Earlier this week, in a conversation with a veteran player representative, I asked if the Commissioner’s Office and the Players Association would be the scorpion from The Scorpion and the Frog.
In the fable, the scorpion convinces a frog to carry him across the river. The frog says no because you will sting me. The scorpion says I won’t sting you because then we’ll both drown. The frog says that makes sense and agrees. The scorpion stings the frog mid-river, assuring both of their deaths, but not before the frog asks why. The scorpion says because it is in his nature.
There is a pandemic still killing people and creating crippling unemployment in the country. In that environment — understanding how unseemly it would appear — MLB and the union would not fight about money, right? Wrong. Because for more than a half-century, that is the nature of the relationship. They lack trust in each other and fight about money. This is what scorpions do.
The sides came to an agreement three weeks ago — when the regular season was set to begin — that was to create a structure for pay. It has been understood since that if games were to be played without spectators — thus, no revenue for items such as tickets, concessions, parking, luxury suites, stadium signage, etc. — that MLB would ask for a further give-back. But it was kept submerged because why discuss it before it was understood if there would be a season and what kind of revenues could be projected?
But on Wednesday night, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said on CNN that as part of a conversation with Jeff Wilpon, the Mets COO had said the economics would have to be adjusted to restart play. There are owners who have privately said that without readjustments they would lose so much more money, why even play the games.
Wilpon did not respond to a text asking for his insights on this. But super-agent Scott Boras, in two separate conversations lasting more than an hour, railed against MLB for suggesting that a second negotiation about economics is necessary.
The deal reached by MLB and the Players Association called for players to be paid their 2020 salaries prorated — so if a player was to make $10 million and rather than 162 games, 81 were played, the player would get $5 million. However, an MLB spokesman said, “Both parties understood that the deal was premised on playing in stadiums with fans, and the agreement makes that clear.” A union official said, “We have an agreement that already says how players get paid in a partial season.”
Boras — familiar to his history — was fiercer and more critical, saying, “MLB was fully aware of all the factors 45 days ago [when the deal was negotiated]. In their deal with players, what concessions they wanted, why didn’t they seek them when making this deal? They got what they requested. Why are they saying now they need to reopen the deal? What kind of negotiation is that?
“If a player hits 15 homers in April, he doesn’t ask for a new contract — and in that case conditions have changed. In this case, there are no different conditions. They knew there was a probability of not having fans in the ballpark. There is nothing new here. They are trying to make the player the enemy, the evil. The players negotiated in good faith.”
MLB points to a part of the agreement that details what would motivate the reopening of the game: “The Commissioner determines, after consultation with recognized medical experts and the Players Association, that it does not pose an unreasonable health and safety risk to players, staff, or spectators to stage games in front of fans in each of the 30 Clubs’ home ballparks; provided that, the Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at appropriate substitute neutral sites.”
Their interpretation: It states the conditions to open in standard ballparks with fans, and without that a need to negotiate further “in good faith.” Boras said that clause should be read as what will be done if there are no games at all and that player compensation is dealt with in a different part of the agreement.
“The key point is that in good faith we reached an agreement with the same facts we have today,” Boras said.