Manfred’s Failure to Find Consensus May Cost Baseball Its Season

After taking the 2020 season to the brink of nonexistence on Monday, Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred might actually be less popular than the coronavirus pandemic. Five days after “unequivocally” guaranteeing that there would be a season “one hundred percent,” even one of minimal length imposed under the terms of the owners’ March 26 agreement with the players union, he told ESPN he was “not confident” one would happen unless the players waive the right to file a grievance — contending MLB did not make its “best efforts to play as many games as possible” — that could potentially be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This latest round of inflammatory action follows in the immediate wake of a drastically shortened amateur draft, one that suggests that a proposed contraction of the minor leagues is closer to reality than ever, and all of this comes after a winter dominated by MLB’s investigations into the illegal sign-stealing of the Astros and Red Sox, whose punishments many consider too light — and oh, somewhere in there, Manfred fanned the flames by referring to the World Series trophy as “a piece of metal.”

Manfred’s actions over the past several months may have some pining for the charisma and warmth of Bud Selig — that guy really knew how to call off a season — but it’s important to remember that pleasing all of the people, all of the time isn’t and wasn’t the job of either commissioner, or of their predecessors. Manfred isn’t some mad genius twisting the game to his own nefarious ends, and while he’s supposed to act in the best interests of baseball, the reality is that he works for the owners, who pay his salary and have the power to hire and fire him. When he speaks for the owners, implicit in whatever tack he’s taking is that he’s got the backing of the three-quarters of them (23 out of 30) needed to govern.

And hooboy, some of them — groups as well as individuals — are real pieces of work. Leaving aside the personality issues and sticking to the professional ones, you can pick a team, any team from along the spectra of market size or recent success, and it’s not too hard to think of a time in the recent past when they made it clear that they held their own financial interests ahead of winning, or satisfying their customers. The Red Sox, concerned about their Competitive Balance Tax rate, didn’t refortify the bullpen of their championship-winning team, and after an 84-win season and further fears about their marginal tax rate, traded Mookie Betts, the best player the franchise has developed since Roger Clemens. The Cubs, the game’s most profitable team over the past three years, have spent the past couple of years telling fans they have no money, and committed just $3.5 million to major league free agents this past winter. The Dodgers left 70% of their local fan base in the dark for six years in a battle over cable television carriers. The Rockies explored trading Nolan Arenado less than a year after signing him to a $260 million contract; the possibility left the five-time All-Star feeling “disrespected.” The Astros have done their damnedest to McKinseyfy baseball, not just exploiting inefficiencies to gain the upper hand on the competition but exploding them in ways that carry industry-wide ramifications for video replay, scouting departments, and the entire structure of the minor leagues. The Mets have thrown nickels around like manhole covers since their owners’ involvement in Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme came to light, running mid-sized payrolls from the game’s largest market. The Marlins and Pirates have gone through seemingly endless stretches of non-competitiveness (though the latter did have a brief run of relevance not too long ago), and just a couple of years ago were involved — along with the A’s and Rays — in a grievance over how they spend their revenue-sharing money. The White Sox are still owned by Jerry Reindsdorf, who has a lengthy history as a labor hardliner, dating back to the mid-80s collusion scandal and the 1994 strike.

I could go on, and I apologize if your favorite team’s heel of an owner is unrepresented in the litany above, but you get the idea. What’s galling is that these guys have generally been making money hand over fist for decades. MLB has set revenue records for 17 straight years, according to Forbes, whose numbers also show that the average team’s operating profit (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) rose 25% last year, to $50 million, thanks in part to flat salary growth. The average franchise value has increased by over a billion dollars in the past six years, as the Washington Post’s Thomas Boswell noted earlier this week. Referring to the estimated $600 million difference between MLB’s 72-game, 70% prorated pay proposal and an 81-game season at full prorated pay, Boswell asked, “What the devil is $20 million per team when the average team has been increasing in value by $173.5 million per year?”

Yet right now, the season is in peril because a bloc of team owners is short-sighted enough to believe that taking a relatively small loss this year is worse than going a year and a half without baseball, and thus would rather cancel the season than play it. SNY’s Andy Martino cited two industry sources saying that there were six owners in that camp, while The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich quoted an agent as saying there were “definitely more than eight owners who don’t want to play.” Nobody’s telling us who the owners in question are; we can speculate that some of them are from among the teams listed above, and by all means, I hope that someday soon we find out; maybe, as with the A’s recent u-turn on paying their minor leaguers, the scorn of the public and the relatively upstanding example of the competition would be enough to shame them into rejoining the fold. Right now, the identities don’t matter but it’s safe to assume the number is at least eight, because that’s enough to prevent a deal. Manfred, though nowhere near as strong as Selig was as a consensus-builder or vote-counter, understands he’s not there yet.

What’s particularly galling about the current situation is the prospect that this is just another stalling tactic. “Players told you to set the season, but it’s too early to set the season right now, isn’t it Rob?” wrote Trevor Bauer via a Twitter thread on Monday. “Because then you’d have to explain why you’re only going to impose 50 games when we could easily play 70+ right now. The tactic is to bluff with ‘no season’ again and delay another 2-3 weeks until you clear the risk of ‘not negotiating in good faith by trying to play as many games as possible.”

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

If we assume that the basics of a deal were struck tomorrow, players could report to camp in 10 days while the health and safety i’s are dotted and the economic and competitive t’s crossed to begin a three-week spring training redux. That puts the start of the season around July 20 and leaves 10 weeks if they wrap up on September 27. That end date likely has more to do with networks’ desires regarding the postseason (expanded or no) than any hard science regarding a potential second wave of COVID-19 outbreaks, though Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has cautioned against playing baseball in October given a potential overlap between influenza season and a possible second wave. Obviously, there would have to be off days built into the schedule, so the total number of possible games is now less than 70 unless teams are willing to play doubleheaders, which the players have expressed a willingness to do. Bauer’s own math puts June 28 as Manfred’s deadline for a deal for a 55ish-game season, leaving 13 days (from this past Monday) for the commissioner to kill time. “Threaten to cancel the season. Threaten arbitration. Threaten grievances. All the while, hold the fans for ransom. Hold the future of the game for ransom.”

As noted above, it’s actually the threat of a grievance from the players, not the owners’ intransigence over pro-rate pay, that appears to have pushed Manfred and the owners to the point of panic, but the fact that Monday came and went without the commissioner meeting MLBPA executive Tony Clark‘s “tell us when and where” mandate means that we haven’t heard the last of this. Tuesday brought the rather surreal sight of Randy Levine — a man who has often seemed to relish the “bad cop” persona in his role as Yankees president — sounding conciliatory notes. Via the New York Post’s George King III:

“I have been speaking to the commissioner every day. I know he is dedicated and wants to badly play a baseball season. I also believe that the players are the heart and soul of the game. I have said they are patriots and believe that,” Levine said Tuesday in a statement. “Under the March 26 agreement, the commissioner has the right to schedule the games as long as the players are paid pro rata. I don’t believe that the issue is any longer about the number of games or money.”

“What I understand it is about is negotiating and reaching a conclusion on other items in the March agreement such as the health and safety protocols, the conditions for players to opt out, what happens if there is a second wave of the virus and the season is paused again and issues such as that,” Levine explained. “The commissioner has assured me that he is ready to get in a room and finalize these issues. The players agreed to negotiate them in the March agreement. So let’s get everyone in a room now and resolve these issues so we can play ball.”

If it really were that easy, we’d already be looking towards an Opening Day, albeit a tenuous one given the recent upticks in COVID-19 infection rates as states have reopened. In an effort to arrive at a season longer than the commissioner’s 50 game break-glass schedule, the players have already offered concessions, opening the door to expanded playoffs and reducing their initial proposal for a 114-game slate to 89 games. Frustrating though it is, they may need to sweeten the pot further, but they are clearly not budging on the prorated pay issue, believing the language of the agreement is on their side, and MLB has yet to officially offer a proposal built around that premise. It’s on Manfred to put aside the posturing, wrangle the 30 owners, and find the necessary consensus from among their disparate situations in order to make an offer designed to engage rather than inflame. Right now, that’s nothing less than the whole damn ballgame.





Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.

26 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
drewsylvaniaMember since 2019
6 years ago

Manfredsplaining.

bluerum29
6 years ago

Not expanding the playoffs and having a normal 2021 season should be the priority. 2020 season, don’t really care about at this point.

drewsylvaniaMember since 2019
6 years ago
Reply to  bluerum29

Yep. I doubt there’s a way to have a 2020 season that won’t contribute heavily to thousands more COVID deaths, anyway. This country really is going to have round 2 of it-won’t-happen-to-us, isn’t it?

bluerum29
6 years ago
Reply to  drewsylvania

covid is the least of my concerns at this point. I just want to get things back to a normal and forget all about this.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  bluerum29

Yeah, good luck with that. “Normal” isn’t happening until next April at the earliest.

bluerum29
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

With so much of this being politicized, we will have some kind of normal again after the election, regardless of what way it goes.

thebearproofsuit
6 years ago
Reply to  bluerum29

right because that’s how viruses work

TakiarMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  bluerum29

Back to normal is not happening while COVID-19 is there, whether you want it or not. The police brutality is also a major issue that is not going away.

pepper69funMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  drewsylvania

How do we get to thousands of deaths uniquely tied to baseball when we got zero fans? I would like to see that calculation

TakiarMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  pepper69fun

Players are not in bubbles. They travel, have staff, stadiums have staff, reporters and broadcasters, etc. Then those have families. Even WITHIN a bubble, there are thousands of people involved. If they are quarantined all together, then they are in close contact, a good way to spread viruses (might not even be COVID).

SyndergaardengnomesMember since 2020
6 years ago

The fact that we can make 15-20 reasonable guesses about the 6-8 owners who would rather not play this year tells us an awful lot…

JV19
6 years ago

And that there are only a few we can safely assume actually want to play. Sad.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago

So I actually was reminded that there is a group of labor hardliners who wanted to tank Manfred’s candidacy in 2014 because they thought he would be too friendly with the union. They wanted Werner (part of Red Sox ownership group) to take over and try to crush the union. The group was led by the Red Sox, White Sox (Reinsdorf), and the Angels (Moreno). Kendrick was also part of this group, and he’s been very outspoken so far. So I’m guessing those four are definitely part of the group of 6-8.

Beyond that, there are some other possibilities:
-Blue Jays (part of anti-Manfred faction)
-Reds (anti-Manfred faction), Cards (outspoken here, big debts), Cubs (outspoken here, big debts)
-Rockies (head of MLB’s labor committee, would lose money on per game basis)
-Mets (huge debts, would lose money on per game basis)
-Nationals (big debts, would lose money on per game basis, one of the last teams to support Manfred but that could be due to MASN)

So I think we know 4 of them, and the other 2-4 of them are drawn from those other 5 teams). FWIW, Calcaterra speculates that the Blue Jays and Reds aren’t part of this group but that the Pirates may be (I’m not sure why he thinks that, except that Nutting is a cheapskate, but that doesn’t really set him apart.

noah2112Member since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The Jays be one of t e teams since there is also most no chance there will be games in Toronto and broadcasts will be going up against basketball and hockey playoffs.

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  noah2112

It’s not like the leafs were going to be relevant come playoff time

Fernando
6 years ago

Over the last few years there have been plenty of things that made me sympathetic towards ownership. I wouldn’t call myself “pro-owner”, but I’ve had an easier time seeing their side of things than most others. But even I am at a loss here.

From dragging their feet on negotiations, to expecting the players to take pay cuts without documenting their losses . . . it’s just been one bad look after another.

What’s so baffling to me though is how they think they’re going to win this fight long-term. As a brand MLB is already struggling relative to other pro sports like football and basketball. Do they really think that missing an entire season is going to be good for business? Aren’t most teams up to their eyeballs in debt? So who are these eight-plus teams that can apparently eat all their expenses, and then not expect future profit to suffer? I just don’t get the strategy here.

Even worse, as some of the players have commented, MLB’s strategy seems to be “Let’s make the games highest paid, most marketable stars look like the villains”. I mean, even if they succeed, they’re tarnishing their own product. So . . . yay?

Come on, owners. Get your heads together and put the game back on the field. If you don’t then the only solace will be the players filing a fat, juicy lawsuit.

MikeSMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Fernando

Baseball, and major sports in general except maybe the NBA, has long looked at players more as economic liabilities because of their big expense and not the assets they truly are. The fact that teams feel the need to move great players like Betts and Arenedo because they cost a lot shows how they feel.

I dont think you can have long term labor/management harmony until that attitude changes.

The Stranger
6 years ago
Reply to  MikeS

Only in sports are people with multimillion-dollar salaries treated as “labor” as opposed to recognized as incredibly valuable members of an organization. Of course it serves the interests of the owners, and I’m not suggesting they should necessarily do anything differently. But still, it’s kind of screwy if you think about it. In what other context would you pay somebody millions of dollars to be a key part of your billion-dollar company, then treat them like this?

CliffH
6 years ago
Reply to  The Stranger

Is there any other situation where workers with multi-million dollar incomes are members of a union that negotiate against shareholders? Typically they would be management, right?

lillypad
6 years ago
Reply to  CliffH

Google ‘executive compensation say on pay’ and look into compensation committees and complicit boards. Check out the book Pay without Performance.

Briefly, Thomas Cook is an example, Wells Fargo another and JC Penny yet another. Sears too, its share price fell from $140 a share to being a delisted penny stock while every year the CEO and other executives had salaries of multiple millions.

Oh don’t forget, Rob Manfred receives at least 11 million in compensation annually, considering he is viewed as little more than a spokesperson, it’s fair to ask if he deserves it. Does he contribute more to MLB’s long term success each year than 18 Cody Bellingers? The owners seem to think so, why I don’t know.

All of this is accepting your framing that shareholder value is the only consideration and ignore that larger issue which is that ethical company should be considering and weighing the interests of multiple stakeholder groups and not just its shareholders or investors. This is especially important for guiding long term success rather than short term share price increases.

crew87Member since 2026
6 years ago

Was never a fan of Bud Selig for several reasons, and (naively) thought there might be some progress in the game once he announced he retired, but I sure do miss him now. Manfred’s decision making (or at least the owner’s decision making and his handling of it, which is a big part of his job), as Jay outlined in several examples, has been terrible.

I don’t often like to ascribe motivations of others’ actions, but I heard someone once say something like, “everything Manfred does makes sense if you assume he doesn’t actually like baseball.” Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. You can criticize Selig and all the other commissioners fairly, but I don’t think you can honestly say he didn’t like baseball. Manfred sees only a business that might just as well be a media company, or a towing company, or a railroad. I don’t think the game itself matters to him, and through that lens, his actions are 100% rational and reasonable.

The Stranger
6 years ago

Seeing reports of a new offer from MLB with pro-rated salaries and expanded playoffs. Sounds promising, maybe the backlash over the past couple days spurred some action.

Or it’s for like a 20-game season or something, I guess.

Dominikk85Member since 2020
6 years ago

The Problem is that the shortened season at full prorated was always a bluff by the owners to get the players to cave in but the union called Manfred on this bluff by saying “ok then dictate a season”.

The owners however never wanted a short season at full prorated, they wanted a longer season at reduced prorated which the player never wanted.

In the end players never moved off full prorated salary and owners never wanted full prorated, even the full prorated at 48 games always was a bluff because both owners and players would lose with that.

Manfred was caught off guard by the move of the union to call that bluff, he was not prepared for that and was expecting the players would straight reject that.

martyvan90Member since 2026
6 years ago

Two things I’ve realized, two obvious things with baseball this year. Both are misalignments.
The owners variance in business models isn’t sustainable. Maybe it always exists, but in baseball it seems like a bigger problem? Maybe RSN revenues can be pooled? Hockey seems to pull off RSNs and a small national TV contract
The misalignment between players and owners on revenue and lack of dependence on revenue makes them suboptimal partners. I guess this means greater revenue sharing among owners, and between owners and players.
Maybe this has seemed obvious to a lot of you for a long time… but I’m a Yankee fan so it’s hard to realize that a competitive advantage isn’t in the long term interest of the game… I feel better posting this than engaging in “Eat the Rich” pro or con positions.

TakiarMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  martyvan90

There are major differences in hockey. Players salaries are tied to revenues. The NHL has a small US national contract, but a big Canadian one. The system is also setup so that young players get a much bigger portion of the pie during their prime. The reluctancy for older free agents is almost as big as in the MLB, but the young players get the money and older players sign their short term contracts.

TakiarMember since 2020
6 years ago

I don’t think there will be a season, or that there should be one. Cases are now jumping up again, and MLB’s curse is that they are US-based. We’re already mid-June. Europe, South Korea and Japan have managed (with some exceptions, like Sweden and the UK) to re-open because they managed the COVID-19 better, but the US is par with Brazil right now in terms of complete mismanagement, leading to the pandemic continuing undiminished. Now, camps are closing again because most of them are in Florida, a new major cluster of the pandemic, and camps are contaminated. The governor there was among the most blatant deniers of the crisis.