The Astros’ site has articles about Bagwell and Ryan.
Here are the details. MLBPA’s either/or proposal was a response to MLB’s age-only proposal.
The article also says MLB wanted a set pool to be paid out to pre-FA players ($1B), so that answers another question I wasn’t sure about above.
(ETA: if I’ve missed a subsequent report on MLB’s offer, someone please set me straight)
1 Like
Just stumbled across this clip that sheds some light on MLB’s thinking.
I don’t Twitter, but I assume he’s talking about fan reaction? Of course fans don’t want their favorite players to ever leave. Fans have always seen free agency as a curse.
Shocking that the owners would say free agency is the biggest problem.
Yes, he was exactly. They played this clip on MLB radio a short while ago. They don’t want the star players leaving franchises that early. Or I should say, they don’t view that as a positive.
Right. Posted to clarify that the quote below had it backward—the owners don’t want earlier free agency at all.
The owners don’t want free agency at all. And they want to pay all players $50,000/year. So in the absolute sense, you’re right. My point, stated poorly, was that owners are willing to give in on paying players more money ealier in their careers (the most productive part) in exchange for not not having to overpay for them later (when they’re not so productive). You’re seeing that exact thing play out now. And if earlier FA can facilitate that, they’re willing to conceed. I don’t believe that whatever owners propose early in the negotiations is necessarily a hard line for them.
The Astros’ site has articles about Bagwell and Ryan.
They can reference MLB history. I’m assuming that means they can’t mention any current player but can mention past players.
https://www.mlb.com/astros/news/a-note-about-our-website-content
I’m sure that’s correct. It was just a lame attempt at a joke.
1 Like
Yeah, Bagwell and Ryan are not members of the MLBPA, so they are free to show.
Roger that. I don’t know how effective that strategy will be in reducing FA outlays overall, but agreed that’s what the owners are angling for.
All of which becomes academic if Manfred succeeds at overturning the Seitz decision, which sometimes seems more likely than the players getting some of their demands met this time around.
What’s “the Seitz decision”?
It’s the arbitration ruling in 1975 in favor of Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally. It’s what ended the Reserve Clause and created free agency.
I don’t think the owners are trying to reinstitute the Reserve Clause, depsite the hyperbole of how they’re holding players in indentured slavery at only $30MM/year.
1 Like
That’s the point. It’s a choice. None of these owners are unable to compete for labor because of their “market size.” The lament about no way that “the Royals or some other small market club” can compete is bullshit.
1 Like
Let’s get this shit over with so spring training opens on time…
5 Likes
Oh fantastic…
Color me not surprised.
Why would baseball get it’s act together now?
In other news, anonymous sources have confirmed to me that water, is wet. More on that at 10.
2 Likes
Somehow the fact that it’s unsurprising doesn’t make it less disappointing.
3 Likes