It was well played by the MLBPA today ... yet before we get too hopeful, consider this
1) How likely was the move to lower FA by a whole year from 6 to 5? What was the middle ground? Players gave it up but the key will be what do they expect on the arbitration side instead and what will Owners be willing to give on that? They devil is in the details on how much will players get for an extra year of arbitration? Players maybe gambling that a win here could be almost as big as an extra year for FAs if salaries for Arb1-3 stay about the same (just a year earlier) and Arb-4 is similar to Arb-2 to Arb-3 increase. They can say, we gave them FA ... give us arbitration.
2) How much was the $100 million shift in revenue sharing going to shift the pay for everyone? Just seemed like a ploy to discuss the tight wad small owners. Would taking $5-$10 million from Pirates and giving it to NY/LA really opened pocketbooks? For one, it means less money to spend on an already tight budget, for the other it was pocket change. Again, it probably wouldn't have happened ... but players look good in media by giving more than the owners did on their first pass.
3) What are they really going to discuss tomorrow? Small issues .. Owners need a week or two at least to respond with their counteroffer ... probably, hoping, that the closer to the deadline (ST) will make players balk on the main issue of arbitration.
For me, it is in the counter proposal that matters .... but right now what was given today was the sacrificial lamb that unions always put into their first proposals (things that they don't expect to get but need for leverage). They gave up their leverage either out of desperation or because they made an ultimatum in the meeting for owners to give a similar amount back to them (the line in the sand).
1) How likely was the move to lower FA by a whole year from 6 to 5? What was the middle ground? Players gave it up but the key will be what do they expect on the arbitration side instead and what will Owners be willing to give on that? They devil is in the details on how much will players get for an extra year of arbitration? Players maybe gambling that a win here could be almost as big as an extra year for FAs if salaries for Arb1-3 stay about the same (just a year earlier) and Arb-4 is similar to Arb-2 to Arb-3 increase. They can say, we gave them FA ... give us arbitration.
2) How much was the $100 million shift in revenue sharing going to shift the pay for everyone? Just seemed like a ploy to discuss the tight wad small owners. Would taking $5-$10 million from Pirates and giving it to NY/LA really opened pocketbooks? For one, it means less money to spend on an already tight budget, for the other it was pocket change. Again, it probably wouldn't have happened ... but players look good in media by giving more than the owners did on their first pass.
3) What are they really going to discuss tomorrow? Small issues .. Owners need a week or two at least to respond with their counteroffer ... probably, hoping, that the closer to the deadline (ST) will make players balk on the main issue of arbitration.
For me, it is in the counter proposal that matters .... but right now what was given today was the sacrificial lamb that unions always put into their first proposals (things that they don't expect to get but need for leverage). They gave up their leverage either out of desperation or because they made an ultimatum in the meeting for owners to give a similar amount back to them (the line in the sand).