Will there be a 2022 season?

[Bellhorn04]

Two different questions. Yes, there is 'money to be made' at these games. My question is 'who gets it' and 'how much' of it is there. Although MLB owners like to extort every nickel out of their employees and from their host cities, are they losing enough by dropping pre-season games to care about them or to start negotiating seriously.

 

Everybody loses. That's the genius behind what these guys are doing!

[moonslav59]

Two different questions. Yes, there is 'money to be made' at these games. My question is 'who gets it' and 'how much' of it is there. Although MLB owners like to extort every nickel out of their employees and from their host cities, are they losing enough by dropping pre-season games to care about them or to start negotiating seriously.

 

There is a lot of cost involved in spring training, too, and the stadiums are small. I'm not sure the profits are something owners dread losing. (Some may lose money.)

[notin]

There is a lot of cost involved in spring training, too, and the stadiums are small. I'm not sure the profits are something owners dread losing. (Some may lose money.)

 

 

A lot of teams routinely struggle to sell tickets after June. Maybe these losses are somewhat important to them…

[moonslav59]

Everybody loses. That's the genius behind what these guys are doing!

 

The lose-lose strategy seems to be very popular, these days.

[dgalehouse]

The owners and players will reach a compromise and come to an agreement one of these days. They could do it right now except for their mutual distrust , stubbornness , greed and stupidity . Plain old common sense is lacking in MLB ( and just about everywhere else ) these days.

[S5Dewey]

There is a lot of cost involved in spring training, too, and the stadiums are small. I'm not sure the profits are something owners dread losing. (Some may lose money.)

 

My only point of reference is the Red Sox and what few other teams I've seen in the Grapefruit league but I'm in awe of the marketing that's done for Spring Training games. These are games that have to be played whether there are fans there or not so everything they make from ST games is "gravy". Thinking that ST isn't a money-maker is delusional!

 

I find it quite impressive (from a marketing standpoint) to see 10,000 fans paying between $20 - $50 (approximations) each for seats, milling around the park buying $8 - $12 beers and the "Team Store" being swamped with folks who can't wait to spend $35 for a cap, all to see maybe five or six Sox regulars play five innings against a team who only sent ~5 starters to the game. And remember, the teams have persuaded the county to build the stadiums for them at no cost to the team so there's no construction costs, no loan outstanding for the building and no property taxes to be paid. Yes, they have to hire ushers and other incidental employees but most of what they take in at ST is profit on an "exhibition" that they have to have anyway!

 

Yes, I'm a part of this "problem" and yes, it's a good time, but let's not feel too sorry for the Red Sox Organization. They've got marketing down to a science! LOL

Edited February 20, 2022 by S5Dewey

[S5Dewey]

Seven inning double headers are the work of Satan…

 

That's probably true, but I'm trying to come up with something that will appease both the players and the owners and at the same time avoid playing baseball in a late October snowstorm.

 

Does anyone have better (realistic) ideas?

[moonslav59]

My only point of reference is the Red Sox and what few other teams I've seen in the Grapefruit league but I'm in awe of the marketing that's done for Spring Training games. These are games that have to be played whether there are fans there or not so everything they make from ST games is "gravy". Thinking that ST isn't a money-maker is delusional!

 

I find it quite impressive (from a marketing standpoint) to see 10,000 fans paying between $20 - $50 (approximations) each for seats, milling around the park buying $8 - $12 beers and the "Team Store" being swamped with folks who can't wait to spend $35 for a cap, all to see maybe five or six Sox regulars play five innings against a team who only sent ~5 starters to the game. And remember, the teams have persuaded the county to build the stadiums for them at no cost to the team so there's no construction costs, no loan outstanding for the building and no property taxes to be paid. Yes, they have to hire ushers and other incidental employees but most of what they take in at ST is profit on an "exhibition" that they have to have anyway!

 

Yes, I'm a part of this "problem" and yes, it's a good time, but let's not feel too sorry for the Red Sox Organization. They've got marketing down to a science! LOL

 

I'm not saying teams don't make money off ST'ing, but my point was it's probably not enough to make owners more likely to agree to a new CBA to avoid losing those profits. I also think the amount they make might not be as much as we think due to the massive expenses ST'ing must be, and that some teams might make much less than others.

[moonslav59]

That's probably true, but I'm trying to come up with something that will appease both the players and the owners and at the same time avoid playing baseball in a late October snowstorm.

 

Does anyone have better (realistic) ideas?

 

Shortening the number of games played seems like the most realistic way to allow for expanded playoffs.

 

I don't think you can lessen the days off during the season or playoffs.

 

If a significant increase in doubleheaders were to be a greed upon, increasing the roster to 27 players might balance it, and maybe even 28 on the actual double header days.

 

I hate the 7 inning idea, but it is an option.

[dgalehouse]

Expanded playoffs is nothing more than another money grabbing gimmick.

[Bellhorn04]

This season is already just about guaranteed to be an effed up one.

 

Aside from the late start of spring training, there are still a pile of unsigned players.

[moonslav59]

This season is already just about guaranteed to be an effed up one.

 

Aside from the late start of spring training, there are still a pile of unsigned players.

 

The players will sign quickly. Some, who take longer to sign, might need more time to get ready, but I doubt it will be a major factor in effing up the season.

[notin]

That's probably true, but I'm trying to come up with something that will appease both the players and the owners and at the same time avoid playing baseball in a late October snowstorm.

 

Does anyone have better (realistic) ideas?

 

1. Stop expanding the post-season.

2. DH every Sunday with 28 man rosters.

 

But yes, no one wants to play/watch the WS in the snow...

[Bellhorn04]

The players will sign quickly. Some, who take longer to sign, might need more time to get ready, but I doubt it will be a major factor in effing up the season.

 

More potential for being effed up by the day. The 15 minute negotiation meetings are not providing much reason for optimism.

[notin]

The players will sign quickly. Some, who take longer to sign, might need more time to get ready, but I doubt it will be a major factor in effing up the season.

 

Some of the bigger names left might just take one year pillow deals. I'm looking at you, Kris Bryant, Trevor Story and Anthony Rizzo.

 

I do think someone will go all in on Correa and Freeman, but they might be the only two to get a deal they like in that short timeframe...

[Bellhorn04]

1. Stop expanding the post-season.

2. DH every Sunday with 28 man rosters.

 

But yes, no one wants to play/watch the WS in the snow...

 

And I don't get the appeal of DH's when one of the big complaints is that games are too long...

[moonslav59]

Expanded playoffs is nothing more than another money grabbing gimmick.

 

I'm not sure "gimmick" is the right word, but it's always about money. Every other league lets in nearly half to more than half the teams make the playoffs.

 

To me, it's more about shortening the 162 game season to lengthen the playoffs or not.

 

Cutting 5 games off the schedule is actually cutting 75 games in totality and 150 cable TV games market money-makers.

 

Can they start a 162 game season 2-3 days earlier and extend it by 2-3 games to keep 162 AND expand the playoffs? (Maybe not have so many off days during the playoffs?)

 

Do they add doubleheaders?

 

I doubt they shorten the season.

[notin]

And I don't get the appeal of DH's when one of the big complaints is that games are too long...

 

I'm not trying to appeal to the "Waaah!! Games are too long and slow" crowd. Sunday double headers are a baseball tradition.

 

They also allow for more flexible TV scheduling that can help the fans. If ESPN schedules a late-season Sunday night game with, say the Mets and the Braves, they want a game relevant to the playoff picture. But if both teams suck (and in some cases, if even one does), MLB has been known to re-schedule Sunday night games from afternoon games to get more playoff-relevant action. This is a major inconvenience to the paying fans, who now have to re-arrange their schedule.

 

But if everyone is already playing Sunday night anyway, ESPN can just send to TV crew to whatever city they want...

[notin]

I'm not sure "gimmick" is the right word, but it's always about money. Every other league lets in nearly half to more than half the teams make the playoffs.

 

To me, it's more about shortening the 162 game season to lengthen the playoffs or not.

 

Cutting 5 games off the schedule is actually cutting 75 games in totality and 150 cable TV games market money-makers.

 

Can they start a 162 game season 2-3 days earlier and extend it by 2-3 games to keep 162 AND expand the playoffs? (Maybe not have so many off days during the playoffs?)

 

Do they add doubleheaders?

 

I doubt they shorten the season.

 

 

 

The NFL now sends 14 out of 32 teams, slightly less than half.

 

The NHL sends 16 out of 32 teams, exactly half. And they let it go on for what, 3 years per post-season?

 

The NBA sends 16 out of 30 teams, or more than half, thus guaranteeing some s***** sub-.500 team has earned a playoff birth. Also they refuse the schedule any two games simultaneously, and these playoffs also go on far, far too long.

 

MLB sends 10 out of 30. That's plenty...

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not trying to appeal to the "Waaah!! Games are too long and slow" crowd. Sunday double headers are a baseball tradition.

 

"Were" a baseball tradition. Like day games in the World Series.

[Bellhorn04]

The NFL now sends 14 out of 32 teams, slightly less than half.

 

The NHL sends 16 out of 32 teams, exactly half. And they let it go on for what, 3 years per post-season?

 

The NBA sends 16 out of 30 teams, or more than half, thus guaranteeing some s***** sub-.500 team has earned a playoff birth. Also they refuse the schedule any two games simultaneously, and these playoffs also go on far, far too long.

 

MLB sends 10 out of 30. That's plenty...

 

The players have already said OK to 12, so that much is a done deal.

[notin]

Were a baseball tradition. So were day games in the World Series.

 

Day games in the World Series were only a tradition due to the limitations of the ballparks, none of which had lights until 1935. And all of which did not have lights until 1988.

 

Nothing ever really forced MLB into playing Sunday doubleheaders. They just did it. Granted, owners are not fans due to the "2 for 1" aspect of the ticket pricing...

Edited February 20, 2022 by notin

[notin]

The players have already said OK to 12, so that much is a done deal.

 

At least MLB has a habit of weighing the length of the post-season round against the importance of the series, so the addition of two more wild card teams (playing one game each) shouldn't push the season too deep into November...

[Bellhorn04]

Day games in the World Series were only a tradition due to the limitations of the ballparks, none of which had lights until 1935. And all of which did not have lights until 1988.

 

Yes, but the reason they've abolished WS day games is that prime time games = more money.

[notin]

Yes, but the reason they've abolished WS day games is that prime time games = more money.

 

And the only reason they ever had them in the first place was due to the parks they played in.

 

They did cling to the "this is how we always did it" mentality for far too long, probably because not everyone had lights in 1987.

 

It's intersting to note than the last WS day game was in 1987, and the Cubs got good and added lights in 1988 (specifically on 8-8-88) to accomodate night playoff games...

[Bellhorn04]

They used to play the Super Bowl in the afternoon too...

 

It's kind of a trend I've noticed to keep making things later on the calendar and on the clock...

[dgalehouse]

Many moons ago , when I was a kid , I used to love to go to Sunday doubleheaders. Got there early for batting and infield practice . Stayed after the games to watch the players exit and look for autographs. Still light out when I got home , would play ball before supper. It's just not like that anymore. Things are different now. A completely different era.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Many moons ago , when I was a kid , I used to love to go to Sunday doubleheaders. Got there early for batting and infield practice . Stayed after the games to watch the players exit and look for autographs. Still light out when I got home , would play ball before supper. It's just not like that anymore. Things are different now. A completely different era.

 

Yep. Doubleheaders were a tradition when games averaged two hours; double your fun on a lazy summer afternoon, hanging around the ballpark, eating and drinking -- at least twice -- running after foul balls out of reach, and elusive autographs between games. The whole experience for two games lasted about 4 1/2 hours... nowadays, that's one game.

[Nick]

Yep. Doubleheaders were a tradition when games averaged two hours; double your fun on a lazy summer afternoon, hanging around the ballpark, eating and drinking -- at least twice -- running after foul balls out of reach, and elusive autographs between games. The whole experience for two games lasted about 4 1/2 hours... nowadays, that's one game.

 

One of my best baseball moment was when the Sox visited White Sox for a 4 game weekend series. I believe it was the year before the White Sox moved to their new baseball stadium across the street. I drank and ate a lot that weekend. Fun times.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

One of my best baseball moment was when the Sox visited White Sox for a 4 game weekend series. I believe it was the year before the White Sox moved to their new baseball stadium across the street. I drank and ate a lot that weekend. Fun times.

 

This may be off-tangent, and I don't even know the attention-span for average entertainment, but it seems like the movie industry, long ago, calculated the optimum time at around 2 hours... anything longer was considered long. The reason I bring this up: I was just surfing through Netflix last night and saw an actual category called 90-Minute Movies -- it must've been invented for busy modern viewers who can't possibly devote any more time that that to watch.