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

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,566

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,682
If the owners are really concerned about the grievance, blaming the Florida spike for cancelling would be an easy way out.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,403
Wouldn't Manchester be a better option?
New York state has been far more serious in its Covid response than New Hampshire and would undoubtedly be better prepared, if also far more strict. There is also the benefit that they will already be working with the Yankees and Mets on precautions and protocol for both 'spring' training and actual games in NYC and the Jays could adopt the same procedures.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
49,786
Even rating for population, it's not even remotely close. No one should want to be in New York right now - not even the Yankees or Mets.
You're ignoring when these have happened, NY/NJ were awful in March and April but have gotten much better, they are probably among the safest states currently.
 

Dahabenzapple2

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
7,820
Wayne, NJ
You're ignoring when these have happened, NY/NJ were awful in March and April but have gotten much better, they are probably among the safest states currently.
100% correct (thankfully as I’m on the border of Bergen & Passaic Counties in NJ which was an epicenter of this awful pandemic)

but if people keep lining up like lemmings to pack themselves into retail stores here in NJ....
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
23,154
You're ignoring when these have happened, NY/NJ were awful in March and April but have gotten much better, they are probably among the safest states currently.
Agreed, the question to ask is about CURRENT levels not aggregate impact over three months. Keep in mind that some of the data reported (especially hospitalizations and deaths) are lagging indicators as well.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,179
Rogers Park
I hope this isn't too V&N; I won't be offended if a mod wants to delete or move it.

I think the last few days have really opened my eyes to the denial I've been in about this.

Taking it as read that there will be no federal response to COVID-19 before Jan 20, 2021 — and perhaps not even then — I am suddenly becoming pessimistic about the chances that a 2021 season could happen. Now that one political party has decided that non-pharmaceutical interventions like masks, distancing, and forcing businesses to close are signs of disloyalty or even unconstitutional, as a number of state supreme courts have found, it's hard to see how we are going to be able to implement and gain compliance with the public health regimen necessary to control this thing. And when schools start up in the fall, things could get much, much worse.

So we're really waiting for a vaccine. If everything goes perfectly — and why would we expect that after what we've seen? — we should have a vaccine entering the manufacturing process next summer. It will take awhile to make, distribute and administer the literally billions of doses that we'll need. That just isn't happening by Fall 2021, realistically. I really hope I'm wrong about this, but I don't see how I could be.

Perhaps advances in therapies soften the blow somewhat. There are tentative indications that this may be happening, and that may be why our exploding case numbers over the last few weeks haven't (yet) led to a climb in the death rate. If true, that is amazing news in humanitarian terms, but I don't think it means much for sports. But we still have no idea what the long-term prognosis for even "mild" cases of this disease, and given the unconfirmed suggestions that some of the lung and cardiovascular damage caused by the disease may be permanent, you can see why a young athlete with a long and promising career ahead of him might not want to take chances.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,682
CBA wars or not... If the 2020 season does get cancelled, MLB and the players better make sure the 2021 season is played in full. I think you can manage losing this year, but losing the 2021 season as well would be pretty killer.

but if people keep lining up like lemmings to pack themselves into retail stores here in NJ....
That's how it's been in MA, but new cases are pretty light right now. Maybe the South is going through what MA and NY/NJ went through back in April.
 

Dahabenzapple2

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
7,820
Wayne, NJ
CBA wars or not... If the 2020 season does get cancelled, MLB and the players better make sure the 2021 season is played in full. I think you can manage losing this year, but losing the 2021 season as well would be pretty killer.



That's how it's been in MA, but new cases are pretty light right now. Maybe the South is going through what MA and NY/NJ went through back in April.
I sure hope so
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
14,311
The cradle of the game.
I hope this isn't too V&N; I won't be offended if a mod wants to delete or move it.

I think the last few days have really opened my eyes to the denial I've been in about this.

Taking it as read that there will be no federal response to COVID-19 before Jan 20, 2021 — and perhaps not even then — I am suddenly becoming pessimistic about the chances that a 2021 season could happen. Now that one political party has decided that non-pharmaceutical interventions like masks, distancing, and forcing businesses to close are signs of disloyalty or even unconstitutional, as a number of state supreme courts have found, it's hard to see how we are going to be able to implement and gain compliance with the public health regimen necessary to control this thing. And when schools start up in the fall, things could get much, much worse.

So we're really waiting for a vaccine. If everything goes perfectly — and why would we expect that after what we've seen? — we should have a vaccine entering the manufacturing process next summer. It will take awhile to make, distribute and administer the literally billions of doses that we'll need. That just isn't happening by Fall 2021, realistically. I really hope I'm wrong about this, but I don't see how I could be.

Perhaps advances in therapies soften the blow somewhat. There are tentative indications that this may be happening, and that may be why our exploding case numbers over the last few weeks haven't (yet) led to a climb in the death rate. If true, that is amazing news in humanitarian terms, but I don't think it means much for sports. But we still have no idea what the long-term prognosis for even "mild" cases of this disease, and given the unconfirmed suggestions that some of the lung and cardiovascular damage caused by the disease may be permanent, you can see why a young athlete with a long and promising career ahead of him might not want to take chances.
Given the recent mini outbreak in Phillies camp and its subsequent shutdown, it's pretty clear nobody has a handle on how to operate with the virus. I mean they haven't even figured out a socially-distant informal workout, let alone a full schedule of games with 2 full/expanded rosters, umpires, etc. The prudent decision is to shut it all down right away and get to work on figuring out how to play actual games under a continued COVID threat in 2021.

Much like the shotgun approach being taken by developing multiple potential treatments/vaccines in parallel, MLB should begin working through 3 or 4 safety/scheduling/economic scenarios, and then implement the one most closely matching the situation next February. The worst thing they could do is shut everything down and wait until the winter meetings to begin sorting out 2021. Unless there a legit vaccine that can be widely deployed by ST (unlikely), a shitload of planning will need to get done.

Stop 2020, and start preparing for 2021 now.
 
Last edited:

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
28,536
PGA event delayed, nothing else on, infomercials on a ton. MLB would have CLEANED UP if they could have started in June.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,403
Given the recent mini outbreak in Phillies camp and its subsequent shutdown, it's pretty clear nobody has a handle on how to operate with the virus. I mean they haven't even figured out a socially-distant informal workout, let alone a full schedule of games with 2 full/expanded rosters, umpires, etc. The prudent decision is to shut it all down right away and get to work on figuring out how to play actual games under a continued COVID threat in 2021.

Much like the shotgun approach being taken by developing multiple potential treatments/vaccines in parallel, MLB should begin working through 3 or 4 safety/scheduling/economic scenarios, and then implement the one most closely matching the situation next February. The worst thing they could do is shut everything down and wait until the winter meetings to begin sorting out 2021. Unless there a legit vaccine that can be widely deployed by ST (unlikely), a shitload of planning will need to get done.

Stop 2020, and start preparing for 2021 now.
You're assuming competent leadership at MLB working together with the Player's Association for the joint safety and benefit of all involved. Nothing we've seen over the past three months has given me any hope that common sense will suddenly break out in baseball.
 

Patek's 3 Dingers

Luddite
Silver Supporter
Jul 5, 2018
430
Given the recent mini outbreak in Phillies camp and its subsequent shutdown, it's pretty clear nobody has a handle on how to operate with the virus. I mean they haven't even figured out a socially-distant informal workout, let alone a full schedule of games with 2 full/expanded rosters, umpires, etc. The prudent decision is to shut it all down right away and get to work on figuring out how to play actual games under a continued COVID threat in 2021.

Much like the shotgun approach being taken by developing multiple potential treatments/vaccines in parallel, MLB should begin working through 3 or 4 safety/scheduling/economic scenarios, and then implement the one most closely matching the situation next February. The worst thing they could do is shut everything down and wait until the winter meetings to begin sorting out 2021. Unless there a legit vaccine that can be widely deployed by ST (unlikely), a shitload of planning will need to get done.

Stop 2020, and start preparing for 2021 now.
How can they prepare for 2021 when it's an unknown what the conditions will be next February? Should they hammer out salary agreements in advance for what they were trying to do this year, for playing games in a "bubble" or for games that allow for fans with social distancing?
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,725
Mobile, AL
Maybe the South is going through what MA and NY/NJ went through back in April.
Unless you went through massive denial of science and full belief that Covid is over then I doubt it. I really hate people here
 

nolasoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,020
Displaced
Shut it down, NOW. Start contingency planning for 2021. Somebody, somewhere, needs to start demonstrating some rational leadership or we are all going to be dealing with this for years.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
49,786
That's old news now, the player's association is set to vote around 5 PM after some more tweaking to the proposed deal this afternoon.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
40,670
Rotten Apple
That's old news now, the player's association is set to vote around 5 PM after some more tweaking to the proposed deal this afternoon.
Seems like today is the day.
MLB players meeting this aft and r again expected to vote on 60-game framework. Some key union people like the grievance being kept as option, which would mean rejecting deal. Commish tweaked framework yesterday in hopes of getting yes vote and not having to implement season.
View: https://twitter.com/JonHeyman/status/1275122886802640896
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
23,154
Those of you who have been portraying the owners as bad guys and the players as good guys should consider whether "we'd rather litigate than play the season or negotiate" fits your definition of a good actor.

I get there's a lot of bad behavior in all directions here, but wow.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,631
Charleston, SC
Those of you who have been portraying the owners as bad guys and the players as good guys should consider whether "we'd rather litigate than play the season or negotiate" fits your definition of a good actor.

I get there's a lot of bad behavior in all directions here, but wow.
That's an absurd position. The players are considering holding to the existing contract. If they do so, the Commissioner is obligated to set a season. If that happens, they are able to argue that he didn't do as much as possible.

If the owners want the players to make concessions, they should give them something worthwhile. Otherwise, the existing duties reign.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
49,786
Also there is a lot of really skewed reporting on this, depending on which sources a writer has or maybe who is paying them (it's in ESPN's best interest for there to be a MLB season).
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,965
I don't really care about whether they play this year except for one, really big, Red Sox specific reason.

If they don't play, the luxury tax doesn't reset, and we go into the 2021 season with even more discussions about how they trim payroll. Unfortunately in that case (and I realize this is a near fantasy), that means they have absolutely zero chance at bringing Mookie back.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
49,786
News should be coming any minute, I think the players might have voted yes (just guessing from people's tone on Twitter).
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
18,418
where I was last at
I wonder if any teams (probably those without their own RSN) might benefit financially, or have a stronger cash flow, by not playing this year, and carrying back the NOL to past year's income and claim tax refunds.

Probably moot as we'll never see the books.

word is players voted against owners proposal 33-5.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,566
So now what? The owners either spike the season or play 60 games with the risk of a grievance hanging over their heads?

Edit -- Olney summed it up. Ugh.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
28,536
I wonder if any teams (probably those without their own RSN) might benefit financially, or have a stronger cash flow, by not playing this year, and carrying back the NOL to past year's income and claim tax refunds.

Probably moot as we'll never see the books.

word is players voted against owners proposal 33-5.
For sure. Teams with relatively high payrolls and relatively low tv deals will be saving $ by not playing.
 

grimshaw

the new rudy
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,460
Portland
How generous of him to give them more than 48 games. It's almost like they may not really be losing money playing in empty ballparks.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,566
Sorry for the dumb question -- what would the player grievance be over? Not scheduling more games?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
49,786
How generous of him to give them more than 48 games. It's almost like they may not really be losing money playing in empty ballparks.
This is almost certainly to try to avoid (losing) a grievance, because the main thing there will be if MLB really tried to fit in as many games as possible to the available window. Without that threat, I bet we'd be at 48 or 50.
 

grimshaw

the new rudy
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,460
Portland
Sorry for the dumb question -- what would the player grievance be over? Not scheduling more games?
Delaying the process. Just heard on MLB Network that the players estimate they have lost about 35 games because the owners weren't negotiating in good faith.
 

grimshaw

the new rudy
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,460
Portland
This is almost certainly to try to avoid (losing) a grievance, because the main thing there will be if MLB really tried to fit in as many games as possible to the available window. Without that threat, I bet we'd be at 48 or 50.
I disagree. They are giving them 12 extra games. If they had given them 10 more there is no grievance and they get their expanded playoffs for two seasons. The numbers and risk don't add up to me.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,566
Delaying the process. Just heard on MLB Network that the players estimate they have lost about 35 games because the owners weren't negotiating in good faith.
Thanks. I'm really curious what the March agreement specifically said about everything going out the window if fans couldn't attend games. We've heard representations about the language, but I wonder what the exact language was. That's really the owners' best defense against any claims of bad faith.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,384
Waltham, MA
Delaying the process. Just heard on MLB Network that the players estimate they have lost about 35 games because the owners weren't negotiating in good faith.
Is either side negotiating in good faith? We haven't really seen movement towards a middle ground at all, have we?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
23,154
Delaying the process. Just heard on MLB Network that the players estimate they have lost about 35 games because the owners weren't negotiating in good faith.
Based on what, though? The sequence of offers suggests the players have been all over the map. It’s tough to argue your initial offer of 114 games was in good faith when you end up at 70 (as players did). And it’s impossible to argue the other side is responsible for delay when you start with an offer like that.

MLB owners are usually dirty as heck but the facts on this one appear favorable to them.

This is not to defend owners overall—they have been treating players unfairly for 100 years. But the players strategy here continues to be either incredibly risky (bet it all on an uncertain grievance) or just dumb (sadly more likely given what we know)
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,631
Charleston, SC
Based on what, though? The sequence of offers suggests the players have been all over the map. It’s tough to argue your initial offer of 114 games was in good faith when you end up at 70 (as players did). And it’s impossible to argue the other side is responsible for delay when you start with an offer like that.

MLB owners are usually dirty as heck but the facts on this one appear favorable to them.

This is not to defend owners overall—they have been treating players unfairly for 100 years. But the players strategy here continues to be either incredibly risky (bet it all on an uncertain grievance) or just dumb (sadly more likely given what we know)
114 went down to 70 because the owners argued for two months that players should give up their previously negotiated pro-rata salary. Which they knew and admitted the players didn’t need to. That’s the source of the grievance.
 

grimshaw

the new rudy
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,460
Portland
Is either side negotiating in good faith? We haven't really seen movement towards a middle ground at all, have we?
I agree, just stating what I heard from the players perspective. I don't think they have any chance of winning a grievance.

I'm no longer on either side. If they want to kill their sport they are succeeding.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
49,786
I again recommend following Eugene Freedman on Twitter, he is a union lawyer so he brings that bias to his comments, but he cuts through a lot of the bullshit.

 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
23,154
114 went down to 70 because the owners argued for two months that players should give up their previously negotiated pro-rata salary. Which they knew and admitted the players didn’t need to. That’s the source of the grievance.
Your view of “bad faith” appears to only apply one-way; I think the law requires mutual good faith so my prior question still stands.

Also, the above is not consistent with the facts

Perhaps the players have a much stronger bad faith case than I’ve seen articulated (I’m certainly not a labor lawyer). But they seem to be placing quite a bet on that. The union-side labor lawyer Jon Abbey linked to doesn’t land in a different place in the endgame, worth noting
 
Last edited: