MLB Notebook: Finding a solution to the lockout shouldn't be hard

Now the owners and players not only can't come to an agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement; they can't even agree on whether a third-party would be helpful in reaching one.

It's come to this.

And of course, it shouldn't have.

As always, there's more than enough blame to go around. Start with the owners, who insisted the implementation of the lockout on Dec. 2 was necessary in order to kickstart negotiations -- then didn't come to the table for another six weeks. That was followed by Thursday's request for a non-binding federal mediator, a move they knew had no chance of being accepted by the players. 

Then there's the players, who wasted time with some proposals that were never going to be accepted.

Undoubtedly, there's a deal to get made here, if only the two sides could drop the posturing. While the players are indeed unhappy with the status quo, having foolishly ceded too much ground in the 2016 CBA, they're not looking for fundamental changes to the system.

New York Mets pitcher Max Scherzer nicely summarized the Players Association's desires in a Friday tweet:

I'm no labor lawyer, but it seems as though a solution to the stalemate could be pretty easily achieved, with some compromise necessary from both sides. (Yes, I know: If the two sides couldn't agree on a non-binding federal mediator taking part, they're unlikely to accept my proposal).

Nevertheless, let's take a look at the five issues that could get players back on the field and ensure that the 2022 regular season could start on time.

1) Minimum salary.

Last year, the major league minimum was $570,500, which, frankly, is ridiculously low, especially when matched against the minimum salary in other sports.

The NHL, which has revenues of about half that of MLB, has a $750,000 minimum. The NBA has a minimum of $925,258. And the NFL, which has the weakest union of the four North American pro sports, somehow has a $660,000 base for rookies. If the NFL is ahead of you in terms of player benefits, it might be time for you to re-examine your economic system.

To date, the MLBPA has proposed a big jump to $775,000 (a bump of 36 percent from the current minimum) and the owners have offered $615,000, an increase of 7.8 percent.

In recognizing the fact that MLB has come catching up to do with its minimum salary, a split down the middle wouldn't be proper. But if the two sides agreed to a format in which the major league minimum rose to $675,000, MLB would be on the right course to a more equitable salary structure. From there, players with two years could graduate to $725,000, and for a third year, $775,000.

No sport relies on young (and thus, relatively inexpensive players) like baseball does, thanks to its minor league system. (The NHL is the only other of the four North American sports to also have a significant affiliated minor league system, but for reasons too detailed to get into here, doesn't rely on those players nearly as much as baseball does with its own minor leaguers).

In 2019, the last full season before 2021, 63.2 percent (or almost two thirds) of all players who wore a major league uniform had less than three years of service time.

This plan would have significant benefits for a major chunk of the players, and would get MLB away from the practice of awarding tiny raises to players in their second or third year. (It's not unusual for players in their second or third seasons to get the smallest of pay increases, sometimes as little as an additional $10,000 or so per annum.

It would also fix costs for teams, who could budget ahead of time what players would cost for their first three seasons. Meanwhile, the MLBPA will be making good on its promise to lift the lowest-paid players into a more fair wage, countering criticism that it too often caters to the big-name stars who are in no need of additional economic gains.

Finally, there would be a bonus pool to reward excellence by non-arbitration eligible players. 

Both sides agree that a pool of money -- from MLB's central fund, not the individual clubs' payrolls -- should be introduced to reward rookie players who have extraordinary first seasons. The money would be given out based on Rookie of the Year balloting (and other awards rookies might qualify for), along with WAR figures.

The owners have proposed $5 million while the MLB has proposed $100 million.

Let's find the (relative) middle ground at $50 million.

2) Anti-tanking.

MLB has a tanking problem, though to date, hasn't had two owners stupid enough to encourage its coaches/managers to aim for defeats the way the NFL reportedly has.

The issue, unfortunately, is that tanking achieves its stated goal: short-term pain for long-term gain. It happened with the Houston Astros and the Chicago Cubs -- who accepted a few years of rebuilding misery in exchange for multiple trips to the postseason and world championship rings.

The best way to combat tanking is to change the amateur draft system, so that teams with the worst records have their choice of the best high school and college players. Amazingly enough, both sides have already agreed to this.

The Players Association has urged eight teams be eligible for a draft lottery; the owners have countered with an offer of three teams. (Both sides have also proposed that no team should be eligible for a Top 3 pick more than two years in a row, though again, they differ on details).

The easy option here is to find a compromise. Since the halfway point is 5.5 and thus untenable, let's phase it in. Most CBAs are five years in length. For our purposes, let's have five teams in play for the top picks for the first three years, then ramp up to six teams in the final two years. Done.

And while we're at it, let's get rid of the ridiculous practice of forbidding the trading of draft picks. Allowing teams to deal draft picks would offer the chance for lousy teams to get better sooner - obtaining talent far closer to contributing at the major league level -- while also increasing fan interest in the draft. Imagine being a fan of a team picking early in the draft and tuning in to see if your team was going to deal its pick for one of the top prospects in the game.

3) Service Time Manipulation.

This is another of the Players Association's big causes: teams purposefully delaying the call-up of its best young players, so as to delay eligibility for salary arbitration and free agency for another year. The current practice is why you almost never see the best young players make the team out of spring training, even if they're ready to contribute. Teams routinely wait a couple of weeks into April before summoning a player from the minors, thus assuring he won't gain a full year of service time, giving the team nearly seven years of control before free agency instead of six. (Teams also delay calling players up until mid-June, the point after which they will no longer qualify for ''Super 2'' status -- early arbitration eligibility for players falling just shy of the requisite three seasons).

The Players Associated has offered a formula where players would qualify for a full year of service time based on top finishes in Rookie of the Year voting along with a more complicated formula that would reward players for infielders and catchers who finish among the Top 7 in WAR among their positions and Top 20 for pitchers and outfielders.

The owners, meanwhile, want to be rewarded for adding rookies who go on to outstanding seasons to their Opening Day roster . Again, based on a number of factors, rookies who achieve a certain level would result in their teams gaining additional draft picks in future years.

Again, there's a compromise to be worked out here, whereby both players and teams would gain from promoting the best young stars sooner.

4) Expanded playoff field

As detailed here recently, players are ready to sign off on a 12-team field -- six teams, with three wild card teams in each of the two leagues --  while owners wish to introduce a 14-team format (seven teams in each league).

The players worry that by making it easier to qualify for the postseason, fewer teams will be motivated to improve. That's one way of looking at it; another is to recognize that, with additional paths to the postseason available, teams will have more incentive than ever to build a better roster. A team that projects to be a 78-82 win team might well rationalize that signing an additional free agent could spell the difference between qualifying for the playoffs, or spending October at home.

There's a danger in watering down the postseason and making the regular season mean less. That's a real concern. But if some of the above changes are agreed upon, it could well mean a more competitive game, with teams properly incentivized to win now.

And because the union is asking for additional commitments on minimum salary and pre-arbitration bonuses, it only seems fair to allow the owners to generate more revenue by giving them additional postseason inventory to auction to the networks.

5) Competitive Balance Tax thresholds.

This may be the most difficult issue to bridge. Players are convinced that owners are using the current CBT thresholds as a de facto salary cap, while owners maintain that significant penalties must be in place for the biggest spending teams.

MLB has offered only incremental increases from the current $210 million, with a first-year bump to just $214 million, and topping out at just $220 million over the life of a five-year agreement. A $10 million increase across five years is not nearly enough.

Let's move the first year up to $220 million, and take $5 million graduated steps with each year of the agreement, reaching $240 by the end of the agreement.

Additionally, let's reduce -- at least somewhat -- the penalties that come from going over the CBT limit. The tax rates should come down to the level from the previous CBA and adjustments made on draft standing and pool money. If the goal is to prod the owners into spending more, it doesn't make any sense to increase the threshold but maintain penalties that act as a drag on spending.

And while we're at it, let's counter that with something the players have long opposed: the introduction of a salary floor. (The players fear is that a floor would soon be followed by calls for a cap, a not-unreasonable assumption).

But if owners want a penalty imposed on themselves for spending too much, they should also agree to a penalty for spending too little.

Thus, if a team is under, say, $80 million in 2022, there would also be penalties.

It works both ways.

Which, come to think of it, are four words both sides should keep in mind while the game burns down around them.