Major-league club owners, who, with a minor exception, have lost their high-stakes poker games to the Players Association, finally may stack the deck in their favor.
More Top Picks Best Printers
Trying to diminish the possibility of a another management collapse, some owners will attempt to amend the Major League Agreement so that a minority of only eight of the 28 clubs can prevent a settlement-should the players go ahead with their threatened midseason strike.
In the past, a simple majority, now 15-13, was required to end a stalemated stoppage. If the new amendment is approved, a three-fourths owner majority, 21-7, would be needed to restore the peace, which is usually to the advantage of the players.
This sudden change would send a significant message to Don Fehr, executive director of the players union, that the owners are united as never before. As one said here Tuesday night on the eve of the annual owners quarterly meeting: “It could give Mr. Fehr pause. This time it won’t be as easy for the players to win.”
The indications are that the amendment will be approved. All 10 members of the owners’ powerful Executive Council are believed to be in support of the new legislation.
Also approving, with gusto, is Dick Ravitch, the owners’ principal negotiator. According to several sources familiar with the situation, Ravitch is convinced he would have “the arrow in his quiver” that, at the least, could delay a shutdown.
Still, an intramural owner skirmish is expected. The more financially successful clubs are not eager to accept a proposal that would allow as few as eight owners to determine policy.
This is the up-to-date scorecard:
Five clubs firmly oppose the amendment: Los Angeles, Baltimore, Colorado and both New York clubs, the Yankees and the Mets.
Nineteen are in favor: Cubs, White Sox, California, Toronto, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Cleveland, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Montreal, San Diego, Oakland, Kansas City, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston, Texas and Minnesota.
Four are undecided-Boston, Cincinnati, San Francisco and Florida.
A 21-7 vote is required for amendment, providing approval is granted by 11 of the 14 clubs from both the American and National leagues.
Because of this minimum 11-3 requirement, four clubs from the same league could defeat the proposal. For example, if Los Angeles, Colorado and the Mets pick up one more ally, the NL could block the amendment.
In an effort to appease such opposition, the proposal is being watered down and will include the stipulation that the 21-7 requirement would kick in only in the event of a player strike. If there is no such crisis and the season progresses on course, the usual 15-13 ratio would prevail.
As one owner explained:
“To put it as simply as possible, if the players shut us down, only eight hard-liners could prevent settlement. Otherwise, there would be no basic change.”
Whether this new development would enable Ravitch and Fehr to continue comparatively peaceable negotiations is not known. The timing of a settlement is crucial. If a new agreement is not in place during or immediately after the current season, the owners unilaterally could implement kickbacks in a new agreement such as modification of free agency and the salary arbitration procedure, the twin engines that have driven salaries upward.
The average annual compensation of the 700 major-league players has risen to almost $1.2 million but is likely to be frozen because there would, in effect, be no winter “signing season” when salaries always escalate.
When he last met Fehr, Ravitch advised that in addition to a salary cap-which would put a team ceiling on player salaries-owners also want to lower severance pay, eliminate provisions allowing a player to request a trade and diminish or completely eliminate service time for disabled players or those recalled from the minor leagues for the traditional September “look.”
More than likely, these are nuisance requests and would be withdrawn when settlement approaches.
One owner, who asked for anonymity, insisted the players are uninformed in regard to a salary cap.
“We would leave the salaries where they are today,” he said. “I don’t think the players realize this. All we’re asking is to stabilize salaries while giving some of the small and middle-market operators an opportunity to increase their revenues accordingly.”
More Top Picks Best Laptops For High School Students
If the 21-7 amendment is approved and the players go ahead with their threatened strike, there is a 50-50 chance the season will be wiped out. The financial loss would be staggering to both sides.
But there also is this to be considered. The ownerships of five clubs-San Diego, Oakland, Montreal, Seattle, and Pittsburgh-have indicated a strike would be beneficial; it would cut their losses. If so, and if only eight clubs have the strength to prevent the usual management collapse, the owners, for the first time, could light up a victory cigar.