Coronavirus

Agent Scott Boras last week pledged to pay the salaries of his released minor league clients, as first reported by MLB Network’s Jon Heyman (via Twitter). At the time, Boras called the releases “completely unanticipated” and expressed a desire to make sure those clients received the income they’d anticipated. However, Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic now reports (subscription link) that the MLBPA nixed the gesture because it violates the union’s agent regulations, which stipulate:

Any gifts or promise of gifts, of money or of any other thing with an aggregate value exceeding $500 U.S. in any calendar year, by an Expert Agent Advisor to any single player, or any persons related to or associated with such player, are prohibited.

Other agents were understandably opposed, feeling it could set a precedent of paying to retain clients in other scenarios. It’s not hard to see the manner in which they could fear such a gesture snowballing — be it in the form of increased pressure to follow suit or in the form of released clients jumping ship to the Boras Corporation (or any other agency willing to cover unexpected salary losses in 2020). Boras won’t be disciplined by the MLBPA, Rosenthal adds.

The massive wave of minor league releases in late May and early June came as the agreed-upon window to pay minor leaguers a $400 weekly stipend expired. Many of those players might’ve been cut near the end of Spring Training — spring cuts didn’t happen due to the pandemic shutdown — or prior to the amateur draft in a normal season anyhow. But there were countless others who found themselves cut largely because of the likely cancellation of the minor league season. Between that likelihood and the looming specter of minor league contraction, which feels increasingly inevitable, most expect that there simply won’t be as many minor league jobs to go around once play resumes. A few clubs (e.g. Royals, Tigers, Twins) opted not to cut any minor leaguers, but we saw many other teams cut 30, 40 or even 50-plus minor leaguers apiece.

That Boras even attempted to step in underscores the manner in which minor league players are underrepresented. And on the surface, it’s a rather backwards sentiment to think that the MLB Players Association spoke out to prohibit a gesture that would’ve helped to protect the livelihood of several players. However, minor league players don’t pay union dues and aren’t protected by the MLBPA as a result. The union’s objection is sensible, but that shouldn’t overshadow the reality that we’re past due for a change to the overall minor league compensation structure. Notably, tonight’s MLBPA counter-proposal to MLB is reported to include the establishment of a joint $5MM fund which would, in part, support minor league players.

Major League Baseball’s latest proposal for the 2020 campaign hasn’t been met with open arms by the players. As the two sides continue to butt heads over the financial aspects of the 2020 season, there are also considerable health and safety guidelines that need to be negotiated.

This morning’s proposal, according to Jorge Castillo of the Los Angeles Times (Twitter link), would require players to sign an “acknowledgement of risk” waiver, which gives many in the union pause. Players are wary that upon signing such a waiver, they’d be unable to take any action should they feel the league provided an unsafe work environment.

Another potential hurdle to clear is that the league does not appear inclined to compensate players who opt out over concerns regarding the health of family members in either salary or service time. MLB Network’s Jon Heyman tweets that immunocompromised players — e.g. Carlos Carrasco, who missed much of 2019 while battling leukemia — could opt not to play but still receive both service time and salary. (Per Jeff Passan of ESPN.com, via Twitter, the league would define high-risk individuals as those who “may be more likely to suffer severe illness as a result of COVID-19 than others. … Individuals who, by virtue of their age or medical history, are at a materially higher risk … of complications.”

Players who aren’t willing to play due to similar concerns regarding a spouse, child, parent, etc., however, are viewed differently. Heyman indicates that the union is at least seeking service time for those players that opt not to play for reasons other than their own added susceptibility to coronavirus complications.

Perhaps most concerning, though, is the lack of communication between the league, the 30 clubs themselves and the local governing bodies that are overseeing broader efforts to deal with the public health threat posed by the coronavirus. Bradford William Davis of the New York Daily News reports that few of the relevant local authorities have been meaningfully engaged on plans.

It’s a bit surprising that some of these boxes have evidently not been checked at this point, several months into the COVID-19 crisis. Perhaps the league and its member teams feel they won’t have trouble smoothing over any issues on the public health front once they’ve got an agreement with the players. And while there could still be stumbling blocks in the collective bargaining negotiations over health and wellness, there’s also reason to think the sides can come together. Indeed, Andy Martino of SNY.tv tweets that the general issue still isn’t expected to pose any significant roadblock.

Amid widespread expectations that the 2020 minor league season will not be played, Major League Baseball is considering an expanded version of the annual Arizona Fall League as a means of recouping some critical game reps for prospects throughout the sport, Josh Norris and J.J. Cooper of Baseball America reported earlier this week. MLB is thinking about not only adding additional teams to the traditional AFL format but also mulling the creation of a Florida Fall League, per the report.

While the AFL usually features six teams, each made up of prospects from five MLB clubs, there’s been talk of all 30 organizations being permitted to field their own Fall League club in 2020. There would be added cost for MLB clubs under this scenario, as player are paid for AFL play — albeit at a particularly high level. Cooper and Norris write that AFL prospects generally are paid $2250 per month, plus a $750 housing stipend.

Broadly speaking, that’s an eminently manageable sum for an organization to stomach, even if it’s sending a full roster of players as opposed to just a handful of names. But we’ve also seen even the $400 weekly stipend being paid to most minor leaguers at present be utilized as a cost-saving mechanism by some clubs. The A’s initially stopped the stipend entirely as of June 1, but reversed course yesterday in the wake of widespread criticism from fans and media.  Similarly, the Nationals sought to reduce the weekly payment by $100 but reversed the decision after a wave of negative reaction from fans and their own Major League players (who had banded together to cover the would-be losses for the organization’s minor leaguers). A few teams have committed to paying their minor leaguers through the end of August, when minor league seasons would’ve ended, though most have only committed through the end of the current month.

All of that is particularly notable given that the BA report suggests MLB could try to begin Fall League play “within weeks” of kicking off the regular season. (For those keeping score on odd seasonal semantics, that’d put “Spring” Training in June and “Fall” League play in July/August.) It’s not clear whether Fall League pay would be in addition to the ongoing stipend or whether it’d simply replace the stipend; presumably, that’d be left to ownership discretion on a team-by-team basis. Minor league players, after all, aren’t protected by the MLB Players Association.

Even with an expanded two-league format that allows each organization to send one team would leave each organization with close to 200 prospects missing key developmental time. Eno Sarris, Emily Waldon and Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription required) tackle the matter, floating the possibility that some teams could include at least one top prospect who isn’t big league-ready as part of the proposed 20-player taxi squad that would train and work alongside the Major League roster. This proverbial “50th man” wouldn’t actually play in any MLB games, but would at least get an opportunity to at least somewhat replicate some type of normal developmental environment.

The taxi squad plan will also provide an opportunity for teams to provide work to minor league coaches and instructors who are otherwise hamstrung by the lack of a minor league season. Such coaches, instructors, training staff, etc. will be necessary since the regular Major League coaching staff would naturally be focused on the 26-30 big leaguers on the official roster.

Finding roles for these minor league coaches, coordinators, and other player development personnel is another separate issue altogether. Sarris, Waldon, and Rosenthal note that since many of these employees are furloughed within their organizations, it creates some legal gray area as to whether or not they could potentially look for a job with another team — as the Athletic trio put it, “If you are a furloughed employee on a one-year contract, are you basically a free agent?” That said, Major League Baseball took a firm stance against such “poaching” practices when the suspension of Uniform Employee Contracts was originally announced.

5:22pm: The league and the union have continued to battle this week in the form of letters, per Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic. Halem sent one to the union Wednesday explaining why the league’s not on board with its 114-game proposal, saying that “we do not have any reason to believe that a negotiated solution for an 82-game season is possible” and detailing why extending the regular campaign into October isn’t feasible from the league’s perspective. As of now, the league’s also unwilling to give service time to a player who opts out of a potential season for health and safety reasons.

MLBPA negotiator Bruce Meyer responded that he’s not sure MLB even wants a season to take place. “We are happy to hear that ‘the Commissioner is committed to playing Baseball in 2020,’” Meyer wrote, “since MLB’s course of conduct continues to lead to doubts.” The union also called MLB’s unwillingness to play into October “wholly unjustified.”

For now, MLB seems inclined to pursue a schedule of 50-some games, but that would also displease the union. Furthermore, the two sides haven’t even finalized health and safety protocols in the event a season does happen, though Meyer wrote, “We will be available at your convenience to continue those discussions, including over the weekend.”

10:26am: Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association remain at odds over both the length of a would-be 2020 season and the manner in which players would be compensated in a shortened schedule. Both sides have their own brand of mathematical gymnastics to show how much revenue would (or wouldn’t) be lost, and neither side has been inclined to budge whatsoever to this point. To recap — an abbreviated timeline of how this has played out:

• March 26: MLB and the MLBPA “agree” to conditions for return to play; players will receive prorated salaries if a season is played or a $170MM advance payout divided among all players if the season is canceled. Players will accrue the same service time they did in 2019 even if no season is played.
• April 16: Initial reports surface that ownership will seek further pay cuts from players due to a lack of gate revenue. The league points to a clause in the March agreement stipulating the two sides will “discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators.” The union contends prorated salaries were agreed upon with or without fans in attendance.
• May 11: After nearly a month, ownership finalizes an economic proposal that includes a revenue share with the union. Before it is even formally proposed to the MLBPA, union chief Tony Clark wholly dismisses the proposal, likening it to a salary cap.
• May 26: After another two weeks of calculated leaks from both sides and public back-and-forth, ownership presents a “sliding scale” for further pay reductions that amounts to a mean 38 percent cut on top of prorated salaries (lesser percentages for lower-paid players but greater cuts for higher-paid stars). The season would consist of 82 games.
• May 31: The union counters with a proposal for 114 games and prorated salaries.
• June 3: MLB rejects the MLBPA’s proposal and indicates it will not offer a counter-proposal. Instead, commissioner Rob Manfred and the league’s owners begin discussions on an even shorter season — reportedly 48 to 54 games — at prorated rates.

Now, per ESPN’s Jeff Passan, the league is focusing in on a 48-game season. Fans and players alike recoil at the notion of such a truncated season, but the Associated Press yesterday obtained an email from deputy commissioner Dan Halem to the union in which Halem wrote: “You confirmed for us on Sunday that players are unified in their view that they will not accept less than 100% of their prorated salaries, and we have no choice but to accept that representation.”

The dramatically shortened schedule being discussed by the league is a reflection of the losses they’re willing to accept. The extent of those losses remains a point of contention, as the league has not yet provided the MLBPA with what it terms to be sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims.

Nonetheless, Passan takes a look at the numbers both sides have put forth. If the league is willing to play prorated salaries on a 48-game schedule and the union is indeed accepting an 82-game season at a prorated level, then the difference amounts to 34 games’ worth of prorated pay. Even accepting the figures ownership has floated at face value, the dispute — at least viewed through this lens — boils down to about $326MM in total, Passan surmises.

Ownership might look to spin the number to be greater, just as the union might look to cast doubt upon the fact that the losses are even that sizable. Regardless, if the players will indeed accept an 82-game season and prorated pay, the dispute comes down to roughly one month’s worth of games. On the surface, that appears like it should be a surmountable obstacle, but of course neither side has been particularly enthusiastic about compromise in any capacity.

Still, SNY’s Andy Martino writes that at least one person involved in the talks believes the outcome will indeed be a compromise: something in the vicinity of 65 to 80 games with slightly less than prorated salaries and temporary suspensions of the luxury tax and qualifying offer systems.

That sounds amenable to onlookers, though the involved parties surely view things differently. FiveThirtyEight’s Travis Sawchik examines why the players may be so reluctant to agree to further cuts, noting that the oft-cited “millionaires vs. billionaires” characterization of the public squabble isn’t necessarily reflective of the average big leaguer. Nearly two thirds of the league last year had not yet reached three years of MLB service time in 2019, meaning most had yet to even secure their first million-dollar contract. Add in their tax bracket, union dues and agent fees, and the actual amount that players take home off their pre-arb salaries is indeed probably lesser than most would assume from the outside looking in. It’s worth pointing out, of course, that ownership could push back with similar means of demonstrating that their revenues are less than most would assume.

Taking a step back from the finer details, it’s rather remarkable to look at the above timeline, realize that it spans more than two months, and think that the two sides are still, in essence, diametrically opposed without any real willingness to compromise to get a product back on the field. The NHL and NBA have approved plans for a return to play, but the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA with collective bargaining talks looming in 2021 continues to stand in the way of a suitable compromise.

7:49pm: There’s no end in sight to this standoff. After an MLBPA board meeting on Thursday, union head Tony Clark said, “The league’s demand for additional concessions was resoundingly rejected” (full statement here via Jeff Passan of ESPN.com). The players want to return to the field, but they’re simply not open to another pay cut, as Cardinals reliever Andrew Miller told Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription link). “Players are engaged like I’ve never seen before,” Miller said. “Every day through ths each of those factors is reinforced. We hope to be on the field as soon as possible.”

6:39pm: As the deadlock between the league and the Players Association continues, MLB Network’s Jon Heyman tweets that the 30 team owners are remaining “steadfast” in aiming to end the season by Nov. 1. Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick already firmly voiced earlier this week his stance that ownership’s model of not playing games in November “will never be changed.”

Twins president, CEO and executive board member Dave St. Peter offered a similar sentiment in a lighter tone than Kendrick, telling La Velle E. Neal III of the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Getting derailed on the start/stop scenario is the worst-case scenario. You’re trying to thread a needle in getting a baseball season in before a second surge of this virus which we believe is a very real possibility.”

Never one to hold back his thoughts, agent Scott Boras again pushed back on ownership’s public-facing stance, telling The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal: “The NFL and college football – contact sports – could be playing in November, let alone December. MLB, a social distancing sport, says it can’t play playoffs in November.”

It’s possible to push back on baseball being a “social distancing sport” in a general sense — there are close quarters the dugout, clubhouse, on the bases, etc. — but relative to a sport like football, the point obviously holds true. As St. Peter and Kendrick have alluded to, however, the worst-case scenario for the league might be paying the players a prorated salary (or even a reduced rate) and then having to cancel postseason play. USA Today’s Bob Nightengale has previously reported that the standard-format postseason television revenue could approach $777MM, with an expanded format pushing that number closer to $1 billion.

Furthermore, as Reds righty Trevor Bauer and his agent, Rachel Luba, discussed earlier this spring in a detailed YouTube video, player postseason shares are derived from gate — not television revenue. In other words, those TV dollars are pure profit for the owners. Perhaps there’s additional negotiation to be done there, but if the two sides have yet to even agree on regular-season player compensation absent gate revenue, it’s unlikely they’ve sufficiently addressed postseason shares. The sheer volume of revenue owners would stand to receive from carrying out a postseason — be it expanded or not — gives enormous incentive to strike a deal at some point, but both the length of schedule and the timeframe within which it falls remain major obstacles.

All of that seems to dovetail with the league’s newfound push for a shortened schedule. It was reported over the weekend that the owners feel the standing March agreement gives commissioner Rob Manfred the power to unilaterally impose a shorter length of season. Doing so would likely entitle the players to prorated salary but over a fraction of the would-be regular season; the New York Post’s Joel Sherman suggested as few as 48 to 54 games may even be under consideration.

That push would limit the owners’ in-season expenses while bringing about a notable postseason windfall. To that end, Ronald Blum of the Associated Press obtained an email sent from deputy commissioner Dan Halem to MLBPA negotiator Bruce Meyer which expressly confirms that the league is looking into a commissioner-imposed, shortened season. A portion of said email read as follows:

We do not have any reason to believe that a negotiated solution for an 82-game season is possible. You confirmed for us on Sunday that players are unified in their view that they will not accept less than 100% of their prorated salaries, and we have no choice but to accept that representation. Nonetheless, the commissioner is committed to playing baseball in 2020. He has started discussions with ownership about staging a shorter season without fans.

However, Blum notes that the league is strongly opposed to deferring salaries, with interest, likening that to another means of accruing debt. Halem also expressed concerns about the costs of acquiring mass testing capabilities, suggesting that’d cost teams upward of $50MM.

As has been the case for months now, it’s readily apparent that both sides have considerable motivation to finalize some type of agreement on how to salvage the 2020 season. Actually moving closer to finding a common ground, however, has proven virtually impossible — even as other sports have found ways to chart a path back to their seasons.