Owners Hint of New Idea : Baseball: O’Connor talks of different math in figuring arbitration eligibility. Miller addresses union.

Baseball’s Major League Players Assn., publicly displaying solidarity amid rumored divisiveness, voted support of its leadership Saturday and rejected the owners’ “deal making” proposal because it fails to address the issue of arbitration eligibility.

An appearance by former executive director Marvin Miller might have helped Don Fehr, the union’s current executive director, hold his constituency together during a four-hour review of the proposal by more than 50 players, including representatives of all 26 clubs, at the union’s New York offices Saturday.

According to a source, some of those present felt a settlement should be made on a proposal that basically leaves only the arbitration issue unresolved. However, they were shouted down by the majority.

Miller said he was asked by Fehr to provide historical perspective regarding the owners’ previous attempts to divide the union.

“Arbitration has been an issue in every negotiation for the last 17 years, and solidarity has been the key to all of our progress,” Miller said.

“Apparently some players out in the hinterlands have been raising questions. I reminded them that they have to stay together on this. The mood is good. I don’t see any cracks.”

On Day 31 of the owners’ lockout, despite one player’s contention that union leadership was allowing the emotion of arbitration to cloud common sense in regard to the current proposal, Fehr said there was a unanimous vote of confidence in the union’s negotiating committee.

The meeting followed a morning negotiating session during which the owners’ Player Relations Committee rejected Fehr’s call for binding arbitration on the eligibility question, and the two sides failed again to resolve the issue.

However, Charles O’Connor, the PRC’s general counsel, said later Saturday that he and Fehr “may have identified a narrow piece of turf” on which a bridge over the arbitration gap might be built.

O’Connor said they will pursue that in another negotiating session today in New York. He acknowledged a “certain urgency” in negotiations after investment of this much time and energy, not to mention the scheduled April 2 start of the season.

Commissioner Fay Vincent told CBS Saturday that starting the season on time has become “a pipe dream.”

He is expected to announce details of the cancellation and/or postponement today, having delayed it in hope a weekend settlement would allow the schedule to remain intact, with clubs carrying 30 players for the first month as compensation for a two-week training camp.

It is unclear now how much training the clubs will receive, but it is generally agreed that the entire April and May schedule could be jeopardized if an agreement is not reached soon.

While some players said Saturday that several issues remain to be resolved, O’Connor said the “working assessment” is that it comes down to arbitration eligibility. The owners want to keep it at three years. The players want it rolled back to two.

O’Connor would not be specific about the new turf that has been identified, but he suggested that it has to do with redefinition of service time and the claims of the union that some young players have been manipulated by clubs, their roster time “arbitrarily held down” so that they require longer to become eligible for arbitration.

If that could be resolved, O’Connor said, the owners would be making more players eligible under the three-year standard but wouldn’t be changing the economic system.

Said O’Connor: “I don’t want to get anyone’s expectations up or think the clubs’ position has changed, because it hasn’t, but the manipulation issue is one the clubs certainly can’t ignore. And the union has a legitimate reason for bringing it up--and we’re going to try and deal with it.”

Said Fehr, on this new attempt to resolve the problem: “I don’t suggest that I see an end to these discussions, but at least they’re still taking place.”

Some players seem to feel they shouldn’t be, that the owners have fulfilled enough of the union’s demands, and that arbitration isn’t worth a continued struggle.

Reportedly among those players are Bob Boone, Kansas City Royal catcher, and Bert Blyleven, Angel pitcher, who apparently attempted this week to organize players in support of the proposal as it now is. Neither Boone nor Blyleven could be reached Saturday night.

Publicly, however, the picture was one of solidarity.

Said Paul Molitor of the Milwaukee Brewers:

“I don’t look down on the fact that the owners have made significant offers in other areas, but with no change on ‘two-three’ this (rejection) was not a difficult decision. We’re solidly behind our negotiating committee.”

Said the Dodgers’ Orel Hershiser: “I was one of the players who benefited from two-year salary arbitration in 1985. I went from a salary of $200,000 up to a million, so how can I stare those players in the face who might go through that same window and say, ‘I had that, but you can’t?’

“If people spoke out today it might have been the result of the frustration of being locked out.”

Added Fehr of the often fractious meeting that led to the show of solidarity: “We never tell anyone to shut up. Everybody says whatever they want. It makes for a less efficient meeting, but I think it has redeeming virtues.”