Jeff Passan contends that MLB players might not be willing to play a season consisting of 50 to 60 games, which the league is intending to propose.

The league's first offer of a sliding pay scale based on an 82-game season was met with a response sticking to full prorated salaries but with 114 games played.

The players' assumption in offering more games is that owners make more money if more games are played.

But the league disagrees, with so many of those games likely to take place in empty stadiums?

The owners backed up that theory by bringing another potential option into the dialogue as a last resort: Let's play 40-50 games but at the players' full prorated salary.

So if signaling a willingness to move on games is the first step in both sides offering an olive branch that they could work together, what else could help get a deal done?

The players first mentioned the idea of deferrals in their Sunday proposal to the league but with some major caveats: They'll accept deferrals only if the postseason is canceled because of a second wave of COVID-19, and only if they get the full value of their contracts at that later date.

The deferral, to be used only under the worst case possible, isn't likely to sit well with owners.

Furloughs and the inability to pay minor league players are indications of such issues -- even though team owners are worth billions.

Another advantage that a potential shorter season opens up for both sides is potential to bring in some additional money through options that might not be available under a plan that requires cramming as many games in as possible to fill out a schedule.