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

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
And those "it won't be the same" seem to get used often through this thread as reasons why "they can't."
Cool. I'm saying if they do it won't be the same. I'm also saying I don't think they can do it safely. Or that they will come to an agreement regardless. I also don't think it's smart for many reasons on both sides as well as for public health. All of those are independent, pragmatic ideas and thoughts. I'm sure I am not alone in that. There's a Venn diagram in there somewhere, but I think you're mistaking doubt or skepticism for eagerness. No one wants the season cancelled. I'd love to take my wife to a restaurant right now, but even if I could I wouldn't, because I don't think it'd be safe. That doesn't make me eager to stay cooped up and cook for the 93rd night in a row.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
At this point 100+ games can't happen without playoffs extending into Thanksgiving. But even 81 games isn't really a full season and shouldn't be treated as such. Whatever ends up happening, whoever wins the playoffs should be considered the champion of 2020, but not a World Series winner. I completely understand it's a silly semantic thing and does not matter at all in the big picture. It would just feel wrong to me to see the Rangers hoisting the trophy for winning a 60 game season with 50 man rosters.
We've had a season where the two teams with the best records didn't make the playoffs. We had a year in the previous decade when the team with the 13th best record won the World Series. As soon as they expanded the playoffs beyond two teams anything was possible. It's still the World Series and it will still count the same as any other year...if it happens.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,678
Maine
Count me as someone who doesn't understand the talk that if the season isn't X games long, it's not legitimate or not "the same". Considering the season, if it happens, is going to be shortened due to circumstances outside anyone's control and for which there was no contingency plan, I think anything that results in competitive games being played and a playoff tournament being held is a great outcome. I don't care if it's 30 games plus playoffs or 162 games plus playoffs.

In 1981 due to a strike, they essentially played two ~50 game seasons and expanded the playoffs by a round. In fact, teams didn't even play the same number of games, in either half (e.g. the Yankees played 56+51=107 total while the Tigers played 57+52=109 total). The Yankees had the fourth best overall winning percentage in the AL East but made the playoffs by virtue of being in first place when the first half ended (when the strike began). Are the 1981 Dodgers not World Series Champions because they beat those Yankees?
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Count me as someone who doesn't understand the talk that if the season isn't X games long, it's not legitimate or not "the same". Considering the season, if it happens, is going to be shortened due to circumstances outside anyone's control and for which there was no contingency plan, I think anything that results in competitive games being played and a playoff tournament being held is a great outcome. I don't care if it's 30 games plus playoffs or 162 games plus playoffs.

In 1981 due to a strike, they essentially played two ~50 game seasons and expanded the playoffs by a round. In fact, teams didn't even play the same number of games, in either half (e.g. the Yankees played 56+51=107 total while the Tigers played 57+52=109 total) Are the 1981 Dodgers not World Series Champions?
Yes they are. And 1981 is the year where the two teams with the best records in baseball were the Cards and the Reds and they didn't make the playoffs.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Have everyone play the same number of games, and try to balance the schedule, and even 50 games would be ok with me to crown a “World Series Champion.”
 

Joe D Reid

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
4,209
I don’t want to pile on, but if we’re questioning the legitimacy of part-season championships then we’re saying that 1918 (where games were missed because of the war and the flu) didn’t count. Although I guess it would be funny if Yankees fans spent decades chanting the wrong year at us.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,568
I don’t want to pile on, but if we’re questioning the legitimacy of part-season championships then we’re saying that 1918 (where games were missed because of the war and the flu) didn’t count. Although I guess it would be funny if Yankees fans spent decades chanting the wrong year at us.
I'm ok with 1918 not counting if 1941 and 1943 and 1950-1953 (especially 1943, 1952, 1953 since Ted was out) also don't count.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
Not great, Bob. Kind of amazing that baseball is doing this on the same day the NBA settled on how it'll re-start on July 31.

View: https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1268238505269960710

View: https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1268239071362658305

MLB has rejected the union’s 114-game regular season proposal. They plan no counter. They are sititng on essentially implementing a 48-54-game season for full prorated salaries or 82-ish at less than prorated, sources tell The Post
I have heard greater pessismism today from folks on both sides about MLB launching a season than at any point. People who previously thought the sides would find a way, now expressing at least greater doubt (often more than that).
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,899
Austin, TX
I guess I'm inferring that "82-ish at less than prorated" is not necessarily the same total money as "48-54-game season for full prorated salaries," right? Or else why would the players even consider the former?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,393
Is it better for the players? I don't see it. Same risks, in a slightly* shorter window for less money? It also ignores sample size for any kind of playoff that wouldn't just be gratuitous. At the 50 game mark last season, the Nationals had the second worst record in baseball. Even 60 seems silly.
Yeah it does seem crazy. However.... wouldn't that make it also kind of exciting in a way like never before? Suddenly every team has a chance, unlike most seasons when like 1/3 of the teams have absolutely no shot at all, and we all know it. It would be a crazy fun experience for just once, to have every team truly having a chance.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
I guess I'm inferring that "82-ish at less than prorated" is not necessarily the same total money as "48-54-game season for full prorated salaries," right? Or else why would the players even consider the former?
Probably something like 45% vs 33%.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I don’t want to pile on, but if we’re questioning the legitimacy of part-season championships then we’re saying that 1918 (where games were missed because of the war and the flu) didn’t count. Although I guess it would be funny if Yankees fans spent decades chanting the wrong year at us.
Y'all don't see the difference between a 120 game season and a 50 game season? Or two 50 game seasons and a 120 or 162 game season (that one was creative, I'll grant). Isn't part of the "beauty" of the game the grind of a long season, played almost everyday for 6+ months? Call it fun or exciting, ok, I can certainly see that and probably would even be on board with it once it got going. But legitimate? I'd have trouble with that and I'm not even someone you'd call a "purist". I'm not exactly going to lose sleep over it, but if the Sox won it, I wouldn't exactly brag about it. 50 games, with 40-50 man rosters wold be like being valedictorian of summer school.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
I think this is just a summary from Heyman of "where we are," but it does provide a little room for optimism.

View: https://twitter.com/JonHeyman/status/1268281350005633025


MLB and union are pretty much in agreement on a couple things: expanded playoffs and universal DH. And they are close to agreeing on the all-important health protocols. Of course if MLB imposes a very short season — 40-50 games — all bets are off on anything and everything else.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,213
I don’t have a lot of faith in MLB owners and I do not believe their financial description. They have a well-earned reputation for taking advantage of players and acting in bad faith.

That said, the players negotiating position that the March agreement somehow covered every contingency seems silly to me. Similarly, their philosophical view on anything that looks liked a cap being bad at least has some theory behind it, but seems unduly doctrinal rather than practical.

These guys are probably capable of driving these cars off the cliff and they deserve each other on the way down if so.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
I guess I'm inferring that "82-ish at less than prorated" is not necessarily the same total money as "48-54-game season for full prorated salaries," right? Or else why would the players even consider the former?
As I’ve assumed all along, I believe that’s the plan.

The owners have presented a plan they know to be unacceptable and said take it or leave it. And now they’ll pressure players to either play or get smeared by the media.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,671
The cradle of the game.
Y'all don't see the difference between a 120 game season and a 50 game season? Or two 50 game seasons and a 120 or 162 game season (that one was creative, I'll grant). Isn't part of the "beauty" of the game the grind of a long season, played almost everyday for 6+ months? Call it fun or exciting, ok, I can certainly see that and probably would even be on board with it once it got going. But legitimate? I'd have trouble with that and I'm not even someone you'd call a "purist". I'm not exactly going to lose sleep over it, but if the Sox won it, I wouldn't exactly brag about it. 50 games, with 40-50 man rosters wold be like being valedictorian of summer school.
Agree. Anything less than 81 games seems like a sham. Don't get me wrong, a sprint would be fun, but I would slap an asterisk on the eventual champion's achievement. Massive asterisk if it's MFY.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
10,736
NJ
Baseball looks horrible in this. Both sides, players and owners. NHL, NBA, NFL and international sports (soccer) are all back, or finding a way to come back. Really is truly pathetic. Owners crying over their lost millions and players using the excuse they could get a virus that in all probability wouldn’t effect them at all, instead of just admitting it’s all about the money.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,248
Baseball looks horrible in this. Both sides, players and owners. NHL, NBA, NFL and international sports (soccer) are all back, or finding a way to come back. Really is truly pathetic. Owners crying over their lost millions and players using the excuse they could get a virus that in all probability wouldn’t effect them at all, instead of just admitting it’s all about the money.
Unless of course those other sports returns end up being disasters or failures in one way or another.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
Baseball looks horrible in this. Both sides, players and owners. NHL, NBA, NFL and international sports (soccer) are all back, or finding a way to come back. Really is truly pathetic. Owners crying over their lost millions and players using the excuse they could get a virus that in all probability wouldn’t effect them at all, instead of just admitting it’s all about the money.
Not an expert on the subject, but this article states that because the NBA has salary caps based on revenue it's easier to reach agreement. That they had already completed most of the regular season helps as well:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29248967/mlb-having-tougher-returning-nba-nhl-baseball-problem?platform=amp
In regard to your last sentence: Of course it's all about the money and that's true for every professional sport.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
10,736
NJ
Unless of course those other sports returns end up being disasters or failures in one way or another.
Sure, but it seems doubtful. My facility is testing hundreds of patients and staff a week and we have not had anyone symptomatic in weeks, and I'm dealing with an elderly and vulnerable population. We have had a few asymptomatic people test positive but again, that's a handful in hundreds of tests and they have had no issues. This is a far cry from say March/early April. I just cannot see with even basic precautions how this would become a disaster.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
In regard to your last sentence: Of course it's all about the money and that's true for every professional sport.
That, and also how the economics affect individual players, particularly in a football vs. baseball discussion. Even the average professional baseball player on the low end of the salary scale is in a far better position to sit out 2020 than the average non-star NFL player. Add in the militancy of the MLBPA versus the historically weaker NFLPA - if the NFL players had more bargaining power, the news stories would likely be very different, given the much higher viral transmission risk football players face.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,248
Sure, but it seems doubtful. My facility is testing hundreds of patients and staff a week and we have not had anyone symptomatic in weeks, and I'm dealing with an elderly and vulnerable population. We have had a few asymptomatic people test positive but again, that's a handful in hundreds of tests and they have had no issues. This is a far cry from say March/early April. I just cannot see with even basic precautions how this would become a disaster.
Maybe "disaster" is too strong a word because we're talking in relative terms. But, in light of that story above about the Japanese League, what does even a "few asymptomatic people testing positive" mean for a US sports league, both from a "what will the players and staff do?" standpoint, and a PR standpoint.
It's not like a league can treat a Covid diagnosis like a pulled hammy and just put the guy on the DL.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
Baseball looks horrible in this. Both sides, players and owners. NHL, NBA, NFL and international sports (soccer) are all back, or finding a way to come back. Really is truly pathetic. Owners crying over their lost millions and players using the excuse they could get a virus that in all probability wouldn’t effect them at all, instead of just admitting it’s all about the money.
OK, so basically nothing here is correct and/or relevant. What's happening or not happening in other countries is pretty irrelevant. None of the NBA, NHL or NFL are back (do I live in a different world from you?) and if I was setting odds in Vegas, I'd say there is at least a 50 percent chance that MLB will be playing games before the NBA will, as their current plan is aiming for July 31.

Also the timing of Covid hitting (Feb/March) was the worst by far for MLB of the four big US sports, the NFL was on hiatus anyway and the NHL and NBA have enough of a season under their belt that they only need to figure out a couple of months of play, not a 'full' season, whatever that will end up meaning in 2020.

Lastly, not sure what you are paying attention to, since everything I read is saying it is about the money, but what posts like yours seem to not comprehend is that it is much harder for MLB to hammer out a monetary deal since the current CBA is disastrous for both the sport and the players and is ending after 2021.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,863
St. Louis, MO
When the amount of games becomes official, I’m going to be curious from a strategy standpoint how aggressive managers are with pitching staffs in a 60ish game sprint. It will be a different brand of baseball much closer to playoff style baseball.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
At this point if I am the Red Sox, I would treat whatever season they have as an extended Spring Training and not have any pitcher go more than 2-3 innings and rest regular players liberally. No one is going to care about these games and the team in non-competitive from a talent standpoint. Just mail it in, maybe see if you can trade for some younger talent from teams that are financially strapped by this and think 2021 and beyond
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
At this point if I am the Red Sox, I would treat whatever season they have as an extended Spring Training and not have any pitcher go more than 2-3 innings and rest regular players liberally. No one is going to care about these games and the team in non-competitive from a talent standpoint. Just mail it in, maybe see if you can trade for some younger talent from teams that are financially strapped by this and think 2021 and beyond
You could do that, you could also ride any pending Free Agents you aren't planning to resign in case things get interesting. Workman, JBJ. Any others?
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
31,104
Boston, MA
Will there be a trade deadline? There has to be, but I can’t imagine a GM would know what his teams need are after 25 games (of whenever the day will be).
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
Will there be a trade deadline? There has to be, but I can’t imagine a GM would know what his teams need are after 25 games (of whenever the day will be).
I’m sure GMs would have a good enough idea of their needs. My thought is that many more teams will be in the race for the whole season so there would be far fewer sellers.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
At this point if I am the Red Sox, I would treat whatever season they have as an extended Spring Training and not have any pitcher go more than 2-3 innings and rest regular players liberally. No one is going to care about these games and the team in non-competitive from a talent standpoint. Just mail it in, maybe see if you can trade for some younger talent from teams that are financially strapped by this and think 2021 and beyond
The shortened season means a less talented team has a better chance to compete. Get off to a hot start in the first 2 weeks and you're right in the pennant race for half the season at least. And few guys playing over their heads for 2 months would be vastly more impactful than in a full season.

If the team starts slow and falls way back, sure, mail it in. No need to do that until that point though.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
At this point if I am the Red Sox, I would treat whatever season they have as an extended Spring Training and not have any pitcher go more than 2-3 innings and rest regular players liberally. No one is going to care about these games and the team in non-competitive from a talent standpoint. Just mail it in, maybe see if you can trade for some younger talent from teams that are financially strapped by this and think 2021 and beyond
The playoffs are presumably going to be expanded,and that’s a bit of a crapshoot. It’s hard for me to see the argument that they should mail it in with the Blue Jays, Orioles and Marlins in the same league; depending on the number of teams that make it the Ted Sox May be favorites to make the post-season.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Sure, but it seems doubtful. My facility is testing hundreds of patients and staff a week and we have not had anyone symptomatic in weeks, and I'm dealing with an elderly and vulnerable population. We have had a few asymptomatic people test positive but again, that's a handful in hundreds of tests and they have had no issues. This is a far cry from say March/early April. I just cannot see with even basic precautions how this would become a disaster.
Wasn't there just 21K new cases like two days ago from the riots?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
The playoffs are presumably going to be expanded,and that’s a bit of a crapshoot. It’s hard for me to see the argument that they should mail it in with the Blue Jays, Orioles and Marlins in the same league; depending on the number of teams that make it the Ted Sox May be favorites to make the post-season.
Are they abandoning leagues? I hadn't seen that.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Oh maybe not.

So the Sox would still be in the AL but play four AL teams and five NL teams?

I see. And then 7 teams with one bye in each league make the playoffs which are three rounds plus World Series?

So if 7 of 15 AL teams make the playoffs the Sox certainly have a decent chance.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,678
Maine
Are they abandoning leagues? I hadn't seen that.
Last I saw, the plan was for teams to play their division and the teams in their corresponding division in the other league. So for the Sox, their schedule would include the Rays, Yankees, Orioles, Blue Jays, Mets, Phillies, Braves, Marlins, and Nationals.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
So presumably it would be to reduce travel or accommodate the tiny schedule, either to the goal of reducing risk? Honestly, why have players travel at all, since there's no home field advantage with no fans? Find central location and just let them but nearby, reduce risk and cost.

This is literally dumber and dumber the more it advances.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I guess it would be something like 6 games against each of their 9 opponents if they are dead set on the 50-ish game season.

They could basically cram all their road games in on two long road trips, or three shorter ones.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,899
Austin, TX
Honestly, why have players travel at all, since there's no home field advantage with no fans? Find central location and just let them but nearby, reduce risk and cost.
That was considered, and I'm sure the owners would have been all for it. I don't think the players were keen on spending that much time away from home.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,678
Maine
So presumably it would be to reduce travel or accommodate the tiny schedule, either to the goal of reducing risk? Honestly, why have players travel at all, since there's no home field advantage with no fans? Find central location and just let them but nearby, reduce risk and cost.

This is literally dumber and dumber the more it advances.
Is there no home field advantage just because there are no fans? I can see that argument for pretty much any other team sport since the playing field/surface is the same everywhere. Absent fans, the Garden is no different than MSG or Staples Center or Barclays Center. Ballparks have unique features that can affect how the game is played. Maybe not significantly in some places, but Fenway is not Yankee Stadium which is not the Trop which is not Camden Yards. I have to think there's at least some advantage to playing in their true home park versus a generic spring training facility or a neutral site.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Is there no home field advantage just because there are no fans? I can see that argument for pretty much any other team sport since the playing field/surface is the same everywhere. Absent fans, the Garden is no different than MSG or Staples Center or Barclays Center. Ballparks have unique features that can affect how the game is played. Maybe not significantly in some places, but Fenway is not Yankee Stadium which is not the Trop which is not Camden Yards. I have to think there's at least some advantage to playing in their true home park versus a generic spring training facility or a neutral site.
Fair enough; I don't think it's that big of a deal end of day, but I see your angle.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
Given how broad the re-opening is in Arizona right now I would not be surprised at all if Arizona follows and/or agrees to allow other teams to play to crowds in the state.