Contraction Could Be Pushed Back

Lawyers representing baseball and the players’ union have begun negotiations that could lead to a pledge of no contraction in 2002 and clear the way for meaningful talks on a new collective bargaining agreement, industry sources said Friday.

“At this point It’s fairly preliminary,” a source said. “The commissioner hasn’t even talked to the clubs yet, but it seems clear that both sides recognize the need to reach a labor agreement and that contraction, for now, was in the way.”

It is believed that the talks were initiated by the union, but it is not clear whether a decision by management to delay the possibility of contraction until 2003 would be linked to bargaining concessions by the union or an agreement by the union that it would not fight contraction if delayed a year.

A source said that the union may have simply realized that it cannot win the grievance it has brought against the owners, contesting their right to contract without union approval.

However, with the clock ticking and the start of spring training only two months away, owners have also been looking for an honorable way to delay contraction at a time when many have acknowledged that the emphasis should be on a labor contract.

Owners voted Nov. 6 to eliminate two teams for the 2002 season without officially targeting the Minnesota Twins and Montreal Expos.

The process is in legal limbo.

Hearings on the union grievance began Tuesday in Texas and are scheduled to resume Monday in New York. It is not certain how long the hearings will take or when the arbitrator will reach a decision.

In addition, the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission in Minnesota recently received a preliminary injunction from a district court that would force the Twins to honor the final year of their lease and play home games in the Metrodome in 2002. Owners have appealed, but oral arguments aren’t scheduled until Dec. 27.

There is also the threat that Congress, reacting to the contraction scenario, could remove baseball’s antitrust exemption, although the House Judiciary Committee, after hearing testimony from a beleaguered Selig on Thursday regarding baseball’s economic condition, said Friday it is tabling any action on the proposed bill for a month, at least.

Presumably, a no-contraction pledge would clear the calendar of both the union grievance and injunction appeal. It would give Minnesota politicians another year to come up with a funding package for a new ballpark, removing the Twins from the contraction gallows, and it might lead to the Expos relocating to Northern Virginia for 2003.