MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has issued a statement regarding recent developments in negotiations between the league and player’s union. He says that he and union chief Tony Clark worked out “a jointly developed framework that we agreed could form the basis of an agreement.”
Manfred’s tone is certainly a bit different from that of the MLBPA, which recently issued a short statement making clear there’s no deal yet. That could represent an indication that the league wishes to seize some positive momentum while the players prefer to avoid a perception of a fait accompli. Or, perhaps, both sides will henceforth take a more optimistic tone and begin working in earnest towards a resumption of play.
It’s all still reading tea leaves at this point, though it surely sounds as if real progress has been made. If nothing else, it would be an even greater embarrassment for all involved if negotiations ultimately break down.
Manfred says he summarized his broad agreement with Clark and sent it in writing to the players’ side today. There’s no indication that the sides see eye to eye on all the key details, but it appears the players will get pro rata pay for the regular season while the owners will get an expanded, 16-team postseason.
[RELATED: Creative Playoff Expansion Can Get A Deal Done]
Does anyone really a give a damn at this point?
Me
Yeah, a lot of people.
uh, you posted and I replied… so yes, a damn has been given.
a damn has been given, LOL!!
About 7 or 8 damns in a matter of seconds
Yes, and if I didn’t, I certainly wouldn’t comment on the article 5 minutes after it’s posted.
let’s see yes, the players, most of the fans, and the owners and coaches still want a season. they just want money more
Isn’t Jeter an owner?
Yep, I am all talk but i care a lot!
I do..
Nope. Not me.
Everyone but you
I’m getting to that point, too. The owners don’t give a damn about the regular season, only the playoffs. Now with more than half the teams in it. Have totally diminished the importance of the regular season. Certainly will go beyond 2020.
Dude, you’re on MLB TradeRumors. Clearly you care too. SMH
No. You’re absolutely right. They’re all spoiled entitled little brats. I hope it does eventually come back but with minor leaguers who appreciate where they are and what they do for a living. I couldn’t care less about any current big leaguer.
Don’t let the door hit you … actually I don’t care if the door hits you. Might do you some good.
Nope….
Millions, yes. Why are you on a site called “mlbtraderumors” if not?
Nobody cares how you feel. Why comment even?
Oh I give a darn—I just no longer respect the players union. Its selfishness has been exposed; its credibility shot.
You obviously do.
bring back the downvote
I care because I love the sport. That said, this year will be nothing but an exhibition. Championships, individual awards, etc mean nothing. Give Mike Trout the AL MVP because if not him, it will feel tainted when years from now including an MVP award for someone else in a HOF discussion. What the sides should be doing is pushing up negotiations for a new CBA because such will have to include contingencies that have never before been needed. Agree on healthcare and player safety now with a minimum % contribution now with additional agreed upon % amounts after the season depending on how things play out. Such requires trust but allow either side to arbitrate the additional portion at the end of each season should the virus situation continue and the sides be unable to agree. The delay in reopening training is costing games.
I care
I’ve been depressed and bored out of my freaking mind. This is a small thing in comparison to all the social restrictions and compromises to ways of enjoying life, but still, anything helps to have something positive to give attention to.
You are here so obviously you do.
who doesnt?
#I Give A Damn
Spread it folks!!!
No, that’s why we are on a trade rumors site when no games are played. No one cares at all.
Now are there any dam questions?
Yeah, where can I get some damn bait?
Too late for saving face…. don’t do us any favors
That’s some world-class tap-dancing, there!!
@kodlon –
LOL – Ain’t that the truth. And he (Manfred) only trod in the doggy poops – what – seventeen times?
It better happen, that’s all I have to say.
If you look at the top stories to the right of the page, number 5 is “Manfred no longer confident 2020 season will occur”. At number 10 “We’re going to play baseball in 2020”
Thank God the wind didn’t blow in from the south-west – the weather vane of ownership would have been so confused…
“if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor; if you like your plan, you keep your plan.”
Um – yeah, that was actually true. You never had any obligation to switch to an Obamacare plan. If you wanted to stay with your doctor, you could indeed = you’d just wind up spending a lot more for your old plan because you wouldn’t qualify for the healthcare market subsidies. You were completely free to go on seeing your doctor out of your own pocket (I did). If your insurance company decided to ditch the plan you were on that was their decision, not Obamacare’s.
That comment has been circulated as an example of deception for a few years now despite the fact that it was absolutely correct. To paraphrase Shakespeare, politics makes fools of us all.
If you’re spending a lot more for the same plan than it’s not the same plan. The spirit of that comment was that people’s existing healthcare plans would be the unchanged by the ACA. That statement is absolutely deceptive.
I am guessing you have no insurance knowledge whatsoever. But that shouldn’t stop you from your own version of reality. Whatever.
Nope, sorry. The statement makes no inference whatsoever about costs. The “spirit”, which is purely a function of your own subjectivity, and reality of the comment were the same: you could keep your plan and your doctor. No one forced you to change. It made no guarantees about cost and no promises your insurance company would humor you.
I had Florida Blue Cross when the ACA went into effect. Their bill they sent me for the coming year was about 12% higher – but it had been going up for years anyway. It was my choice to switch to an ACA plan which was comparable in most ways but also much less expensive, but I could just as easily have renewed my FBC plan if I had wished.
No way the players agree to waive grievances for 60 games.
I would assume that Manfred’s statement is premature.
Patrick… Based on what?
What grievance do the players possible have? I don’t see where you are coming from.
Clearly they have an arguable one or ownership wouldn’t concern themselves with trying to prevent it.
rougue,
I don’t know if that’s true. We live in a litigious society.
Two grounds for grievances if owners unilaterally impose a short schedule. March agreement stipulates “as many games as possible” and “parties will discuss playing games extending the regular season (paraphrasing)”
The first grievance is much, much stronger than the last, but the discovery is a near certainty
If there is an agreement, it goes away since the commish is not unilaterally imposing a schedule, they are agreeing to it
The “discuss” term was also used in regards to games with no fans, games at neutral sites, and regular season games beyond sept. 27. All four items were discussed. I don’t see a grievance working on the items in either direction.
“As many vames as possible” is easily arguable as its an entirely subjective statement. That, though, isn’t really the best grievance either.
Go with “bad faith negotiation”: same repackaged offers, trying to leverage the media against the bargaining unit, offering increased salary based on playoffs you claim are in jeopardy in your 9/27 argument, clearly working towards the minimum # of games to trigger “representative season” clauses in TV contracts, denying requested information to support claims made etc etc etc.
agree with this generally.
Owners could file a counter grievance too
But the discovery scares the crap out of them, which is why the reaction from Manfred. And why we’ll have baseball this year.
But you are missing the caveat “with fans”…
It seems like you don’t know that caveat exists.
“MLB and the union will discuss the economic feasibility of playing games at neutral sites or without fans.”
This does not require players to take further salary cuts. And if they are to discuss economic feasibility, that starts with opening the books and showing how more games is not feasible.
And also doesn’t require the owners any specific amount of games but the most feasible economically
And they did discuss it. Owners said its not economically feasible. Players said prove it. And here we are.
First and foremost. The agreement has a caveat that will not be met.
There will be no fans in the stands.
It’s not exactly a “caveat”. It’s not a condition precedent. The agreement calls for a discussion, and it’s not explicitly related to salaries.
MLB already recently put out a deal for 72 games that the players turned down. If we assume a season starts 4 weeks from now giving time to get players to spring training and a 3 week spring that would have the season start right after the original all star break.. The Brewers had 67 games scheduled post all star break before. So 67 games is as many games as reasonably possible. Any deal with 60+ games would likely be close enough.
It isn’t very likely that the players would win this grievance either considering they haven’t bargained in good faith at any point in all of this. (I’m not saying they should have btw, if they want to stick to their guns good for them, that just isn’t good faith). The thing is you can’t just assume they wouldn’t win it, you have to do a risk assessment which makes a deal you aren’t crazy about sound even worse.
Somewhere in the low 60’s at full pro rated pay is probably fair and the players should agree to not file a grievance for it, if they actually want to play. At 60 games the players make a tiny bit less overall than the last deal they were offered depending on how the playoff pay works. So I would hope they ask for more like 65 games. But 60 games at roughly the same pay as 72 games is probably fine as well.
I would not at all assume that the players win a grievance. If they file it, they have the burden of proof.
I would be much more confident that they would prevail in getting a discovery order requiring the owners to produce all records related to revenue and expenses.
If there is ANY agreement on the schedule, there can be no grievance based on “as many games as possible”. That clause is part of the commish imposing a schedule in the absence of an agreement.
I have been saying the same thing for a while. The Owners backed themselves into a corner and now the only way out is to come to terms with a new Contract with the Players. I think last weekend I calculated a deal by the 20th & I estimated 70 to 73 games would be played.
The Players should smell the blood.
The Owners know they need to get this done.
70 games it will be.
The union wants to file any grievance they can, even if they know they will lose, because discovery will force owners to disclose financial information that they would rather take to the grave.
Maybe it’s going to end up at 64 or 66 games. But I don’t see any deal getting done with the threat of a grievance over their heads. Maybe the players determined that their grievance position wasn’t strong enough to be worth it.
No chance of this, IMO. The grievance is all their leverage, and it’s huge. The discovery alone is huge. But they’re giving up playoff revenue of $50M and settling for some number of games less if they let Manfred impose the schedule.
And the owners would be giving up expanded playoff revenue and having to open the books. They definitely want to settle.
Well I think we’re at the point where predictions can be made. My prediction is that a deal will get done, the grievance will be dropped and they’ll settle somewhere in the mid 60’s. Yours is that there will be 60+ games but the players won’t waive the right to a grievance, or there will be no deal at all?
Not at all. Any agreement negates the “as many as possible” requirement. That only applies in the event that a schedule is imposed.
At this point, I don’t know what number of games they will settle on. I would be very surprised if it’s 60, because that’s just 3 games more than the 35% of full salaries that the owners have been stuck on.
There has been no response from the players other than “there’s no deal” and no response to Manfred’s “we have a framework” message.
This could be BS from Manfred, so it’s hard to say at this point.
But predictions aside, if a deal is reached, it’s probably an indication that the players didn’t have that strong of a case for winning the grievance. Why reach a deal when you can just go to court and collect 82 games of salary and look at the books?
Discovery would only apply if the grievance is ruled to have merit.
There is no way they win a grievance if the turn down an offer of 64 games. If we were just picking up the regular schedule a month from now teams would play roughly 67 games each. There is no grievance left at that point. so getting the threat out of the way is pretty meaningless at that point.
The discovery motion would be based on section 8 of the NLRA, and would take place well before any hearing. There would be no hearing on the merits prior to that.
The players could theoretically file based on 78 games not being “as many as possible”, but if the owners are offering say 66 games, they’re starting to give up some serious money to die on that hill.
“As many games as possible” has many interpretations. They could still play 120 games via double headers and an extended timeline, but most reasonable people would take in the context of the COVID 2nd wave, the profit/loss of regular season games, etc. when reading those 5 words. I’m not saying they’re meaningless, but focusing only on that passage and taking it literally would lead you to some extreme outcome.
It’s really not that clear that they would need to play 70+ games to meet the March agreement. It’s also not clear that “economic feasibility” implied salary concessions or not. Both were hastily written passages that ended up being critical in negotiations. I don’t think either side had a clear path to a win in court, so they’re ending up with something about 20% better than 48 games. Otherwise the players wouldn’t be discussing this at all. Just go get a peek at the books for the upcoming CBA, collect 82 games and enjoy the rest of the summer.
Agree.
100% agree this is just the owner’s spin machine stirring back up since they had lost a ton of ground recently. 60 games full prorated isn’t materially different from the 50-54 that ownership previously threatened to have Manfred institute.
Owners did not make a best effort to play as many games as possible and have continued to stall to shorten the window of opportunity. I don’t see this extra 6-10 games doing anything to change the players minds about a grievance.
Owners are going to have to pay up to keep their books closed. An agreement at this point will likely have to include some percentage of national tv revenue from the expanded playoffs going to the players to get them to drop the grievance. If not, players just punt again and wait for the owners to pony up.
A new agreement would supercede the March agreement. If the players agree to a 60 game schedule, they can’t successfully file a grievance on the schedule only being 60 games.
Which is exactly why they aren’t going to accept 60 games without some additional financial considerations beyond full prorated. The players want the grievance and it has more value than 6-10 extra games.
Without fans, the owners were never going to want to play as many games as possible.
Thus the stipulation in the March agreement.
I’m not really sure where the players have a leg to stand on.
If Manfred unilaterally imposes a schedule of 50 games or even 60 games, that is not “as many games as possible” and is a rock solid foundation for a grievance. And the discovery happens even if they lose the grievance.
And again, you are ignoring the caveat “with fans”
The owners never agreed to play as many games as possible without fans in the stands.
Actually the March agreement states that in the absence of an agreement between the parties the MLB will use best efforts to play as many games as possible.
si.com/mlb/2020/06/12/baseball-owners-offer-player…
This is why the owners have been stalling; to shorten the window for “as many games as possible.” Which is also what the grievance would be predicated upon.
The caveat ‘with fans’ is related to the financial considerations, it does not void the entirety of the March agreement and does not apply to the number of games to be played.
I’ll walk this back a bit, the economic feasibility is a consideration for season length so the grievance would be about proving ownership’s claims through opening the books.
Where in that article, and it is an article, does it mention fans?
It’s a huge thing to leave out. If you that caveat doesn’t exist, fine. But if it does, then there isn’t a leg to stand on.
Anyway…. Nine states reached record highs today. Two days ago Fauchi said he does not recommend playing in October. No way on God’s Green Earth do the players win this.
Bryant was a slam dunk union win compared to this and we all know how that turned out.
those books have more ramifications than this potential grievance too. And not just the upcoming cba. Union has grieved the pirates and marlins multiple times for lack of spending. No real leg to stand on with no spending minimums. Bet they are chomping at the it to see those books.
“If Manfred unilaterally imposes a schedule of 50 games or even 60 games, that is not “as many games as possible” and is a rock solid foundation for a grievance. And the discovery happens even if they lose the grievance. ”
Actually it is as the middle of July is start date (that is feasible) so 60 day is middle of September … Now the head of CDC Fauci comes out and says october baseball is too dangerous….. Yep so now we have to have either no season or reduced season to get the playoffs in… if the owners then just go with same playoff days the rest of september will not actually get the playoffs in so the owners are correct according to the 50-60 games at best.
The grievance is not going to get those books open.
The players look so bad here. What happened to “tell us when and where”
Yeah….sure. And the owners of billion dollar companies crying about their small profits somehow doesn’t make them look bad
Yes, with more than half the teams in the postseason and short season, the regular season is diminished to nothing.
Did you see one owner reply as to “when and where”?
The players asked. Ownership punted.
that’s why they’re about to settle on something
Looks like we will have baseball.
Somewhere around two months of baseball. 100% prorated. And a large postseason.
Does anyone have a huge problem with that?
Three choices: Bitch …abstain …or be entertained.
One’s a waste of energy. One’s a different life.
I choose the later. Nice little post Kodian.
Completely pictured Russell Crowe in Gladiator…..Are you not entertained?!
Entertained from me too
*throws sword into observation portico*
Kyrie
So they agreed that there can be an agreement?
its a start lol
I think the jest of the agreement is that they play the year in Montana where there isn’t much chance of getting covid unless the use the Bozeman airport to get there…
Bout time
Manfred didn’t misspeak. He didn’t say deal some people interpreted it incorrectly. He said they agreed to a proposal or format that could lead to an agreement. Clark cannot simply make a deal it’s more complicated than that. But he can speak for the players needs and wants. Clark probably feels they have something here but ultimately has to present the offer to players to get there opinions and possibly have a vote
Many of us still like baseball. I don’t like basketball and soccer ( never did ) do not like the direction of the NFL and Hollywood. Thank God for MLB, hockey and golf
Man, Tony Clark has no idea what the word “Optics” means…it’s really hard to make the players look like the bad guys in negotiations but he manages to do it every time.
Whatever the agreement is, that they may or may not reach, I just want a decent season as far as games played. One of the things I love about baseball is you have to earn it thru the grind. You can luck into the playoffs in the NFL imo, not so much here in a 6-7month season. 40-50 games to me doesn’t mean too much. I played the game thru high school, I love the game, I go back for the spring training opener every year and l will definitely watch. But a season that short will be like spring training to me and any single game records broken this year wont hold the same weight with me they would in a normal season. Give me at least a half season, here’s hoping.. Just one man’s opinion…
The framework just says “We agree on a season: summer”
Tell us when and where . . . To watch some baseball.
Not sure when but definitely somewhere with some chips and dip and about six different flavors of wings
NEW expansion/realignment proposal…
Atlanta, Charlotte (formerly Tampa Bay), Miami, Nashville (expansion)
Baltimore, Boston, New York (Yankees), Toronto
New York (Mets), Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
Chicago (White Sox), Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota
Chicago (Cubs), Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis
Colorado, Houston, Kansas City, San Antonio (expansion), Texas
Arizona, Las Vegas (expansion), Los Angeles (Dodgers), San Diego, San Francisco
Los Angeles (Angels), Oakland, Portland (expansion), Seattle
@48-team MLB
If there we’re to be expansion, let’s keep it to 2 teams. The league’s watered down enough already. Plus, 32 teams divide into 8 divisions much cleaner than 34 teams.
In that case you would lose San Antonio and Las Vegas. The Pacific Northwest and the Southeast have the biggest need for another team.
Charlotte has no place to put a MLB team and has a AAA team with an award-winning stadium downtown which is about 6 years old. The AAA stadium would need to be tripled just to get to ~32k capacity—and that isn’t possible, due to location. Charlotte is a non-starter for an MLB franchise for at least another decade.
Raleigh would be fine too. I just think NC needs a team somewhere.
well yeah so do Oklahoma, and Oregon, and Indiana, and Quebec, and Tennessee, and Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, but there are enough teams already
I think they can go to 32 teams. Anything more than that might be a stretch but they can definitely add two expansion teams and consider moving at least one of the Florida teams to a different market.
Charlotte will be ready about the time the Rays can get out of their lease.
Move the Yankees to Buffalo.
Tampa bay’s not going anywhere. The City of St. Peterburg has the team in a leasehold hammerlock for years and years to come and they’ve been stubborn as snapping turtles about not giving a millimeter over it. It would cost MLB many multiples of what the team is worth to move it before the lease expires – if the city would even agree to that. The entire league would have to file for bankruptcy to break the lease, but you know they won’t because their finances would have to become public. These re-alignment proposals would only make sense in an ideal universe but, you know, she took a bite of that apple…..
I can foresee contraction not expansion.
Let’s go and get it done….or no one gets paid…..
Manfred is the worst commissioner in baseball history
@rob_manfred_sucks
And to think we thought Bud Selig was bad when he was commish (well, he was). Manfred’s done just about everything he can to blow it this season.
No, worst Commissioner goes to the guys that kept Josh gibson out of the MLB.
@roguesaw
Imagine how stacked the 16 MLB teams would’ve been back then with all the Negro League stars on those teams. It’s a shame.
Amen brother
” Manfred is the worst commissioner in baseball history ”
And he makes Clark look like a number one Bozo
Yes. The Angels have a WS VICTORY parade scheduled at Disneyland.
The thing that worries me if they do come to an agreement is the recent spike in COVID-19 in certain areas, especially AZ and Texas. Just because it’s spiking only in certain areas doesn’t mean it won’t explode again across the U.S. Some of these areas were looking good a few weeks ago before the recent spike.
That would be a serious bummer if MLB finally figured something out only to have it scrapped by COVID-19. But I guess it won’t matter if they can’t come to an agreement, besides players worrying about their health yet again.
No one should be surprised at the spike considering the “re-opening” began a few weeks ago and we’re just coming to the end of the incubation period for anyone who contracted the virus since the re-opening started. It’s higher in places where ideologically constipated government authorities not only ended lockdowns or business closures but also relaxed or eliminated social distancing cautions, like, um, Arizona. And of course, there’ll be another spike wave beginning next week some time when those who idiotically contracted the virus while demonstrating without observing social distancing or wearing their masks begin to manifest symptoms.
None of this is any surprise. However, despite localized spiking the overall rate of new cases and fatalities nationally is still declining, following the usual seasonal cycle of SARS-type viruses. The time to worry for real will be in September and October as parts of the country begin moving into cold weather and the viral cycle rekindles itself.
There is no spike. They’re reporting antibody tests lumped in with PCR tests. They’re reporting backlogged tests from as far back as the first week of April as “new cases”.
Stop wishing for bad news.
If you think I’m wishing for bad news you are crazy. I simply don’t ignore news that’s bad.
I follow this every day and the number of cases in my state are going up every day.
And I really doubt my state is so backlogged that it’s a timing issues.
I can’t believe how some people still fall to them players are worried for health’ argument. They want a more LENIENT agreement; how worried about health can they be, not to mention that all their concerns would magically fall away if offered enough money; who would, if they’re genuinely concerned for their families health, put them in danger for enough money? What hypocrisy (@sean Doolittle)
Yeah, because Manfred’s word has been so dependable up to now…
Here are the optics.
If you were pro-players in March, you are pro players today.
If you were pro-owners in March, you are pro players today.
If you were neutral and undecided, you think Babe Ruth is a candy bar.
What if you thought that they’d get this done, but now you think both sides need new leadership to save the game?
I don’t think both sides need new leadership.
This is a once in a century situation.
I can see why the players don’t want to play for a 3rd of their salary and I can see where owners don’t want to risk billions hoping the virus doesn’t prevent a post-season.
I can see where not playing at all will have a significant impact on the future income of both the players and the owners. This should make both sides motivated to prevent as much of that future impact as possible.
No, if you still care about who’s right than you frankly don’t care about baseball
Wants with Jayson Starks 66 game schedule idea? He doesn’t even have teams playing opponents in their own league. He has 48 against the 4 opponents in their own division, and 18 games inter league. 12 against 4 inter league opponents, and 6 games against inter league rival. that’s crap.
@Persky
How do you suggest they divvy up the 66 games against 14 league rivals? Plus there’s no getting around interleague games with 15 teams in each league.
Best case scenario would be 3 games against each of the 10 non-division league teams (30), maybe 4 interleague games, which leaves 32 division games (8 each against division rivals). Sorry, I can’t rally around that.
Can’t wait to go home and play Kentucky Route Zero
I will not stop laughing if they start this stupid thing and then have to shut it down again before it’s done.
If it’s a 60 game season it should be like this…
4 division opponents * 6 games each = 24 games
10 same league out of division opponents * 3 games each = 30 games
6 inter games vs inter league rival
That’s it. A nice clean schedule. With 5 wildcard teams in each league you have to play your own league. We don’t need a bunch of meaningless inter league games, as that is overdone.
Just roll dice to see which team you play 60 times in 2020. That will eliminate travel…and to all a good night.
Do you really think this season is going to be played in Major League Stadiums?
Travel is going to be restricted to bus rides dedicated 100% to the team.
I suppose the Braves and Angels can play each other 60 times this season. Anaheim or Atlanta?
I liked the original idea of Arizona and Florida, or all Arizona. Plus in AZ no rainouts. So they could squeeze in more games if necessary.
They might as well just have one league play on the Moon and the other on Mars at this point.
juiced… celestial body!! Homeruns are insane this year! Single season records smashed in 60 games!!!!!!
Let’s just play ball
The only geographic requirement for an expansion team is how much they are willing to pay to join this club.
I’ll believe it when it’s done. If Manfred negotiated directly with Tony Clark, I’m going to wonder if everything was fully understood, or there will be more bites at the apple later. I’ll be happy to turn on a baseball game. As for the playoffs, as fan as I’m concerned, they are likely to come off as synthetic.
I’m also not a fan of expanded playoffs next year, provided there is a 162 game season. Kind of defeats the purpose of a long season.
Actually, Manfred only says the he and Clark have a framework worked out that could lead to an agreement. Obviously, Clark must think there is something there that might lead to an agreement too as he took the proposal back to the union to discuss. Both sides actually agree that no agreement was been achieved yet, just that it is close.
This is progress. It’s not clear exactly how much real progress was made since Manfred has to win back some favor in the court of public opinion (and he was pretty much 6 feet under to the world this morning).
My only question, is if there’s a 60-some game season and players get full service time if they play, how are top prospects going to be treated?– Taxi Squad, extended Spring Training where no service is given? I’m unfortunately buying into the optimism there’ll be a season I know…
I have heard a lot of criticism of Manfred. Let’s give him some credit for asking for the meeting and also for Clark for accepting it:
Yes, and let’s hope this whole ordeal has put each side close enough to the ledge to not jump off in 2022.
Definitely. Manfred works for the owners and he was only telling the public the last few weeks what the owners wanted him to say. They made him look bad.
Amen. A lot of people critical of all of this, but at the end of the day we’re all humans… if people in general learn to recognize their mistakes and compromise a bit, we grow as a species and can move on from all this hate and negativity. The highest teaching is “forgive them for they know not what they do”, after all.
Let’s play ball!
16 playoff teams? Alright! Marlins will go .500 in less than half a season. We’ll be the the #8 seed in the NL. We’ll go on a run, and win our 3rd World Series championship without ever winning a division title. It’s destiny!
Go Marlins! Your 2020 World Series Champions!
So people keep talking about the grievance. As many games as possible right now is 65-67 games. That is one week for players to get to spring, 3 weeks of spring and the season start. The season would pick up exactly at the all star break of the regular schedule. Teams have roughly 65-67 games left o play at that point in the schedule, So making an effort to play as many games as they can right now really means 65 games. That number goes down if they wait a few more days to actually sign things. A 60 game schedule offer at this point is not going to allow a grievance anymore. Sure if they dip down into the low 50’s they could still use that, but not if it is 60+.
“As many as possible” is arguable. If they report June 22, start the season July 10, end September 30, they can get 81 games in. That’s about as far as you can push it in every direction.
How much money would the players be willing to let Clark give away to file a grievance? The players get a total of about $ 25 million in combined salaries for one game on the schedule for all teams (15 games).
As many as possible and trying to win a grievance does not mean basically a game every day. It would be hard to ask for more than 65 games and expect to win a grievance. A grievance that wasn’t a sure thing to begin with is almost impossible when you ask for more games than you normally would play in a normal season over the same time frame. Nobody is going to interpret that as you must play double headers every day or you can never give any team a day off. .If the owners offer 65 games that grievance would stand no chance, so the players taking it completely off the table is an easy yes. If the players want more games that is sort of the logical number to ask for at this point. 65 rather than 60.
“How many games would you normally play in this timeframe?” is the most reasonable standard. “As many games as possible” was probably meant to address COVID outbreaks, not squeezing in double headers and extending the schedule because it’s technically a way to play as many as possible.
So yeah 64 games probably ends the negotiations today. If the players dither for a week and demand 72 games, they’re shortening the schedule by not coming to an agreement. Then the owners can impose 56, 58, 60, whatever based on the schedule. The players can grieve, but it would be surprising to see it get anywhere.
One double header for every day off, or one about every 2 weeks is feasible. Or something like that.
A labor attorney once told me that an excellent grievance case has an 80% chance of prevailing. A lot of them settle before a hearing.
It’s basically like a “best efforts” clause, intended to prevent something precisely like imposing a 48 or 50 game schedule with 70+ available dates.
The worst thing you can do is cluster a bunch of games together.
The safest way to do this is to isolate the players, take a day off between series, play four or five game series and do lots of testing.
If players get this, the quickest why to spread this is no days off.
But if any player goes out and gets this, it will spread through the clubhouse faster than a rumor, and when entire teams go down, I’m not sure how you can have a season.
Maybe the clause was to prevent 48 games in 70 days, as you say. I certainly don’t think it was intended to extend the dates and add double headers. My reading is that it was more related to health and safety, location of games, and available schedule. What would the grievance be if the owners instituted 48 games today? An extra 20 games of pay if they win? The schedule for 82 games is blown and the players are partly to blame with their own non-starter proposals.
I can imagine an excellent grievance case having an 80% chance. However, the fact that the players are back at the negotiating table indicates that they’re not that confident in their grievance prevailing or amounting to much. There’s just way too much ambiguity with the two most discussed clauses for either side to feel comfortable in court.
Yes. A grievance based on extending the season be separate from the “as many games as possible” claim.
“The sides will discuss “the possibility of playing a reasonable number of regular season games beyond the initially scheduled end of the regular season” I don’t see a grievance getting very far on this point.
This does not require the owners to agree to extend the season into October, any more than the players are required to take further salary cuts in the event of no fans.
I can’t see pitchers and infielders getting all hot and excited about a grievance, but the union lawyers sure would be. Just to get the discovery is enough, but at 25 million per game added to the schedule, there is a point where they just take the money, which is what their members want right now. Sometimes the threat is greater than the act of going forward.
Is discovery on the table with the owners offering 60 games in 70 days? If the union’s motive is to get a look at MLB’s finances to use as leverage in the CBA, that just seems malicious and unrelated to the negotiations at this point. What are the odds that a court would allow open books over a relatively trivial difference in games/pay?
The only way I’m fine with a 16 team postseason is if the Rangers are in it lol.
Rangers are going to be in it. Unfortunately, I think they’ll lose to the White Sox in the ALCS.
My Marlins will win it all by beating the White Sox after beating the Padres in the NLCS.
Atlanta will win four titles in 10 years just to make the ‘90s team look even worse than they already do. Braves over White Sox in ‘20, Braves over Rangers in ‘23, Braves over Yankees in ‘27, Braves over Angels in ‘29.
Two posts about the White Sox in post season… I like it. I”d take Braves over Sox in ’20… that would mean there is a season, and a series. And the Sox would be over .500 for maybe the first time in 10 years.
With 60 or so games and 8 playoff teams in each league, the White Sox can make it with a .500 record.
Marlins are going to be .500 in that short span and make the playoffs as the #8 seed in the NL. Then they’re going to get really hot and win it all for the 3rd time with no division championships. It’s destiny.
Oh yeah, and Jesus Aguilar is going to be the MVP since he certainly is capable of putting up big numbers in a short span, and he will get a big payday as a result that some team will regret.
Of course the Marlins are going to win it all this year.
It is certainly destiny with the type of season we’re looking at this year.
I had a neighbor that took his dog out in the yard every evening to poop and he would say to the dog “Get It Done”. I’ll have him tell Manfred and the MLBPA the same.
Well then, you know what you’re gonna get.
Why am I reminded of the scene in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” where they say
“Let’s go to the stoning!”
I still think that corona virus is going to end there plans to play. Hope I’m wrong
Who the heck (other than the owners) wants a SIXTEEN team playoff.
To me, one of the allures of baseball is the limited playoffs.
Maybe Molly Ringwald can throw out the first pitch.
whyhayzee
If you are talking about the stand, the worst casting choice in the last 30 years.
If you are talking about Sixteen Candles… Why?
Breakfast Club? Pretty in Pink?
Sixteen team playoff. Sixteen candles.
Pretty much all of us agree with that, but if that’s what it takes to get us baseball, we can take an extra three game series.
Too bad they didn’t do this a few weeks ago.
If Manfred and Clark could have gotten together in the same room a month ago this may have all been avoided.
Just do 81 games at 90 percent.
and one week in some entire team will come down with Covid.
My concerns are the garbage cans and Fauci.