Headlines

Go To Pro Hockey Rumors
Go To Hoops Rumors

MLBPA

MLB Playoff Field Expands To 16 Teams For 2020 Season

By | at

6:58pm: MLB has officially announced the 16-team playoff format and best-of-three Wild Card Series for 2020.

4:36pm: The league’s owners have ratified the agreement, Sherman tweets. Sixteen teams will make the playoffs this season.

3:27pm: ESPN’s Buster Olney reports that the top two teams in each division will qualify for the postseason under this format. The seventh and eighth teams in each league will be chosen based on the best overall records of the remaining teams. The Athletic’s Jayson Stark adds that all three first-round games of a series would be played at the higher seed’s home park, thus eliminating the need for a travel day.

3:00pm: Just hours before the first pitch of the 2020 season, Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association have reached an agreement on an expanded postseason field. ESPN’s Marly Rivera reports that the union has agreed to the proposal, which now needs only to be ratified by the owners. Joel Sherman of the New York Post suggests that will indeed happen (Twitter link), and USA Today’s Bob Nightengale tweets that there’ll be 16 teams as well as a best-of-three first round series (rather than a sudden-death Wild Card setting). The agreement covers only the 2020 season, per both Rivera and Sherman.

The postseason expansion comes with a $50MM player pool for the players, Nightengale further reports. That’s particularly notable given that in a traditional season, player postseason shares are derived solely from gate revenue and not from television ratings. Previous estimates on additional television revenue in an expanded postseason field suggested between $200-300MM could be generated by expanding to 16 teams, and ownership has agreed to share some of that windfall with the players’ side.

The potential ramifications here are broad reaching. It’s easy to envision this serving as a litmus test of sorts for future postseason expansion. The league has previously sought to push to 14 to 16 teams due to that considerable added revenue — the aforementioned revenue boost referenced only television money — and introducing it as a sort of experiment in an already anomalous season is perhaps a more palatable way of normalizing the change.

From a team vantage point, the impact this has on the trade deadline could be enormous. There have been plenty of questions regarding just how much clubs will be willing to surrender in order to acquire rental players in a 60-game season — particularly if the likeliest postseason scenario included a sudden-death Wild Card game. Now, clubs will at least be assured of a three-game series. Paired with the expanded number of fringe contenders a six-team expansion of the field, that could embolden some teams to be more aggressive buyers.

The greater number of postseason clubs not only widens the field of potential buyers but also narrows how many teams will be pure sellers. That could serve to up the demand for the trade assets on the few teams who are committed to selling off pieces. And it could lead to some dramatic last-minute decisions for teams that are on the cusp. Today’s brand of methodical, analytical GMs don’t make the emotional and even irrational plunges into transactions that once proliferated deadline season, but there’s a good chance we’ll again see some creative swaps of unexpected players. Complicated three-team trades have become prominent in recent years, and a radical change to the playoff format should only encourage creativity.

And what of the teams with trade candidates who have multiple seasons of club control remaining? At a time when clubs are reluctant to part with high-end talent to acquire 30-some games of a rental, a player controlled into 2021, 2022 or beyond becomes eminently more appealing. Matthew Boyd, Caleb Smith, Jon Gray, Francisco Lindor, Nolan Arenado and other controllable names who’ve been kicked about the rumor circuit in recent years will again be in demand. Depending on the status of those players’ teams at the halfway point of the season, the motivation to make a deal could increase. It’s worth reminding that only players in a team’s 60-man pool can be traded, so there are some clear restrictions in play, but the ripple effect here could be considerable.

Updates On Coronavirus Results, Testing Sites, Procedures

By | at

MLB and the MLBPA released the results of their initial intake testing this morning via a press release. Through July 9th, there have been 66 positive tests out of 3,748 samples. 58 of the positives were players, while the other 8 were staff members. Only 3 clubs did not have any instances of positive tests.

Teams have now moved into the monitoring phase of testing. With monitoring now underway, the new totals have 83 positive tests from a total 11,149 samples (0.7%). Not included in the press release was the total number of individuals tested. Players and staff alike are being tested multiple times, and while it’s good to see such a low positive results rate, given the way this virus spreads, it would be apropos to know the total number of individuals being tested to get a sense of how much of the population is testing positive. The process, of course, is a work in progress. Here’s the latest from the MLB’s attempts to tackle the coronavirus pandemic…

  • A number of teams had to shift their plans as test results have come in slower than anticipated. This garnered criticism from some players – notably Kris Bryant – and prompted MLB to look for a second site. Needless to say, timing is key with these tests, and any testing backlog threatens the system the sport established to protect player and staff safety.  MLB has secured a second site for testing, per The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal. Rosenthal provides this quote from a league spokesperson: “This decision was not made because the Utah lab cannot handle all of the testing taking place. No clinical laboratory will process samples faster than the Utah laboratory. This decision by the Utah lab was a business decision to ensure continuity of results reporting and to make sure that MLB’s COVID-19 testing program is not interrupted for any reason.”  The Utah-based lab that MLB uses as its primary testing site subcontracted its additional venue at Rutgers University. All of the results will continue to come from the Utah site even though a portion of the testing will be diverted to the Rutgers location.
  • Major League Baseball recently chartered two flights from the Dominican Republic to Miami to bring players and staff members stateside for the start of Spring Training 2.0. But players and staff weren’t tested for coronavirus before boarding the planes, and even though passengers wore masks and socially distanced on board, players on both planes tested positive during intake testing, per Jesse Dougherty of the Washington Post. Over 160 people were present on the two flights. A number of Washington Nationals players present on these flights tests positive, though they were asymptomatic. MLB says it was protecting the Dominican healthcare system, trying not to divert their resources. Still, considering the dangers of the virus, to board those two planes without testing is a little fast and loose for an organization with such deep pockets like Major League Baseball. If they are truly committed to this reboot, instances like this don’t present the best optics.

Latest On Training Facilities, Health Concerns, Potential Rule Changes

By | at

Decisions are looming for MLB and the MLBPA regarding a potential 2020 season. The distribution of revenue, salary amounts for players, and the length of the season have been the most publicly controversial topics, but there is a myriad of other negotiating points that could change the game in 2020.

For starters, the league and players are reportedly agreed on changing the format of extra-inning games for the 2020 season. They would adopt the minor league rules that received a trial starting in 2018, per USA Today’s Bob Nightengale. In extras, each team would start with a runner on second base (the batter who made the last out in the previous inning). This should press the action and help avoid ties taking games deep into the night. That runner would count as an unearned run for the pitcher, going down in the scorebooks as if the batter reached on an error. Regardless of whether or not they decide to allow for ties, rules will revert to traditional extra-inning rules for the start of the postseason.

Even bigger than revenue sharing or rule changes, however, are the health conditions facing players. Yesterday represented a step back as news broke of players at multiple MLB facilities with confirmed COVID-19 exposure (stories from Angels, Phillies, Blue Jays, Astros, and Giants).

This underscores a concern for players, who are seeking additional protections for players. It’s been agreed upon that high-risk players can elect to skip the 2020 season with full pay and service time, but the players’ union are looking to get those protections extended to players with high-risk family members as well, tweets MLB Network’s Jon Heyman. Any player can choose to opt-out of the season, but as of right now, unless a player qualifies as high risk, they would forfeit their right to accrue service time or collect a paycheck.

For now, all thirty teams have shut down their training facilities for cleaning, per Bill Shaikin of the LA Times. Given the cases of coronavirus that were revealed yesterday (including 11 NHL players), it’s certainly the prudent call to shut down the facilities to reboot (and disinfect). Clearly, the negotiations between the league and players become moot if they can’t establish a clean and safe environment.

The sport has taken a lot of heat for the contentious nature of the debate between owners and players, but if owners can’t guarantee the safety of players, and if players can’t do their part to stay as safe as possible, a lot of time and money will have been wasted trying to get the game back on track.

MLBPA Rejects Latest League Proposal For 2020 Season; No Counter-Proposal Planned

By | at

10:46PM: Correcting an earlier report, USA Today Bob Nightengale tweets that there won’t be any counter-offer from the league to the players.

9:12PM: Major League Baseball has also released a statement in regards to today’s news…

We are disappointed that the MLBPA has chosen not to negotiate in good faith over resumption of play after MLB has made three successive proposals that would provide players, Clubs and our fans with an amicable resolution to a very difficult situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.  The MLBPA understands that the agreement reached on March 26th was premised on the parties’ mutual understanding that the players would be paid their full salaries only if play resumed in front of fans, and that another negotiation was to take place if Clubs could not generate the billions of dollars of ticket revenue required to pay players.  The MLBPA’s position that players are entitled to virtually all the revenue from a 2020 season played without fans is not fair to the thousands of other baseball employees that Clubs and our office are supporting financially during this very difficult 2020 season.  We will evaluate the Union’s refusal to adhere to the terms of the March Agreement, and after consulting with ownership, determine the best course to bring baseball back to our fans.

6:23PM: As expected, the MLB Players Association has turned down the owners’ latest proposal for the 2020 season, ESPN.com’s Jeff Passan reports (Twitter link).  No counter offer is coming, as MLBPA executive director Tony Clark indicated in a public statement that players will now turn their attention towards preparing for whatever type of regular season Commissioner Rob Manfred decides to impose.

The rest of Clark’s statement…

Players want to play.  It’s who we are and what we do.  Since March, the Association has made it clear that our No.1 focus is playing the fullest season possible, as soon as possible, as safely as possible.  Players agreed to billions in monetary concessions as a means to that end, and in the face of repeated media leaks and misdirection we made additional proposals to inject new revenues into the industry — proposals that would benefit the owners, players, broadcast partners, and fans alike.

“It’s now become apparent that these efforts have fallen upon deaf ears.  In recent days, owners have decried the supposed unprofitability of owning a baseball team and the Commissioner has repeatedly threatened to schedule a dramatically shortened season unless players agree to hundreds of millions in further concessions.  Our response has been consistent that such concessions are unwarranted, would be fundamentally unfair to players, and that our sport deserves the fullest 2020 season possible.  These remain our positions today, particularly in light of new reports regarding MLB’s national television rights — information we requested from the league weeks ago but were never provided.

As a result, it unfortunately appears that further dialogue with the league would be futile. It’s time to get back to work. Tell us when and where.

As definitive as Clark’s statement is, more last-second negotiations between the two sides can’t be entirely ruled out.  (After all, the owners allegedly weren’t planning to make any further counters after an earlier offer in June, though the two sides continued to swap proposals after that so-called final offer.)  Barring an eleventh-hour breakthrough, however, it appears as though there won’t be any agreement to begin the 2020 season under conditions that both the union and the league could at least tolerate, if not fully embrace.  As such, Manfred can now make a unilateral decision about the length of the 2020 regular season, as was decided back in March in the initial agreement between Major League Baseball and the MLBPA about how to proceed in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The league’s most recent proposal offered the players a 72-game regular season and 70 percent of their prorated salaries, with the prorated salary number jumping to 83 percent if the postseason was completed in its entirety.  While the offer contained several other details, it’s clear that the issue of prorated salary was the main sticking point, as the MLBPA has steadfastly maintained that they were owed their full share of prorated salaries, as per their interpretation of the now infamously vague March agreement.  Owners, by contrast, have insisted that paying these full prorated salaries would create too much of a financial burden (over $4 billion in losses, by the league’s calculations) given that these games are expected to be played without any fans in attendance.

To say these negotiations haven’t gone smoothly is an understatement.  There has been quite the public war of words between players, owners, and league and union officials in the last several weeks, ranging from social media barbs to controversial interviews to increasingly pointed communiques between the two sides.  None of this back-and-forth has seemingly brought the league and players any closer to a deal, and has largely served only as a PR battle that has brought a ton of public criticism directed at both parties.

As per earlier offers from the league, Manfred could wind up imposing a regular season of roughly 50 games — reportedly all the owners can financially manage given the MLBPA’s insistence on full prorated salaries.  According to The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal (Twitter link), the union wants to see the league’s plans for beginning the season by Monday, as per a letter from union negotiator Bruce Meyer to deputy commissioner Dan Halem.

Should the league’s plans indeed come so quickly, we could be on track for baseball’s return by roughly mid-July, factoring in time for players to ramp up their preparation in a “Spring Training 2.0” camp before beginning what will surely be the strangest season in baseball’s long history.  Even beyond such details as the formats of the regular season and postseason, roster construction, transactions, etc., there is also the looming spectre of COVID-19, and how the league will implement health and safety procedures to best protect players, coaches, staff, and other involved parties.

Details On MLBPA’s Position Heading Into League’s Season Proposal

By | at

Major League Baseball is expected to soon present the MLB Players Association with a proposed format for a shortened 2020 season, with the proposal coming perhaps as early as Tuesday.  Though the owners’ reported desire to ask for a further reduction in player salaries is expected to be the major negotiation point (or roadblock) in any proposal, we have also heard that health and safety are naturally the largest concerns on the players’ minds given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The Cardinals’ Andrew Miller and the Yankees’ Chris Iannetta (both members of the MLBPA executive board) recently went into further detail about these concerns in a chat with ESPN.com’s Jesse Rogers.  As Miller put it, “I don’t think anything can be done” until a concrete plan is put forth about how players, coaches, clubhouse members, and others can be protected from the threat of coronavirus infection.

“We want to put a good product on the field, but that’s totally secondary to the health of the players,” Miller said.  “We are generally younger and healthier, but that doesn’t mean our staff is, that doesn’t mean the umpires are going to be in the clear.  It’s not hard to get one degree of separation away from players who have kids who may have conditions, or other family members that live with them.”

The health question ties into the revenue question.  The owners’ reported argument for a further reduction in player salaries is that teams are facing a massive revenue shortfall by playing games without any fans in attendance at ballparks.  However, Iannetta argues that players, coaches, and staffers face “an intrinsic risk” by coming together to play games, “and we should get fairly compensated for taking that risk for the betterment of the game and the betterment of the owners who stand to make a huge profit off the game.”

It should be noted that players have already agreed to give up a substantial portion of their 2020 salaries.  Under the terms of the original agreement made in March between the league and the players’ union, players received a $170MM lump sum to be paid out over April and May, with different amount going to players based on service time and contract status.  The most any player could have received is roughly $300K, the total going to players on guaranteed MLB contracts or players who had become eligible for salary arbitration.

The $170MM would be the only money received by players if the 2020 is canceled, though if games are played, the $170MM would then become an advance on players’ actual salaries, which would then be prorated based on the number of games played.  To use Miller himself as an example, if an 81-game schedule takes place, he would receive roughly half of his $11.5MM salary for the 2020 season.  So if owners push for an even larger salary reduction, Miller would lose even more than the $6.25MM he has already lost to the coronavirus shutdown.

The MLBPA’s stance is that the March agreement settled the matter of 2020 salaries, which the league disputes due to clause in the agreement that (depending on your interpretation) may or may not open the door to further negotiation based on the likelihood that games will be played without fans.  While teams will undoubtedly take a major hit from the loss of ticket sales, concession sales, parking, and other revenue tied to having fans attend ballgames in person, there will still be revenue coming to the league and the 30 individual teams via TV and broadcast contracts.  Miller also made the point that player salaries “are not tied to revenue in any way.  If the owners hit a home run [with a new revenue stream] and make more money, we don’t go back and ask for more on our end.”

It remains to be seen how this issue will be resolved, or if it will necessarily be as big of a stumbling block as it appears to be at this juncture.  As Joel Sherman of the New York Post points out, the general public won’t look kindly on the possibility of a financial argument scuttling a possible 2020 season.  Sherman also suggested a potential answer to the salary question, which is simply to defer owed salaries into future seasons.  This is similar to how the league will pay out bonuses to prospects taken in this year’s amateur draft, though obviously we’re talking a much higher overall dollar figure when it comes to big league contracts.

Quick Hits: Draft, Player Salaries, Blue Jays

By | at

Some items from around the sport…

  • The league’s decision to limit this year’s amateur draft to five rounds is explored by The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal (subscription required), who notes that the players’ union turned down a proposal from MLB to have a ten-round draft, with the signing bonuses attached to the picks in rounds 6-10 reduced to half of their usual value.  The gap between the cost of full bonuses and half-bonuses was relatively minor, only around $500K per team, yet the MLBPA “did not want to set the precedent of altering the March deal, knowing the league will likely seek a similar opening next week and ask for additional sacrifices.”  This is in reference to the public discord that has already taken place between MLB and the union about the possibility of reduced player salaries should the season begin without any fans in attendance.
  • Speaking of salaries, ESPN.com’s Buster Olney points out that some players managed to avoid the financial crunch that most of the players around baseball will face under the terms of the March agreement between the league and the MLBPA.  Those with deferred contracts will take less of a financial hit in 2020 since they’ll be getting their money down the road, while other players (i.e. Dellin Betances) who had up-front signing bonuses in their contracts have already received those full payments.  Zack Cozart will receive the full $12.167MM salary owed to him in 2020 since the Giants released him in January, whereas Cozart would have had his salary greatly reduced had he still been on San Francisco’s roster at the time of the shutdown.
  • While nothing has been decided about the location of any possible 2020 games for any team, restrictions on the Canada/U.S. border adds another layer of difficulty to the possibility of Blue Jays games in Toronto, Sportsnet.ca’s Shi Davidi writes.  International visitors to Canada are currently subject to a mandatory 14 days of either self-isolation or quarantine upon arriving in the country, depending on whether or not they show any coronavirus symptoms.  While the Jays have had some discussions with civic and provincial officials about the feasibility of playing games at Rogers Centre, Davidi notes that the club could end up playing regular season games at its Spring Training facility in Dunedin unless the situation changes (such as “expected advancements and the wide-scale deployments of rapid-result diagnostic testing”).

Details On The MLB/MLBPA 2020 Season Agreement

By and | at

Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association reached a deal Thursday addressing many of the outstanding questions facing the game in the wake of the coronavirus shutdown, including how the two sides will address a shortened (or perhaps altogether canceled) 2020 season.  The specifics of this agreement still aren’t fully known, due in part to the ongoing fluidity of how baseball and the players’ union will have to adjust to future events, though we’ve already learned quite a few ways in which the sport’s structure will be altered for this wholly unique season.  Some of the latest details…

  • ESPN’s Jeff Passan and Kiley McDaniel published a highly-recommended breakdown of the agreement, including an explanation of how MLB’s $170MM advance payment will be distributed to players if the season is cancelled entirely.
  • Another key insight from Passan and McDaniel: “The arbitration system will be adjusted to consider lessened counting statistics because of the shorter season, and salaries secured during the 2021 offseason through arbitration won’t be used in the precedent-based system going forward.”  No further detail is provided regarding the adjustment to the arbitration system, which in a sense is already set up to consider lessened counting statistics.  For example, if Kris Bryant hits 20 home runs in the course of an 81-game 2020 season, will that be viewed as the equivalent of a 40 home run campaign?  Passan and McDaniel’s other arbitration-related revelation – that the upcoming batch of arbitration salaries will be excluded as future precedents – implies that players may not have the luxury of getting a 40 home run type raise for a 20 home run half-season.
  • The ESPN duo also notes that 2020 luxury tax payrolls will be assessed “base[d] it on what full-season salaries were supposed to be, not prorated salary payment.”  This is notable in that a team like the Yankees, who are way above the luxury tax threshold, will still be taxed even though they will actually pay out much less than $208MM in salaries.  The actual tax paid will be prorated, according to Passan and McDaniel.  The writers also explain, “And if there is no season, there will be no taxes owed, implying every team would reset to the lowest competitive balance tax threshold.”  Before the coronavirus struck, teams such as the Red Sox and Cubs basically devoted their offseasons to getting under the threshold and resetting their tax rate for the future.
  • Speaking of veteran players on minor league contracts, several of those deals contained player opt-out dates set five days prior to the Opening Day that never occurred.  MLB.com’s Jeffrey Flanagan (Twitter link) has heard speculation that the league could simply push those deadlines to five days prior to the season’s new start.  With no official policy yet in place, we’ve seen different approaches from various teams to this issue, ranging from some clubs agreeing to delay opt-out decision dates independently, to some teams officially selecting a non-roster player’s contract in order to confirm their place on the Major League roster.
  • The MLB/MLBPA agreement also has a provision for players who aren’t on a 40-man roster but are on guaranteed contracts, the Athletic’s Zach Buchanan tweets.  Such players as the Diamondbacks’ Yasmany Tomas “will receive more advance pay than a minor-leaguer,” though it isn’t clear if they would receive the full $5K daily salary through April and May.  Tomas was set to make $17MM in 2020, which was the last season of his six-year, $68.5MM deal signed back in December 2014.  Arizona outrighted Tomas off its 40-man roster in each of the last two seasons, and he has appeared in only four Major League games for the D’Backs in that time.
  • For a high-level explainer of this week’s agreement between MLB and the MLBPA, check out Jeff Todd’s video here.

Rosenthal And Drellich: MLB Season Unlikely To Begin Before May

By | at

Commissioner Rob Manfred met with Tony Clark of the Players’ Union to discuss many of the potential issues sure to arise as a result of the coronavirus shutdown. Though many particulars of the 2020 season are being taken into consideration, no decision is expected in the near-term about the official start to the 2020 season. That said, the delay is expected to continue until May at the earliest, per Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic. Still, no official announcement has been made, nor is there likely to be any official decisions made until enough time has passed to better quantify containment of the virus.

In the meantime, the Commissioner’s office is working with Clark and the MLBPA to hammer out a number of issues, including player pay. A delayed season, of course, brings all manner of complication. A truncated season, however, takes those complications to the next level, specifically in regards to service time and how it affects player salaries.

There was some concern that if players left their spring facilities, the MLB would be in a better position to suspend their pay, though those concerns appear to be, per Rosenthal and Drellich, “ill-formed.” The more pertinent question, for now, asks what is the safest route to moving forward and preparing for the eventual 2020 season? Opinions are split right now about whether players are better served staying in camp with their clubs and all the resources, medical and otherwise, at their disposal therein, or whether players should take part in the the broadly-accepted strategy of social distancing. For now, teams and players continue to make their decisions on an individual basis.

Tony Clark: MLBPA’s ‘Strong Preference’ Rays Remain In Tampa Bay

By | at

The Rays’ deliberations about splitting their season between Tampa Bay and Montreal have their fair share of logistical difficulties. Among them could be opposition from the team’s players, who would face unique living and family challenges if the plan were ever to get green-lit.

Until tonight, however, the Players Association had remained quiet about the matter. MLBPA executive director Tony Clark made his first comments in an interview with Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times. Understandably, the union is wary of such a move.

“It would be our strong preference that the club and the players remain in Tampa Bay, and that they’re identified with playing in one market,” Clark told Topkin. He added getting the players to go along with a split-season arrangement would “be difficult.”

However, he didn’t foreclose the possibility of player approval entirely. “I’m not going to say it’s impossible that we couldn’t come to an agreement that’s acceptable for them to split between Tampa Bay and Montreal,” the union head told Topkin. He added the MLBPA would have questions and concerns, predictably, as details of the plan take further shape. The union hasn’t received specifics since the initial conversations were announced last June, Topkin relays.

Rays’ officials expected some opposition from the MLBPA but are optimistic any challenges could be sorted out, Topkin says. Specifically, owner Stuart Sternberg has posited that the move could be a boon for Rays’ players. The arrangement would be more profitable than the organization’s current situation, the thinking goes, enabling the club to expand its perennially low payrolls. That, obviously, would mean higher player salaries. That’s plausible enough, but the Players Association figures to want more than Sternberg’s word he’ll loosen the purse strings before signing off on such a monumental change.

No move is imminent regardless. The target date for the beginning of the split season is 2028, Topkin reports, perhaps because of opposition from St. Petersburg city officials. That leaves plenty of time for further discussion. It seems, however, the Rays have become increasingly serious about moving forward in recent months. The organization and officials from Montreal are working to sort out details, including approval from both the league and union, as well as the opening of new stadiums in each market, Topkin adds. There’s sure to be more news on this front as the plan becomes more defined.

The Rays’ long-term future will be one of many areas of focus for the MLBPA in the coming months and years. The collective bargaining agreement expires after the 2021 season. Between the icy free agent markets in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 offseasons, potential seismic changes to the game’s playoff structure, and perhaps some player resentment of the arbitration process, Clark and his staff will have plenty of issues to work through with the league.

Clark, Boras, Moreno Upset With Betts Swap Hold-Up

By | at

Plenty of fans and folks in the game are no doubt frustrated by the uncertainty hanging over a dramatic duo of prospective trades centered around superstar Mookie Betts. MLBPA chief Tony Clark made clear that he’s got even bigger problems with the situation in a statement today.

“The proposed trades between the Dodgers, Red Sox, Twins, and Angels need to be resolved without further delay,” Clark says in the statement. “The events of this last week have unfairly put several Players’ lives in a state of limbo.”

Clark is referring, of course, to (a) the proposed three-team swap between the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Twins that involves Betts, David Price, Kenta Maeda, Alex Verdugo, and Brusdar Graterol; and (b) the cross-town deal that would send Joc Pederson and Ross Stripling to the Angels in exchange for Luis Rengifo, with other pre-MLB players also involved. These trades were reported on Tuesday but remain unresolved.

The slow speed of concluding the dealmaking isn’t the only thing that drew Clark’s ire. Reports have indicated that issues surrounding the health of Graterol gummed up the swaps. Clark is understandably displeased with those disclosures and the role they’ve played in keeping these players in limbo.

Clark continued: “The unethical leaking of medical information as well as the perversion of the salary arbitration process serve as continued reminders that too often Players are treated as commodities by those running the game.”

Uber-agent Scott Boras, who reps Graterol, also chimed in (via Jon Heyman of MLB Network, on Twitter). He notes that the young flamethrower was operating at full tilt late last season and knocked the Red Sox’ apparent medical concerns. “They’re relying on a cursory medical record review,” says Boras, “yet noted orthopedic doctors who saw him say there’s no issue going forward.”

These comments represent is the latest volley in a long-running, multi-front battle between the union and league. Labor relations remain fraught. Evan Drellich of The Athletic recently noted on Twitter that anticipated early bargaining discussions have yet to materialize.

As for the twin Dodgers deals, it seems that frustrations are building from various quarters. Angels owner Arte Moreno is said to be furious that the hold-up of the first deal has left his organization in flux, per Heyman (via Twitter).

Show all

MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com

hide arrows scroll to top