-Stallings
Utility-Wendle
Note: Lineup will change if Lewin Diaz wins the starting 1B. That most likely moves Cooper elsewhere and Aguilar to DH. Also, additional signing of a bat changes lineup for sure as well, depending on who it is.
SPs
Alcantara
Rogers
Lopez
S. Sanchez
Luzardo
Hernandez (if not traded)
Cabrera (most likely after Hernandez traded)
Bullpen: Oh my….Please make a move for a legit Closer!!! Bender and others can support that guy. Please please please move on from Bass.
Sanchez for closer, Hernandez for rotation, Cabrera and Meyers waiting for their turn. Try to trade Luzardo for any competent hitter, with low expectations.
That couldn’t hurt, but there is a mistake in your post. If we put Sanchez at Closer, Cabrera and Meyers waiting for their turn in MiLB, and trade Luzardo, we then have a 4-man staff. One of Meyer or Cabrera would need to be up or we don’t trade Luzardo.
That lineup is sad.
There should be a rule that if
You are receiving rev sharing for 5 years in a row, you either have to move to a new city or close up shop altogether
Considering that MLB has blocked out better potential owners to keep the boys club intact, the rule should be if you need revenue sharing for 5 years in a row, then sell the team to a competent billionaire.
jess:
There should be a rule for idiotic comments on here, but there isn’t.
The settlement with those four teams should be that they agree to spend significantly more in 2023.
Bob Nutting should be a hero to the boot lickers.
He makes all of the money and makes sure to give as little of it as possible to his employees.
In fact, all of those people who swore they’d watch replacement players and don’t care about watching MLB players can watch the Pirates for the same experience.
Guessing they won’t.
It makes little sense for the Pirates to spend ‘big’
When their window was open they did spend more but their team was also good with few holes to fill.
In the seasons right after NH did spend more than normal but everything failed.
In a rebuild payroll doesn’t matter. In the previous CBA there wasn’t a clause that said that had to go to payroll, so they put it back to the franchise in other ways.
That’s one reason i’d like to see more payments based on performance. especially on rookie contracts.
No one expects them to spend ‘Big’
100 mil is acceptable.
The correct decision. The February 2018 grievance against the A’s, Marlins, Pirates, and Rays accusing them of inappropriately using revenue sharing funds is important and should proceed. Even if the MLBPA doesn’t win, although I think they have a chance, what they learn during the process could help reduce tanking and force teams like the Pirates to be more competitive.
Let’s somehow see if the jackals who blame Oakland fans will spew their garbage now?