The Cycle, Issue 115: Lockout!
In the wake of Thursday's lockout, I break down the key issues in the labor dispute, then wrap-up part one of the Hot Stove with a look at the big moves each team has made thus far this offseason.
In this issue of The Cycle . . .
Labor Days: On the lockout, baseball’s basic economics, and a dozen or so of the key issues the two sides will need to resolve to turn the lights back on
Hot Stove Roundup: Presented in order of their offseason spending to this point, I take a look at what every team has done thus far this offseason and what they have left to do
Feedback
Closing Credits
Labor Days
One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting For?
The Collective Bargaining Agreement between Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players’ Association expired at midnight on Wednesday, at which point the owners immediately instituted a lockout of the players, resulting in a freeze of all transactions involving players on the teams’ 40-man rosters. This was entirely expected but also entirely unnecessary.
The offseason could have proceeded as normal under the terms of the expired agreement until the two sides approved a new one to replace it. That’s what happened during the 1994–95 strike, which was the last work stoppage in MLB prior to this one. Prior to Thursday’s lockout, there was no more certainty about the rules that will govern team payrolls and player salaries and movement under the next CBA than there is today. Yet, the first half of this week saw an onslaught of free-agent signings, plus a few trades, and now player movement at the major-league level is in a complete standstill. The only reason the lockout is in place is for the owners to apply pressure to the union, something MLB commissioner Rob Manfred admitted during a press conference on Thursday morning despite telling a different story in a public letter announcing the lockout several hours earlier.
In a public letter, ostensibly to “our Fans,” released in conjunction with the lockout, Manfred struck a belligerent tone, claiming the league was “forced” to institute a lockout and that the MLBPA has been “unwilling to move from their starting position, compromise, or collaborate on solutions.”
Manfred has already admitted the former (“forced”) was a lie, which the union also made clear in its far briefer statement on twitter. Anyone following the coverage of the negotiations prior to Wednesday knows that the latter (“unwilling to move”) is a lie, as well, as the player’s most recent proposal included an expansion of the postseason, which is a concession to one of the owner’s desires (more on that specific bargaining point below).
As Manfred admitted on Thursday, the lockout was a strategic move on the part of the owners, who hope that it will increase the urgency of the negotiations. I’m not quite sure why they think that. With the exception of the odd signing bonus, players don’t get paid in the offseason. Those big free agent contracts don’t kick in until the games start. Players don’t even get paid for Spring Training, so the owners stand to feel the pinch sooner, as they would lose exhibition-game revenue before the players lose a day of salary. It’s true that the lockout interrupts continuity of care for players rehabbing injuries or making use of mental health services provided by the team, but that only seems likely to make the players angrier and more determined not to give in.
Indeed, as MLBPA director Tony Clark restated on Thursday, the players are prepared for a fight and have no intention of accepting a deal that they find unfair. With the players preaching patience, and Manfred stressing urgency, the players already seem to have the upper hand. That doesn’t indicate a quick resolution, however. The simple, unavoidable fact is that the two sides have diametrically opposed goals in these negotiations.