How many official regular season games do you think the Boston Red Sox will play this season?

How many games do they play?

  • None

    Votes: 23 8.5%
  • 1 to 25

    Votes: 8 2.9%
  • 26 to 50

    Votes: 5 1.8%
  • 51 to 75

    Votes: 7 2.6%
  • 76 to 90

    Votes: 39 14.3%
  • 91 to 110

    Votes: 44 16.2%
  • 111 to 130

    Votes: 48 17.6%
  • 131 to 150

    Votes: 66 24.3%
  • 150 to 161

    Votes: 17 6.3%
  • All 162

    Votes: 15 5.5%

  • Total voters
    272
  • Poll closed .

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The news out of Jupiter, Florida isn't good, but negotiations change all the time. The lockout could go all year, or it could end today

Not a trick question, just don't want this littered with exhibition, barnstorming, postseason or anything else. The question is: How many games do you think the Red Sox and other teams will actually play in the 2022 season?

Let's find out if we are pessimists or optimists
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
I have been saying around 130 all winter but now I think I am down to like 100 and even that might end up optimistic.
 

mikeford

woolwich!
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2006
29,539
St John's, NL
Based on the news from yesterday, I voted none. I think the owners aim to break the players and get everything they want.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
Based on the news from yesterday, I voted none. I think the owners aim to break the players and get everything they want.
You'd think some owners would realize how disastrous that would be.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,249
from the wilds of western ma
I'm went with 150-161. As with most negotiations, things look bleak right up until the moment they settle. The owners cannot be stupid to enough to willfully have a dramatically reduced season/revenue twice in 3 years, or to think the sport is in any way on the same footing in the cultural landscape that it was in '94-95. I think a long stoppage would expose the biggest threat to the game's long term viability: Not fan anger, but apathy. Where alarmingly few people under 50 will even give a shit, or miss it.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
Long term, yeah I think it would irreparably harm the sport. But the owners have the money to wait this out and the players dont.
They'll still be rich. They have a lot of pride in owning a professional sports team. Saying you own a MLB will would mean a lot less.
 

Section30

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2010
1,260
Portland OR
I chose 90-100. I think the companies that advertise and televise the games will be putting some pressure on ownership. If you are Budweiser do you want the multi-year exclusive contract you spent millions on to be devalued?
 

BoSoxLady

Rules Red Sox Nation with an Iron Fist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2003
3,448
I’m going with 150. Weather will be warmer in the NE and the Sox need to return by Patriots Day. I can’t fathom the game not being played while the marathon is running. This is my dream.
 

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,194
Philadelphia
I went with 76-90 games, similar to 2020. I feel like it’ll be a significant stoppage and I’d be surprised if more than 100 games get played. I figure a half-season is the best-case scenario. But that’s just gut feelings based on what I’ve read.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I'm hoping that no games are lost, but I'll try to be realistic as well as optimistic vote 131-150. I think that a lost month can still yield what in the fans' eyes would be a meaningful season. I also feel they'll try to somehow fit in the whole season if only 10-12 games are threatened.
 

Bosoxian

New Member
Aug 17, 2021
158
I hopefully cast a 130-150 vote. Although I’m afraid that once they pass the threshold of games being missed it will snowball into a bigger mess.
 

leftfieldlegacy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
1,005
North Jersey
I went with half the games will be played. If the owners push beyond this, I think momentum will build in congress to revisit the antitrust exemption for MLB.
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,750
My Desk
This is about the owners breaking the players union once and for all. There will be baseball this summer in Worcester, Portland, and Hartford. There will be none in Boston.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
I voted for 162. Nobody wants to lose money even in the short term. They’ll find a way.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,499
I voted 76-90 just because I view half a season as a realistic best case scenario. I think there's a better chance of zero games being played than 100+.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I voted 111-130. I can see sides feeling more urgency as May approaches and there's a desire to start the season by Memorial Day, which is when the owners would start taking more of a real hit. There is substantial risk of zero, however.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Both, but I was thinking NBA. Kind of feel like once there is a sports vacuum the pressure to get some sort of half season in will make it so a deal gets done.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but you're then into the third week of June with probably 70 or so games wiped out, I see it very easy for fans to be disinterested at that point. MLB doesn't have a broad enough fan base that they should give folks a reason not to attend games or watch on TV. Two out of three seasons featuring a huge reduction in games is not going to be good for the health of the sport. Also, how does this all play out with advertisers? Legalized sports gambling has exploded across a good part of this country in the past couple of years, they surely won't be pleased. I wonder what sort of advertising money passes hands between the various betting outlets and MLB.
 

mikeot

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2006
8,148
I went with half the games will be played. If the owners push beyond this, I think momentum will build in congress to revisit the antitrust exemption for MLB.
I also picked half; this would be the best-case scenario IMHO if it comes to that. "America's Pastime" needs this kind of shock to the system if it wants to remain relevant the rest of the 21st century.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but you're then into the third week of June with probably 70 or so games wiped out, I see it very easy for fans to be disinterested at that point. MLB doesn't have a broad enough fan base that they should give folks a reason not to attend games or watch on TV. Two out of three seasons featuring a huge reduction in games is not going to be good for the health of the sport. Also, how does this all play out with advertisers? Legalized sports gambling has exploded across a good part of this country in the past couple of years, they surely won't be pleased. I wonder what sort of advertising money passes hands between the various betting outlets and MLB.
The gambling angle is interesting. It will be really lean from July to September for the books without baseball. Not even European soccer or a major competition other than champions league since the World Cup is in November and December.

Golf, and MLS.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
The gambling angle is interesting. It will be really lean from July to September for the books without baseball. Not even European soccer or a major competition other than champions league since the World Cup is in November and December.

Golf, and MLS.
Even leading up to July, I might guess that with each passing round of the NBA and NHL playoffs there is going to be less money wagered on those sports and nothing coming in from baseball.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
Zero games. Entire year is lost to bickering. Both sides have figured out, with the help of the Covid season, what they can handle to lose...and they can all afford to lose a season for the 'future of the game'.

An unaffiliated league or leagues attract free agents, revolutionize how we watch games socially because they can't create MLB level content as it stands. MLB takes the ideas, returns in triumph hand in hand with MLBPA in 2023, with perhaps expansion into a city that had a successful rogue team/season. Baseball is changed forever from a viewing experience, but same issues exist with analytics dictating play of game, but everybody will be paid, so it will be a temporary boost to improve things.

That's my dream sequence, reality is just a lost season with bad PR to bring fans back in 2023.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
No deal was ever going to happen before the last moment. People are reading too much into the months of no progress.

That said, the parties should have been meeting constantly and building trust over the past several weeks, and that hasn’t happened, so I don’t think we’ll get an 11th-hour deal to save the 162-game schedule — too many issues remain. But I think there will be a deal in the next 2-3 weeks, and games that count before the calendar turns to May. Voted 131-150.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,152
Alamogordo
I voted zero. It's the same way I would have voted the day the lockout started when Manfred made his ridiculous "look how much money owners just spent on free agents" speech.

The owners may not WANT to ruin the sport, but they are not acting in good faith, and the players have actual representation this time.

And Manfred has been 10000% awful for the sport of baseball. I can't believe I was excited when he got named commissioner.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
I haven't voted yet because there's still a chance that they work out a deal today but IMO if they don't do a deal today (or if they are not close enough to a deal where they basically stop the clock while they are negotiating), they are going to lose the majority of the season at minimum. One of the big problems is that the players are going to want to be paid for missed games plus the owners will be losing revenues, which makes the $ gap between the two sides even higher.

As Mauf said, the biggest issue to me is that they see the other side as adversaries, not partners.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
It should be noted that just because MLB set today as a deadline to fit in 162 games, that's not necessarily true. MLB does not have the unilateral power to proclaim how many games will be in a season, that is a collective bargaining thing that needs to be agreed on with the MLBPA. So we could theoretically have a deal a week from now and still have a 162 game season.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
It should be noted that just because MLB set today as a deadline to fit in 162 games, that's not necessarily true. MLB does not have the unilateral power to proclaim how many games will be in a season, that is a collective bargaining thing that needs to be agreed on with the MLBPA. So we could theoretically have a deal a week from now and still have a 162 game season.
Yes. Today is just the deadline for being able to have Opening Day on March 31. Failing to meet it doesn't mean regular season games will be lost entirely.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,567
My updated guess is league will be opening Memorial Day. With tons of doubleheaders, and end of season extended 1 week.

(cross posting for main thread )

"And May is just as bad for owners (as April) league-wide (NBA/NHL playoffs, people moving, elementary school still going on, no vacation) and worse in Boston. (Lack of Pats Day weekend)"
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
MLB today indicated a willingness to miss a month of games and took a more threatening tone than yesterday, sources briefed on the day’s first meeting between MLB and the Players Association tell me,
@Ken_Rosenthal and @FabianArdaya. Full context of conversation not yet known.
View: https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/1498363900810743810

Not sure why Buster waited until now to say this, but...

On the night that the owners locked out the players, Dec. 1, a longtime agent texted clients with best wishes for the upcoming holidays, Happy New Year, Happy Valentine's Day, Happy Easter, etc. -- and referenced Flag Day (June 14) as the point when the season might start.
View: https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/1498371720968908801
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
Agree that today isn't a drop dead date but after today comes and go without an agreement, I have to wonder when the next negotiating session will be. I doubt it will be tomorrow.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I think the owners are trying to get the players to walk away from the table. Management is not going to agree to any real concessions, they don't care that the integrity of the season might be destroyed, and they want to at least be able to cast some blame in the other direction. Their endgame is the players agreeing to another shitty deal this summer in order to save something of the season so contracts toll a year.
 

EdRalphRomero

wooderson
SoSH Member
Oct 3, 2007
4,472
deep in the hole
It is amazing to me that the owners are taking this hard-line stance now.

What follows is anecdotal, admittedly, but I see so few young people who care about baseball at all. When I was a teenager I watched every Sox game broadcast on TV, talked about it with my friends at school, and read about it. In my large extended family, I would say 90% of my male cousins (and a few female cousins) were the same way. My two teenagers? They could tell you that Big Papi played for the Sox and that's about it. Same with my nephews and 90% of my cousins' kids. Baseball just doesn't matter to the kids that I interact with, and certainly not in the way that football or basketball do. The baseball fans I know are all middle-age or older (like me). So coming out of the last 2 years of largely missed opportunities to grab the younger generation of fans, this is the owners' play? I mean, I am happy if baseball becomes a niche sport. I'll take the cheaper tickets. But it just looks so shortsighted.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
My updated guess is league will be opening Memorial Day. With tons of doubleheaders, and end of season extended 1 week.

(cross posting for main thread )

"And May is just as bad for owners (as April) league-wide (NBA/NHL playoffs, people moving, elementary school still going on, no vacation) and worse in Boston. (Lack of Pats Day weekend)"
IMO, if they don't start until Memorial Day, I don't see a ton of double headers. Possibly a few to ensure each team plays the same amount of games, but I think that two months of games is pretty much lost. Where I do see double headers being added is if the dispute is resolved with just a couple of weeks worth of games being cancelled. I think the season will still be long enough at that point where they try to fit the entire 162 games in.
 
Last edited:

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
818
(B)Austin Texas
How is a Lockout (owners-caused) vs Strike (players) handled legally? Why don't the players get paid if they have contracts? Do their contracts specifically mention they get paid only for playing baseball for their owners?
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
It is amazing to me that the owners are taking this hard-line stance now.

What follows is anecdotal, admittedly, but I see so few young people who care about baseball at all. When I was a teenager I watched every Sox game broadcast on TV, talked about it with my friends at school, and read about it. In my large extended family, I would say 90% of my male cousins (and a few female cousins) were the same way. My two teenagers? They could tell you that Big Papi played for the Sox and that's about it. Same with my nephews and 90% of my cousins' kids. Baseball just doesn't matter to the kids that I interact with, and certainly not in the way that football or basketball do. The baseball fans I know are all middle-age or older (like me). So coming out of the last 2 years of largely missed opportunities to grab the younger generation of fans, this is the owners' play? I mean, I am happy if baseball becomes a niche sport. I'll take the cheaper tickets. But it just looks so shortsighted.
My son was so into this Red Sox team last year and this is just crushing what would otherwise be a lot of preseason excitement. It's incredibly stupid and shortsighted.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
How is a Lockout (owners-caused) vs Strike (players) handled legally? Why don't the players get paid if they have contracts? Do their contracts specifically mention they get paid only for playing baseball for their owners?
This is a really complicated labor law subject. But basically, once you agree to collectively bargain, and a collective bargaining agreement expires, there are certain protections that players and management lose -- most notably once a CBA expires any no lockout or no strike provisions are void.

At that point, management and the players are governed by labor law rules and regulations, which require each side to continue to negotiate in good faith. Other provisions of the old expired CBA remain in place, but the central rights to lock out or strike exist. Players or management can make claims and bring actions or arbitrations under the NLRA if they think the other side is not acting in good faith, but these are tough claims. Usually, one of the first things agreed upon in a new CBA is a release of all claims related to the bargaining process or whatever came before.

Again, there are many wrinkles here but the essential answer is that a lockout is permitted so long as the league continues to bargain in good faith until agreement or impasse.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
One detail about the labor laws that I haven't seen widely discussed is how those labor laws lead to the '94 - '95 strike. It also points to why extending the current CBA while the sides negotiated wasn't going to be an option (and why the owners locked out the players this time).

In '94 both sides negotiated through the season, with the players collecting most of their salaries, but it became apparent that towards the end that the owners intended to just declare an impasse and then implement their last offer under the rules of collective bargaining. So the players felt their only choice was to strike, which stopped that action on the part of the owners (but did allow them to bring in replacement players, since the players were on strike). The owners certainly weren't going to give the players that leverage this time around (if the owners are going to loose games, they'll be the least profitable ones in April).

Apologies if I'm getting that wrong, it's from memory; I'll try and find the article I pulled it from...
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
How bad a deal is it for the owners if the season gets shortened 30 or so games, and the salaries are therefore reduced close to 20%, and they get another round of playoffs? I have no conception of how much money that costs them or if it sort of works out ok for them