Kimmi

Which leads me to wonder why you think we were talking about Crawford in the first place? LOL

Yeah, in terms of record books for best seasons ever, any of those rate stats would have to be taken with a grain of salt . We can still give the players credit for their shortened season's accomplishments, though.

I just read this morning that Manfred has the ability to mandate a season, which I wasn't aware of. So yes, it seems like at the very least there will be some kind of season mandated by him. Jon Heyman @JonHeyman · 6h Continue to believe there will be baseball. Manfred’s ability to mandate a short season would seem to almost ensure that, barring Covid spike. Manfred prefers negotiated deal w/players but has in back pocket ability to mandate season of any length, provided player pay is prorated If Manfred does mandate short season — 48 games is lowest # heard — players would have to play provided conditions are safe. Players recourse? They could file grievance w/claim MLB failed to play as many games as possible and hope to open the books, and decline expanded playoffs The commissioner’s ability to mandate short season — 48 games would mean 29.6% of pay across board — seems to give MLB some leverage. Union has stated there’s no reason to negotiate anything lower than prorated pay. But maybe they’d do 60 games prorated or 20% paycut over 82? Commissioner surely prefers to reach agreement with players rather than mandating truncated season: 1) nothing good comes from fighting w/ players who could grieve such a call; the game is nothing w/o players 2) very short season will raise objection by some over its legitimacy

I didn't know about the child drowning. Was he found negligent in any way? Regardless, you are right about it not being a good time for him. Having a child die on your property would be hard to live with even if you had no fault in the death whatsoever.

I had no problem with Crawford. Didn't really like the length of the contract, but had no problem with him being on the team. Supposedly, he was a great character guy with the Rays, which is part of the reason the Sox signed him.

Haha. I see what you did there. Serious allegations against Crawford. He deserves the benefit of the doubt, for now. Let's hope that they are not true.

For a lack of a better place to put this: Former Red Sox Carl Crawford arrested for domestic violence Rob Bradford June 05, 2020 - 7:44 am AddThis Sharing Buttons Share to Facebook Share to TwitterShare to PrintShare to EmailShare to More Categories: Local Sports According to TMZ, former Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford has been arrested for allegedly choking his former girlfriend at gunpoint. As of Thursday night, Crawford was in custody after surrendering to authorities in Houston, being held on a $10,000 bond. Crawford's attorney Rusty Hardin told TMZ, "We strongly deny the charges and the conduct he is alleged to have engaged in. He would never hurt a woman. He has no criminal history." The alleged victim, Crawford's former girlfriend, said in the report that she was pushed to the ground after the former MLB player had already unloaded a round from his semi-automatic handgun. Holding the woman on the ground, the 38-year-old allegedly squeezed her neck while yelling accusations stemming from her involvement with another man. Crawford allegedly texted the woman to inform her he was hiring somebody to track down the male he believed she had become involved with. For all the details of the report, click here. Crawford played for the Red Sox in 2011 and part of 2012 before being traded to the Dodgers. His last major league season came in 2016.

MLB might allow local governments to decide whether to allow fans into the games or not. It sounds like Texas, for one, would play with fans. Evan Grant @Evan_P_Grant · 16h Fairly significant: Sources indicate MLB is inclined to allow Texas-based teams to play with fans in stands, regardless of whether fans can attend in other markets. Talk about your home-state advantages. Jon Heyman @JonHeyman · 52m MLB would have a formula to distribute this $ to teams without fans in stands (and presumably to players, depending upon an agreement)

At this point, I'm still leaning towards them having a season. There is too much at stake for them not to have a season because of money differences.

They aren't even submitting a counter proposal. Probably a negotiating ploy.

Ted, there is a thread in the General Off Topic part of this forum that would be more appropriate for posts like this and your previous one.

I would guess that most players would want to play also. For the most part, the only ones who sit out will be the ones who have legitimate health concerns.

This is what MLB Trade Rumors reports on the latest proposal: "Players who are considered “high risk” candidates for COVID-19 would be able to opt out of playing this season while still receiving their entire prorated salaries. Joel Sherman of the New York Post adds that the “high risk” designation also extends to players who have spouses, children, or other live-in family members with pre-existing health conditions. For players who don’t face a “high-risk” situation but still don’t want to play in 2020, they will receive service time but no salary." I agree that defining 'high risk' is going to be extremely subjective and open to a lot of debate.

As of right now, players who are at risk or who have family members who are at risk will be allowed to sit out and still receive their pay. A healthy player can opt to sit out, but he will not get paid. He will receive service time. As you mentioned, that brings up the question of exactly what constitutes being at risk.

Yes, the season would be much more like a sprint than its usual marathon. Not that I want a shorter season, but IMO, the shorter the season, the more it benefits the Red Sox with its weak starting rotation. Also keep in mind that as long as any part of the season gets played, the luxury tax resets for the Sox.

Definitely. They are running out of time.

There is now speculation of a 50 game season.

A prorated salary based on the number of games played is what the players have been asking for. That agreement, however, was predicated on there being some fans at the games. It seems that once the season gets going somewhat, they would be able to allow a limited number of fans into each game. The two sides have agreed on the realignment of divisions for this season, going with three 10 team divisions. I don't know how long the season will end up being, but I am confident that they'll work something out.

Apparently the players are asking for a longer season, pushing the playoffs into November. Frankly, I'm not sure how any of this is going to work out.

It's cool Bell.

I am in the group that really hopes that baseball can return somewhere around the beginning of July. I look forward to it returning all off season, and during the season, I look forward to having a game to watch almost every night. So, I am not ready to accept the loss of this season.

Well, if you think it is political, I will no longer post about it. Hmmmm. Maybe that was your goal. LOL

I'm guessing if someone doesn't agree with another's stance, then it's political?

My bad. There was no political intent whatsoever.

LOL I didn't realize I was showing my political side by thinking that players and owners should not be so greedy. How is that so?