March 4th, 2022: Lockout, Mailbag

Lockout, Day 93: I love baseball but hate Baseball. We’re getting a shortened season for the second time in three years, this time for no good reason. Why do I dedicate so much time and brainpower to a sport that treats me this way? No matter how much I love baseball, it will never love me back. Well, anyway, here are today’s thoughts as No. 9 prospect Alex Vargas cranks a dinger in an intrasquad game.

1. Regular season games canceled. The owners and Rob Manfred got their wish. After weeks of dragging their feet and making proposals that barely meet the legal definition of good faith, the league has canceled regular season games. The first two series of the season, specifically. I count 90 games lost league-wide and am convinced this was the plan all along.

"Today is a sad day. We came to Florida to navigate and negotiate for a fair Collective Bargaining Agreement. Despite meeting daily, there is still significant work to be done," MLBPA head Tony Clark said Tuesday. "The reason we are not playing is simple: a lockout is the ultimate economic weapon. In a $10 billion dollar industry, the owners have decided to use this weapon against the greatest asset they have: the players."

Manfred makes my blood boil. While announcing regular season games are being canceled, he smiled and laughed and yucked it up. This was the commissioner’s expression on one of the darkest days in the sport’s history:

The idea the commissioner is a steward of the game who looks out for the best interests of baseball is dead. It’s been dead since the owners ousted Fay Vincent and replaced him with one of their own, but now the mask is off completely. The person in charge of baseball is happy – look at that smile! – to damage the game as long as it improves the margins.

The tone of the coverage of the lockout, especially over the last week or so, is much different than it was during the 1994-95 strike, and even during the 2020 shutdown. Coverage was decidedly pro-ownership then. The greedy players are ruining the game, etc. Now the national media is ripping MLB and the owners, and not because they’re biased. Because the facts make it clear who's to blame. There’s no both-sidesing this.

I miss baseball dearly but I’m glad the players are standing up for themselves. The actions of the owners have made baseball less enjoyable. Tanking, service time manipulation, and other stuff have hurt the game. The players we have right now are the most talented, most explosive, and most exciting players in history. The talent is unreal. If we have to lose games in the short-term to make baseball better in the long-term, so be it. I’ll make that trade.

“As a player, we dedicate our lives to this game and playing it at the highest level we possibly can,” Clark said Tuesday. “There’s nothing we won’t do to protect it.”

At some point MLB and the MLBPA will get back together and continue bargaining. Manfred & Co. made the last offer, so the ball is in the union’s court, and their responses have been swift throughout the lockout. They’ve shown a sense of urgency MLB has not. Let’s break down the latest proposals and other CBA-related items, shall we? We shall.

The latest offers

To be fair, MLB and the MLBPA did make progress during their eight straight days of meetings in Florida. There’s still a wide gap on several key issues – have you noticed the union acknowledges those gaps while MLB traffics in “we have momentum toward a deal” propaganda? – though the gaps aren’t quite as large as they once were. Dare I say the proposals are now in the realm of reasonable?

The heroes at MLBTR put together a one-stop-shop post with the latest proposals. Here’s where the two sides sat on key economic matters when they left Florida earlier this week:

* The last few CBAs included CPI (Consumer Price Index) raises in the last two years, so the union is maintaining the status quo there. Who knows what the CPI will be in a few years, but those raises averaged $5,750 the last four times it was used. They tend to be small.

The union dropped its proposal to get more players into arbitration. First they wanted everyone with 2-3 years of service time to go to arbitration. Then it was the top 75%, then the top 35%, and then they dropped it and are sticking with the top 22% of the current Super Two system. An additional 10-20 players per year would’ve been arbitration-eligible under the 35% proposal.

Anyway, the minimum salary was $570,500 last year and the luxury tax threshold was $210M. MLB’s proposed $129,500 raise to the minimum salary and $10M increase to the luxury tax threshold would be the largest on record in Year 1 of a new CBA! But, in terms of percent increase, it would only be the sixth largest minimum salary increase in the last nine CBAs (22.7%), and tied for the largest luxury tax increase (4.7%). (The luxury tax has only been around since 2003.)

Furthermore, MLB’s proposed increases within the CBA are small. Adding $10,000 a year to the minimum salary is a 5.7% increase during the five-year CBA. The luxury tax increase would be only 4.3%. Baseball’s revenues have grown an average of 8% per year since 2002, and that’s about to jump thanks to the gambling revenue that wasn’t available to the league until recently.

The MLBPA’s proposals are obviously better than MLB’s, but a) it’s still only the sixth largest minimum salary increase in the last nine CBAs, and b) the minimum salary and luxury tax threshold increases within the CBA don’t keep up with revenue growth. The union is offering terms that favor the owners! They just don’t favor them as much as the last few CBAs. Here’s a handy graph that’s been circulating on social media the last few weeks (full-size image):

“We look at the competitive balance tax as a breakaway spending mechanism. That's how this thing was originally negotiated, and we're not seeing that function as breakaway spending. We're seeing it act as a salary cap,” Max Scherzer said earlier this week. “No better way can that be shown – point blank, plain and simple – than the San Diego Padres having a higher payroll than the New York Yankees."

The new pre-arbitration bonus pool is the only guaranteed new money. That will be paid out from MLB’s Central Fund, not the teams themselves, and is the only new money certain to be given to the players. The luxury tax increase only affects a few teams and doesn’t guarantee increased spending, and the minimum salary increase may just be a redistribution. Rather than up payroll to fund the new minimum salary, teams will probably just pass on signing that extra reliever or bench player.

MLB dropped their proposal for increased luxury tax penalties. They’re willing to stick with the same tax rates and draft pick penalties as last CBA. The pre-arb bonus pool is the only structural change to the game’s core economics and that framework is agreed to. Now the two sides are just haggling about dollars. In theory, a gap in dollars is easier to bridge than a gap in structure, so a deal could come together relatively quickly (fingers crossed).

Expanded postseason

I’ve seen it reported that the two sides agreed to a 12-team postseason format, though that’s not entirely correct. It would be more accurate to say each side’s latest proposal includes a 12-team format, and the other side has to agree to all this other stuff to get it. They’re each trying to take their pound of flesh along with the expanded postseason.

I don’t like it but one extra team in the postseason per league probably isn’t the end of the world. Buster Olney explains that, under the 12-team format, the division winners with the two best records would get a bye to the LDS, and the other four teams would get paired off and play a best-of-three Wild Card Series. The 12-team bracket using the 2021 standings:

American League
BYE: Rays (100-62) and Astros (95-67)
WC1: White Sox (93-69) vs. Blue Jays (91-71)
WC2: Red Sox (92-70) vs. Yankees (92-70)

National League
BYE: Giants (107-55) and Brewers (95-67)
WC1: Braves (88-73) vs. Reds (83-79)
WC2: Dodgers (106-56) vs. Cardinals (90-72)

The team with the best record in the league already sits around for four days between the end of the regular season and the start of the LDS, and the wait for the bye teams in the 12-team format would be along those lines. They’re not going to have to sit around for seven days or something like that.

In my Commissioner for a Day post, I proposed a modified best-of-three Wild Card format in which the higher seed starts with a 1-0 lead and only has to win one game to advance. I’d be in favor of giving the third division winner, the division winner that doesn’t get a bye, the 1-0 lead in the 12-team format to incentivize teams to win their division. It's not as good as a bye, but at least the third division winner would have a leg up on Wild Card teams.

It’s important to note the 12-team postseason format is not a given and MLB is still pushing for a 14-team format. The union is open to 14 teams too (14 teams mean more games and more gate revenue, and more gate revenue equals a larger postseason pool for players) but they want a different format that would encourage teams to finish with the best possible record.

“We didn’t understand why (MLB) didn’t want to take us up on a more competitive format,” Scherzer said about the 14-team postseason format. (Also, sticking with a 12-team format now allows the MLBPA to use a 14-team format as a chip for the next CBA.)

Andrew Marchand says ESPN is set to pay $100M a year for the broadcast rights to a 14-team postseason format and $85M for a 12-team format. That really gives the game away, huh? Is the extra $15M a year the reason MLB is digging in and fighting for a 14-team format? Does the extra $500,000 per team per year really mean that much to the league’s bottom line? Of course not.

Teams want the 14-team format because it lowers the bar for entry. You can trim payroll, build an 85-win roster, and still call yourself a contender because you’ll be a contender with the 14-team postseason. The extra $15M is a drop in the bucket. The money teams stand to save on payroll through anti-competitive behavior is the real prize. The meager $15M increase and MLB’s resistance to a more competitive 14-team format are dead giveaways.

In addition to devaluing the regular season and watering down the quality of competition in October, a 14-team postseason format would do a lot of harm to the sport. Owners would use it to suppress salaries and build less competitive rosters, and that’s exactly the stuff that led to this work stoppage in the first place. The owners don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. A 14-team postseason is a money grab, plain and simple, and it goes beyond the broadcast dollars.

International draft and service time

MLB’s latest proposal included an international draft and that’s nothing new. They try to get an international draft every CBA. And during his press conference, Manfred championed the idea because it promotes competitive balance, blah blah blah, and also would have “reduced abuses in some international markets.”

I want to make this 100% clear: these abuses (performance-enhancing drugs, laundering bonus money through one prospect and giving it to another, etc.) exist because MLB does not enforce the rules. They know this happens and allow it to happen. They care not even a little bit about the safety and well-being of the players. We know this because they’ve ignored them for years.

MLB tacitly endorses these abuses by not cracking down on them, and now they’re using the problem they’ve allowed to fester to justify an international draft. We want to stop these abuses and the only solution is a cost-saving draft. It’s shameful, man. MLB doesn’t care about these kids. If they did, they would have made an effort to stop these abuses a long time ago.

As for service time, MLB proposed giving a full year of service time to players who finish in the top two of the Rookie of the Year voting, and giving extra draft picks to teams whose young players finish high in the awards voting (theoretically incentivizing teams to promote prospects early). We didn’t do the bad thing no one likes and we deserve draft picks as a reward, basically.

“For the first time ever, we agreed to an incentive system to encourage clubs to promote top prospects to their Opening Day rosters,” Manfred said. What a novel idea! Putting the best players on the field? How innovative. For years teams have argued that no, we don’t manipulate service time, it’s just that our prospects aren’t ready. At least they aren’t pretending anymore.

Giving a full year of service to players who finish in the top two of the Rookie of the Year voting will just turn service time manipulation into Rookie of the Year voting manipulation. If you’re the Orioles, why bother calling up Adley Rutschman until you’re sure he won’t finish in the top two of the voting? They're not winning anything this year. They’ll keep him down a little longer so he doesn’t play enough games to get serious Rookie of the Year consideration. This rule wouldn’t solve the problem, it would only reshape it.

I don’t know how you solve service time manipulation. One day in the big leagues equals a full year of service time is a good idea, though it would mean no top prospects get a September (or even August) call up. Maybe that’s worth the tradeoff to make sure six years of control is actually six years of control, and not seven? I dunno. Here’s this, from Jeff Passan:

"It's horrible," one general manager said. "Six years should be six years. But what are we supposed to do? Not take advantage of them?"

The answer is yes, you dipshit. You’re not supposed to take advantage of them. You’re supposed to honor your unwritten contract with fans and put the best players on the field, and promote prospects when they’re ready, not when it makes the most sense financially. I don’t know how you solve service time manipulation when the “what are we supposed to do? not take advantage of them?” mentality is so pervasive.

Similar to the abuses Manfred talked about on the international market, service time manipulation is a problem of MLB’s creation, and there doesn’t need to be a collectively bargained solution if MLB just does the right thing and behaves ethically. That shouldn’t be too much to ask, but apparently it is. This league and the people who run it are rotten at the core.

2022 compensation

Remember the shutdown in 2020, when MLB and the MLBPA were at each other’s throats over salary and service time and all that? We’re about to do that again on top of the CBA stuff. When Manfred announced regular season games are canceled, he said “our position is games that will not be played, players will not be paid for."

To that, MLBPA chief negotiator Bruce Meyer responded: "It would be our position in the event of games being canceled -- that as a feature of any deal for us to come back -- that we would be asking for compensation and/or that those games rescheduled.”

MLB doesn’t want to pay players for games the league cancels and the MLBPA won’t come back without full pay, and they’re willing to play makeup games to earn it. So, thanks to the owners, the two sides now have to agree to 2022 player compensation terms in addition to minimum salaries and luxury tax thresholds and postseason formats and all that other CBA stuff. Argh.

Manfred can not unilaterally cancel games and say players will receive prorated pay. The MLBPA gave Manfred that power in 2020 as part of the March Agreement, though that was granted as a one-time power. It’s not permanent. The number of games, how much players are paid, and the schedule itself are workplace conditions subject to bargaining. The two sides must agree to terms on all that stuff. Joy. Consider yourself forewarned: another salary fight is coming.

The revenue sharing grievance

According to Jon Heyman, MLB asked the union to drop their revenue sharing grievance against the Athletics, Marlins, Pirates, and Rays as part of CBA talks. The MLBPA filed the grievance in 2018 and it’s still pending. The union claims those four teams improperly used their revenue sharing money (i.e. they pocketed it and didn’t put it back into the roster).

My uniformed position as an outsider is the MLBPA should drop it as long as they get something equitable in return. If dropping the grievance is the difference between, say, a $700,000 minimum salary and a $725,000 minimum salary, or a $230M luxury tax threshold and a $235M luxury tax threshold, then do it. Drop the grievance and don’t think twice.

The union has filed these grievances before (they got on the Marlins about revenue sharing in 2010 and two days later Miami gave Josh Johnson an extension to shut them up) and they don’t often amount to much because it’s hard to prove how revenue sharing money is spent. The grievance was partly symbolic and partly to create a negotiating chip, so use it as a chip.

The $500M grievance regarding 2020 is a different matter. From where I sit, that’s worth pursuing. The union is arguing they could have played 80 games in 2020 rather than 60 and it would seem they have a good case (at least to get a lucrative settlement) because MLB offered to play 80 games at one point. I mean, that’s a pretty great argument right there.

Anyway, I wouldn’t give the revenue sharing grievance away but I wouldn’t be against dropping it for the right concessions either. The fact MLB asked the union to drop it means the grievance has value. The league is worried about it to some degree, so see what you can get out of it. The $500M grievance is Anthony Volpe. That’s the keeper. The revenue sharing grievance is more like Oswaldo Cabrera. Nice to have, but not off-limits.

How and when will this end?

Beats me. The owners seem to want to break the union more than get a fair deal, and the union is as united as they’ve been at any point since the 1994-95 strike (and they grow even more united every time Manfred opens his stupid mouth). At some point one side will blink, or a judge will get involved and force the issue. I don’t know when either of those things will happen.

It stands to reason the owners are better able to ride out a work stoppage because they’re all cartoonishly wealthy and don’t need the money as much as the players, who have relatively short careers. I think that underrates the greed of the owners. The only thing they love more than money is more money. Eventually the lost revenue will get to them. I don’t know when, but it will.

Allow me to do something stupid and play detective. First, Ken Rosenthal (subs. req’d) reports teams have to start giving the television networks rebates after 25 games are missed. Those would be on top of the rebates teams already owe the networks for 2020, according to Maury Brown. Each team is scheduled to play its 25th game on or around Monday, April 25th.

Second, Shi Davidi and Ben Nicholson-Smith report Rogers Communications, the company that owns the Blue Jays, told investors “no significant sports-related work stoppages or cancellations will occur and the current MLB lockout between the owners and players’ union will be resolved” in a January release about their Q4 and overall 2021 results.

“Significant” means different things to different people. Missing the first two regular season series is pretty significant to me! To Rogers and MLB, two series might be nothing more than a blip. Losing the entire month of April might not even qualify as “significant,” though I’d like to think one-sixth of the season is significant to even those people.

This creates a few questions. Did Rogers lie to its investors that the lockout was not a threat to cancel games? I doubt it. That wouldn’t go over well. Does MLB have a set number of games they’re willing to miss, and whatever that number is it falls short of “significant?” I could buy it. Jameson Taillon, who was involved in the meetings last week, suggested as much. And was canceling games the plan all along, so much so that Rogers kinda sorta warned its investors? Hmmm.

And third, let’s do some service time math. The season is 186 days, but players only need 172 days of service time to get credit for a full season, so it’s a 14-day difference. That’s why top prospects are often called up a little more than two weeks into the season. That’s all it takes to steal away a full year of service time and push their free agency back.

The 15th day of the season was scheduled to be Thursday, April 14th. Before that date, the two sides could go one for one, a day on the calendar is a day of service time, and still allow players to accrue a full season (but also make it much easier to manipulate service time). After that date, the union will want to prorate service time like they did in 2020, where one day on the calendar equals 1.X days of service time.

So we know a) April 25th or thereabouts is when clubs have to start paying back television networks, b) at least one ownership group told investors not to expect “significant” cancellations, and c) April 14th is when the service time math gets fuzzy. That last point isn’t too important. MLB and the MLBPA can work through the service time stuff. But the other points are big deals, no?

April is typically the worst month for attendance because it’s cold and rainy in many MLB cities, kids are still in school, and there are no pennant races to attract fans. Teams can cancel games through April 25th or so and still get their television money, not have to pay players, and not lose much in gate revenue because those are down attendance games anyway. They get all their television month without having to actually put a product on the field.

Keep in mind MLB proposed a 154-game season starting April 28th last year. They said it was related to COVID, to allow more players and personnel could get vaccinated, but I’m not giving them the benefit of the doubt. Last year MLB was willing to punt April attendance to save a bit on player salaries without sacrificing television money. They could be doing exactly that now, only forcefully with a lockout rather than through negotiations with the MLBPA.

The evidence suggests the owners are willing to wipe out the season’s first month because it is financially advantageous. They get their television money and the loss of gate revenue is made up by not paying salaries (which, of course, the MLBPA wants to be paid and will fight for it). April 25th looks like a key date. At that point teams will owe the networks. I’m guessing the gaming partners will get on the league at some point too. Stay tuned.

(April 15th is Jackie Robinson Day and this year is the 75th anniversary of Robinson breaking the color barrier. Would these ghouls really cancel that? The answer is yes, they absolutely would, and they would reschedule it and pat themselves on the back for such lovely ceremonies.)

2. The impact of missed games. The first two regular season series have been canceled. We know that much. The Yankees were supposed to start the season with a seven-game road trip through Texas (four vs. Rangers and three vs. Astros). In the unlikely event MLB and the MLBPA strike a deal and no more games are lost, Opening Day would be Yankees vs. Red Sox at Yankee Stadium on Thursday, April 7th. Let’s hope.

A few things about the canceled games. One, the schedule itself is subject to bargaining, but bet on MLB and the MLBPA agreeing to pick up the current schedule wherever it falls. Making a new schedule would a) take too long, and b) be too much of a headache because teams already have their travel arrangements, ballparks are booked for non-baseball events, etc.

Rewriting the schedule was easier in 2020 because the pandemic shut everything down and there were hotel rooms and ballpark availability aplenty. MLB didn’t have to worry about fans either. It could just schedule games and go. Even then, the new 2020 schedule overlapped with the original 2020 schedule quite a bit. A new schedule would be a major undertaking and any days spent on it would be better spent playing baseball.

Picking up the current schedule means teams will play an uneven number of games. Right off the bat, canceling the first two series takes seven games off the schedule for the Yankees and only six for the Blue Jays, Rays, and Red Sox. There’s plenty of precedent for this. Teams played an uneven number of games around the work stoppages in 1972, 1981, and 1994.

An uneven number of games creates opportunity for chaos and I am pro-chaos. As Dayn Perry recently chronicled, the Tigers won the AL East at 86-70 in 1972, a half-game better than the 85-70 Red Sox. They played an uneven number of games because of the strike and it wound up mattering in the division race. I hope an owner (no, several) loses out on postseason revenue by half a game this year because of the uneven schedule and cries publicly. It would be glorious.

Two, picking up the schedule wherever it falls is going to make it even more imbalanced. Here are the games the Yankees and their AL East competitors have already lost to the lockout with their opponents’ combined ZiPS projected winning percentage (I’m not going to bother with the Orioles because c’mon):

• Blue Jays: 3 at Orioles, 3 vs. Rays (ZiPS: .469)
• Rays: 3 at Red Sox, 3 at Blue Jays (ZiPS: .531)
• Red Sox: 3 vs. Rays, 3 vs. Orioles (ZiPS: .469)
• Yankees: 4 at Rangers, 3 at Astros (ZiPS: .499)

The Yankees lose no home games and no games against the Orioles, and don’t have to play a good Astros team. On paper, that’s favorable, but then again who really knows? Anything can happen in two series. We’re talking about less than 5% of the schedule, and teams have good and bad weeks against good and bad competition all the time.

If the lockout drags on and cancels a few more weeks of games, then yes, those missed games could really impact the postseason races depending which games are actually missed. I don’t think two canceled series will move the needle too much. (The Yankees still have series with the Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles (two), Tigers, Guardians, and Royals on the books for April.)

Three, 40-man roster prospects are losing development time for the second time in three years and, even with all those breakouts in the system last year showing lost development time isn’t the end of the world, I don’t think it’s a positive. Oswaldo Cabrera, Estevan Florial, Deivi Garcia, Luis Gil, Luis Medina, Oswald Peraza, Everson Pereira, and Clarke Schmidt are the notable prospects on the 40-man roster who are currently locked out.

Furthermore, this is the final minor league option year for Florial, Garcia, Gil, and Medina, and those dudes have stuff to work on. Florial needs at-bats to hone his pitch recognition, Garcia needs to get his mechanics right, and Gil and Medina need to cut down on walks. Maybe last year’s post-pandemic season breakouts are an indication we don’t have to worry too much. Still, I’d rather those guys be playing games than be locked out. This bites.

And four, Aaron Judge’s final season of team control will now be shortened. Ditto Joey Gallo’s and Gary Sanchez’s and Chad Green’s. One of Gerrit Cole’s and Giancarlo Stanton’s remaining peak years is being shortened. Don’t forget what the owners are taking away from you. They’re robbing you of this and this and this and this and this, and a lot more. I will never forgive them.

Mailbag Questions of the Week

Chris asks: What’s to stop MLB/MLBPA from coming to a mini-agreement to start Spring Training whilst continuing negotiating? I know the players don’t really get paid during ST, but couldn’t some sort of compensation be baked into the agreement to reconcile that if the season isn’t played?

Nothing! Absolutely nothing is stopping them. MLB can lift the lockout at any time, and the National Labor Relations Act would require the two sides to work (i.e. play a season) under the terms of the old Collective Bargaining Agreement while continuing good faith negotiations. MLB won’t do this because there is no luxury tax. From Article XXIII(I) of the last CBA:

I. Sunset

There shall be no Competitive Balance Tax in place following the 2021 championship season, and the Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the provisions of this Article XXIII (except those concerning the collection and distribution of the Competitive Balance Tax proceeds for the 2021 Contract Year and the assessment of any associated penalties for exceeding the Base Tax or Surcharge Thresholds) shall not survive the expiration of this Agreement.

Under no circumstance would MLB lift the lockout without a short-term luxury tax agreement, and that can be done, right? Everything else would be covered by the old CBA, so come up with an interim luxury tax agreement, and go play. It’s not that simple, but it kinda is? (If the MLBPA says we’re not giving you a luxury tax as part of the new CBA, then there might never be baseball again. Taking it off the table completely ain’t happening.)

The usual retort whenever I note MLB can lift the lockout is the union will go on strike as soon as it happens, and yeah, maybe, but it’s not a guarantee. The players want two things. They want to play baseball and they want a fair deal. Let them play baseball while making a sincere effort to reach a fair deal, and you don’t have to worry about a strike. The MLBPA went on strike in 1994 because MLB tried to unilaterally eliminate arbitration and implement a salary cap. That’s what pushed them over the edge.

Everything happening right now is the owners’ choice. It was their choice to lock out the players, wait 43 days to make their first offer, cancel Spring Training games, set fake deadlines this week, and cancel regular season games. It doesn’t have to be this way. MLB could lift the lockout and Spring Training camps would open in a day or two, but the lockout is a powerful weapon, and MLB is using it no matter how much it hurts the game. It sucks.

Kai asks: While locked out, can the MLBPA set up a barnstorming tour? How do the contracts work while locked out? Or a tournament in FL/AZ? Or some publicized draft like the NBA all star game with Ohtani and Harper as captains. What would you do if you were in charge of MLBPA?

They could barnstorm, sure. Wayne Gretzky set up the Ninety Nine All Stars Tour during the NHL’s 1994-95 lockout. Gretzky put together a team of brand name NHL players and they toured Europe, playing eight games against local pro teams. They even lost a few. The players stayed in shape and the tour promoted the game internationally, and raised money for local charities.

The MLBPA could do something similar, though I’m not sure what the appetite is for travel right now (COVID makes it a little more complicated). Rather than a barnstorming tour, maybe they could just play games and stream them online? 12-year-old kids stream Pokemon on Twitch. I’m sure MLB can figure it out. (No knock on streaming Pokemon! I’m just saying if kids can do it, the union can figure out a way to do it.)

The union recently set up a “fully staffed” training camp at Bell Bank Park in Arizona and they’re expected to open one in Florida as well. The good thing about being a large, powerful union is having a lot of friends. Set up a training camp and ex-players who live in the area (and maybe even some who aren’t local) will volunteer to come throw batting practice, hit fungos, teach changeup grips, the works. That comradery and love of baseball still resonates.

Assuming enough players are available, I think the union should play Spring Training-style games at their Arizona (and Florida?) camps and stream them. Maybe even keep stats and make the Arizona and Florida teams play each other at some point. Why not? I’m sure you can find umpires and announcers*, and put together a pretty good production.

* I know Ken Singleton is retired, but I believe he was a union rep during his playing days, and he has experience calling games remotely thanks to the pandemic. He also has experience calling games solo. Would he be up for calling a few of these games? That would be wonderful. If not Singleton, and I’m sure other former player/announcer types are willing.

Point is, I think the union should make an effort to keep fans engaged with baseball, and passive aggressively remind MLB the players are the attraction, and your billion dollar businesses are nothing without them. A true barnstorming tour may not be workable. Broadcasting whatever informal games the MLBPA plays to keep players ready is a no-brainer. I’m not saying it’ll be easy or even look like an MLB broadcast. But it’s baseball, and it’s better than no baseball.

Rob asks: Regarding the luxury tax and revenue sharing: is baseball protected by anti-trust or other laws? Because in our free-market, capitalistic society, it seems odd that the MLB owners are allowed to band together to block free-market capitalism. Owners who gripe about losing money should get out of the biz and sell their teams – but instead these owners get cash from profitable teams who spend a lot of money on payroll. How is this anti-capitalistic system different from collusion, aside from the latter not being written down in the rules?

Yep, MLB has an antitrust exemption. Here’s a primer. Long story short, the Supreme Court ruled baseball is not interstate commerce (!) and thus not subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1922, allowing it to act as a monopoly. MLB owners can fix prices and do all sorts of evil stuff companies in other industries can not. Every few years the antitrust exemption gets challenged, or someone in Congress threatens to revoke it when MLB does something they don’t like (like try to contract the minors), but those challenges never go anywhere.

I’m not the right person to talk about this legal stuff but it’s my understanding the MLBPA can not challenge the antitrust exemption as an organization. The union has to decertify and the players have to challenge it individually (as a class action? I dunno). That would entail a prolonged legal battle, however, plus the players get rich off the antitrust exemption too. I’m not sure how much incentive they have to rock the boat. But yeah, MLB operates as a legal monopoly thanks to a century-old Supreme Court ruling that doesn’t pass the common sense test.

(Send your requests for Tuesday's random Yankee series and questions for Friday's mailbag to RABmailbag at gmail dot com.)