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

batmagadanleadoff · June 16, 2020

=ashie62 post_id=38798 time=1592328000 user_id=90]
At least 8 owners do not want to play a 2020 season says the interweb

Ceetar · June 16, 2020

they only have to pay 4% if the season is cancelled. My guess would be that the balance sheets say that's the $$ option.

kcmets · June 16, 2020

Well, what the balance sheets say is 'assets minus liabilities equal net worth (owners

equity).' I'm pretty much in camp dont-give-a-shit whether there's a baseball season in

2020; but if there isn't, the weeny-wuss path they've taken to not coming to an agreement

shouldn't be quickly forgotten by the fans.

Frayed Knot · June 16, 2020

Frayed Knot wrote:

Assuming this potential lawsuit thing is accurate, once the players told the clubs to go ahead and set a starting date and schedule I don't see how Manfred couldn't make a public statement.

He could make a public statement to announce the beginning of the season, of course.

Unless he has reason to believe that a Billion Dollar grievance suit is coming his way the second he does so.

batmagadanleadoff · June 16, 2020

=Ceetar post_id=38801 time=1592331961 user_id=102]
they only have to pay 4% if the season is cancelled. My guess would be that the balance sheets say that's the $$ option.

Gwreck · June 16, 2020

Unless he has reason to believe that a Billion Dollar grievance suit is coming his way the second he does so.

Which is precisely why his public statement is idiotic.

Frayed Knot · June 16, 2020

But what's the alternative at this point: 'This past weekend I declared that the season will go on ... but now I've changed my mind and I can't tell you why'

Gwreck · June 16, 2020

I don't accept that Manfred had to make a statement. But even assuming arguendo that he did, this isn't hard. It isn't hard even if the owners and Manfred are acting in bad faith:

“We are evaluating the situation and are continuing to address issues of health and safety. We hope to have further updates regarding the 2020 schedule shortly.”

Frayed Knot · June 16, 2020

But what is going to happen "shortly" to trigger an update?

The union has already said it has no intention of talking anymore after having essentially 'won' the battle over getting nothing less than the full pro-rated salaries for the season.

So if you're Manfred and what is stopping you from doing the one thing the March agreement gave you control -- determination of the schedule -- is the (alleged) threatened

suit challenging even that, then I'd sure as hell want to make sure that the public knew that was the reason for the inaction.

Ceetar · June 16, 2020

it's that they don't WANT to play. If they start now there might be too many games at full pay.

ashie62 · June 16, 2020

=kcmets post_id=38803 time=1592333554 user_id=53]
Well, what the balance sheets say is 'assets minus liabilities equal net worth (owners

equity).' I'm pretty much in camp dont-give-a-shit whether there's a baseball season in

2020; but if there isn't, the weeny-wuss path they've taken to not coming to an agreement

shouldn't be quickly forgotten by the fans.

metsmarathon · June 17, 2020

if this was clearly an argument over player safety, it would end up being fine for the game. that it is clearly, and nakedly, all about the benjamins, a shutdown this year will be crippling.

it's totally true that baseball is the victim of wickedly poor timing in terms of the outbreak. but it remains a complete and total self-pwn.

Benjamin Grimm · June 17, 2020

Manfred and Clark met face to face (with masks, I assume) and appear to be zeroing in on an agreement to start a 60-game season on July 19. Players would get the full pro-rated salary. This according to ESPN.

MFS62 · June 17, 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

Manfred and Clark met face to face (with masks, I assume) and appear to be zeroing in on an agreement to start a 60-game season on July 19. Players would get the full pro-rated salary. This according to ESPN.

When I read encouraging reports like that one, I remember the expression that says there's no such thing as almost pregnant.

I'll believe there's a deal when there is one.

Later

Gwreck · June 17, 2020

Reports are that discussions include a DH for the NL.

I'd be willing to sacrifice the 2020 season if it meant there was no DH.

Benjamin Grimm · June 17, 2020

According to Tyler Kepner in The Times, the agreement would include DH in all games this year and next, and a 16-team postseason, presumably just for 2020.

Frayed Knot · June 17, 2020

I'd be willing to live with a DH for this year only if the alternative meant no season.

I also don't see a reason why they'd feel the need to decide on a permanent DH now unless the union thinks that this is something they can 'get' in exchange for dropping

their threatened suit. But I'm not even sure the union is so gung-ho on a universal DH. I mean, sure they want to protect its existence, but I don't think that, of all the

issues coming up in the next year or so, this one would be tops on their list of things to leverage.

Having said all that, I'm convinced that a universal DH is inevitable.

Benjamin Grimm · June 17, 2020

Frayed Knot wrote:

I'd be willing to live with a DH for this year only if the alternative meant no season.

Me too.

Frayed Knot wrote:

Having said all that, I'm convinced that a universal DH is inevitable.

I agree. I think it's been inevitable for many years, but now it looks like the time has come.

Ceetar · June 17, 2020

it's just another MLB proposal, not an ongoing negotiation, but coming so soon after the meeting you'd hope it's at least somewhat palatable to the players. We shall see.

LWFS · June 17, 2020

I mean, if you're going to get a massive rule change imposed on your league and organization by fiat, well... this may not be a terrible time, Met-fortunes-wise, for it to happen. J.D. Davis/Dominic Smith/Ostensibly-Recovering Cespedes isn't a bad rotation to run out there.

Benjamin Grimm · June 18, 2020

Jeff Passan at ESPN reports that the current proposal also includes a 16-team postseason in 2021.

batmagadanleadoff · June 18, 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

Jeff Passan at ESPN reports that the current proposal also includes a 16-team postseason in 2021.

This means that as many as four of the 16 playoff teams will be third place teams. If there are less than four third place playoff teams, there'll be fourth or even last place playoff teams, instead.

Also, Manfred now wants ads on unis right now, for 2020.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Guest

Benjamin Grimm · June 18, 2020

I can see the logic in having a 16-team postseason for a 60-game season. But not for a 162-game season, assuming that we have one of those in 2021.

batmagadanleadoff · June 18, 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

I can see the logic in having a 16-team postseason for a 60-game season. But not for a 162-game season, assuming that we have one of those in 2021.

Which is ....?

smg58 · June 18, 2020

Of course, the presence or absence of a DH will have zero bearing on a team's overall payroll.

So you give up the DH in exchange for 20 more games, and baseball is saved from Manfred for another year.

batmagadanleadoff · June 18, 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

I can see the logic in having a 16-team postseason for a 60-game season. But not for a 162-game season, assuming that we have one of those in 2021.

Which is ....?

I mean, besides the money? Because with 16 playoff teams, we might get sub .500 playoff teams. This is just about the most awful thing baseball has ever proposed.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Guest

Ceetar · June 18, 2020

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

I can see the logic in having a 16-team postseason for a 60-game season. But not for a 162-game season, assuming that we have one of those in 2021.

Which is ....?

small sample size variation means it's even less a representation of 'best' team than a 162 game season is, and a greater chance that the 'best' teams might have started poorly and be in 3rd place.

More than half the teams has always been my "point to far" but I'd like to see a 4+ team expansion so maybe it be corrected

nymr83 · June 18, 2020

=smg58 post_id=38900 time=1592484895 user_id=62]
Of course, the presence or absence of a DH will have zero bearing on a team's overall payroll.

So you give up the DH in exchange for 20 more games, and baseball is saved from Manfred for another year.

Edgy MD · June 18, 2020

You have it more or less correct. The impact of the DH on average salaries is negligible and varies from year to year, with AL clubs generally needing one more starter, but NL clubs needing deeper benches and bullpens.