WASHINGTON -- Owners stuck to their threat and imposed a salary cap after rejecting the U.S. Major League Baseball players' latest proposal and breaking off talks.


The move, certain to set off a legal fight, eliminates salary arbitration and immediately creates a new group of 63 restricted free agents.


It also forces 21 teams to cut a total of $56.2 million from their 1994 payrolls, and eliminates many of the union's gains in collective bargaining during the past 23 years.


It further clears the way for owners to go ahead with preparations to start the 1995 season with replacement players, plus any regular players who might break ranks.


Players will file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board as early as Friday, the 19th anniversary of free agency. The union will ask the NLRB to seek a preliminary injunction against the cap in federal court.


"If this is the road they want to take, if this is where they want to go, this is going to be an ugly situation," Detroit's Cecil Fielder said.


Owners already had postponed their deadline for implementation twice, from Dec. 5 to Dec. 15, voting the second time to give the ruling executive council authority to impose the cap a week later. The council met by telephone Thursday night and unanimously voted to implement it as of 12:01 A.M. Friday.


Union head Donald Fehr called the imposition "preordained." Players struck Aug. 12 rather than accept a salary cap, wiping out the final 52 days and 669 games of the season. On Sept. 14 owners canceled the World Series for the first time since 1904.


"This is certainly a sad day," Fehr said. It's regrettable. I think the owners will come to regret it -- sooner than they think.''


The next effort to restart the baseball talks could fall to former President Jimmy Carter, who offered to get involved if needed. Fehr also raised the possibility of a long court fight, saying, "It may not even be halftime yet."


"They measure every proposal up against a salary cap, and unless it measures as high as a salary cap, they don't want it," Fehr said.


"If the owners believe the players are ready to roll over and accept a salary cap, they're just wrong about that. If the owners believe the players are going to cross (the picket line and play on replacement teams) in any significant numbers, they're just wrong about that ... Sooner or later the owners are going to have to bargain in good faith."


As for Carter's possible involvement, a statement released by the Carter Center earlier Thursday read, "The policy of the Carter Center is that our mediation services are available only when both parties genuinely want a settlement and desire us to be of assistance. We realize that there is a superb mediator providing his services, and we have full confidence that maximum efforts are already being made. We at the Carter Center would be willing to assist only if the present attempt to reach an agreement between the players and owners is likely to be abandoned."


Mediator W.J. Usery, appointed by the Clinton adminstration on Oct. 14, said he was not able to forge an agreement and would report Friday to Labor Secretary Robert Reich.


"I reluctantly and very sadly have to say to you tonight that negotiations have broken off," Usery said. "It was very unfortunate that we have been unable to consummate an agreement," he continued. "Tonight there was no use to go any further.''


Meanwhile, in New York, the NLRB dismissed an unfair labor practice charge owners filed against players for threats against potential strikebreakers. Union officials had said statements by John Franco, Bobby Bonilla and Scott Kamieniecki didn't represent the union's views.


"The union's declarations ... constituted an effective repudiation of the players' reported statements,'' wrote Daniel Silverman, the NLRB's New York regional director.


Owners have until Jan. 5 to file an appeal with the NLRB's general counsel in Washington. On Wednesday, Silverman issued a complaint against owners regarding their failure to make a $7.8 million payment Aug. 1 to the union's health and benefit plan. The case is to be heard by an administrative-law judge starting March 14.


(AP, LAT)