Major League Baseball, players union reach tentative agreement to salvage 2020 season

[Benjamin Grimm]

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-2020-season-update-where-things-stand-as-mlbpa-owners-take-step-toward-a-deal/https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-2020-season-update-where-things-stand-as-mlbpa-owners-take-step-toward-a-deal/



https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlbpa-on-board-with-leagues-plan-for-regional-schedule-in-2020-season-per-report/https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlbpa-on-board-with-leagues-plan-for-regional-schedule-in-2020-season-per-report/



The article says...

After some heated discussions last month, it appears the two sides are getting closer to a deal.

However, I really don't see anything in the article that supports that statement.



I think that the contention is that since the owners agreed to pay the full pro-rated amount for a 50-game season, and the players want the same for a 114-game season, the obvious solution is to meet in the middle. The mid-point between 50 games and 114 is 82, which is the original number that the owners proposed, with reductions. Meeting in the middle sounds much easier said than done.

[Frayed Knot]

I could see, particularly the Dodgers, try to claim 2020 doesn't exist if they don't play, and that say Mookie Betts is NOT a free agent. While the players argue the opposite.

That was one of those things decided back in the March 26th agreement (and part of the very first post in this thread on 3/27):

"The biggest issue in the negotiations was service time, and the two sides agreed that if there's a season of any length, players would receive credit for a full year as if it was a regular 162-game season.

And if the season is canceled, players will receive the same service time they accrued in 2019. This means that Los Angeles Dodgers All-Star outfielder Mookie Betts, who was acquired along with former

Cy Young winner David Price in February from the Boston Red Sox, could be a free agent without playing a single regular-season game for the Dodgers."



Now I realize that the above was written by a journalist (Bob Nightengale - USA Today) so you're likely to believe he simply made it all up, but Betts had 5 yrs + 70 days of service coming in and so will

get credit for a full season if they play any part of this one and a full season if they don't. iow, he'll be a FA and if the Dodgers try to contend that it'll get thrown out of court faster than Lenny Dykstra's

lawsuit.

[Ceetar]

you used the words Bob Nightengale and journalist in the same sentence.



well, i guess it's true, in the same way my 5 year old is a journalist, as she owns a journal.





This is unprecedented. The owners are assholes. Courts don't do anything fast.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Some are saying (and I'm not sure if this would hold up) that the March 26 agreement gives the commissioner the ability to unilaterally declare a season of any length, as long as it adheres to the rest of the agreement from that day. (Meaning pro-rated salaries with no sliding scale or other reductions.)



If true, if the negotiations break down, he can declare the 50-game season. I'd rather see 50 games than zero games, but 50 games makes for a poor excuse for a season. It would certainly be a tainted championship for whoever wins it.



I'd rather see a 70-game season with a playoff field of 16 teams. The extra round(s) of playoffs should at least somewhat offset the cost of the extra 20 games.

[Frayed Knot]

=Ceetar post_id=37818 time=1591135625 user_id=102]This is unprecedented. The owners are assholes. Courts don't do anything fast.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: This is unprecedented. The owners are assholes. Courts don't do anything fast. In that case couldn't the Dodgers just deny Betts his FA-gency no matter what his service time adds up to? I mean sure, the Rules say that you can be a FA after six years but the clubs might just unilaterally negate that.

they do this all the time. Not usually to the stars, but not bring up guys to start the season is basically "we're keeping you an extra year" Or they'll declare it the 2020-2021 season and manipulate it somehow.Or maybe they'll just screw the minor leaguers more.

[Frayed Knot]

Frayed Knot wrote: This is unprecedented. The owners are assholes. Courts don't do anything fast. In that case couldn't the Dodgers just deny Betts his FA-gency no matter what his service time adds up to? I mean sure, the Rules say that you can be a FA after six years but the clubs might just unilaterally negate that. they do this all the time.

No. They. Don't.





-- Not usually to the stars, but not bring up guys to start the season is basically "we're keeping you an extra year"

And now, as usual, you're changing the subject and conditions of your argument. Delaying starting the clock on a guy's career (which, btw, is done MORE often to the stars than the

average player although less often then is charged) isn't covered in the CBA while six full years = FA is. But somehow you claim that clubs deny FA-gency "all the time" to players

who have earned it. Can you name ONE instance where this has happened?





-- Or they'll declare it the 2020-2021 season and manipulate it somehow.

Except they've already agreed that 2020 is a full season as far as service time goes no matter how long and the whole point of collective bargaining is that one side can't simply

"declare" something and impose it on the other. If the owners could do that they would have Declared a salary cap and an end to free agency long ago and we wouldn't be

having this discussion.





-- Or maybe they'll just screw the minor leaguers more.

Again, irrelevant to this discussion.

[Edgy MD]

I haven't screwed any minor leaguers at all this season. Stupid coronavirus is interfering with my whole lifestyle.

[Ceetar]

I'm not changing any argument, my argument is simply that the owners are evil and do evil things and get away with it, and this is unprecedented and I don't trust them to negotiate in good faith.

[Willets Point]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm surprised to say this, but I'm ready to let go of the season.

I'm here too. Maybe they can set up a fun tournament for a month or so, but trying to play anything resembling a season at this point is a recipe for failure.

[Ceetar]

I have no problem with a short season. It's different, but whatever.



But there's just so much going on I'm finding it hard to imagine. Certainly shouldn't happen with snipers on the roof or heavily armed people patrolling outside, if they get to a point of letting some fans in.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree that I would prefer a season without snipers.



I still hope they play. A fifty-game season would be pretty weak, but if they can get closer to 80 that would be satisfactory.

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I agree that I would prefer a season without snipers. I still hope they play. A fifty-game season would be pretty weak, but if they can get closer to 80 that would be satisfactory.

They're getting into out of sight, out of mind territory. I don't remember, did average MLB attendance increase or decrease the year after the last partial seasons?

Later

[Ceetar]

was 25 years ago, prices were pennies compared to now, tv, etc. it's a different world, and MLB attendance is only a tiny portion of it.



Plus lingering Covid, public health, rampaging cops, who knows what going to the park will be like in 2021?

[MFS62]

=Ceetar post_id=37859 time=1591202237 user_id=102]
was 25 years ago, prices were pennies compared to now, tv, etc. it's a different world, and MLB attendance is only a tiny portion of it.

[Benjamin Grimm]

There certainly was a decreased interest on my part, and I never came all the way back. 1995 was the last post-season that didn't involve the Mets where I watched any of the games. I remember watching the Braves-Indians World Series and realizing that I just didn't care anymore and was watching out of habit.



So yeah, if 2020 is canceled people will lose interest. Some will come all the way back, some will come partially back, like I did, and some won't come back at all.

[metsmarathon]

yeah, but the general idea at the time was that the shortening of the season, and the greed that caused it, turned people off from baseball, moreso than it caused people to forget about baseball.



now, this season, the majority of the shortening is due to non-greed factors. the extent to which the season is further shortened is certainly due to greed-factors, and the extent to which that ends up being perceived as the driving factor will greatly figure into the fan response, i think.



no matter what happens, one thing is certain. nobody will give two shits about the rampant and apparent greed in the nfl, and will flock to them regardless their stated collective position about the failings of baseball.

[Ceetar]

in 2020 people still struggle with how to quantitatively assess 'interest' in a sport, and also how that interest translates to revenue. Like you could not have cable and attend no games, but still watch ad-riddled bat flips via social media share. how does that factor in, and how likely is that person, in perhaps 10 years, to have kids and/or more money and spend it on the game?

[Frayed Knot]

=metsmarathon post_id=37863 time=1591205204 user_id=83]
yeah, but the general idea at the time was that the shortening of the season, and the greed that caused it, turned people off from baseball, moreso than it caused people to forget about baseball.



now, this season, the majority of the shortening is due to non-greed factors. the extent to which the season is further shortened is certainly due to greed-factors, and the extent to which that ends up being perceived as the driving factor will greatly figure into the fan response, i think.

[metsmarathon]

yes, of course. i meant to separate out the part of the season-shortening that has thus far been beyond their control, and the subsequent shortening that will be in their own control.



if the league and the players cnnot figure out how to share a 4-or-so billion dollar pie, then fuck 'em. i can like soccer instead.

[Benjamin Grimm]

ESPN News Services wrote: Major League Baseball has rejected the players' offer for a 114-game regular season with no additional salary cuts and told the union it did not plan to make a counterproposal, sources confirmed to ESPN.

[Guest 41Forever]

I hope the NBA return plan released today lights a fire under them.

[Benjamin Grimm]

No counterproposal, but apparently talks will continue. This is from Sports Illustrated, quoting Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic:

According to Rosenthal, MLB said it would not send a counter to the MLBPA's proposal. Instead, the league reportedly has begun to discuss plans with owners on playing a shorter season without fans. In addition, MLB is reportedly making itself available to discuss additional ideas with the union, particularly on resuming the season without fans.

Sounds like they're considering the commissioner's unilateral option, which the union probably disputes.

[G-Fafif]

However many or few games are played, count only those the Mets win.

[ashie62]

I'm all in on Korean baseball, fuck MLB

[nymr83]

=ashie62 post_id=37887 time=1591246716 user_id=90]
I'm all in on Korean baseball, fuck MLB

[Benjamin Grimm]

I still care. I really want to be able to watch baseball. Mets baseball, not Korean baseball.



It's looking more likely (for the moment, anyway) that Manfred is going to unilaterally declare a 50-game season. It would be a totally lame-ass season, but I'd rather see that than nothing.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Andy Martino wrote: First the good news: MLB players will report to spring training even if the owners impose an approximately 50 game schedule. Because of this, people on all sides of the current labor dispute are extremely confident that there will be a 2020 season. Here's more good news. MLB might make another financial offer to players after all, according to sources, despite a belief earlier this week that it would not. The negotiation for a new agreement on pay is not over, and it won't necessarily be limited only to back channels.

https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/next-week-will-tell-if-2020-mlb-season-starts-in-early-or-late-july/313495662Full article here



He does a lot of recapping and concludes with this:

The upshot of all this? The next week or so will decide if we get a shortened and contentious season that begins in late July or a more harmonious one that launches closer to August

[MFS62]

My prediction for the starting date for season (in the CPF poll) of August 1 is starting to look good.

Later

[The Hot Corner]

At this point, I have, for the most part, become apathetic regarding MLB. If they decide to play great, if not, then life goes on. I have far more important things to worry about than whether a bunch of millionaires and a handful of billionaires can come to an agreement to play a game that I loved as a child, but find that I no longer associate the joy of my youth. I now view MLB as more of a business, rather than the joyous game of my youth ( which I was fortunate to play to the age of 20).