1/Union does not see this proposal as guaranteeing 162 games of pay for 154 games. Not guaranteeing if games get cancelled and that in this proposal the commissioner would gain wider latitude to cancel games. Concern is that with season compressed into a shorter window even at

2/154 games that there would be further risk that cancelled games would not be made up. Also concerned about playing more often (with 7-inning DHs) in shorter window to play 154 increases injury risks. Also many players timed prep for spring training beginning 2/17 and some

3/already are at spring training sites and that u-turning now also would be a problem. Union is reviewing the proposal with players and agents this weekend. Had a call with player reps on Saturday. But they have been adamant to this point that they would not exchange getting a

4/DH for expanded playoffs and that repackaging it will not likely move them. My take: The distrust and dislike remains so strong between the 2 sides that they see the worst possible intentions for both sides. It is hard to reach constructive compromise with this kind of animus

5/part of every conversation. I would ask this: What is the best possible way to try to play as many games while lowering the potential for COVID outbreaks in which the players are paid in full and the owners have a chance to maximize their revenues? It feels like they need a

6/sports marriage counselor to see the problems/needs of each side without seeing every nefarious possibility. I do think the union should make a strong counterproposal and not just say no to this offer. Say exactly what you want keeping safety for all (not just players) but

7/coaches, umps, food preparers, etc. in mind. The history of the relationship leads to so little constructive working together for the future good of the game. Maybe ask this question: What will be done today by my side to make sure MLB is in the best position for all in 2025?