COVID-19 impact on MLB season

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't really get that either but maybe it's just assuring that after two weeks the same groups of people have only seen each other. It also could just be minimizing time zone headaches with days off and such, given that they won't have much time.

[Vgmastr]

Shorter flights, no cross-country trips, and it's mandated in the CBA that any trips spanning two time zones requires an off day. With fewer off days, that won't be an issue. Doesn't affect a team like the Brewers as much being in the midwest, but it probably gets old playing on the Mariners where the shortest flight to another stadium is Oakland.

[JackNicholson1974]

I didnt know about the off days and two time zone thing. If they need to cram games into a schedule, that makes sense.

[adambr2]

I will take any sort of winning just to never hear Rock blabber on about 1982 anymore. The same goes for a no-hitter. Someone just do it already.

 

So true. I'll take any sort of legacy for this team that doesn't involve losing a World Series 38 years ago or Juan Nieves. (With all due respect, Mr. Nieves)

[owbc]

Sounds like MLB has no plans to make a counteroffer to the players' later proposal. What an embarrassment.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Sounds like MLB has no plans to make a counteroffer to the players' later proposal. What an embarrassment.

 

They don't really need to. The prorated pay per game agreement has already been rectified, so it's a matter of finding that happy medium for total number of games. I'm guessing they end up with an 80-90 game season at roughly 80-85% the agreed upon prorated pay. The owners take a hit financially but end up looking like they saved the season. The players take a hit, but end up looking like they took one for the team to bring baseball back to the masses.

[pacopete4]

Asking for 114 games is stupid to begin with. The MLBPA is starting to piss me off as well.

[owbc]

Sounds like MLB has no plans to make a counteroffer to the players' later proposal. What an embarrassment.

 

They don't really need to. The prorated pay per game agreement has already been rectified, so it's a matter of finding that happy medium for total number of games. I'm guessing they end up with an 80-90 game season at roughly 80-85% the agreed upon prorated pay. The owners take a hit financially but end up looking like they saved the season. The players take a hit, but end up looking like they took one for the team to bring baseball back to the masses.

 

I think the owners have basically decided they are allocating X dollars to salary and if the players want prorated then it's going to be a 50-game season. The players will probably propose an 80-90 game season now with prorated salaries, but it seems like the owners' strategy would be to reject that one as well.

[adambr2]

While I personally I think both sides are going to come out of this looking horrible, I just find it funny that we've hardly heard a peep in regard to health and safety from the players lately. Just 5 minutes ago you were telling us that you're risking your lives, and now you want play as many games as possible.

 

Which I'm on board with, just don't tell me this is about your health and safety when you're desperate to cram 114 games into 125 or so days to minimize your salary loss in a fanless baseball world. It's not.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

While I personally I think both sides are going to come out of this looking horrible, I just find it funny that we've hardly heard a peep in regard to health and safety from the players lately. Just 5 minutes ago you were telling us that you're risking your lives, and now you want play as many games as possible.

 

Which I'm on board with, just don't tell me this is about your health and safety when you're desperate to cram 114 games into 125 or so days to minimize your salary loss in a fanless baseball world. It's not.

 

Nothing in these situations should be taken at face value. Everything aired in public is just a game.

[JosephC]

My proposal:

 

No pro-rated salaries for players. 50/50 revenue split between owners and players. MLB can figure out how to divide up their 50% between the owners and the MLBPA can figure out how to divide up their 50% between the players.

 

AL East and NL East become one division, AL Central and NL Central become one division, AL West and WL West become one division. So 3 10 team divisions. Every teams plays one 5 game home series and one 5 game away series against each team in the division. No games outside of the division. That makes a 90 game schedule, hopefully cuts down on travel/risk, keeps the regular rivalries intact, etc.

 

8 team playoff. Top two teams in each division go and then two wild cards. No tiebreaker games as so many games are being jammed into such a small timeframe to begin with. Tiebreakers based on stats like run differential, total runs scored, etc. World Series is best of 7, earlier rounds is best of 5.

 

And now for the stuff I hate. DH for all games. Due to trying to stick 90 games in an approximate 90 day window, enough double-headers would be required for expansion to a 32 man roster for all games. No changes to DL rules or normal 40-man roster rules. Teams can carry an unlimited number of pitchers, but they have to designate 8 relievers that can be used before each game. For games tied after 9 inning, each team can designate one more reliever that can be used (both managers walk out and tell that umpire the 9th reliever before the 10th inning begins). The first man up in every half inning starting with the 10th inning would automatically be awarded second base. If the game is still tied after 12 innings, it's over and the game is declared a tie. No "runner starts at 2B" and obviously no ties in playoff games, that stuff only applies to regular season games.

[KeithStone53151]

Sounds like MLB has no plans to make a counteroffer to the players' later proposal. What an embarrassment.

 

They don't really need to. The prorated pay per game agreement has already been rectified, so it's a matter of finding that happy medium for total number of games. I'm guessing they end up with an 80-90 game season at roughly 80-85% the agreed upon prorated pay. The owners take a hit financially but end up looking like they saved the season. The players take a hit, but end up looking like they took one for the team to bring baseball back to the masses.

 

That would be reasonable, but I don't expect the players to budge on prorated pay(and I don't blame them one bit). I'm expecting a 55-65 game season with prorated salaries that will start in mid-July. I believe I read that the expanded postseason wasn't included in the original March agreement, so the owners will have to bend to a degree to get an expanded postseason and the revenue that comes with it.

[tmwiese55]

If I had to guess, I'd probably end close to what Stone just said. That they'll come up with something. But i'm more than prepared and view it as a real possibility to have the season cancelled.

 

The most frustrating part is that of all the sport baseball is the least risky one due to being outdoors and not piled on top of each other. Money though of course is always #1. This is a trickle down of no cap system to begin with. All the others have a fixed amount of money to players based on revenue, so it's easy to negotiate from that point and just extrapolate down. MLB is a free for all and a mess, and this is what we're left with. The next CBA they just have to buckle down and get a long term real system in place so that its fair for all teams. The other leagues have given them an easy model, it shouldn't be hard to replicate.

[owbc]

Now I'm hearing that MLB is thinking about letting local municipalities decide whether to allow fans in the stands or not. Meaning Texas could have fans while other teams do not.

 

What a joke. It really is all about money, isn't it? If that goes through I promise to not consume a single second of MLB this year.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Now I'm hearing that MLB is thinking about letting local municipalities decide whether to allow fans in the stands or not. Meaning Texas could have fans while other teams do not.

 

What a joke. It really is all about money, isn't it? If that goes through I promise to not consume a single second of MLB this year.

 

So when is it ok for fans to be back in the stands, in your opinion? I'm not saying today is the right answer or never is the right answer, I'm just curious what current opinions are. Keep in mind stating opening day 2021 has zero evidence it would be any lower or higher risk than letting people back in the stands right now, and continuing to try and play games without gameday ticket and gate revenues in the midterm would lead to professional sports leagues ceasing to exist?

 

Professional sports REALLY IS all about money...playing without fans destroys their revenue model and makes professional sports immensely less lucrative for all parties - owners and players.

[owbc]

Now I'm hearing that MLB is thinking about letting local municipalities decide whether to allow fans in the stands or not. Meaning Texas could have fans while other teams do not.

 

What a joke. It really is all about money, isn't it? If that goes through I promise to not consume a single second of MLB this year.

 

So when is it ok for fans to be back in the stands, in your opinion? I'm not saying today is the right answer or never is the right answer, I'm just curious what current opinions are. Keep in mind stating opening day 2021 has zero evidence it would be any lower or higher risk than letting people back in the stands right now, and continuing to try and play games without gameday ticket and gate revenues in the midterm would lead to professional sports leagues ceasing to exist?

 

Professional sports REALLY IS all about money...playing without fans destroys their revenue model and makes professional sports immensely less lucrative for all parties - owners and players.

 

Nothing on the time horizon matters except from the start to the end of the 2020 season. We all know the virus is still going to be around in 2020. They will deal with 2021 in 2021.

 

1) Players/coaches/staff in a stadium with fans would have to get on a plane and go to another city without fans.

2) How is it fair competition for one team to have fans and another to not have fans?

3) What kind of an organization would even think about having such an inconsistent policy? What motivation is there to do this other than to try and make money at the expense of safety?

 

As for the revenue model, I'll believe there is a problem when I see evidence that an MLB owner is missing debt or salary payments or close to defaulting on their debt obligations. Or when they open their books. Until then...$1.7 billion/year in TV revenue is still coming in.

[adambr2]

Now I'm hearing that MLB is thinking about letting local municipalities decide whether to allow fans in the stands or not. Meaning Texas could have fans while other teams do not.

 

What a joke. It really is all about money, isn't it? If that goes through I promise to not consume a single second of MLB this year.

 

So when is it ok for fans to be back in the stands, in your opinion? I'm not saying today is the right answer or never is the right answer, I'm just curious what current opinions are. Keep in mind stating opening day 2021 has zero evidence it would be any lower or higher risk than letting people back in the stands right now, and continuing to try and play games without gameday ticket and gate revenues in the midterm would lead to professional sports leagues ceasing to exist?

 

Professional sports REALLY IS all about money...playing without fans destroys their revenue model and makes professional sports immensely less lucrative for all parties - owners and players.

 

Honestly, and I know many will disagree, if they wanted to open stadiums at 50% capacity until a viable vaccine is developed, I wouldn't have much problem with it.

 

Either we're willing to accept some inherent risk or we're not. Things aren't likely to change much in the next year or so.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

If the municipality thing happened I'd probably be on a flight to Texas to catch a game to be honest.

[owbc]

We're already accepting inherent risk all over the place. That's why the virus didn't disappear after 3 weeks. Why would you accept unnecessary risk?

[young guns]

Even on top of the health questions, what about the fairness of allowing some teams to have fans and others cant.

[folly412]

If the municipality thing happened I'd probably be on a flight to Texas to catch a game to be honest.

 

I might drive it, but I'd be headed down as well. My sanity demands it.

 

 

Even on top of the health questions, what about the fairness of allowing some teams to have fans and others cant.

 

Is it a huge advantage? Possibly a dumb question since it's not measurable. Also almost wondering with things like regional schedules and seasons as low as 50 games being proposed if it's high on the list of imbalanced things.

[JohnBriggs12]

Even on top of the health questions, what about the fairness of allowing some teams to have fans and others cant.

 

Seriously? For 10 days straight crowds of tens of thousands have gathered in close proximity in virtually ever major city. Let me get this straight, it's fine to march in demonstrations regardless of health consequences because that's their constitutional right but people can't gather in churches (also protected by Constitution) or pursue happiness (spelled out in Declaration of Independence) by going to a ballgame?

 

I never got the "all or nothing" about sports. 15,000 people can rattle around in Miller Park and maintain plenty of distance.

[jerichoholicninja]

Donate all ticket sales from teams that can have fans to something. Boom, months of PR hell fixed.

[adambr2]

We're already accepting inherent risk all over the place. That's why the virus didn't disappear after 3 weeks. Why would you accept unnecessary risk?

 

Because your definition of unnecessary risk isn't the same as everyone else's whose definition isn't the same as everyone else. If you really want no "unnecessary" risk by a generally accepted definition, then bring back shelter in place orders for 2 years. Just be prepared for some pretty devastating residual effects on the economy and mental health of the country.

 

The virus was never going to disappear in 3 weeks, it isn't going to disappear in 3 months and it's probably still going to be here in 3 years. Where are you wanting to draw the line and accept entertainment based activities with spectators and other forms of "unnecessary" risk? A proven and globally available vaccine? Total eradication?

[JosephC]

Now I'm hearing that MLB is thinking about letting local municipalities decide whether to allow fans in the stands or not.

 

Still curious how the 50/50 revenue split was floated out there and got abandoned so quickly? If I'm a player OR an owner, this is exactly why I would demand a predetermined revenue split. The players could really short-change themselves if they agreed to a reduction assuming fans will not be at the games....and then fans will be at games (and I believe most municipalities would allow fans as they will be desperate for tax revenue...only exception being some political big-wigs at the state level who think that they will get the federal government to bail them out). Same thing with owners, what happens if they get 80% of the way through a shortened season, the weather gets colder, and another COVID-19 breakout causes a shutdown and they lose all the playoff revenue (I agree that it's the longest of long-shots that this would happen). How could both sides be so stupid as to not want to do this, especially when it's been the model adopted BY ALL THE OTHER MAJOR SPORT LEAGUES.