MLB’s new proposal makes feud with players even more contentious

Major League Baseball and the players association have mastered making offers that the other side claims take them further away from an agreement. MLB delivered a written proposal Monday to the players association that called for players to collectively receive 50 percent of their prorated salaries in a 76-game regular season. That would go to …

Major League Baseball and the players association have mastered making offers that the other side claims take them further away from an agreement.

MLB delivered a written proposal Monday to the players association that called for players to collectively receive 50 percent of their prorated salaries in a 76-game regular season. That would go to 75 percent if the postseason were concluded. MLB eliminated the sliding scale element from its previous proposal that would have most impacted the salaries of the biggest earners and that the union loathed.

The proposal — a copy of which was obtained by The Post — also calls for the elimination of the qualifying offer for the 2020-21 offseason. Teams that lost a free agent who signed a multiyear contract for more than $35 million or for one year for at least $17.8 million would receive draft picks but the signing team would not lose a pick to discourage it from reaching agreement with a free agent. MLB saw not having draft compensation tied to free agency for the first time in four decades as a concession to try to help free agents in what is expected to be a difficult economic environment this offseason.

The players association did not comment publicly, but viewed the overall proposal as more of a step backward than progress toward a deal. The union sees this as pushing risk further on players. The MLB proposal collectively guaranteed 50 percent of the $1.91 billion the players would be owed in a 76-game season. Players would receive more the deeper the playoffs went and forgiveness of a portion of the $170 million advance that MLB made to players as part of a March 26 agreement. But collectively the players would be at the mercy of a World Series being completed amid a pandemic to reach 75 percent of their prorated salaries.

MLB put a Wednesday deadline for the union to accept this deal, stating that is the most time that would allow COVID-19 testing and education plus a spring training of at least three weeks, and a season beginning July 10 and ending Sept. 27 to avoid a second coronavirus wave in cooler weather and meet obligations to national TV partners.

In its counterproposal, the union not only stood by its insistence on full prorated pay, but asked for 114 regular-season games rather than the 82 in MLB’s initial offer. That would take the regular season through October and the postseason through November, maybe later. The union has not bought the contention that the regular season must stop on Sept. 27. In a letter obtained by The Post to players association lead negotiator Bruce Meyer, MLB deputy commissioner Dan Halem called the union counterproposal “regressive.”

Commissioner Rob Manfred told The Post: “Our medical people are 100 percent opposed to lengthening the season beyond the scheduled termination dates, let alone to 114 games. Unalterably opposed.”

The implication in MLB’s Monday offer is that each few days that go by will move MLB — with its hard regular-season closing date of Sept. 27 — to propose fewer and fewer regula- season games. But MLB is insistent there will be a regular season this year, so at some point, it will reach a number of games, perhaps as few as 48, in which it is willing to pay full prorated salaries. At that point, under the March 26 agreement, Manfred has control of the schedule and MLB believes players would be obligated to return or be in violation of their contracts.

The union has not publicly conceded that, but even if it did, it certainly at that point would nix MLB’s hopes for expanded playoffs — the postseason is when national TV broadcasters pay the most to the sport. In its latest offer to the union, MLB, which initially asked the playoffs be enlarged from 10 to 14 teams, requested the right to go to 16 teams. There would be no byes, the first round would be best two-out-of-three with the top seed in each league playing the eighth seed, the second seed playing the seventh seed, etc.

The question that will arise out of this is whether the union will counter or not? And if the players do, will the concession on no free-agent draft compensation provide an avenue for the union to ask for more in that area and/or other perks that have nothing directly to do with compensation this year, but would make swallowing less than 100 percent of prorated salaries more tolerable? Or do the players hold firm to the 100 percent position and force the owners to either buckle or play a season in which MLB finds it acceptable to pay full prorated salaries.

The total MLB would pay in salaries in its current proposal if the players got to 75 percent is $1.431 billion. That is roughly 57 games at full prorated.

Is that where the sides end up agreeing — or is agreeing with the tension, distrust and dislike this high between the parties going to prove impossible?

Follow us on Google News