Will The MLB Suspend The 2020 season

[Fan_since_Boggs]

I think back to some of my childhood friends who picked the Jets as their favorite team over the Giants.

 

If you are my age, in my 40s, you were born after 1969, and so have never seen the Jets in a Super Bowl, never had the experience of knowing what it felt like to win a Super Bowl. But if you picked the Giants, like I did, you have the childhood memory of the Giants winning in 1986. You remember 1990. And of course you remember the two Giants championships under Coughlin and Eli.

 

In fact, since 1986, there is only one NFL team that has won more Super Bowls than the Giants and that team is of course the Patriots.

 

The Giants were a good choice--4 Super Bowls and only one Super Bowl loss. For the longest time I figured I screwed up by picking the Red Sox. As a kid, I do remember the 1986 heartbreak in losing to the Mets. I remember the losses to the A's in the playoffs. I obviously remember the Boone HR in 2003, which left me speechless for a few days after. But ever since 2003, the Red Sox have rocked with 4 championships!

Edited May 10, 2020 by Fan_since_Boggs

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

So a playoff tournament starting with 21 teams? Yikes. Sounds incredibly rinky-dink.

 

No rinks, but if there is a summer season, MLB fans starving for baseball action deserve to see their teams in contention for as long as possible. The three division winners get rewarded with first-round byes. I am personally intrigued by the dynamics of veteran players vs. younger players rushing to get into playing shape after three months on the couch. I predict clubs with more supple muscle tissue than others will get off to hot starts and be surprise teams in the 80-game league. Possible upstarts: Blue Jays and White Sox.

 

With no minor leagues, I also think we'll see many future major leaguers make expanded rosters, including guys who may not be ready for prime time. What could be the harm of say, a guy like Casas riding the pine next to Moreland and JD, practicing with them every day, and getting a taste of the Show? There may be no better alternative this year for his development.

 

The one team that may benefit the most from the short season: Houston. By the time baseball resumes, fatalities from the virus will number six figures. Do any pitchers really still want to intentionally throw at and risk hurting another human being? Probably the biggest factor for the Astros is that there won't be any fans in attendance -- no booing, heckling, taunting, name-calling chants, banging props, waving mock banners or posters. Devoid of such stress, Houston can just play baseball. I wish we all could.

[notin]

No rinks, but if there is a summer season, MLB fans starving for baseball action deserve to see their teams in contention for as long as possible. The three division winners get rewarded with first-round byes. I am personally intrigued by the dynamics of veteran players vs. younger players rushing to get into playing shape after three months on the couch. I predict clubs with more supple muscle tissue than others will get off to hot starts and be surprise teams in the 80-game league. Possible upstarts: Blue Jays and White Sox.

 

With no minor leagues, I also think we'll see many future major leaguers make expanded rosters, including guys who may not be ready for prime time. What could be the harm of say, a guy like Casas riding the pine next to Moreland and JD, practicing with them every day, and getting a taste of the Show? There may be no better alternative this year for his development.

 

The one team that may benefit the most from the short season: Houston. By the time baseball resumes, fatalities from the virus will number six figures. Do any pitchers really still want to intentionally throw at and risk hurting another human being? Probably the biggest factor for the Astros is that there won't be any fans in attendance -- no booing, heckling, taunting, name-calling chants, banging props, waving mock banners or posters. Devoid of such stress, Houston can just play baseball. I wish we all could.

 

Losing an option, losing a year of control, and booting someone off the 40 man roster...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Losing an option, losing a year of control, and booting someone off the 40 man roster...

 

Ya, I was talking about just from a player-development standpoint. He's a guy you said wasn't ready (and I agree), but the business factors are from a pre-Covid world. If the MLB plays, it's clear all involved must be willing to make changes to pull it off. They're already conceding to expanding rosters; the union and management may actually agree to compromise in a lot of ways to ensure it happens and not take a total loss like other industries. I think young guys and fresh new faces will be more appealing than coaxing the Steve Pearces out of retirement.

 

But thanks for replying -- I'm up for any baseball talk instead of just politics.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Now there are reports that owners and players are arguing about terms that threaten the proposed half season. Of course it's all about money. Way to go, MLB -- how endearing of you to your fanbase, during an economic depression amidst a pandemic when thousands of Americans are dying every single day.

[mvp 78]

Now there are reports that owners and players are arguing about terms that threaten the proposed half season. Of course it's all about money. Way to go, MLB -- how endearing of you to your fanbase, during an economic depression amidst a pandemic when thousands of Americans are dying every single day.

 

The owners cut the draft down to just 5 rounds this year. They are looking to get rid of dozens of MiLB teams. MLB owners will always care more about the money than fans do.

 

As for the players, I think it's fine with them putting up a stink. Forcing them to have to isolate away from their families for 6 months is not something they collectively bargained for.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The owners cut the draft down to just 5 rounds this year. They are looking to get rid of dozens of MiLB teams. MLB owners will always care more about the money than fans do.

 

As for the players, I think it's fine with them putting up a stink. Forcing them to have to isolate away from their families for 6 months is not something they collectively bargained for.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but have to wonder about guys who may refuse to play a sport for any money when 25% of American workers can't find a job. Choosing to possibly lose an entire season of careers with clocks ticking also has to have some players questioning their own logic.

[Thunder]

The owners cut the draft down to just 5 rounds this year. They are looking to get rid of dozens of MiLB teams. MLB owners will always care more about the money than fans do.

 

As for the players, I think it's fine with them putting up a stink. Forcing them to have to isolate away from their families for 6 months is not something they collectively bargained for.

 

The Norwich Sea Unicorns are going to get axed before they even play a game

[Kimmi]

The owners cut the draft down to just 5 rounds this year. They are looking to get rid of dozens of MiLB teams. MLB owners will always care more about the money than fans do.

 

As for the players, I think it's fine with them putting up a stink. Forcing them to have to isolate away from their families for 6 months is not something they collectively bargained for.

 

I disagree with either side putting up a stink. Both sides should be more open to compromise. I'm not excusing the owners, but IMO, if a player does't want to play, let him sit out and lose his salary for this season. I'm sure there is another player willing to take his place.

 

I just have little sympathy for millionaires sitting in their mansions with every modern convenience still available to them complaining about money and the sacrifices they have to make when there are other people who are risking their lives every day in order to keep food on their tables.

 

Now, I am in no way saying that the players should play if it's not safe. I'm just saying that they should quit arguing about money.

[Michigan adam]

All of America is saddled with loss of profits, loss of hours, loss of pay, and or loss of job. Every group has to be willing to compromise here. 82 games with no fans(and therefore no parking, tickets, and concessions) has got to be almost a 75% loss of revenue for the owners. Players have to be willing to AT LEAST cut there salary in half for playing half as many games, and probably closer to 65% cut is more realistic. Impossible situation the country is in, everyone has to be willing to give a little.

[jad]

Not sure what the owners agreed to today is going to work. They already agreed with the union in March that players would get a pro-rated portion of their salaries depending on games played. Now the owners are asking for a straight 50/50 split in revenues. Why should the players agree to this, esp. in a league where the owners have pretty consistently hidden or misrepresented what revenues are?

[Bellhorn04]

Why should the players agree to this, esp. in a league where the owners have pretty consistently hidden or misrepresented what revenues are?

 

What facts do we have on that?

[Michigan adam]

players have to make sure it makes sense to owners or there will be no games.

[Kimmi]

All of America is saddled with loss of profits, loss of hours, loss of pay, and or loss of job. Every group has to be willing to compromise here. 82 games with no fans(and therefore no parking, tickets, and concessions) has got to be almost a 75% loss of revenue for the owners. Players have to be willing to AT LEAST cut there salary in half for playing half as many games, and probably closer to 65% cut is more realistic. Impossible situation the country is in, everyone has to be willing to give a little.

 

Exactly Adam. Everyone has to be willing to take some of the loss.

[jad]

Are you old enough to have seen the Oilers in the Gretzky years?

 

I saw Gretzky live only once--the night he scored his 800th goal.

[jad]

What facts do we have on that?

 

Ha! Fair enough. I am only thinking of discussions and accusations that were going around ... during the last CBA negotiations? (odd how memory is--I can't remember the exact 'facts'--but I can remember EXACTLY what intersection I was driving through in LA when I was listening.). This generally isn't that much of an issue in baseball (the matter of 'opening the books'), due to the way salaries are done. And wouldn't have been an issue if the March agreement were the basis of discussion. But bringing it up now seems to me to open a whole can of worms. Given how long it has taken other leagues to negotiate these 'divisions of revenue', I don't see how MLB can wave a magic wand and have it done essentially in a few weeks. But if we want baseball, we best hope they can!

[jad]

Now there are reports that owners and players are arguing about terms that threaten the proposed half season. Of course it's all about money. Way to go, MLB -- how endearing of you to your fanbase, during an economic depression amidst a pandemic when thousands of Americans are dying every single day.

 

To the owners it certainly is all about money. But to the players? It's a matter of health, no? Don't you think that's going to be a major part of the negotiation? (Just got through reading the account of a good friend who 'seems' to have had CV in March-- almost a week in ICU, his family prepared for him not to make it; 19 days in the hospital w/ acute pneumonia. Now better, but not fully recovered. Are players really willing to risk this? Maybe.)

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

To the owners it certainly is all about money. But to the players? It's a matter of health, no? Don't you think that's going to be a major part of the negotiation? (Just got through reading the account of a good friend who 'seems' to have had CV in March-- almost a week in ICU, his family prepared for him not to make it; 19 days in the hospital w/ acute pneumonia. Now better, but not fully recovered. Are players really willing to risk this? Maybe.)

 

It's hard for young, strong athletes not to feel invincible, or even conceive of the possible risks to parents, wives, kids, etc. For some players, careers could also be at stake, especially for rookies that may see it as their shot at making an MLB roster, or older guys trying to hang onto a last chance in the bigs.

 

But there are no guarantees of full recoveries from this monster: I know a woman in her 40s who had it for over 4 weeks and it left her with the after-effects of 2 strokes.

[mvp 78]

To really understand what the players think about the revenue-split idea, one needed only hear what MLBPA executive director Tony Clark told The Athletic: "A system that restricts player pay based on revenues is a salary cap, period. This is not the first salary-cap proposal our union has received. It probably won't be the last. That the league is trying to take advantage of a global health crisis to get what they've failed to achieve in the past -- and to anonymously negotiate through the media for the last several days -- suggests they know exactly how this will be received. None of this is beneficial to the process of finding a way for us to safely get back on the field and resume the 2020 season -- which continues to be our sole focus."

[Kimmi]

To really understand what the players think about the revenue-split idea, one needed only hear what MLBPA executive director Tony Clark told The Athletic: "A system that restricts player pay based on revenues is a salary cap, period. This is not the first salary-cap proposal our union has received. It probably won't be the last. That the league is trying to take advantage of a global health crisis to get what they've failed to achieve in the past -- and to anonymously negotiate through the media for the last several days -- suggests they know exactly how this will be received. None of this is beneficial to the process of finding a way for us to safely get back on the field and resume the 2020 season -- which continues to be our sole focus."

 

This certainly does not give the players a good look, fair or not.

 

As far as this being a salary cap, perhaps it is, but it's only for this unprecedented shortened season. It's not like it's a permanent change. As I and others have said before, both sides have to be willing to compromise.

[mvp 78]

This certainly does not give the players a good look, fair or not.

 

As far as this being a salary cap, perhaps it is, but it's only for this unprecedented shortened season. It's not like it's a permanent change. As I and others have said before, both sides have to be willing to compromise.

 

The players don't share in the profits when the owners make money. Why should they share in the losses? That makes no sense. They have a CBA that they bargained for. Changing up the pay system is a no go.

[jad]

This certainly does not give the players a good look, fair or not.

 

As far as this being a salary cap, perhaps it is, but it's only for this unprecedented shortened season. It's not like it's a permanent change. As I and others have said before, both sides have to be willing to compromise.

 

I don't understand. How does that look bad for the players? They are standing by the CBA and what they agreed to do in March. They have already compromised by agreeing to pro-rate their salaries based on # of games played. MVP is exactly correct: the players get what salary they agreed to; when the owners rack up excess profits, they do not share those with the players. What they are proposing here is in absolute contradistinction to what they themselves negotiated with the players in the CBA.

[Kimmi]

The players don't share in the profits when the owners make money. Why should they share in the losses? That makes no sense. They have a CBA that they bargained for. Changing up the pay system is a no go.

 

I don't understand. How does that look bad for the players? They are standing by the CBA and what they agreed to do in March. They have already compromised by agreeing to pro-rate their salaries based on # of games played. MVP is exactly correct: the players get what salary they agreed to; when the owners rack up excess profits, they do not share those with the players. What they are proposing here is in absolute contradistinction to what they themselves negotiated with the players in the CBA.

 

I'm not trying to defend owners because I think they need to compromise as well, but to me, players are coming across as selfish and entitled, at a time when there are so many people who are struggling just to eat. It's not like they need the money.

 

I understand that baseball is not like other companies, but when other companies take losses, employees get laid off. It wouldn't hurt the players one bit to take a pay cut for half a season's worth of play.

[mvp 78]

I'm not trying to defend owners because I think they need to compromise as well, but to me, players are coming across as selfish and entitled, at a time when there are so many people who are struggling just to eat. It's not like they need the money.

I understand that baseball is not like other companies, but when other companies take losses, employees get laid off. It wouldn't hurt the players one bit to take a pay cut for half a season's worth of play.

 

Then why don't the owners just give the players a higher %? It's not like those billionaires need the money.

 

The players are fine with taking a pay cut. They are fine with a prorated salary. They just don't want the terms the ownership put forward. They'd take half of their salary to play half of the games.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I'm not trying to defend owners because I think they need to compromise as well, but to me, players are coming across as selfish and entitled, at a time when there are so many people who are struggling just to eat. It's not like they need the money.

 

I understand that baseball is not like other companies, but when other companies take losses, employees get laid off. It wouldn't hurt the players one bit to take a pay cut for half a season's worth of play.

 

Reading your post, I'm wondering if this was the owners' strategy... to give them pre-emptive public support as they prepare for another CBA war in Dec '21...

 

(It sucks these days that I can't help suspecting people in power with big business interests to be more considerate of the health of employees)

[notin]

So assuming things happen and a couple stars align for MLB in 2020, most (all?) of us think the Sox have some pitching concerns.

 

Any moves you think Bloom has left up his sleeve or you’d like to see him try? While a few players remain unsigned in the roster freeze, anyone appealing over a shortened season?

[notin]

Then why don't the owners just give the players a higher %? It's not like those billionaires need the money.

 

The players are fine with taking a pay cut. They are fine with a prorated salary. They just don't want the terms the ownership put forward. They'd take half of their salary to play half of the games.

 

I’m fine and see the point about full salary. While certainly many precautions will be in place, they are still the ones taking health risks and being kept from their families while the billionaire owners cower in their fully-stocked bunkers that have more amenities than I could ever fathom.

 

And what about the umpires? I haven’t heard anything about them. Are they taking pro-rated pay? They face the same risks as the players...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I’m fine and see the point about full salary. While certainly many precautions will be in place, they are still the ones taking health risks and being kept from their families while the billionaire owners cower in their fully-stocked bunkers that have more amenities than I could ever fathom.

 

And what about the umpires? I haven’t heard anything about them. Are they taking pro-rated pay? They face the same risks as the players...

 

... but not as much if the pandemic happened 40 years ago when Earl Weaver and Billy Martin were constantly in their faces.

[mvp 78]

So assuming things happen and a couple stars align for MLB in 2020, most (all?) of us think the Sox have some pitching concerns.

 

Any moves you think Bloom has left up his sleeve or you’d like to see him try? While a few players remain unsigned in the roster freeze, anyone appealing over a shortened season?

 

It's a weird short season. I bet they just punt on it knowing that if they are 5 games back at game 75 it looks better than if they are 10 games back at game 150. Though there may be lots of cost cutting measures some smaller market teams make to save money. Maybe the Sox can capitalize on that?

[notin]

It's a weird short season. I bet they just punt on it knowing that if they are 5 games back at game 75 it looks better than if they are 10 games back at game 150. Though there may be lots of cost cutting measures some smaller market teams make to save money. Maybe the Sox can capitalize on that?

 

If they do the short season, will their reset attempt count?