Proposal Outrages Players : Baseball: Fehr says it’s another attempt to turn back clock. O’Connor says it might be a good time to take a break.

Just when baseball’s collective bargaining negotiations seemed to be moving toward concession, conciliation and compromise, the process disintegrated Wednesday--in the view, at least, of the Major League Players Assn.

Anticipating what the owners’ Player Relations Committee had said would be a liberalized proposal dealing with the final stumbling block of arbitration eligibility, the union was outraged--to use the word employed by Executive Director Don Fehr--when handed a new set of arbitration and salary restrictions that included some of the shelved elements of revenue sharing and pay for performance.

The proposal--another attempt to turn back the clock, Fehr said--seemed to reflect the hawk element among those owners who are members of the PRC, negating the involvement of Commissioner Fay Vincent, who has been striving for a compromise settlement.

Said Gene Orza, the union’s associate general counsel: “This proposal was designed not to be accepted. It was designed to provoke confrontation and put the season on the brink, and that’s what it has done.”

Said Fehr: “If this group of owners is surprised by our reaction, they’ve been asleep for 15 years. If they didn’t know it would provoke outrage, they should have. It’s the kind of approach that causes the players to ask, ‘Why are we even here?’ ”

The proposal was presented at noon Wednesday, when the debate centered on the union’s attempt to roll back the requirement for arbitration eligibility to two years of major league service, as it was before the 1985 negotiations, and the owners’ desire to keep it at three.

Fehr and staff reviewed it privately, considered pulling out of any further meetings, then accepted the commissioner’s request to meet with the PRC again Wednesday afternoon.

The components that outraged the union are these:

--A player in arbitration would be prevented from drawing salary comparisons to any player who signed as a free agent or who has a multiyear contract. The only comparisons could be drawn to a player who plays the same position and has the same amount of service time.

--A player eligible for arbitration could be cut an unlimited amount, not just the 20% that now covers all players.

--A player with zero to three years of service time would not negotiate an individual contract but would be paid $75,000 if less than one year of service; $100,000 if between one and two years, and $250,000 if between two and three. Those salaries would be shared equally by the 26 clubs. In addition, players in those categories could earn appearance bonuses from an $8-million pool provided by the 26 clubs.

The proposal would also: prohibit the announcement of any arbitration decision until all arbitration cases of that year had been decided; provide for three arbitrators on each case rather than one, and allow a club to keep an amateur player under minor league control for four years rather than three before being forced to put the player on the 40-man winter roster.

The restrictions on arbitration comparisons, the removal of the cap on salary cuts and the salary scale for younger players represent a considerable economic risk and loss, Fehr said, and are unacceptable.

Fehr said he wasn’t certain what his next step will be, but barring a settlement today he tentatively plans to break off negotiations and leave Friday on a barnstorming trip designed to update the players.

He would not return until March 5, at which time the first week of exhibition games will have been lost and the April 2 start of the season--already jeopardized by Wednesday’s development--would seem certain to be delayed.

“We have an obligation to update our membership,” Fehr said. “They have the right to ask questions and have them answered.”

Said the Dodgers’ Orel Hershiser, who attended Wednesday’s meetings with teammate Tim Belcher:

“This just makes it that much easier for us (the players) to be united. It was an odd time to present a regressive proposal considering this was one of the last windows to opening day. I feel really frustrated that we’ve put in all this time without getting anywhere.”

Charles O’Connor, the PRC’s general counsel, conceded that it might be the right time for a break in the talks. He said he was satisfied that the PRC had put in a concerted effort to deal with the issues but said he was not satisfied by the emotional reaction of the union.

He said there is no bargaining process that gives either side everything it wants, and that a break in the talks might allow the union to take a more rational and systematic approach, viewing a glass half filled rather than half empty.

Of the scheduled start of the season, O’Connor said: “This puts it more at risk, I’d be less than candid if I didn’t say that. This wasn’t a good day at the ranch for moving the ball, but on the other hand I’m not going on an emotional binge and say the baseball world is over.”

Wednesday’s proposal, he said, stemmed from conversations with Vincent, the PRC staff and two owners already in New York, Bud Selig of the Milwaukee Brewers and Jerry Reinsdorf of the Chicago White Sox, both considered hawks on the subject of restructuring the economic system.

Four other owners and club officials are expected to attend a PRC meeting here this morning. They are Carl Pohlad of the Minnesota Twins, John McMullen of the Houston Astros, Fred Kuhlmann of the St. Louis Cardinals and Fred Wilpon of the New York Mets. All except Wilpon are also considered hawks.

Asked if he felt Vincent’s role and input had been superseded, Fehr said: “I don’t know if this proposal was made on his behalf, against his advice or in spite of him. It is what it is, and I have the luxury not to have to worry, at least, about that part of it.

“The bottom line is that the owners are always coming to the players and asking for concessions. The name of their game is, ‘Let’s turn back the clock.’ It’s no surprise. Making a mockery of arbitration typifies their negotiations in previous years.

“For all of the years I’ve been in baseball, they’ve attempted to break the tie between arbitration and free agency, and this would remove all of the market-related comparisons.”

O’Connor said he could be persuaded to make changes but said he wanted a similar approach from a union that, he said, talks about a free market but hypocritically demands a cap on cuts but won’t accept a cap of any other kind.

“I think they tend to look at the hole rather than the doughnut,” he said of the union.