After a 99-day lockout, there's a new collective bargaining agreement in place that will govern the business of the game for the next five seasons.
That's good news, obviously, and as painful as the lockout was for the industry, the agreement looks to be a good deal for both sides. The owners, who always hold the upper hand in this power structure, didn't relinquish control of the business. There are no new radical constructs that will jeopardize their money-making ability, and the 45-day notification window on changes to rules means they have less resistance to implement some much-needed changes to the on-field product.
From the players' perspective, they gained better pay for younger star players, and got concessions to improve the game's competitiveness. Win-win there.
Now that the negotiations are complete, however, there's more work to be done.
Despite the mutually agreed-upon CBA, there's still hostility between the two sides. Players were frustrated with how long it took for the owners to initially get to the table, and then, how slow they were to actually meet the players anywhere near the middle. Owners, no doubt, are unhappy with the Players Association digging in its heels and extracting some concessions, right down to the final hours.
That happens when two sides negotiate.
But with a deal in place, it's imperative that players and owners (and by extension, commissioner Rob Manfred) get to the business of repairing their frayed relationship.
It may be hard to recall now, but it wasn't that long ago that the sides reached numerous CBAs without hostility, drama, or any interruption to the game. Neither side felt the need to take public swipes at each other, or threaten lockouts or strikes. They sat down, met in the middle, and hammered out deals. It can happen again.
Manfred himself was the chief labor negotiator for several of those collective bargaining agreements, so not only does he know it can be done, but he can also take some credit for it happening. On the Players Association's side, most of the negotiating team has churned, but there's enough institutional memory from when the relationship was far better,
More than anything, the two sides need to acknowledge the need to act as partners instead of combatants. This is an industry that will likely realize $12 billion in revenues this season, and that only happens because of contributions from both sides. The owners provide the capital and investment and infrastructure, while the players themselves are the product. Like it or not, the two sides need one another.
To his credit, Manfred called Players Association executive director Tony Clark upon the ratification of the CBA Thursday, offering both congratulations as well as a vow to repair the two sides' damaged relationship.
"I told him that I thought we had a great opportunity for the game in front of us and told him I hope to work with him on things that are new in the agreement,'' said Manfred, who added that he himself needed to do a better job in uniting the two sides.
"I responded accordingly,'' said Clark, "and suggested to him that there's a lot of work to do moving forward with respect to where our game is at and where it needs to head. I look forward to having those conversations.''
That spirit of cooperation has been absent from the game for a while now. One need only look to the NBA model as a reminder of what can be accomplished when ownership and players work toward a common goal.
No league does a better job in marketing its stars or promoting its product. Commissioner Adam Silver doesn't trash the players as ingrates or mercenaries, because, what sense would that make? Why tear down the people providing the product that you want fans to support?
And yet, that's what too many owners have done, all the while with many of them refusing to spend -- even with their pockets lined with revenue sharing intended to help -- to put a competitive product on the field.
Even if you view the commissioner as merely the owners representative, there's another aspect to the role: He's also the public face of the game. As such, Manfred needs to do a better job serving as the game's steward.
"One of the things that I'm supposed to do,'' he acknowledged, "is promote a good relationship with our players. I've tried to do that. I think I have not been successful in that. I think it begins with small steps. It's why I picked the phone up after the ratification and called Tony and expressed my desire to work with him. It's going to be a priority of mine going forward to try to make good on the commitment I made to him on the phone.''
Baseball has perhaps never before been blessed with such a talented group of young stars. You could make a terrific All-Star team in both leagues made up solely of players who are 25 or younger. These players are athletic, dynamic and charismatic. It would be a shame if they weren't properly promoted and encouraged to help grow the sport.
"We have an opportunity in front of us,'' said Manfred. "It's an opportunity that we need to work with the players in order to fully seize.''
Here's hoping that Manfred remembers those words.
________________________
The agreement between the players is some 150 pages long, and filled with changes -- big and small -- that will be coming to the game.
For weeks, you've heard/read about the big issues: the CBT threshold; increases in minimum salaries; an expanded playoff format; a draft lottery; the universal DH and many other major items.
But invariably, there are aspects to the deal that haven't been publicized, that got swallowed up by some of the bigger issues.
Here are a few:
* Major changes to the schedule, starting in 2023.
It was too late to change this year's schedule, but in 2023, these will be in place. For one thing, divisional play will be reduced. Instead of playing teams in your own division 19 times -- with three series at home and three more on the road -- teams will play division opponents 14 times. That means two visits to each division city (with one three-game series and one four-game series) instead of three.
So, starting next year, instead of playing the Yankees, Rays, Blue Jays and Orioles a total of 76 times, the Red Sox will play them 56 times.
Some may bemoan that losing five games with the Yankees is a unwelcome development. But there will still be 14 meetings.
The games against a team's other league opponents (in the Red Sox' case, the five teams in the AL Central and AL West) will remain about the same. Currently, they play those teams either six or seven games per season; in 2023, it will be capped at six games - one three-game series at home and another three-game set on the road. So, other than the odd four-game series vs. out-of-division league games, this is unchanged.
The big difference, meanwhile, will come in interleague play. Currently, teams play approximately 20 (the number deviated by a game or two, depending on the year); starting in 2023, that number will more than double to 46.
The Red Sox will play four games against their (ahem) "natural'' rivals, alternating between the Phillies and Braves. Then, they'll play one three-game series against every other National League team. So, in this case, the Red Sox will play the Cubs every season -- one year at Fenway, and the next at Wrigley. The same goes for every other NL opponent -- the Dodgers, Giants, Mets.
The reasons behind this are twofold.
For the last decade or so, baseball featured an unbalanced schedule that had emphasized games against your own divisional teams, to make the race for the division title a level playing field. Now, with thee wildcard teams in each league, this is a more balanced schedule, allowing for a more equitable competition.
Also, MLB wants to get its star players in every opposing park at least once every two years. This way, no matter where you live, you get a chance to have Mike Trout or Fernando Tatis Jr. in your home ballpark every other season.
* More international play.
This has been a goal of MLB for some time, to help grow the sport internationally.
The Red Sox and Yankees memorably played in London in 2019 and, the ridiculous number of home runs aside, were considered a great marketing success. Now, there will be additional regular season series played throughout Europe, with games in London and Paris.
Other areas expected to host games: Japan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and other sites.
(Also, there will be more "special event'' games, like the one baseball staged in Iowa last season as "Field of Dreams'' event).
* No extra innings in All-Star game.
Remember the debacle that was the tie All-Star game in Milwaukee in 2002? Ever since, managers have lived in abject fear that this will happen again, and have been careful to hold back a couple of players (pitchers, especially) for just such a scenario.
No more.
Though details haven't been completely worked out, moving forward, if an All-Star Game is tied after nine innings, the winner will be determined by a Home Run Derby between the leagues.
Owners and the PA are still ironing out the exact details and the format.
* Players can only be optioned a maximum of five times per season.
In the past, as long as players had an option remaining -- players have three for their career -- a player could be bounced between the minors and majors endlessly.
In recent season, this practice became more popular as teams looked to maximize their rosters. A pitcher would be called up to provide an extra arm, be used a couple of time in the span of two or three days, then optioned back to the Triple A affiliate before being called back 10 days later when a similar arms shortage occurred.
The Red Sox used this practice in 2021 with Tanner Houck, who was optioned to Worcester seven times over the course of the season -- even though, a few times, it was strictly a paper move and Houck never actually left the team -- he just wasn't active.
The impact of this might be seen early in 2022. With a short spring training and the need to carefully monitor workloads for pitchers in the first month of the season, teams will have to think long and hard whether they want to burn a couple of options on a player in the first few weeks, realizing that that would leave only three such moves for the final five months.
___________________________
Since 1999, Joe Buck has called every World Series game for Fox. When the Red Sox ended their 86-year drought in 2004, it was Buck who was at the microphone ("Red Sox fans have longed to hear it....."). Twelve years later, Buck was calling the Series when the Cubs ("The Cubs....have finally won it all!').
In one of the greatest World Series games ever played, Game 6 in 2011 between the Texas Rangers and St. Louis Cardinals, Buck echoed the words of his father, Jack Buck, by telling viewers: "We will see you tomorrow night!'' His father had originated the phrase back in 1991, when Kirby Puckett forced a Game 7.
Now, this November, there will be a new voice calling the final out of the World Series. Buck left Fox this week to become the voice of Monday Night Football for ESPN, leaving the lead chair for baseball play-by-play for Fox empty -- for now.
I've long been an admirer of Buck's baseball work and I've been mystified at the segment of viewers who have denigrated him on social media and other platforms.
Many of those fans are convinced, without a shred of evidence, that Buck secretly takes great delight when their favorite team loses in October. (Think of the absurdity of that statement, since that would mean Buck is actively rooting against virtually every team).
Buck understood the rhythms of the game, had a fine grasp of history and tradition and artfully blended in analytics into his telecasts without overloading the viewer. He paired well with any number of analysts, from Tim McCarver to his most recent partner, John Smoltz.
His departure from the Fox booth is a loss for the game. In an era when most fans only ask that a broadcaster not detract from their viewing experience, Buck actually enhanced it.