MLB and association players have now exchanged financial proposals with each expressing distaste for contradictory plans. And while it keeps the sides away from an agreement to restart the game, they continue to increase the war of words.

The players association, represented by executive director Tony Clark and chief negotiator Bruce Meyer, made his proposal Sunday by teleconference with commissioner Rob Manfred and his assistant, Dan Halem. The plan calls for 114 matches (MLB proposes 82) and that the players receive their specified salary for the game being played (MLB proposes a sliding scale where the richest players will receive the biggest blow and reduce salary for everyone).

The two sides remain far apart with the best results as an agreement early next week at the latest which could resume the regular season on the Independence Day weekend. But there are no obvious signs of attraction. Quite the opposite.

MLB is concerned that the player association has misinterpreted the March 26 agreement for players by ignoring language that calls for new conversations about economic viability if the game returns without paying the audience and states that the problem was resolved by management’s promise with a predetermined salary. same document.

To that end, Halem told The Post in a text, “A piece of good news from [Sunday’s] The meeting was that Tony Clark acknowledged that the March Agreement contemplated another negotiation on the player’s salary if the 2020 season could not be played in front of the fans. We are worried based on media reports if players know that. Tony told us that the players were aware that the March Agreement did not solve the problem of player salaries in a season without fans. And he said the players’ decision to receive no less than 100 percent of the salary the previous diprator had was due to the risk of playing the season, not because they were promised in the March 26 agreement. “

When Clark was given the quote, he responded in an email:

“Dan’s quote about Sunday’s meeting was deliberately misleading and inaccurate. We have a compensation agreement that states clearly how players are paid in the match played – pro rata. In fact, the league recently confirmed in writing that,” We agree with the Association that , under the Agreement, players are not required to receive less than the full salary that they are prorated. “

“We have never denied that MLB has the ability to return and try to persuade us to change the agreement based on their economic concerns. They have tried unsuccessfully. In fact, Rob stressed [Sunday] that, ‘We can pay you 100 percent of the current salary.’ This is all part of the league’s efforts to negotiate through the media rather than focusing on how to return baseball to its fans. “

Where does this leave the side? Not in a nice place. As part of Sunday’s meeting, MLB floated the concept that it could pay their players’ salaries, but did so for only 40-60 matches. MLB believes that the March 26 agreement empowers Manfred to do so as long as certain economic and health goods are covered. The union will oppose that the agreement calls on the parties in good faith to try to play as many games as possible and that the reduction of the MLB’s initial 82-match proposal is not in good faith.

There is no actual deadline to restart this season. The players plan to ask to play the regular season game until October, which according to MLB is not smart for fear that the corona virus will reappear in colder winter weather. The concept of drifting MLB is to shorten the regular season, which the players consider to be another artificial pose for a lower salary. Both ideas will allow parties to continue negotiating outside of next week.

For now, negotiations don’t bring parties closer to an agreement. Their historical distrust and hostility – not the solution – currently dominates the relationship.