Evan Grant's Path to MLB Labor Peace: Salary Cap, Floor, and More
Surprise, Arizona: On a Thursday morning in the Rangers' clubhouse, owner Ray Davis engaged in a brief, but pleasant chat about cars with Josh Jung, the Rangers' representative to the MLB Players Association. This seemingly ordinary interaction is actually a marvel, given the recent history of tension between owners and players. It took place less than 24 hours after the MLBPA held its annual camp visit, where they discussed upcoming labor negotiations.
But before we delve into the potential solutions, let's acknowledge the storm brewing. On Wednesday, a larger-than-usual contingent from the union visited the clubhouse, led by a group of former players. They met with the Rangers for nearly two hours, addressing questions about former union head Tony Clark's resignation over an affair with his sister-in-law. However, the main focus was on the upcoming round of bargaining after this season, which has already promised to be challenging.
The central issue is the owners' desire for a salary cap, which they believe will help increase franchise valuations. However, the players are concerned with the increased cost certainty and the potential impact on their ability to win on the field. This has led to a typical management-labor union standoff, where both sides want more of the pie, but with different definitions of fairness.
To grow the pie, the argument should be about baking a bigger, sweeter pie for everybody, including fans and consumers. It should be about growing the game, especially with the presence of perhaps the best player to ever walk the planet, the best Yankee hitter since Mickey Mantle, and two once-in-a-generation pitchers in the same generation. Missing out on a full year of these players would be a crime against the game and greatly inhibit growth.
Here are some thoughts on how to create an actual partnership that allows for maximum growth and the biggest pie:
Better define revenue: Owners must be more transparent about the revenues afforded to them by owning a baseball team. Many clubs have spun off operations that make bank on the back of facilities granted to owners for owning a club, which doesn't count toward the club's revenues. Should it?
Salary floor: Before talking cap, talk about creating a realistic salary floor for owners. The goal would be two-fold: to get the younger element of the PA more money and to root out owners who simply want to pocket revenue sharing checks and don't honestly compete. If you don't have the money to fill out a roster at a new floor, well, then cash out.
Salary cap: It doesn't have to be a bad word. It can work to lift the salaries of the great majority of players, if it comes with a floor, and still leave room for elite players to earn elite money. Maybe combine the current luxury tax with a bit higher of a ceiling.
Service and contract terms: Owners might need to give the players a quicker path to free agency to incentivize the cap more. Players might need to give owners the ability to limit contract lengths as a trade-off. There's got to be some path to discuss here.
A Super Max hybrid: Want to exceed the $350 million payroll, encourage investment into player development, and strengthen ties between a player and a community? Incentivize keeping your own players. Perhaps look at a system where teams could invest in their own players without being financially penalized.
Does this give baseball labor peace? Who knows. But if the idea is for everybody to see more money and for fans to see an even better product, there is a path.
