With the relationship between MLB and the MLB Players Association already tense, the league is continuing to make suggestions that the union is not happy about. On Thursday, MLB reportedly proposed drastic changes to the offseason, including a shortened free agency window, ESPN’s Jeff Passan reported Thursday.
Under the proposal, per Passan, the free agency window would open the Monday after the Winter Meetings in early December, and would close Dec. 21. No free agency signings or trades would be allowed until the first Monday in February, at which they would be allowed to resume.
The period would be preceded by a “dead period” where players can negotiate with players, but not sign — similar to the NFL’s “legal tampering” period.
The somewhat radical proposal would slash the amount of time that players could sign in the offseason, making it much more difficult for players to leverage deals between teams, meaning that money is left on the table.
Additionally, the shortened offseason period relates to the contentious issue of the proposed salary cap, something that MLB has been heavily pushing for in the new collective bargaining agreement while the union has strongly pushed back.
As a result, the MLBPA quickly expressed its displeasure at the idea: In a statement shared with multiple outlets, MLBPA interim executive director Bruce Meyer slammed the proposal.
“The league, through their propaganda arm, is promoting their latest set of roster and transaction proposals as player-friendly,” Meyer said, via The Athletic’s Evan Drellich. “Their latest proposals regarding free agency would eliminate player rights by establishing an artificial free agency window, subject to a salary cap, which would reduce player leverage and create a game of musical chairs pitting player vs. player.
“The suggestion that the only way to limit roster churn, or incentivize earlier free agent signing is with a salary cap is entirely unserious. Players have proposed changes that would address these priorities, but the league is not interested in any changes that don’t directly reduce the rights of all players and shift leverage to the owners.”
The current MLB CBA expires Dec. 1, but talks have seemingly revealed a chasm between MLB and the MLBPA. Since negotiations for the new CBA began in April, the salary cap has been the most significant source of tension between the two sides.
MLB’s first CBA proposal in May featured a salary floor of $171.2 million and a cap of $245.3 million. Those numbers would require the lowest-spending teams — like the Miami Marlins and Cleveland Guardians — to double their payroll, while the highest-spending teams — like the Los Angeles Dodgers and New York Mets — would have to make very significant cuts to their payroll.
MLB has tried to sway the public towards a salary cap through a campaign called “Level the Playing Field,” which argues that decreasing the spending gap between teams will increase the league’s overall competitiveness. The MLBPA, meanwhile, has repeatedly accused MLB of trying to favor owners over players by restricting their compensation.
Read the full article here