The current lockout -- which began Dec. 2 and is likely to last through January at least -- is being waged over dollars. Lots of them.
It may be somewhat cynical to note, as many have, that this is a "labor war'' between billionaires (the owners) and millionaires (the players), but it's also undeniably true.
In short, players want a quick path to free agency and salary arbitration, safeguards in place to reduce tanking and service time manipulation, and less revenue sharing between big-market teams and small-market teams. Owners, conversely, want to install measures that serve as a brake on soaring payrolls -- either through lower CBT thresholds or higher penalties, or both.
Either way you look at it, it's an economic war. It's a battle over how to best to divide up the financial pie, which, in the last full season before this past one, included almost $12 billion in revenues.
That's a lot of money, no matter you slice it. Sports, as we know, is a big business all around. Owners, understandably, seek to make the most of their investment for greater profit, while players wish to maximize their earning potential, recognizing that their playing careers aren't meant to last forever.
We get all that. Truly, we do. It's been this way since the first hint of labor troubles in the late 1960s, and it continues to this day. As a fan, you may regard the games as entertainment, or an extension of your fandom. But for those signing the checks and those cashing them, this is big business. That's why each side has highly educated and experienced economists on their side, attempting to get the most for their side. So be it.
Unsurprisingly, the sides have had no communication since the lockout began, and have nothing scheduled. They'll sit down and hammer out an agreement when we get closer to spring training. By then, owners will be in danger of losing money from canceled Grapefruit League and Cactus League games -- beyond meal money and living expenses, players aren't paid during spring training -- and players may be fearful of losing regular-season games, and thus, their first paychecks, at the end of March.
Already, we've seen proposals floated by some as to how to solve the impasse. They involve changes in the draft, adjustments to the minimum salary, new ways of qualifying for free agency and other bread-and-butter issues. There's a lot to get resolved. Chances are, each side will like some aspects of the new collective bargaining agreement, and dislike others. That's how it goes in bargaining.
But while the owners and players -- and their representatives -- haggle over percentages and formulas and major league minimums, one issue is already off the table.
Commissioner Rob Manfred revealed that any changes to improve the actual product on the field have been set aside until these negotiations are complete. Then, after the dust settles, the two sides can agree to a "re-opener'' and amend the agreement with whatever changes are agreed upon.
That means nothing changes for 2022. And there's no guarantee that the two sides will reconvene in time to impact the 2023 season. Collective bargaining agreements typically run for five or more years, meaning there's a chance the players and owners won't get around to meaningful change until a third or half of the CBA term has expired.
That's ludicrous, on any number of fronts.
Let us count the ways:
1. While the economic issues need addressing, they really don't affect the vast majority of fans.
Ever watch a game, and have the person next to you suddenly say: "You know, if I could change one thing about the game, it would be make more players eligible for salary arbitration? I just don't enjoy the game the way I once did, knowing that only a fifth of the players with more than two years of service time but less than three years have no independent arbiter to help determine their salary?''
Of course not.
But it's almost certain that, you have heard: "Why do these games take so &$%#@(* long?''
Or, "Have you noticed that only two guys in the last two innings have put the ball in play?''
And do you know why? Because the on-field product needs attention. No one wants to watch a 3-2 games take three hours and 42 minutes. No one wants to see a parade of strikeouts and walks, interrupted occasionally by home runs. Or to watch the winning team strike out 13 times in eight innings.
But as they laser-focus on tax rates and payroll limits, the owners and players have kicked that particular can down the road.
Ultimately, of course, the economic core issues have to be addressed. If that's done properly, it may even result in a sport in which more teams have a chance at winning, and the industry as a whole grows.
Still, if the ultimate, bottom-line goal is, as we often hear, to "grow the game,'' both sides are missing a major opportunity to do just that.
The reason that teenagers and 20-somethings aren't as interested in baseball as they are in the NBA and NFL has nothing to do with revenue sharing or whether there's a revised draft order. It's because the games are too slow and too much time passes without any action. The games slog along, and in a popular culture in which consumers, accustomed to instant gratification, do not wish to be indulged with a nine pitch at-bat that takes six minutes to resolve itself.
(There are ancillary issues, too, like MLB's inability to promote its stars or the players' reluctance to showcase their own personalities, but those items aren't going to get settled at the bargaining table).
Here's a question: Which do you think would create more anticipation among casual fans? An announcement that, beginning in 2022, a player can qualify for free agency after five seasons instead of the current six? Or news that MLB will introduce a pitch clock for 2022, requiring that pitchers must throw a pitch inside a 20-second window?
You know the answer to that one.
2. By not linking on-field changes to economic negotiations, both sides are missing a golden opportunity.
The nature of negotiations is about give-and-take. But by removing the on-field issues, players and owners are forfeiting an avenue to compromise.
Say the players are insistent on changes to the arbitration system. The owners might not want to compromise on another economic issue, or perhaps want to save it for another trade-off. They could say, "Ok, we'll consider your arbitration proposal, but we want you to approve the introduction of a pitch clock.''
Don't for a second think there isn't an economic side to on-field improvements. If games move quicker, there's the potential for improved TV ratings, and the next time rights fees are up for negotiation -- either on the local or national side -- everyone might benefit.
But here's my bigger concern, and it gets to the contentiousness that exists between the two sides. We know that there's great distrust between players and owners, and getting them to agree on anything -- remember the length of the pandemic-shortened schedule in 2020? Or the desire to have the universal DH in 2021, to protect pitchers from injury? -- is difficult.
The history of the two sides also suggests, when they can postpone a decision on something, they'll do so every time. That's why no real substantive talks were held until we got to within a few weeks of the old CBA expiring. It's also why they're not talking now and won't until there's the threat of loss for one side or another as spring training draws closer.
If they had to sort through all the issues at once -- economic and aesthetic -- it might take a little longer, but there would be some urgency to arrive at some real, substantial changes. And once they were done, they would be done for another five years, minimum.
Instead, they're determined to get to these matters a la carte. So once they've hammered out a new CBA, they'll still have to sit down and bicker about how to improve the product. And remember, players were incensed about MLB's decision to address the foreign substance in-season, claiming it was highly disruptive -- paging Garrett Richards -- so in all likelihood, whatever changes are eventually agreed upon, whenever that may be, won't be implemented until the start of the following season.
These sides only come together to negotiate when they must -- as with the case of an expired CBA. By not tackling the equally important issues of pace of play and creating more action on the field now, the owners and players have once more kicked the can down the road, and in the process, kicked the fans in the face, too.
______________________________________
When the lockout is settled, the Red Sox (and many other American League teams and a handful of ones from the National League) will face something of a dilemma.
Beginning Jan. 15, Canada will require all visitors to show proof of vaccination to enter the country.
As an American League East team, the Red Sox have three scheduled series at Rogers Centre -- a four-game set in the final week of April; three-game series at the end of June; and, a three-gamer for the final series of the regular season on the first week of October.
At the end of last year, a number of Red Sox players -- known to include Chris Sale, shortstop Xander Bogaerts, reliever Josh Taylor, infielder Christian Arroyo -- were not vaccinated. If that continues and the players refuse vaccination for 2022, how will the Red Sox respond?
As noted, this isn't something that's faced by just the Red Sox. Other teams in MLB will have the same dilemma. And, for that matter, it will impact both the NBA and NHL.
But while NBA and NHL teams might make just two visits per season to Toronto -- the Bruins, as example, have just one more regular-season visit left to Toronto, the final game of the season. That could well be a meaningless game, if both teams are locked into spots in the standings. Additionally, the percentage of players who are vaccinated in the NHL is considerably higher than in MLB.
If unvaccinated Player X misses Game No. 82 for the Bruins, it's no big deal. But for the Red Sox, the 10 games in Toronto represents 16 percent of the regular season schedule. That's a sizable chunk of the games.
The Sox can't force players to get vaccinated. But how they react to having ineligible players unavailable for 10 key games against a division rival represents a significant challenge.