The baseball players union’s executive board will meet Monday in Chicago with an agenda that could include setting a strike date–an action that could lead to baseball’s ninth work stoppage since 1972.
So the Tribune asked Cubs and White Sox players: What’s the most important issue in these negotiations?
Jeff Fassero, Cubs: “The luxury tax. My feelings are this: Take a person who earns $200,000 a year. He can’t afford to buy a car that costs $75,000 because there’s a luxury tax on it. If he’s worked his butt off to get to that point or made the right investments, why should he be penalized for the other people that haven’t? The same goes for teams that want to spend the most.”
Royce Clayton, White Sox: “There has to be agreement on the structure and future of baseball. We’re not just talking about the players’ perspective. Every three or four years, to be going through this is not really the solution. They need to get some type of long-term structure as far as giving the baseball fans the secure feeling there is going to be baseball for a number of years.”
Joe Girardi, Cubs: “Having as much of a free market as possible. I know in my career I’ve had freedom where if a club wanted to sign me, there wasn’t a restriction. They could take many forms–a luxury tax, revenue sharing or debt pay. That’s what the union has fought for the most–freedom. Let the player get the best deal he can.”
Roosevelt Brown, Cubs: “The steroid issue. We need to nip that in the bud. The guys that are using it are overcompeting. The guys who are not using it are going to be the true superstars. The guys who are on it, once they’re off it, their numbers will fall off and we’ll find out who the best players are. Myself, I just use collard greens juice.”
Paul Konerko, White Sox: “The only thing that concerns me is something not getting done. Another work stoppage would be really bad for baseball. The last one was bad for baseball, and this one would be even worse.”
Will Cunnane, Cubs: “To me, it’s making everything even. You’ve got the Yankees and then teams like Tampa Bay. It’s just not fun for the fans in those other cities because they want to have good teams too. It’s worth it to everybody for it to be competitive.”
Sammy Sosa, Cubs: “I don’t have one specific [issue]. I just want both sides to come to the table, take care of what they need to and be happy.”
Tom Gordon, Cubs: “You think about the kids 15 or 20 years from now and you want the same [rights] for them. Maybe one or two of our kids will be playing.”
Mark Buehrle, White Sox: “I try not to pay attention to that stuff, knowing that being a young player no matter if I say yes or no it’s not going to matter. There are guys who want to pay attention to it and listen in on all the conference calls. Then there are young guys like me who don’t really care.”
Kerry Wood, Cubs: “I’m a guy that’s like, `Tell me where I have to be and what time I have to be there.’ I wish I understood a lot more than I did, and in time I will. For now I’m just as foggy as everyone else.”
Joe Borowski, Cubs: “I have no idea what the issues are. You’d pretty much have to be a lawyer to understand everything that’s going on. I don’t even think they understand all of it. Baseball’s so screwed up that if you knew all the issues, it would just make you that much angrier.”
Issues in baseball’s labor dispute
Amateur draft
Owners: Would open the annual draft each June, currently limited to players in the U.S., Puerto Rico and Canada, to players from around the world and cut it from 50 rounds to 38. Would allow teams to trade draft picks, with some restrictions.
Players: Open to concept of worldwide draft but have proposed 16 rounds. Worried that college juniors and seniors, junior college players and high school seniors (the group currently eligible) would be given preference over the newly eligible players, they want owners to centralize academies in Latin America that currently are run by individual teams, which would increase the knowledge of those players among all teams. Agree that teams should be able to trade draft picks. Also would allow teams to trade negotiating rights to a selected player after the draft, a concept owners oppose.
Commissioner’s discretionary fund
Owners: Have proposed that the commissioner can take $85 million from the central fund–where money goes from national broadcasting and licensing contracts–and distribute it unequally to teams. Because the money is to be taken equally from every team–$2.83 million each–at most $45 million could be transferred to the 14 teams with the least revenue.
Players: Have proposed moving $40 million unequally from the central fund to the low-revenue teams.
Competitive-balance draft
Owners: The teams with the eight highest winning percentages during the previous three years would be able to protect 25 players apiece in the draft. The teams with the eight lowest winning percentages during the previous three years would be allowed to make selections, and they could take only one player each. The draft would take place annually after the World Series but before the end of the winter meetings each December.
Players: Open to the concept.
Contraction
Owners: They claim they have the right to eliminate teams but must bargain on the effects of eliminating teams, such as a dispersal draft.
Players: They claim franchises cannot be folded without the union’s approval. The union filed a grievance, which is pending.
Drug testing
Owners: Would like mandatory random drug testing for illegal steroids; nutritional supplements, such as the testosterone booster androstenedione; and for recreational drugs, such as cocaine.
Players: Agree to mandatory random testing for illegal steroids; oppose mandatory random testing for nutritional supplements and recreational drugs.
Luxury tax
Owners: To slow salary growth, owners would like a 50 percent luxury tax on the portions of payrolls above $98 million, including 40-man rosters and benefits. The previous labor contract called for a 35 percent tax in 1997 and 1998, and a 34 percent tax in 1999, levied on the portions of payrolls above the midpoint of the fifth-highest payroll and sixth-highest payroll. Because the payroll was not fixed, most owners concluded it was ineffective, but the union claims it kept the highest spenders closer to the other teams. Teams paid $12.1 million in 1997, $6.6 million in 1998 and $12 million in 1999, a total of $30.7 million.
Players: Oppose a luxury tax.
Minimum payrolls
Owners: Proposed a $45 million minimum payroll, including 40-man rosters and benefits, to address concerns that owners may keep additional revenue-sharing money. Only Montreal and Tampa Bay were below that this season.
Players: As opposed to payroll floors as they are to payroll ceilings.
Revenue sharing
Owners: Hoping to decrease revenue disparity, they have proposed increasing revenue sharing. Under the current system, called a split-pool plan, each team contributes 20 percent of its net local revenue, after deductions for ballpark expenses, to a pool. Seventy-five percent of the pool is redistributed equally to all 30 teams, and 25 percent is redistributed only to teams with local revenue below the major-league average. They proposed that each team contribute 50 percent of its net local revenue, after deductions for ballpark expenses, to a pool that would be redistributed equally to all 30 teams. Using 2001 figures, the amount of shared money would increase from $167 million to $298 million.
Players: First proposed continuing the split-pool plan and having each team contribute 22.5 percent of its net local revenue, after deductions for ballpark expenses. Using 2001 figures, the amount of shared money would increase to $228 million. The sides say they have moved closer since initial proposals.
Salary arbitration
Owners: Would eliminate salary-arbitration eligibility of “Super Twos”–the top 17 percent by service time of those players with two or more years but less than three years of major-league service. In the 1985 contract, the eligibility of players with two or more but less than three years of major-league service was eliminated. Eligibility for the “Super Twos”–about 12 each year–was restored in the 1990 contract and left unchanged in the 1997 contract. Owners also want to be able to withdraw contract offers to players after salary-arbitration figures are exchanged each Jan. 18.
Players: Oppose changes.
Suspensions
Owners: Would like to be able to suspend players without pay for on-field misconduct, which would overturn a pair of grievance decisions won by the union.
Players: Oppose changes.
Associated PressIssues in baseball’s labor dispute
