With new CBA in place, what is the potential optics problem for the MLBPA?

Players and owners came to terms on a new collective bargaining agreement on Thursday of last week. Did the MLBPA create an optics problem for itself in the process? Let’s take a look.

MLB owners and the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) have finally agreed to end the public fiasco that stemmed from contention over a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). When the owners locked out the players after the expiration of the old agreement on December 2 of last year, the consensus was that these negotiations would be rough, and that proved to be completely true. The public back-and-forth between players and ownership likely did damage the great game of baseball for casual fans, as the millionaires-versus-billionaires narrative abounded in media environments across the digital landscape.

The court of public opinion seemed more supportive of the players through deliberations, as the game could not go on without the talent filling out rosters across MLB. Owners were cast in a much less positive light, being the initiators of the lockout of players, and going so far as to request a federal mediator to help end the debacle they helped to create.

By the end of the lockout, following the agreement on a new CBA, the roles may have been somewhat reversed, based on the votes of the eight-man executive subcommittee versus the unanimous vote of approval from owners.

Let’s look at how this could ultimately reflect badly on the MLBPA going forward.

Core Economics: The Main Area of Dispute

As more and more details about the various CBA proposals came out from both sides of the bargaining table, it seemed clear that players were prioritizing more money, whereas owners were content keeping things a little more status quo:

• Players were pushing for increases in the competitive balance tax, which essentially sets a soft cap on payroll spending. The more teams were enabled to spend, the more players (especially top talent) could cash in on the increase. The MLBPA also pushed for an increased minimum salary, as well as a larger pre-arbitration bonus pool, which would pay out incentive-based bonus money to high-performing young players not yet in their arbitration years.
• MLB owners wanted to keep the competitive balance tax closer to where it had been, with subtle increases through the coming seasons. They also sought an expanded playoff format (more games equals more revenue), as well as a lower minimum salary and bonus pool than the MLBPA sought.

By the final stages of the lockout and corresponding to the cancellation of games, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred and the owners were left looking villainous. The MLBPA had narrative control of the situation, and many players made public pleas to get a CBA done so games would not be canceled (which they ultimately were until an agreement was reached).

People around baseball that rely on the sport for work, as well as local economies in Florida and Arizona (the spring training havens from the dreary cold) were facing dire consequences for the lack of cohesion between the two parties as things continued to drag out. The players (and later, the owners) started a fund for those negatively impacted by the lockout, and made strides to keep the furor of the baseball-starved masses aimed at ownership.

An Agreement Is Reached

When news came down that things were getting close to a deal through last Tuesday and Wednesday, excitement became palpable and built up quickly. The failure to initially come to terms was immensely deflating, and the cancellation of further games (up to Jackie Robinson Day on April 15) seemed to indicate the swamp of discontent was still deep.

When the news broke on Thursday that MLB and the MLBPA finally agreed to terms on a new CBA, the enthusiasm across baseball for the new season was abounding. Players would begin flocking to their respective spring training sites, free agents would begin scrambling for deals, and life would slowly start getting back to normal in the world of baseball.

The MLBPA Executive Subcommittee

What threw up some eyebrows in surprise was the way the player representatives voted on the CBA. Between all 30 clubs and the eight-man MLBPA executive subcommittee, 38 total votes were cast on the new agreement. 26 votes went for approving the deal, and 12 went against it. Among those 12 downvotes (all from large-market teams) were all the members of the executive subcommittee, the same group that was the most involved and the most vocal in the negotiation process through the duration of the lockout.

The MLBPA subcommittee is comprised of Zack Britton (Yankees), Gerrit Cole (Yankees), Max Scherzer (Mets), Jason Castro (Astros), James Paxton (Red Sox), Marcus Semien (Rangers), and former Indians Andrew Miller (Cardinals) and Francisco Lindor (Mets). The other four player reps to vote against accepting the new CBA were from the Yankees, Mets, Cardinals, and Astros. The message this conveys is not one that will spin well for the players going forward.

While the majority of teams and owners were hungry to get a season underway and play 162 games, the optics show an MLBPA subcommittee not on the same page with the bulk of its contemporaries. It also shows a potential divide between some of the wealthier teams in baseball and the rest of the pack. While the owners unanimously agreed to the terms, the dissension in the players’ camp does not look great on the surface or when you break down the specifics of the deal.

The big economic points of the new CBA are as follows:

• The MLB minimum salary will be $700,000 in 2022, with annual increases coming through the end of the new CBA. By 2026, the minimum will be $780,000.
• Teams will essentially have a soft cap of up to $230 million in 2022, with increases up to $244 million by the end of the new CBA.
• The pre-arbitration bonus pool will be $50 million for high-performing youngsters, assuring more money for better play before arbitration and free agency is reached.

There are other draft-centric (the new six-team lottery system) and on-field elements (universal DH/2023 changes) that we could address here, but the economics were what kept the sides apart for 99 days. The MLBPA had done well characterizing MLB and its owners as the culprits of the slow progress through this process, but the final vote by the union raises some big questions as to where the executive subcommittee was at in relation to its constituency.

How Do the Optics on the MLBPA Look Going Forward?

While there were points where the owners could be credibly accused of not negotiating in good faith, the MLBPA made its own life harder when the majority of its players showed they were not on the same page as its leadership. Now after-the-fact, with a relatively equitable agreement in place, one must question how much the executive subcommittee helped to slow down the negotiations as they ground to a near halt at times. Each player on the subcommittee is making their money, and they negotiated a better deal for the youngsters of the game, so it doesn’t seem like they had that much more to gain in this round of talks.

While the public, the owners, and the bulk of players were tired of the ongoing labor dispute and wanted to get games started as soon as possible, the MLBPA leadership showed that if it got its way, MLB might not have been getting started for awhile yet. This could potentially create a scenario where owners can claim they wanted a deal for the fans’ sake more than the union, giving them leverage in future MLB-MLBPA negotiations.

As much as Rob Manfred and the owners ended up with egg on their face through this process, the union may have hurt its own standing when a new CBA will be needed following the 2026 season. The optics and narrative around their demands may be impacted when that time comes, and it may be the fault of the eight players who oversaw these negotiations through the months-long lockout.

Where the Cleveland Guardians Currently Stand

Since this is a Guardians-based site, we’d be remiss not to mention the state of Cleveland’s organization following the new CBA.

As of Friday, guys were starting to show up in Goodyear, Arizona where the Guardians will hold a condensed spring training. Many players have been working themselves into game-shape, so things in the desert should be focused on continuing the progression towards the start of the regular season.

Terry Francona and his staff have been in Goodyear for a couple of weeks now, preparing for the eventual arrival of the 40-man roster and assisting in the development of prospects in Cleveland’s organization. With a few non-roster invites already in camp, the coaching staff will continue working with guys as they get to camp in preparation for the kickoff of exhibition games. They will also get to finally reconnect with the players they were barred from contacting during the length of the lockout.

Trades and free-agent signings should be likely, with there being a couple areas in need of help on the ball club. The outfield, catcher, second base and the bullpen are all question marks at the moment, making at least a couple transactions a necessity before the Opening Day roster is finalized. Expect that sort of transactional activity to pick up in the coming weeks.

At the end of the day, it appears as if much of the potential damage to the Guardians and baseball on a wider scale has been avoided. Going forward, and especially looking at the injury front, the hope now is that the delayed start will not manifest the types of problems guys saw during the last two seasons. Given the plethora of injuries the Guardians dealt with last year, this will be a point to pay close attention to as baseball (and the weather) starts to heat up into the spring and early summer months.

Although a lot is crazy in the world right now, a new CBA ensures MLB will be back, the Guardians brand will debut, and we’ll get the summer we all hoped for at the corner of Carnegie and Ontario.