Sports

WHIFF OF FAILURE OWNERS: UNION ‘REGRESSING’

The owners yesterday lambasted the union labor proposal for which they waited 10 days as “regressive,” a charge dismissed as ludicrous.

In other words, all the talk of optimism was shelved for a day and acrimony and mistrust, the staples of all past baseball labor negotiations, moved back to the forefront.

“Today, the union made a regressive proposal,” fumed Rob Manfred, lawyer for the owners. “I’ve really never seen anything quite like this. We could not have been more disappointed in the proposal we received. This is raw regressive bargaining.”

Gene Orza, second ranking honcho at the Players Association, laughed at the notion the players’ proposal was regressive.

“Making a regressive proposal in the final week of negotiations would be just suicidal,” Orza told the Post. “How could it be termed regressive when we moved forward?”

Manfred’s chief beef centered on the way the Players Association wants to phase in revenue sharing: $172 million in 2003; $195 million in 2004; $217 million in 2005; $241 million in 2006.

The owners want to share $268 million.

The players’ new proposal moved $5 million in the direction of the owners on the payroll thresholds at which luxury taxes kick in, a move that didn’t include any more teams than the previous proposal would have included (Yankees and Rangers).

When asked Friday what was needed to spark talks on the key issues, union chief Donald Fehr said, “Rob knows what he has to do.”

Manfred referenced that quote yesterday and said, “My answer to that is apparently Don doesn’t know what he needs to do.”

Said Orza: “They set goals for what they want and if you don’t give them everything they want you’re a bad person.”

Asked if the proposal made him pessimistic about the chances of reaching an agreement by Friday, Manfred said, “This is not a good thing, this is not a good thing.”

Asked if he’s optimistic of a settlement, Orza said: “I’ve never been one of those pessimist/optimist people. I do know if their objective is to get everything they set out for, it’s not going to happen.”

What does it all mean?

What’s the opposite of a ball in umpires’ lingo?