MLB 2020: We're Playing, but We Can't Agree on Anything

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
The MLBPA agreeing to expanded playoffs in 2021 is a major concession in this where a subset of players get additional small postseason payments while the owners reap major revenues. If it bumped up the 2020 regular season games to something close to 80 games, maybe worth it. It doesn't seem that's in the cards, so better for the PA to just play the 50 games and no expanded playoffs in 2021.
What if they were paid their regular salaries for all the postseason games, too? That would work out well for the guys with big contracts, but would work out worse for anyone earning less than a few million a year.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
5,959
It's a little outdated by I found this, there have been plenty of players who have hit at least .400 through the first 60 games of the season.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/686.html
Out of the 24 players who made it into June (60+ games if they played a majority), I would probably need to cycle through 1,000+ players before successfully guessing Lenny Dykstra of the .285 career average. In fact he fell to .325 by the end of the '90 season...
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
I think MLBPA started with a 114 game proposal at full salary with an expanded playoffs and a $100 mil upfront payment. That would get players roughly $2.8 bil of the potential $4 bil salary in a 'regular' season

MLB started at a 82 game proposal with (effectively) $750 mil in salary reductions beyond pro-ration,so players get $2 billion of that same potential $4 billion in a 'regular' season

If they land on 60 games at full proration that will get the players about $1.5 billion of that $4 billion

Given that the owners profit per game without fans is either negative or marginal (because TV revenue is much more fixed) I do not think this is a win for the players. The owners never wanted more games and got fewer games while preserving a TV product and more playoff games (where revenue per game is highest). So they are paying out less in salary to get the things they wanted.

I of course am lacking all sorts of details about the underlying economics but as I see things this is basically a story about how badly the MLBPA needs strategic advice because they managed to do nothing but flush salary down the toilet, never to be recovered, in this negotiation.
I don't take the original 114 game proposal seriously. I think the MLBPA's 89 game proposal is the first serious offer and from what I've read, that's about $2.2B.

I think you're estimate of the owners' first offer as $2B is high. Passan says that the owners' original 82 game proposal plus discounts amounted to roughly $1.03B. He also said that there was a playoff pool of $200M if the playoffs were played. https://newslinda.com/mlbs-latest-proposal-to-its-players-shows-how-little-it-cares-about-negotiating/.

I've said before that I thought the solution was in the $1.5B to $1.8B range, depending on whether the players wanted some of the expanded playoff pool revenue. I also think there are some creative things that could have been done to get people on to the same page that appear not to have been discussed but that would have required a willingness for the two sides to really communicate with each other, which appears not to have been done until Monday.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
I wonder what would happen if someone hits .400 in 60 games. It would be a great moment for "Well, actually..." neck beards, that is for sure.
I was interested in Joey Votto's thoughts about that in this Stark column a few weeks ago. This is a long quote, but there's plenty more worth reading in what is an excellent column.

Over his last 81 games of the 2016 regular season — and his team’s last 88 games — Joey Votto did something that was not like any of those other remarkable things he has been doing over these last 13 seasons.

He hit .400.

It was “the best stretch of hitting in my career,” Votto said this week. It was special. He’s proud of it. And he did it over a really long period of time — more than three months (June 30 through Oct. 2) and more than 350 plate appearances.

But you know what it wasn’t? A full season.

Not that year, it wasn’t anyway, because that was a normal season. A 162-game season. A six-month season. But that isn’t what we’re going to have this season. So let’s think about something.

Suppose Votto were to hit .400 over 82 games in this season. That’s something no player has done over a full season since Ted Williams in 1941. According to the rules of baseball, Votto technically would be the first .400 hitter since Williams. But would he have done the same thing Ted Williams did?

“Nooooo,” Votto answered resoundingly. “No, no, no, no, no.”

That’s six no’s if you’re keeping score in your wordsmith booth at home. He meant every one of them.

But according to the standards applied to this season, this would in fact be a .400 season. So how, he was asked, would he explain that to Ted Williams, his personal hitting hero?

“I probably wouldn’t explain anything to him,” Votto said, chuckling knowingly, as a man whose head is filled with massive Ted Williams lore. “He’d probably be doing plenty of explaining to me. And I would sit there with my mouth open and listen.”

Now that would be a good idea, because Ted no doubt would have several thoughts. And we know exactly what he’d think Joey Votto could do with his supposed .400 “season.” But does that mean we should feel compelled to attach an asterisk to it — or any sort of explanation?

Sorry, Ted was unavailable for comment. But Joey Votto has a comment.

“No, no, no, no, no,” he said, adding five more no’s to his career totals. “I think that fans, baseball fans, the general public, are really intelligent. And they’re capable of discerning between one achievement and the next.”

You would probably be astounded by how much Votto knows about the historic significance of hitting .400 and of the men who have chased it in modern times. He knows all about Tony Gwynn batting .394 in the strike-shortened 1994 season. He knows all about George Brett taking a .400 average into September 1980 and finishing at .390.

He remembers Todd Helton reaching .400 in late August 2000 and John Olerud hovering above .400 in August 1993.

Votto brought all of those seasons up to me without being asked. All of those men hit .400 for longer than he did in 2016. So if he — or anyone else — were to hit .400 in a season like this, he thinks he has a feel for what it would mean and wouldn’t mean.

“If I were to do it, I would be very happy with it,” he admitted. “But that’s my favorite part of the sport. That’s my favorite part of my job, is performing — and then leaving the story and weaving the context (to others). I love how people get to tell it themselves. It’s honestly my favorite part.”

So you can add Joey Votto to the membership rolls of the No Asterisks Club. Not necessary, he says. Really, really not necessary.

“I think that baseball fans can certainly tell the difference,” he said. “I don’t think asterisks are ever necessary. Context is the story. I don’t think we need historical records as much as we need stories being told.”
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
I think the trouble is that the players had something else working against them...time. It was apparent from the time the two sides started talking about starting the season that "Opening Day" was unlikely to be any earlier than July 1. Under normal circumstances, in a normal season, July 1 through the end of the season is roughly 80-85 games. The MLBPA proposing a 100+ game schedule was going to be a non-starter from the jump. The longer the negotiations took, the more they lost leverage on getting as many games as they wanted. I can't say I blame them too much if that costs them a bit of what their total compensation is. I can see their perspective that 60 games at 100% compensation is better than 80 games at less than 100% compensation, even if the latter means more total money. Each game is a risk for them...better to get max compensation per game.
Yes, and of course the quality of the outcome has to be measured against their alternative (which is getting nothing this year) too.

But the fact is, they took an offer which is very likely worse than the owners first offer (as WBCD notes, there is data on this in different directions) simply becasue they wanted to defend the principle of "full prorated pay" which is irrelevant (most likely) as a precedent going forward.

I'd be curious if anyone thinks that precedent---or anything else they got here--is worth the total salary amount they have lost. I get they have fewer games and somewhat less risk, too, though I personally don't think they valued that item much since the players consistently offered more games than the owners.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
I don't take the original 114 game proposal seriously. I think the MLBPA's 89 game proposal is the first serious offer and from what I've read, that's about $2.2B.

I think you're estimate of the owners' first offer as $2B is high. Passan says that the owners' original 82 game proposal plus discounts amounted to roughly $1.03B. He also said that there was a playoff pool of $200M if the playoffs were played. https://newslinda.com/mlbs-latest-proposal-to-its-players-shows-how-little-it-cares-about-negotiating/.

I've said before that I thought the solution was in the $1.5B to $1.8B range, depending on whether the players wanted some of the expanded playoff pool revenue. I also think there are some creative things that could have been done to get people on to the same page that appear not to have been discussed but that would have required a willingness for the two sides to really communicate with each other, which appears not to have been done until Monday.
Could be---I have seen different analysis of the initial MLB offer from just under $1 bil up to $2 bil. Fangraphs compares several different permutations of the offer here (though, I note that they seem to think reasonable to suggest owners eat $10+ million per team in actual losses to reach an agreement, which is silly---they would choose not to play rather than that) https://blogs.fangraphs.com/players-ask-owners-how-much-baseball-they-want/

The players have lost several weeks of games during this, which is not a point in favor of their approach.

That does not mean (in and of itself) the owners negotiated better, their alternatives are not at all equal, but I do think it's worth considering as people try to claim a big win for players.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
I don't think anyone (sane) is claiming a "big win for players", it's just nice to see them not get utterly steamrolled for once.

(though, I note that they seem to think reasonable to suggest owners eat $10+ million per team in actual losses to reach an agreement, which is silly---they would choose not to play rather than that)
And I would note in turn that anyone with this mindset not only shouldn't own a sports team, but only believes in capitalism when it suits them. The point of capital (in this context) is to underwrite a business, and if once in a while there are losses which are a tiny fraction of the gains of preceding years, that's part of capitalism, like it or not.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
I can see their perspective that 60 games at 100% compensation is better than 80 games at less than 100% compensation, even if the latter means more total money. Each game is a risk for them...better to get max compensation per game.
The MLBPA agreeing to expanded playoffs in 2021 is a major concession in this where a subset of players get additional small postseason payments while the owners reap major revenues. If it bumped up the 2020 regular season games to something close to 80 games, maybe worth it. It doesn't seem that's in the cards, so better for the PA to just play the 50 games and no expanded playoffs in 2021.
As I alluded to before, it seemed weird to me that the sides were so fixated on the number of games and the pay per game? If both sides agreed that the fewer games the better, they could have done 50 games plus expanded playoffs with the every player getting a bonus if any playoff games were to occur. Or, they could have done 50 games with expanded playoffs with a reporting bonus of some kind.

I'm also surprised that the owners aren't trying to get some sort of deferral to soften the blow of full pro rated pay.

I guess I'm just surprised how uncreative the proposal have been. Hopefully they can figure it out.
 

taxmancometh

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
331
Vermont
It seems that there should be deal to be made if the following is true

Owners are at 60 games fully prorated and expanded playoffs in 20 and 21
Players are at 70 games fully prorated and expanded playoffs in 20 and 21

Would both sides agree to 70 games fully prorated and expanded playoffs in 20 and 21, but with 10% of the prorated pay deferred to December 2021 with reasonable interest? That would roughly line up the extra cash flow from the 10 games of salary this year with the extra revenue from the playoffs next year.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
I don't think anyone (sane) is claiming a "big win for players", it's just nice to see them not get utterly steamrolled for once.



And I would note in turn that anyone with this mindset not only shouldn't own a sports team, but only believes in capitalism when it suits them. The point of capital (in this context) is to underwrite a business, and if once in a while there are losses which are a tiny fraction of the gains of preceding years, that's part of capitalism, like it or not.
My point is only that many people are in this thread to point fingers based on a pre-conceived notion of who is good and bad (or a preposterous misunderstanding of business and capitalism, perhaps)

A different approach is to analyze the offers and try to determine what each was trying to accomplish, how realistic that goal was, and how close they came to their goals given their alternatives. I personally think the second is more useful and more interesting, but to each their own
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
As I alluded to before, it seemed weird to me that the sides were so fixated on the number of games and the pay per game? If both sides agreed that the fewer games the better, they could have done 50 games plus expanded playoffs with the every player getting a bonus if any playoff games were to occur. Or, they could have done 50 games with expanded playoffs with a reporting bonus of some kind.

I'm also surprised that the owners aren't trying to get some sort of deferral to soften the blow of full pro rated pay.

I guess I'm just surprised how uncreative the proposal have been. Hopefully they can figure it out.
Agreed. Two examples in my mind: first, the players seemed to put a lot of value on the "precedent" of no revenue sharing (which I understand, but suspect was a bad choice in the long term). Second, as you note, the focus on "full pro rata pay" likely cost the players a bunch of money. I do think the timing of payments was negotiated--becaause it was in some reported offers and not others---so that's a small win for players to answer that point.

I think the owners initial proposal was the most creative (with different payment timings, differential salary impacts, and adjustments for when season ends) but I have no particular reason to think it was crafted to meet the stated/actual goals of MLBPA. It feels, especially based on the quick rejection, it was cooked up to meet some hypothesized goals rather than the real ones and that is not often a useful approach.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
My point is only that many people are in this thread to point fingers based on a pre-conceived notion of who is good and bad (or a preposterous misunderstanding of business and capitalism, perhaps)

A different approach is to analyze the offers and try to determine what each was trying to accomplish, how realistic that goal was, and how close they came to their goals given their alternatives. I personally think the second is more useful and more interesting, but to each their own
A third approach would be to try to understand the situation in a larger context of previous CBAs and the next CBA, which is what I’ve been trying to do all along.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
A third approach would be to try to understand the situation in a larger context of previous CBAs and the next CBA, which is what I’ve been trying to do all along.
That would be fine as an approach---aim for it. Removed the rest, it isn't going to improve.

The tweet about Boras would seem to confirm the hypotheses about MLBPA having a stakeholder alignment problem...
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
It's a little outdated by I found this, there have been plenty of players who have hit at least .400 through the first 60 games of the season.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/686.html
Wow, that list has Rod Carew in 3 spots in the top ten. 4 in the top 13, 5 in the top 25, and 6 of the 38. I always thought he was one of the best hitters I`ve seen. Don`t think we``ll ever see a player steal home 17 times again either.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
That would be fine as an approach---aim for it. Removed the rest, it isn't going to improve.

The tweet about Boras would seem to confirm the hypotheses about MLBPA having a stakeholder alignment problem...
I am not a fan of Scott Boras, but he’s being used as a boogey man by owners. Which is to say that I don’t believe a word of it.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
Meanwhile, even as careful as they're being and how little they've started to ramp up, 8 positive tests in Phillies camp.

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/phillies/phillies-coronavirus-outbreak-clearwater-players-staff
They've got to get these teams out of Florida (and AZ). The laid back approach by the state government (plus the low infection numbers early on) that made them so appealing in April as "bubble" spots is going to bite everyone in the ass now (not just MLB but NBA too). I'd wager that at least one of those players was out in public where no precautions or distancing was taking place, and then brought it into camp with him.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
So if we have to get out of the Sun Belt, here's a new plan. We divide into regional divisions with ten teams in each, and play daily games entirely within three Metro areas. So you need five or so fields in each metro.

The western cluster stays in the Bay Area, and plays games at Oracle and O.Co, and also rents stadia from Stanford, Cal, the SJ Giants and the Sacramento River Cats. Everything's within 90 minutes by bus. The central cluster stays in Chicago/Milwaukee/Madison, and plays games at Wrigley, Guaranteed Rate, and Miller, along with renting fields from Northwestern and UW and maybe some of the Independent League teams (Rosemont, Gary). Again, everything's within 90 minutes by bus. The eastern cluster stays in NYC, and plays at YSIII and Citi, and rents fields from the Cyclones, the Yard Goats, and maybe Fordham and Rutgers and the indy ball Bears or Ducks. Hartford and New Brunswick are a bit far, but I'm sure there are other good choices I'm not thinking of.

All three metros are well down from their first wave, although Wisconsin is admittedly iffier.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,861
St. Louis, MO
So if we have to get out of the Sun Belt, here's a new plan. We divide into regional divisions with ten teams in each, and play daily games entirely within three Metro areas. So you need five or so fields in each metro.

The western cluster stays in the Bay Area, and plays games at Oracle and O.Co, and also rents stadia from Stanford, Cal, the SJ Giants and the Sacramento River Cats. Everything's within 90 minutes by bus. The central cluster stays in Chicago/Milwaukee/Madison, and plays games at Wrigley, Guaranteed Rate, and Miller, along with renting fields from Northwestern and UW and maybe some of the Independent League teams (Rosemont, Gary). Again, everything's within 90 minutes by bus. The eastern cluster stays in NYC, and plays at YSIII and Citi, and rents fields from the Cyclones, the Yard Goats, and maybe Fordham and Rutgers and the indy ball Bears or Ducks. Hartford and New Brunswick are a bit far, but I'm sure there are other good choices I'm not thinking of.

All three metros are well down from their first wave, although Wisconsin is admittedly iffier.
Great plan but there isn’t time to pull this together. I think baseball in 2020 ends with this news.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,083
It’s feeling like professional sports in the US should take the rest of 2020 off. If baseball can’t resume safely it’s hard to imagine how the NBA, NHL and NFL can.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
So if we have to get out of the Sun Belt, here's a new plan. We divide into regional divisions with ten teams in each, and play daily games entirely within three Metro areas. So you need five or so fields in each metro.

The western cluster stays in the Bay Area, and plays games at Oracle and O.Co, and also rents stadia from Stanford, Cal, the SJ Giants and the Sacramento River Cats. Everything's within 90 minutes by bus. The central cluster stays in Chicago/Milwaukee/Madison, and plays games at Wrigley, Guaranteed Rate, and Miller, along with renting fields from Northwestern and UW and maybe some of the Independent League teams (Rosemont, Gary). Again, everything's within 90 minutes by bus. The eastern cluster stays in NYC, and plays at YSIII and Citi, and rents fields from the Cyclones, the Yard Goats, and maybe Fordham and Rutgers and the indy ball Bears or Ducks. Hartford and New Brunswick are a bit far, but I'm sure there are other good choices I'm not thinking of.

All three metros are well down from their first wave, although Wisconsin is admittedly iffier.
Staten Island has a Richmond County Stadium that should be better than Hartford
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
It’s feeling like professional sports in the US should take the rest of 2020 off. If baseball can’t resume safely it’s hard to imagine how the NBA, NHL and NFL can.
You just can't be afraid of people testing positive for it to work and trust that the testing will keep the spread to a mininum.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
It’s feeling like professional sports in the US should take the rest of 2020 off. If baseball can’t resume safely it’s hard to imagine how the NBA, NHL and NFL can.
That's been my spot since Day 1. They are all contorting themselves to make playing theoretically possible to play, but the real-life season-disabling roadblocks are so likely to pop up that it's not actually possible to play without disabling everyone's critical thinking skills.

Or, as the great philosopher Mike Tyson once said, ""Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

You just can't be afraid of people testing positive for it to work and just trust that the testing will keep the spread to a mininum.
Yes, you can be afraid and yes you should be afraid. Sports, fucking sports, cannot be responsible for people dying for reasons wholly unrelated to actually playing the game.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
You can "keep the spread to a minimum" and still have 15 players/personnel test positive at once.
Exactly. Five players and three staffers for the Phillies, but are they even testing/counting whoever is at home for these folks? How many spouses, children, parents, grandparents, friends, entourages, might be affected by, or one of the causes of, the outbreak in the clubhouse?

On the heels of the Phillies news is that the Tampa Bay Lightning have closed their facilities due to multiple players and staff testing positive. This is only the beginning.

View: https://twitter.com/HackswithHaggs/status/1274033109374304261
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
It’s feeling like professional sports in the US should take the rest of 2020 off. If baseball can’t resume safely it’s hard to imagine how the NBA, NHL and NFL can.
Well that's why the NBA created the bubble concept. You test everyone (almost) going into the bubble; limit interactions; and hope to get out of the bubble with minimal infections.

But the MLB trying to play a somewhat normal schedule? No way.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,473
Garden City
Yea, I don't think this year's world series winner would be tainted because of the schedule. I think they're going to be tainted because they might be forced to play against teams players sitting out due to quarantine.

MLB and the Union need to come to an agreement no matter what. If the virus claims the season, so be it. But they have to be able to agree on this stuff.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
I am not a fan of Scott Boras, but he’s being used as a boogey man by owners. Which is to say that I don’t believe a word of it.
Maybe, and if so it wouldn't be the first time! I do believe that the MLBPA is not fully united here---there are some who want 'a deal' soon, and some who are willing to push/wait/risk for 'a better deal' and I can easily imagine Boras being in the second group. To me, by far the most likely explanation of Clark's moving of position the last couple days is he is trying to manage competing factions of his union. I don't think Clark is up to the job overall, but I very much understand he is facing a difficult group of competing interests within the players.

The Phillies having those players contract it is the primary reason I have been critical of the player's strategy here---the question they should be focusing on is not "do we get $1.5 billion or $1.8 billion" it is "do we lock in something or not" It is their lives and their careers so I respect them seeking more, but I personally would have advised them differently. And yes, I certainly do understand (and even agree) this is not a fair choice for the players to have to make, but it is the actual one they face so theory is unhelpful---hope is not a strategy
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
Yea, I don't think this year's world series winner would be tainted because of the schedule. I think they're going to be tainted because they might be forced to play against teams players sitting out due to quarantine.

MLB and the Union need to come to an agreement no matter what. If the virus claims the season, so be it. But they have to be able to agree on this stuff.
I don't see the value of having contincious negotiations that create bad feelings on both sides for a season that might not happen. After what happened with the Philies, MLB needs to take a hard look at not having a season.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,473
Garden City
I don't see the value of having contincious negotiations that create bad feelings on both sides for a season that might not happen. After what happened with the Philies, MLB needs to take a hard look at not having a season.
Too late for that. I think coming to an agreement builds some goodwill and shows they're both willing to play if possible. If they were to walk away now, the owners would get the blame I think.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,083
Well that's why the NBA created the bubble concept. You test everyone (almost) going into the bubble; limit interactions; and hope to get out of the bubble with minimal infections.

But the MLB trying to play a somewhat normal schedule? No way.
Separate topic but I like the NBA’s plan best of all however given the scale of the operation and case growth in Florida I’m doubtful that it can be successfully pulled off.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
Maybe, and if so it wouldn't be the first time! I do believe that the MLBPA is not fully united here---there are some who want 'a deal' soon, and some who are willing to push/wait/risk for 'a better deal' and I can easily imagine Boras being in the second group. To me, by far the most likely explanation of Clark's moving of position the last couple days is he is trying to manage competing factions of his union. I don't think Clark is up to the job overall, but I very much understand he is facing a difficult group of competing interests within the players.

The Phillies having those players contract it is the primary reason I have been critical of the player's strategy here---the question they should be focusing on is not "do we get $1.5 billion or $1.8 billion" it is "do we lock in something or not" It is their lives and their careers so I respect them seeking more, but I personally would have advised them differently. And yes, I certainly do understand (and even agree) this is not a fair choice for the players to have to make, but it is the actual one they face so theory is unhelpful---hope is not a strategy
The other thing is that since it's at least a possibility that CV doesn't transmit outside in the summer their insistence on a long season to maximize games was kind of dumb.

IMO, MLB and MLBPA should have agreed on a 50-ish game season starting July 1 with expanded playoffs ending in October where players get (i) pro rated salary plus (ii) a reporting bonus plus (iii) a bonus when the regular season starts plus (iv) increased per diem plus (v) a minimum 2020 playoff pool if the playoffs were being played. Seems to me that the players could have figured out how to get most of their salary demands and I'm sure they could have gotten other things like funds for minor leaguers; expanded playoff portion in 2021; etc. Baseball would have gotten a couple of months of basically no other sport being played. Plus, the players could have minimized their risk because every game they play and every time they travel just increases their risks.

But no, the players initial offer was 114 games.

Might be too late to get any games in now.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
I don’t think there was ever a real window as far as health concerns, even for 50 games, and I don’t think it’s possible for the two sides to fully agree on a deal given what a disaster the current CBA is (and everything for 2020 is being built on top of that). I think as others have said above that the Phillies news combined with the standoff will lead to an announcement within the week that there will be no 2020 baseball.

What the two sides should do then is use the additional time to forge a new, drastically different CBA starting in 2021 and lasting 4-5 years, but again not holding my breath.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,473
Garden City
I don’t think there was ever a real window as far as health concerns, even for 50 games, and I don’t think it’s possible for the two sides to fully agree on a deal given what a disaster the current CBA is (and everything for 2020 is being built on top of that). I think as others have said above that the Phillies news combined with the standoff will lead to an announcement within the week that there will be no 2020 baseball.

What the two sides should do then is use the additional time to forge a new, drastically different CBA starting in 2021 and lasting 4-5 years, but again not holding my breath.
100% agree.

Can we be friends again?
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
31,083
Boston, MA
Covid-19 is on their front door. Players have been infected. Cases are rising in states where they plan to restart spring training. No respect is being shown to this virus. Both sides are haggling over expanded playoffs and revenue while the virus grows. Having a 2020 season is a fantasy. Hopefully Manfred and Clark realize that and cancel the season now before they have to do it in August when half the league is infected.

End of rant.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Any sport that opens up has a very real possibility of a team having an outbreak and maybe being taken out of the competition , or a coach or a broadcaster or a journalist dying, or a player or a player’s family member getting very very sick, and so forth.

Obviously there are lots of things one can do improve the odds and decrease the numbers.
But the odds and the numbers will not be zero right now.

But if the league doesn’t have a plan to keep the season going to completion if/when those things happen and the shit hits the fan then they shouldn’t even begin.

How you say “we knew this might happen and it’s way sad but we are determined to give our fans a champion” I don’t know. I’m not a professional PR guy. But it’s probably not much like that thing the Phillies released, which makes it sound as if they are surprised there are cases.

Ed: to be clear, I am not particularly in favor of any league reopening, but I’ll watch them all.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
Too late for that. I think coming to an agreement builds some goodwill and shows they're both willing to play if possible. If they were to walk away now, the owners would get the blame I think.
I don't think so.
I don’t think there was ever a real window as far as health concerns, even for 50 games, and I don’t think it’s possible for the two sides to fully agree on a deal given what a disaster the current CBA is (and everything for 2020 is being built on top of that). I think as others have said above that the Phillies news combined with the standoff will lead to an announcement within the week that there will be no 2020 baseball.

What the two sides should do then is use the additional time to forge a new, drastically different CBA starting in 2021 and lasting 4-5 years, but again not holding my breath.
I doubt the extra time will help much. Historically, it takes some bloodletting in the form of a strike or lockout, to provide enough pressure to get a deal done of this significance.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
It’s feeling like professional sports in the US should take the rest of 2020 off. If baseball can’t resume safely it’s hard to imagine how the NBA, NHL and NFL can.
Totally agree; just bag sports for 2020 and see what the landscape looks like in the Spring of 2021.

As another poster stated, baseball is the least contact sport of the four, if they can't make it work, I don't see how other leagues can.

It's just too messy; let's take the NFL for example. Say on Monday of week #2 a player on the Patriots tests positive; so what then, quarantine the team for two weeks and quarantine their opponent from week one for two weeks? So then what; both teams forfeit two games?

What a complete and utter shitshow this virus has been; as a country, we've been in it for what, 6 months with no end in sight?

Just unbelievable.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Totally agree; just bag sports for 2020 and see what the landscape looks like in the Spring of 2021.

As another poster stated, baseball is the least contact sport of the four, if they can't make it work, I don't see how other leagues can.

It's just too messy; let's take the NFL for example. Say on Monday of week #2 a player on the Patriots tests positive; so what then, quarantine the team for two weeks and quarantine their opponent from week one for two weeks? So then what; both teams forfeit two games?

What a complete and utter shitshow this virus has been; as a country, we've been in it for what, 6 months with no end in sight?

Just unbelievable.
Yep. It will continue almost indefinitely if we can’t find a vaccine and even with that it will still kill some people most likely.

Or we just decide that, using precautions like masks, we can just live with it as we keep working towards a treatment or what have you.

(And by “live with it” I mean we accept that lots of people are going to get it and fewer (but still lots) of people will die from it.)
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
Yep. It will continue almost indefinitely if we can’t find a vaccine and even with that it will still kill some people most likely.

Or we just decide that, using precautions like masks, we can just live with it as we keep working towards a treatment or what have you.

(And by “live with it” I mean we accept that lots of people are going to get it and fewer (but still lots) of people will die from it.)
Not to hijack this thread, but speaking of masks, why is it not mandatory NATIONWIDE to wear them; here in MA, we were a hot zone, averaging 1500 new infections a day/150 deaths a day for several weeks, order came down to wear masks in public, our numbers are now hovering around 250/30 for about a week, wearing masks in public certainly helped.

I've been wearing a mask in public for three months, I was doing so before it was required.

Again, pardon me and I don't want to turn a baseball thread into a political discussion, but I won't step foot outside my house without wearing one regardless of what our governor says going forward.