COVID-19 impact on MLB season

[rickh150]

It would be cool if they could somehow do a social distance tailgate of some kind if there end up being no-fan games at MP. Obviously don't fill the lot, let a few hundred cars in with plenty of space. It would be a cool way to involve the fans...charge $5 and do 50/50 with some virus relief fund or something. Maybe more and throw in the t-shirts they've been selling.

 

I think there is a safe way to do it as long as it's scaled back. It could also get people used to going to these things again. Maybe not right off the bat but an idea down the road.

 

Great idea.... I agree, it would be a hit.

I'd like to see a few outdoor movie theaters (I know there are only a few left in the state) show games midweek. I would think this would be somewhat popular too.

[rondoman]

MLB owners are some money hungry SOB's!

 

MLB had revenues over $10 BILLION last season. For 17 straight years MLB has set a record for seasonal revenue. Yet, player salaries have declined each of the last two seasons.

 

Owners orginally agreed to prorated salaries in March if and when the season began. If they played 50% of a season, they get paid 50% of their salary. Now the owners reneged and don't want that deal anymore.

 

And who's risking their health and well being? Who are fans excited to see?

 

Certainly not the owners!

[adambr2]

MLB owners are some money hungry SOB's!

 

MLB had revenues over $10 BILLION last season. For 17 straight years MLB has set a record for seasonal revenue. Yet, player salaries have declined each of the last two seasons.

 

Owners orginally agreed to prorated salaries in March if and when the season began. If they played 50% of a season, they get paid 50% of their salary. Now the owners reneged and don't want that deal anymore.

 

And who's risking their health and well being? Who are fans excited to see?

 

Certainly not the owners!

 

The "risking their health and well being" doesn't entitle them to extra compensation any more than any other job. Playing in MLB certainly doesn't put them on the front lines of COVID-19. Plenty of people have been working in closer contact, and who here is getting hazard pay for it?

 

However, if the owners did indeed agree to prorated salaries and now want to go back on it, that's definitely a bad faith negotiation on their part. I am not sure why they would agree to that if they project losing money now -- how did they not forsee a significant revenue loss from not selling tickets?

 

Either way, the public in general is hardly going to be forgiving to either side if they can't resolve a labor dispute like this peacefully while unemployment is skyrocketing and the average joe is really struggling.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

When they agreed to that in March, an entire season with no fans wasn't something anyone was looking at. Too bad, so sad for them. They should honor that deal.

 

I'm really tired of the owners doing crap like this and the general public usually siding not necessarily with the owners, but against the players.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

MLB owners are some money hungry SOB's!

 

MLB had revenues over $10 BILLION last season. For 17 straight years MLB has set a record for seasonal revenue. Yet, player salaries have declined each of the last two seasons.

 

Owners orginally agreed to prorated salaries in March if and when the season began. If they played 50% of a season, they get paid 50% of their salary. Now the owners reneged and don't want that deal anymore.

 

And who's risking their health and well being? Who are fans excited to see?

 

Certainly not the owners!

 

The issue there is that all things are not created equal. MLB may have taken in $10 BILLION in revenue last season, but with the antiquated and nearly nonexistent way the league views revenue sharing, the majority of those profits went into the bank accounts of just a few of the huge market owners. If the smaller markets are making a profit, it's pocket change compared to the big markets.

 

We need to remember that every MLB owner is more than likely also a cut-throat businessman. These are guys who aren't in the business of losing money. Yeah, owning a major league team may not be the best investment you can make, and is more of a hobby for a lot of these guys, but they are not going to voluntarily give up hundreds of millions without a promise of some sort of benefit. In the end, they need to weigh whether taking a substantial financial loss this season to put a product on the field is worth the potential benefit of serving as a savior to millions of people in this country who are starving for some sort of live sports action. You bring back MLB baseball at the beginning of July, and baseball would truly be America's Game again. The PR value of that sort of thing might be immeasurable.

[JosephC]

MLB owners are some money hungry SOB's!

 

MLB had revenues over $10 BILLION last season. For 17 straight years MLB has set a record for seasonal revenue. Yet, player salaries have declined each of the last two seasons.

 

Owners orginally agreed to prorated salaries in March if and when the season began. If they played 50% of a season, they get paid 50% of their salary. Now the owners reneged and don't want that deal anymore.

 

And who's risking their health and well being? Who are fans excited to see?

 

Certainly not the owners!

 

The Brewers had an operating loss last year according to the owner.

[adambr2]

When they agreed to that in March, an entire season with no fans wasn't something anyone was looking at. Too bad, so sad for them. They should honor that deal.

 

I'm really tired of the owners doing crap like this and the general public usually siding not necessarily with the owners, but against the players.

 

The agreement was made on or around March 26th.

 

If the owners didn't know by that point that fanless baseball was a very strong possibility for 2020, they had an incredible lack of foresight.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

When they agreed to that in March, an entire season with no fans wasn't something anyone was looking at. Too bad, so sad for them. They should honor that deal.

 

I'm really tired of the owners doing crap like this and the general public usually siding not necessarily with the owners, but against the players.

 

The agreement was made on or around March 26th.

 

If the owners didn't know by that point that fanless baseball was a very strong possibility for 2020, they had an incredible lack of foresight.

 

That's extremely revisionist. On March 17 I posted that I did not think we would have any baseball and pretty much nobody agreed with that. The consensus at that point was we were looking at starting a plain old season On June 1. The season continuing in July with no fans the entire way was perhaps a whisper, but I'm all but certain the owners did not anticipate that realistically when they agreed to that deal. So maybe they just do have an incredible lack of foresight being that they, you know, own the teams. But that is not what the pulse of the public was at that time.

 

People were still hoping to resume a school year and all sorts of things that now look like fantasies.

[LouisEly]

Owners orginally agreed to prorated salaries in March if and when the season began. If they played 50% of a season, they get paid 50% of their salary. Now the owners reneged and don't want that deal anymore.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28964249/what-mlb-deal-players-means-2020-season-beyond

 

There were other stipulations in the agreement necessary to starting the season, notably that:

 

1. No governmental edicts on mass gatherings that would prevent teams from playing in their home stadiums

 

If there are edicts on mass gatherings, or some teams cannot play in their home stadiums, then that stipulation isn't met and the conditions of the agreement are not met.

[adambr2]

When they agreed to that in March, an entire season with no fans wasn't something anyone was looking at. Too bad, so sad for them. They should honor that deal.

 

I'm really tired of the owners doing crap like this and the general public usually siding not necessarily with the owners, but against the players.

 

The agreement was made on or around March 26th.

 

If the owners didn't know by that point that fanless baseball was a very strong possibility for 2020, they had an incredible lack of foresight.

 

That's extremely revisionist. On March 17 I posted that I did not think we would have any baseball and pretty much nobody agreed with that. The consensus at that point was we were looking at starting a plain old season On June 1. The season continuing in July with no fans the entire way was perhaps a whisper, but I'm all but certain the owners did not anticipate that realistically when they agreed to that deal. So maybe they just do have an incredible lack of foresight being that they, you know, own the teams. But that is not what the pulse of the public was at that time.

 

People were still hoping to resume a school year and all sorts of things that now look like fantasies.

 

It really isn't. Go back to Pages 13 and 14 of this thread which is the timeframe of when the agreement was made. While there was still uncertainty, there was a strong feeling among many that if games were being played this year, it would be in front of empty or reduced crowd stadiums.

 

It didn't take a revisionist, much less an MLB owner who should have had a pretty good understanding of the situation, to know in late March that playing in empty stadiums in 2020 was a very strong possibility.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Actually, you're correct, it would be an incredible lack of foresight, that much is true. But I don't think they were really entertaining it as the most likely, or even a likely outcome. I think they made that deal thinking there would be games in June or July, fully attended, and it would work out OK for them.

[adambr2]

Actually, you're correct, it would be an incredible lack of foresight, that much is true. But I don't think they were really entertaining it as the most likely, or even a likely outcome. I think they made that deal thinking there would be games in June or July, fully attended, and it would work out OK for them.

 

Well I agree with what you said before. Too bad so sad if they really didn't forsee that and still made the deal. That's a pretty bad faith negotiation if they don't intend to honor it now.

[DHonks]

I wonder logistically if the Brewers would be better off playing in AZ than WI. Many players live in AZ, but none that I know of live in WI. The cost of operating the stadiums, even without fans, have to be substantially higher at Miller Park. It would save money for teams AND benefit players and families. Oh well, I guess it's just regional travel this year anyways

[folly412]

I wonder logistically if the Brewers would be better off playing in AZ than WI. Many players live in AZ, but none that I know of live in WI. The cost of operating the stadiums, even without fans, have to be substantially higher at Miller Park. It would save money for teams AND benefit players and families. Oh well, I guess it's just regional travel this year anyways

 

The home stadium shift from the earlier considerations of AZ/FL/TX did interest me. Is it a thing where the combination of heat, time zones, and finding optimal TV times make it difficult? Or are they desperate to gamble that there could be a point where late season could let them have 10%-25% capacity? Maybe it could come as a counter proposal to the owners', but just don't see how the players in particular would strongly prefer to be playing in New York vs. Florida or Milwaukee vs. Arizona under the current circumstances.

[monty57]

I wonder logistically if the Brewers would be better off playing in AZ than WI. Many players live in AZ, but none that I know of live in WI. The cost of operating the stadiums, even without fans, have to be substantially higher at Miller Park. It would save money for teams AND benefit players and families. Oh well, I guess it's just regional travel this year anyways

 

The home stadium shift from the earlier considerations of AZ/FL/TX did interest me. Is it a thing where the combination of heat, time zones, and finding optimal TV times make it difficult? Or are they desperate to gamble that there could be a point where late season could let them have 10%-25% capacity? Maybe it could come as a counter proposal to the owners', but just don't see how the players in particular would strongly prefer to be playing in New York vs. Florida or Milwaukee vs. Arizona under the current circumstances.

 

I wonder how much the states complained about the "play all games in Arizona" plan, as the players pay income tax based on the state in which they play. Big tax states like NY, California, IL & WI would lose a lot of tax money if the games were played elsewhere.

[DocLuna7]

I wonder logistically if the Brewers would be better off playing in AZ than WI. Many players live in AZ, but none that I know of live in WI. The cost of operating the stadiums, even without fans, have to be substantially higher at Miller Park. It would save money for teams AND benefit players and families. Oh well, I guess it's just regional travel this year anyways

 

The home stadium shift from the earlier considerations of AZ/FL/TX did interest me. Is it a thing where the combination of heat, time zones, and finding optimal TV times make it difficult? Or are they desperate to gamble that there could be a point where late season could let them have 10%-25% capacity? Maybe it could come as a counter proposal to the owners', but just don't see how the players in particular would strongly prefer to be playing in New York vs. Florida or Milwaukee vs. Arizona under the current circumstances.

 

I wonder how much the states complained about the "play all games in Arizona" plan, as the players pay income tax based on the state in which they play. Big tax states like NY, California, IL & WI would lose a lot of tax money if the games were played elsewhere.

 

This is a really great and under discussed point (State Tax issue)

[LouisEly]

I wonder logistically if the Brewers would be better off playing in AZ than WI. Many players live in AZ, but none that I know of live in WI. The cost of operating the stadiums, even without fans, have to be substantially higher at Miller Park. It would save money for teams AND benefit players and families. Oh well, I guess it's just regional travel this year anyways

 

The home stadium shift from the earlier considerations of AZ/FL/TX did interest me. Is it a thing where the combination of heat, time zones, and finding optimal TV times make it difficult? Or are they desperate to gamble that there could be a point where late season could let them have 10%-25% capacity? Maybe it could come as a counter proposal to the owners', but just don't see how the players in particular would strongly prefer to be playing in New York vs. Florida or Milwaukee vs. Arizona under the current circumstances.

 

I wonder how much the states complained about the "play all games in Arizona" plan, as the players pay income tax based on the state in which they play. Big tax states like NY, California, IL & WI would lose a lot of tax money if the games were played elsewhere.

At the risk of going too political, most of the governors haven't really been making policy to maximize tax revenue lately and have sacrificed a lot more in tax money than what baseball players would have brought in. Baseball would probably only bring in about $7M-$8M in income tax revenue to WI, which in the grand scheme of tax revenue isn't much at all.

[DuWayne Steurer]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29183345/mlb-safety-proposal-includes-10000-tests-per-week-social-distancing

 

 

 

No fist bumps or high fives, and "encouraging the fielders to back away from baserunners in between pitches".

[adambr2]

A lot of people probably aren't going to like what I say here. That's okay, I respect that. If you don't, all I ask is that you read this in its entirety first. I would like to preface this by saying that I am NOT a "these spoiled brats get paid millions to play a game" person. I generally do side with players over owners on labor issues. I'm involved in a union myself and I respect it.

 

 

So with that being said, I'm pretty disgusted with what I've seen and heard out of MLB players lately. I'll start with what I'm not disgusted with. Players like Clayton Kershaw and Nolen Arenado have basically come out and said, "We had an agreement, and both sides should honor it." I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance to have, and I am not letting owners off the hook. If they agreed to pay salaries at their full prorated rate, that's exactly what they should be doing.

 

 

Now, I'll add what I'm disgusted with. I've yet to hear (and I could be totally wrong about this and might have just missed it) a single player come out and say something along the lines of "I'd like back out on the field for the people of this country." Not a single mention of trying to give back in the form of entertainment to the fans, who finance your entire livelihood.

 

 

The country is in crisis. People want, need something to cheer for, need a sense of normalcy again. Citizens who haven't ever cared about the game of baseball would be willing to fall in love with it now. Baseball really has a chance to win over the hearts and minds of the people right now, who are desperate for a distraction. And instead, they are completely missing the boat and they don't even seem to realize it. Nor do they seem to care. It's all about "me, me, me. You want me to play? What's in it for me?"

 

 

And to some degree, I understand it. I know these guys are looking out for themselves first, and no one should be expected to sacrifice their health for entertainment. But it would be nice if, in this day and age, with so many unemployed and struggling, if there was even a smidgen of a thought from a single player that "Hey, people are really suffering right now. What can we do to help?" Yes, I know the highest paid MLB stars are giving money to COVID-19 causes like every other rich athlete right now. And it's great that they're doing it, but there's something to be said for doing something collectively as a group for the morale of a nation.

 

 

Blake Snell comes off to me as one of the tone-deaf, selfish players I've ever seen. And maybe he's not. I don't really know him. But his comments come off as such. "Bro, I'm risking my life."

 

 

Bro, spare me. The diabetic cashier working the 7-11 where you just filled up your Escalade is risking his life. The middle aged nurse working 16 hour shifts in NYC is risking hers. Let's put aside for a minute the fact that as a 27 year old healthy world class athlete, your risk factor is incredibly low. The reality of your situation is that you won't be asked to do your job unless it is deemed remarkably safe, and if you have so much as a sniffle, you will have a test up your nose and access to any medical care you might possibly need before you even know what happened. That is your reality.

 

 

You know what gets me? The guys who want to give their two cents on the pros and cons of having a 2020 MLB season are overwhelming players who would be just fine without one. The Bryce Harpers, the Clayton Kershaws, the Mike Trouts. The guys who could each walk away from baseball forever today and spend the rest of their lives living in affluence. What about the players who have made a few hundred thousand in their careers and have their entire futures and livelihoods at stake?

 

 

What about Corbin Burnes, who needs desperately to get back at this? What if he loses another year after a lost year and never gets back? Do you think Corbin is okay with just poo-pooing the season away because Trout and Harper think they should What about someone like Tyrone Taylor trying to make it? What about some 32 year old journeyman minor leaguer who finally made the big leagues last year and may only have one last shot at making a career out of this? Does anyone care how these guys feel about it? Do you think they would be okay with a lost season? Has anyone asked? Would they even be willing to speak up out of fear of angering baseball's elite class?

 

 

This is what I mean by selfish. Getting baseball going isn't just about you, Blake. It isn't just about you, Bryce. If you don't care about getting it going for the fans, at least care about getting it going for your union brothers.

 

 

Anyway, I've ranted enough for now.

[MoreTrife]

A lot of people probably aren't going to like what I say here. That's okay, I respect that. If you don't, all I ask is that you read this in its entirety first. I would like to preface this by saying that I am NOT a "these spoiled brats get paid millions to play a game" person. I generally do side with players over owners on labor issues. I'm involved in a union myself and I respect it.

 

 

So with that being said, I'm pretty disgusted with what I've seen and heard out of MLB players lately. I'll start with what I'm not disgusted with. Players like Clayton Kershaw and Nolen Arenado have basically come out and said, "We had an agreement, and both sides should honor it." I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance to have, and I am not letting owners off the hook. If they agreed to pay salaries at their full prorated rate, that's exactly what they should be doing.

 

 

Now, I'll add what I'm disgusted with. I've yet to hear (and I could be totally wrong about this and might have just missed it) a single player come out and say something along the lines of "I'd like back out on the field for the people of this country." Not a single mention of trying to give back in the form of entertainment to the fans, who finance your entire livelihood.

 

 

The country is in crisis. People want, need something to cheer for, need a sense of normalcy again. Citizens who haven't ever cared about the game of baseball would be willing to fall in love with it now. Baseball really has a chance to win over the hearts and minds of the people right now, who are desperate for a distraction. And instead, they are completely missing the boat and they don't even seem to realize it. Nor do they seem to care. It's all about "me, me, me. You want me to play? What's in it for me?"

 

 

And to some degree, I understand it. I know these guys are looking out for themselves first, and no one should be expected to sacrifice their health for entertainment. But it would be nice if, in this day and age, with so many unemployed and struggling, if there was even a smidgen of a thought from a single player that "Hey, people are really suffering right now. What can we do to help?" Yes, I know the highest paid MLB stars are giving money to COVID-19 causes like every other rich athlete right now. And it's great that they're doing it, but there's something to be said for doing something collectively as a group for the morale of a nation.

 

 

Blake Snell comes off to me as one of the tone-deaf, selfish players I've ever seen. And maybe he's not. I don't really know him. But his comments come off as such. "Bro, I'm risking my life."

 

 

Bro, spare me. The diabetic cashier working the 7-11 where you just filled up your Escalade is risking his life. The middle aged nurse working 16 hour shifts in NYC is risking hers. Let's put aside for a minute the fact that as a 27 year old healthy world class athlete, your risk factor is incredibly low. The reality of your situation is that you won't be asked to do your job unless it is deemed remarkably safe, and if you have so much as a sniffle, you will have a test up your nose and access to any medical care you might possibly need before you even know what happened. That is your reality.

 

 

You know what gets me? The guys who want to give their two cents on the pros and cons of having a 2020 MLB season are overwhelming players who would be just fine without one. The Bryce Harpers, the Clayton Kershaws, the Mike Trouts. The guys who could each walk away from baseball forever today and spend the rest of their lives living in affluence. What about the players who have made a few hundred thousand in their careers and have their entire futures and livelihoods at stake?

 

 

What about Corbin Burnes, who needs desperately to get back at this? What if he loses another year after a lost year and never gets back? Do you think Corbin is okay with just poo-pooing the season away because Trout and Harper think they should What about someone like Tyrone Taylor trying to make it? What about some 32 year old journeyman minor leaguer who finally made the big leagues last year and may only have one last shot at making a career out of this? Does anyone care how these guys feel about it? Do you think they would be okay with a lost season? Has anyone asked? Would they even be willing to speak up out of fear of angering baseball's elite class?

 

 

This is what I mean by selfish. Getting baseball going isn't just about you, Blake. It isn't just about you, Bryce. If you don't care about getting it going for the fans, at least care about getting it going for your union brothers.

 

 

Anyway, I've ranted enough for now.

 

I support what you're saying.

 

And the risk isn't Incredibly low, I think it's basically zero unless one of these guys somehow has an unknown underlying condition. If it is known, then maybe don't play. The statistics for these players' demographic combined with outdoor transmission rates (basically zero unless you sneeze in someone's face) support my zero risk comment. Perhaps a tag play at a base with a collision where someone else's saliva gets in a mouth?? If you've heard of different statistics, I'd love to hear them but don't just scream at me.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Here's the problem with all of that. The players literally are the ones "taking the risk" in this scenario. The owners are asking the players to go out and play, risk their health, their families health, and take a paycut, since apparently they don't want to honor the original deal.

 

There are CEO's right now taking zero salary while their businesses are taking massive hits. I know, I know, you can't compare baseball to anything else. Doesn't matter. When you're an owner, you don't pass the financial risk on to your employees. You just don't. If your employee makes 13 dollars an hour or 17 million a year, if you're financially struggling, it is what it is. If you owe a guy 30,000 for a game check, that's what you owe them. You can't say "weeeeeell, we don't have fans in the stands, so I'm gonna cut you back a bit." 7-11 isn't cutting their people back 2 or 3 dollars an hour. It's not apples to apples, but the point is, if you're playing 80 games, pay the guys 80 games of what they're supposed to get PAID. THAT is the risk of being an owner. It always has been.

[JosephC]

Have to say that if they don't get real games going by July 4th, then I really have no interest in watching. I'm betting almost all "lukewarm" baseball fans would feel the same. If they can't get started until August, most sports fans will already be looking forward to football and probably won't want to invest the time in paying attention to any abbreviated, gimmicky baseball season. There already seems to be a big drop in the attention paid to baseball when September arrives...and that's with fans/media having invested April, May, June, July into baseball and that give them incentive to keep watching. They start 4 weeks before football, everyone but the diehards are probably going to say "who cares" at that point.

 

It's dicey business anyway one looks at it because ticket sales and concessions make up 30-40% of total revenue. While the World Series and playoff money would likely stay the same, they could end up losing 50% of all the regular season TV money that they normally receive.

 

They can put all the safety protocols they want in place. Players would be extremely low risk for death, and could very well be very low risk to even show symptoms, but the fact remains that if one day the team arrives at the ballpark and Yelich, Hiura, Woodruff and about 6 other players all test positive then they probably have to be isolated for 2 weeks and teams could lose 1/3 of their best players for what amounts to 15-20% of the season.

 

IMO MLB/MLBPA are now up against it and have about 2 weeks to get this all hammered out. That puts us at June 1. Then it would take 1-2 weeks to get the "structure" in place to start playing the "getting in shape" games and then those game probably have to go 2-3 weeks....so looking at that it takes them a month to get to games that count. If they can't get this hammered out in the next two weeks, then why even bother at that point.

[3and2Fastball]

I think the likelihood of Football in the Fall is very very low. Baseball can employ some degree of social distancing. Football? None. And many football players are higher risk because of their weight/borderline obesity.

[adambr2]

I think the likelihood of Football in the Fall is very very low. Baseball can employ some degree of social distancing. Football? None. And many football players are higher risk because of their weight/borderline obesity.

 

I don't think social distancing between athletes is really the biggest issue for sports being able to take off. UFC and WWE have been operating almost this entire time and they have more direct contact between athletes than anyone.

 

I see social distancing as more of a short-term large scale societal strategy to help prevent overrunning of medical facilities rather than something that is necessary on a small scope of a football field as a necessity to resume league operations.

 

I think wide scale league access to testing and potential treatments are much more important to seeing football again than social distancing on a football field, and they've had the luxury of numerous months to prepare that other leagues just haven't had. I don't think the NFL season is in any grave danger of being lost.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think the likelihood of Football in the Fall is very very low. Baseball can employ some degree of social distancing. Football? None. And many football players are higher risk because of their weight/borderline obesity.

 

I don't think this is really all that relevant. The on-field contact seems to buried on the list of obstacles to playing. It's all the stuff that goes on between games that's just as hard to plan around. If it were that simple, really, football sort of has an advantage. They're all covered in gear and it would pretty simple to outfit the helmet for a kind of mask, and make everyone wear gloves. They play way less, too.