keyboard_arrow_uptop
Image credit: Mandatory Credit: Steve Mitchell-USA TODAY Sports

Immediately after the announcement of the lockout, Major League Baseball published a letter from commissioner Rob Manfred at their website. The full text of the letter is included in this article, as we’re going to work through it bit by bit.

Now, let’s make something clear from the outset: this isn’t going to be a “Do better, commissioner!” kind of analysis. Manfred works for the 30 owners. The commissioner has sometimes acted as an impartial observer, but those tenures never last very long: Happy Chandler got just the one term because the owners felt he wasn’t siding with them nearly often enough, and Fay Vincent was forced to resign in part because Bud Selig had ideas about revamping both the labor battle and commissionership, but also because Vincent dared to tell the owners the players were right to be upset about being colluded against. There is no impartial observer looking out for the best interests of baseball, just someone who looks out for the best interests of MLB’s owners, and things aren’t going to be different on that note no matter how much we wish they were.

So! The goal here is less incredulous “how can MLB just publish this sort of thing?!” since MLB’s website is, well, literally MLB’s website, and more “here is what MLB is lying about and how.” The letter is propaganda—which is not inherently a bad thing despite the connotations we associate with the word—and it’s important we recognize the letter for what it is. Manfred wrote this in the hopes that many people take it at face value and back the league’s decision to lock the players out, so let’s make it more difficult to do that.

To our Fans:

I first want to thank you for your continued support of the great game of baseball. This past season, we were reminded of how the national pastime can bring us together and restore our hope despite the difficult challenges of a global pandemic. As we began to emerge from one of the darkest periods in our history, our ballparks were filled with fans; the games were filled with excitement; and millions of families felt the joy of watching baseball together.

That is why I am so disappointed about the situation in which our game finds itself today. Despite the league’s best efforts to make a deal with the Players Association, we were unable to extend our 26 year-long history of labor peace and come to an agreement with the MLBPA before the current CBA expired. Therefore, we have been forced to commence a lockout of Major League players, effective at 12:01am ET on December 2.

“Despite the league’s best efforts” is an odd thing to say when we have records of how often MLB showed up with economic proposals (not very), what was in those proposals (nothing that should be taken seriously), and how completely unwilling they were to engage with the players at all on a number of issues. To the point that MLB simply refused to show the Players Association the rest of a proposal at one point unless the PA dropped a number of items they wanted to bargain over from their proposal. If those are MLB’s best efforts, everyone involved is in far more trouble than we all realized.

None of this should be a surprise, though. Within the above-linked articles that I’m responsible for writing are references to how MLB’s plan with their leaked proposals was most likely to generate headlines, support, and something to point to once they had forced a lockout into being. This was all the sort of thing you could see coming from miles away, but it’s the game plan, so Manfred stuck with it regardless of how transparent it is.

And, of course, no one “forced” MLB to stage this lockout: there is nothing that causes a lockout to begin when a collective bargaining agreement expires outside of the owners voting to begin a lockout when a collective bargaining agreement expires. If anyone forced the lockout, it was MLB itself, and I don’t just mean in the “they alone had the power to announce a lockout” way. Their lack of engagement on economic issues made it very clear the plan was to wait until the CBA expired so they could lock the players out and force a resolution that would harm the union’s chances of changing the status quo. Which Manfred is about to get to, though it’s written to make the lockout sound like a defensive measure instead of an offensive one:

I want to explain to you how we got here and why we have to take this action today. Simply put, we believe that an offseason lockout is the best mechanism to protect the 2022 season. We hope that the lockout will jumpstart the negotiations and get us to an agreement that will allow the season to start on time. This defensive lockout was necessary because the Players Association’s vision for Major League Baseball would threaten the ability of most teams to be competitive. It’s simply not a viable option. From the beginning, the MLBPA has been unwilling to move from their starting position, compromise, or collaborate on solutions.

“…the Player’s Association’s vision for Major League Baseball would threaten the ability of most teams to be competitive” is vying for the most significant lie in this entire thing. The MLBPA’s demands are actually fairly reasonable, i.e. they resemble the kind I write about when I’m discussing what should be realistically done, and not what I write when I discuss what I wish would happen if I could force through whatever without a problem. The players are clearly are tired of the status quo, but they also know that the entire system cannot be set on fire and a new one built on its ashes all in one CBA. So, instead, they’re asking for a generous bump to the minimum salary (as they should), are asking to go back to the two years of pre-arbitration time for players that the CBA signed in 1985 moved to three years—I have argued before that the PA found themselves in the awful position they were in by 2016 in large part because of that concession, which helped power the whole luxury tax as salary cap transition—and for changes to the time it takes to become a free agent, from six years to five. 

The PA also wants teams that don’t spend money to receive less revenue-sharing funding, which is really just asking for further clarification on rules that already exist. Teams that receive revenue-sharing are supposed to spend it. Teams like the Pirates, Marlins, A’s, and Rays often say they are spending all of that money (and more), but won’t open the books to tell you on what. There is a reason there is a grievance out against every single one of them right now for a failure to spend their revenue-sharing dollars in the appropriate ways. They aren’t trying to make life harder for those teams: the PA wants them to spend the money they are already supposed to be spending, or else they don’t get it anymore. If any of these tweaks to existing systems are going to “threaten the ability of most teams to be competitive,” then it’s time to get new owners and new front offices running every one of those clubs. 

MLB exploited every loophole they could to the degree that the PA finally had enough and decided to try to start closing loopholes, and MLB claims this is going to destroy the game. Who is being unreasonable here, exactly?

When we began negotiations over a new agreement, the Players Association already had a contract that they wouldn’t trade for any other in sports. Baseball’s players have no salary cap and are not subjected to a maximum length or dollar amount on contracts. In fact, only MLB has guaranteed contracts that run 10 or more years, and in excess of $300 million. We have not proposed anything that would change these fundamentals. While we have heard repeatedly that free agency is “broken” – in the month of November $1.7 billion was committed to free agents, smashing the prior record by nearly 4x. By the end of the offseason, Clubs will have committed more money to players than in any offseason in MLB history.

We worked hard to find compromise while making the system even better for players, by addressing concerns raised by the Players Association. We offered to establish a minimum payroll for all clubs to meet for the first time in baseball history; to allow the majority of players to reach free agency earlier through an age-based system that would eliminate any claims of service time manipulation; and to increase compensation for all young players, including increases in the minimum salary. When negotiations lacked momentum, we tried to create some by offering to accept the universal Designated Hitter, to create a new draft system using a lottery similar to other leagues, and to increase the Competitive Balance Tax threshold that affects only a small number of teams.

Well, those two paragraphs suggest it’s the players. Manfred referring to the lockout-inspired week of heavy spending as evidence that everything is just peachy for the players is the kind of thing that people who can’t think beyond the surface of any issue are sure to eat up, but as evidenced by the players’ demands, already stated above—a higher minimum salary, a faster pathway to arbitration, a shorter road to free agency—it’s pretty clear the issues they have aren’t so much with “broken” free agency. Which is broken, by the way, in the sense that free agents who aren’t stars are often ignored or underpaid. Just because the guys at the top get paid doesn’t mean the middle- and lower-class of the game are treated well: just like everything else in America, those at the top keep making more, but everyone else’s pay is stagnating.

I’ve already discussed the problems with the minimum payroll proposal, and the age-based free agency system, as well as MLB’s algorithm-based payment system. MLB complaining that this isn’t good enough for the PA is the collective bargaining version of this classic tweet:

Screenshot of a tweet that says, "its stupid when girls say they cant find a guy, yet they ignore me. its like saying youre hungry when theres a hot dog on the ground outside"

Conceding on the universal DH is movement, yes, and the draft certainly needs reworking, so seeing any kind of movement there is a positive—I’m not automatically against everything MLB does, you know, it’s just that so much of what they do is bad and they should feel bad about it. For example, writing that MLB offered to increase the CBT from $210 million to all of $214 million, with increases up to $220 million over the life of the CBA, could not possibly have been managed with a straight face: the proposed increase was so minimal that it implies that MLB believes raising the CBT at all is considered movement, instead of just like, a thing that should happen as inflation and time changes the value of money. Oh yeah, though, an algorithm-based pay system would definitely work without incident.

We have had challenges before with respect to making labor agreements and have overcome those challenges every single time during my tenure. Regrettably, it appears the Players Association came to the bargaining table with a strategy of confrontation over compromise. They never wavered from collectively the most extreme set of proposals in their history, including significant cuts to the revenue-sharing system, a weakening of the competitive balance tax, and shortening the period of time that players play for their teams. All of these changes would make our game less competitive, not more.

“Regrettably, it appears the Players Association came to the bargaining table with a strategy of confrontation over compromise.” See above re: MLB’s plan to get to the lockout portion of things before they took anything seriously at the bargaining table. As for whether this series of adjustments to existing structures is the “most extreme set of proposals in their history,” we should probably remember that free agency and arbitration weren’t handed down to us mortals by the baseball gods, but were massive changes to the entire structure of player compensation and movement that had to be fought for in collective bargaining and in court, that the fight to end the reserve clause destroyed Curt Flood’s career, and that for decades after the introduction of these systems, the PA was forced to be on the defensive to maintain them. There is nothing of substance in this entire paragraph. Manfred’s, I mean. Mine is good.

To be clear: this hard but important step does not necessarily mean games will be cancelled. In fact, we are taking this step now because it accelerates the urgency for an agreement with as much runway as possible to avoid doing damage to the 2022 season. Delaying this process further would only put Spring Training, Opening Day, and the rest of the season further at risk – and we cannot allow an expired agreement to again cause an in-season strike and a missed World Series, like we experienced in 1994. We all owe you, our fans, better than that.

Today is a difficult day for baseball, but as I have said all year, there is a path to a fair agreement, and we will find it. I do not doubt the League and the Players share a fundamental appreciation for this game and a commitment to its fans. I remain optimistic that both sides will seize the opportunity to work together to grow, protect, and strengthen the game we love. MLB is ready to work around the clock to meet that goal. I urge the Players Association to join us at the table.

No games are canceled yet, but they might end up being canceled. It all depends on if one side blinks before spring training begins and revenues from spring training games are in danger. MLB is betting on the players not being united enough to withstand a work stoppage that threatens their pay; presumably, the PA is prepared for the possibility that the owners are willing to harm their own bottom line in order to make a point or harm the union’s momentum, the first they’ve had in decades. 

There you have it. Manfred, as he so often does, talked around the truth of things, obfuscating and outright lying in the hopes his audience doesn’t notice that’s what’s happening. The future of competitive teams in MLB isn’t in danger because the union wants to spread the wealth around a bit more. All that’s in danger is MLB’s desire to continue to, unabated, scoop up more and more of the revenue pie. Remembering that while reading this letter, and the next one, and the one after that, is going to be vital to understanding what’s actually going on here when Manfred addresses “ the Fans.” 


Marc Normandin currently writes on baseball’s labor issues and more at marcnormandin.com, which you can read for free but support through his Patreon. He is one of the founding members of Publication To Be Named Later, and his baseball writing has appeared at SB Nation, Deadspin, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Sports on Earth, The Guardian, The Nation, and TalkPoverty.

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
Tony Mollica
12/03
Very good article! I had trouble watching Manfred's speech and listening to the MLB Network commentators fail to bring up the obvious points of criticism. I get that they are all paid by MLB. Still I would like them to do better to be more objective and to do some critical thinking of what Manfred said.
I would like to see an article about the 1994 strike. I know that a Federal Judge (the future Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor) ruled in early 1995 that what the owners were trying to impose/do wasn't legal. That cuts against what Manfred said. I've also heard that the players offered a no strike pledge, but I'm not sure if this is accurate, nor the details if it is. Any chance we could get an article about that?
Mark
12/03
Yup, when “The Man” sticks it to workers like this, when they are only barely scraping by averaging $4 million a year (or “medianing” a million a year if that is a thing) until they keel over from black lung disease, boy, it really makes my blood boil.
Patrick
12/03
You do know the difference between "median" and "mean," right? Most players never see a $1 million salary despite their talent and hard work generating more than that for billionaire owners. And most only have a few years to capitalize on that talent and work.
ari blum
12/03
But the union doesn’t even represent the interests of the minor leaguers, who are the ones who are actually not going to be able to afford continuing to play, but if you’re in the majors making a minimum of 570.5 k, you shouldn’t be making claims to advance your moral right to more money while ignoring those truly in need.
Craig Goldstein
12/03
well, the minor leagues technically still are eligible to play, because they're not impacted as non-union members. Also, their arguments aren't limited to morality, the argument is they produce an incredible amount of money and thus are worthy of seeing it.
Mark
12/03
Yes, aware of the difference between mean and median which is why they are both there! :-)

Beyond that, it could be argued, so I will argue it, that players who never see a $1 million salary actually generate very little in the way of revenues for teams and owners even though they work hard, and try their best. “Generic replacement level utility guy” doesn’t sell season tickets or beer on TV.

Further, if the MLBPA wanted to radically embrace basically a socialist salary structure, every single player on every 40 man roster could be guaranteed roughly $4 million a year and probably be set for life after even the briefest career.

I don’t want to come off as super pro ownership, little sympathy and no empathy for either side.
mjquart
12/04
Preach
Donny Wilkins
12/09
But “Generic replacement level utility guy” DOES sell season tickets or beer on TV! See: Pirates and Orioles turning a significant profit every year.
vbjd1111
12/03
While Manfred is clearly taking some positions that are not accurate, this article also recasts positions in ways that are not accurate.

Most egregiously, the article describes four "wants" that the union has, and then characterizes all of those positions as "closing loopholes" that the owners have "exploited." But three of those are not "loopholes," they are clear agreements that the players made in prior CBAs (specifically, time to arbitration eligibility, time to free agency, and the minimum salary). Providing effective enforcement of the requirement that teams who receive revenue sharing actually spend the money could qualify as closing a loophole, but the author conflates all of the proposals as "loophole closing," either deliberately (which is misleading) or because he is lazy (which I doubt).

Will there be a similar evaluation of Clark's statements?
Craig Goldstein
12/03
He doesn't define each of those as loopholes, he merely said MLB exploited every loophole they could and the PA is aiming to close them (such as the revenue sharing one, as well as service-time gaming (which impacts arbitration eligibility).

No, there will not be an evaluation of Clark's statement, because his statement is factual.
morro089
12/03
I'd argue the arbitration eligibility and time to free agency could be considered "loopholes taken advantage of." A loophole is basically created, the unintentional ones at least, when the creators of a law/doctrine/agreement/etc make incorrect assumptions or are too unimaginative. It's possible the Players Union didn't believe there would be such a generally accepted practice of "reduce chance of winning to save money" (ie keep MLB worthy players in AAA). Defining a "working year" had to be done somehow, that was unavoidable, but believing how drastically teams would play to those deadlines may have been underestimated. I think this is the general idea behind no salary cap? The Players Union ultimately believes teams/owners will keep spending more and more money to have better teams to win more games. Whether the Players Union was too unimaginative is worth questioning though, it's not like owners just got cheap in the last decade.
mjquart
12/04
Present both side, here? Why, there's an agenda.

Agenda??? At this site? No chance?!?!

EVERY viewpoint is the same here, u cannot come for discussion or intellectual honesty. Anything with a sniff/hint of “politics” ends up the same way here. Imagine if u came to this site for the fantasy/MiLB information (opinion) and EVERY author ranked every player/prospect EXACTLY at he same?????

Site would become useless… just sayin’

Microcosm for today, sure would be nice if hires were made to fill out ALL sides of thinking and present all sides to huge baseball fans (which is who comes here) so they understand the whole Game better. Alas, I’ve lost all hope, used to think the same for universities and the press…
Craig Goldstein
12/04
I'm happy to have a discussion with anyone and frequently do in the comments, but you're correct that I don't set about seeking out viewpoints that aren't supported by facts just because people wanna hear something different. Sometimes the situation is just what it is, which is what is happening here. The last several CBAs have tilted tremendously towards the owners and the economic structure of the game is broken.
mjquart
12/04
You and I have had electronic "discussions". ALL end up the same.

What you do is hire people who think the same as you, period. Their "facts' all align with your facts, when there's a sniff of politics being discussed. And, as the Boss, that is your right @ your site (ironically, a novel concept in this discussion). And I have a right to disagree or not come to your site (again, an ironic concept).

But, IMHO, the best websites (universities, reporters, etc) teach all sides of an intellectual passion (in our case Baseball) and then they allow individuals the ability to construct their own opinions and synthesize their own thoughts. They construct their own "facts".... because, after all, these are really opinions, not facts, right?

The world needs less black and white, less confusing fact and opinion, and less belief that hiring, drinking, hanging out, befriending, and discussing "facts" with someone whose OPINIONS differ from ours is a waste of time.
Craig Goldstein
12/04
I don't really understand how either of those concepts are novel in this discussion since both are things I've said repeatedly. Your opinion can be that the best places present all points of view regardless of merit, but it's not mine. I'm not telling you not to have that one, I'm explaining why this site doesn't have it. When I refer to facts I mean facts and not opinions, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.
morro089
12/04
I know name calling is bad, but this comment MJQUART reads like it was written by a very upset 17 year old texting with an ex. You're spouting "intellectual" passion with all caps and multiple question marks. This isn't a news site, there's no journalistic responsibility to defend the 30 people who have the same income as MLB players (and are practically guaranteed to make a multiples back if/when they sell...think of it as the best damn 401k available). These writers are clearly pro "players get more money." That's the side, that's the angle. If you want the pro-owner defense, go to the front page of MLB.com and watch the Commissioner of Baseball present an unabashed "pro one side only" letter to all fans of the MLB.
morro089
12/04
I'd also like to point out, these opinion pieces** get a ton of comments/engagement relative to a very good article about Marcus Stroman's fastball. Of course, the writer of that article didn't consider *why* Marcus Stroman doesn't have a more elevated arm angle (injury concern?)...but I still enjoyed it immensely.

**they are Craig, even though practically all articles are centered around some opinion. But the statistic/word count ratio is too low (totally an objective stat).
Craig Goldstein
12/04
Sure, no argument from me that opinion is expressed routinely, and many of our pieces are opinion pieces. What I meant by referring to facts in the prior comment was that sometimes the facts line up against a certain group. Perspective/opinion always plays a part but there's no twisting the facts that strike at the core of the economic issues in the game, and they overwhelmingly point to adjustments that are akin to what the PA is asking for. There are also facts that support the owner's demands in some cases, like the institution of a pitch clock, which I don't think should be viewed as a concession by the players because it will help the game overall.

I should also note that we don't commission articles based on what gets engagement, it really emanates from what our editorial group or freelancers want to say to our audience.
Tim Angell
12/03
Excellent analysis, Marc!
Todd Tomasic
12/03
Seattle, Colorado, Tampa, and my Buccos are all terribly run and extremely cheap. Even
Tampa since the billionaire owner could spend his money on a new ballpark in Orlando
(or anyplace in Florida) instead of that horrible place the team plays in now.
morro089
12/03
I knew what was coming once December rolled around, I intentionally un-favorited from r/baseball to avoid the utter hatred that comes from this all, but this letter on MLB's own website (that I left favorited) managed to still really piss me off. The negotiations during COVID really made me salty towards the MLB product even though, ultimately, I watch it for entertainment and not for the monetary goodness of *anybody* involved in making money from it (nobody seems to be out here protecting minor leaguers, who I do care about). But the ridiculous misleading language and outright lying (...that can never be definitively proven nor will anyone attempt to do so in a way that results in punishment) from that letter makes me re-hate the MLB all over again. It's such an utter bullsh** letter that's on the front page of their website. This isn't just "we have to made a public statement for news to cover", but instead a "we are explicitly telling people why the Players are only at fault and they do not get their own letter made available to you." I believe there's a link to the Players Union somewhere on their site, in the footer a few clicks away, but that would be it. Nobody knows it's there, if it does exist.
Shaun P.
12/03
Great article and analysis, Marc! Thank you for being clear about the negotiating tactics in this letter to the "Fans", aka the group that the Commissioner cares the least about, so long as enough wealthy people and corporations keep driving his employers' revenues even higher.
Jack O'Lantern
12/03
I feel like the fans are being ignored by both sides in this dispute. No one wants to pay $22 to park a car within a mile of the stadium, or several hundred dollars for decent seats for a family. It’s ludicrous and out of control. The owners in their board rooms seems to think every fan just wants to be in a box with a view and can somehow afford it. In reality I have never been in a plush box unless somebody else was paying. The players have to realize they look foolish defending nine-figure contracts as if they are at risk of being fired from a minimum wage job. The article does focus on the marginal fringe players who are royally screwed by the time/service/arbitration barriers built into the present (now former) CBA. How about salary arbitration the year after the player is called up to the show, regardless of whether he plays one game or 162? And a flat ban on contracts with a total payout over $100 million? That would make for shorter deals for the stars, saving some dough for the younger players, the minor leaguers, and savings for the fans. But I have no hope of such common sense amidst all of the greed and self-interest.
Shaun P.
12/04
Why should the players, who actually generate the revenue, have to accept a cap on what they can earn? Just because they are highly skilled in their particular industry, and that industry's place in society generates billions of dollars of revenue? It's not like the owners are going to stop charging outrageous prices for luxury seats, amenities, parking, and the rest, if the players are capped on their earnings. The owners have a literal monopoly and this is what happens with monopolies - prices for consumers don't go down. Those running the monopoly just keep more of the money for themselves.

If you want prices to go down, then you need to introduce competition, and the only way that happens is if the monopoly goes away. The courts won't get rid of it so it's up to Congress. Have you read the "Save America's Pastime Act"? Congress taking away the antitrust exemption won't happen anytime soon. So if the money has to go somewhere, I'd much rather it goes to the people who provide the product. And if I don't like the outrageous prices, I don't go to games, or buy merchandise, or give the owners any of my money. (I don't, and so I don't do any of those things anymore.)
mjquart
12/04
Thank your for suggesting there may actually be 2 parties at fault, 2 angles to this "story", and 2 sets of competing interests in a corporation determining labor costs..... Novel concept here
Craig Goldstein
12/04
It's sad that you come to the comments to declare that only one POV is presented without reading the article that clearly puts blame at the feet of the union for its failures in the past.
mjquart
12/04
Wait, I didn't read the article??? How so? Same author posted a few days ago as well, right?

Do you think I just skipped straight to the "pro owner" article??
Craig Goldstein
12/04
Clearly you did not if you think that he doesn't lay blame at the feet of the union, given this:

"I have argued before that the PA found themselves in the awful position they were in by 2016 in large part because of that concession, which helped power the whole luxury tax as salary cap transition—and for changes to the time it takes to become a free agent, from six years to five. "