4:27pm: The vote is taking place right now, per Jon Heyman of MLB Network (via Twitter).
12:48pm: The meeting has been pushed from 3pm ET to 5pm ET, tweets Jim Bowden of The Athletic. The union is still expected to reject the proposal, Joel Sherman of the New York Post tweets.
11:25am: The Major League Baseball Players Association is meeting this afternoon to vote on the league’s proposal for a 60-game season, ESPN’s Enrique Rojas reports (Twitter links). Reports over the weekend had indicated that a union vote would take place “in the coming days.” Thirty-eight players — the MLBPA’s eight-man executive subcommittee and each team’s individual union rep — are weighing in.
Tensions flared again last week as commissioner Rob Manfred and MLBPA chief Tony Clark again failed to even agree on what defines an agreement. The two had an in-person meeting early last week, and Manfred came away suggesting that the meeting produced a “jointly developed framework that we agreed could form the basis of an agreement.”
Despite the use of “could form the basis” in that statement (as opposed to a concrete declaration of accord), ownership was of the mind that an agreement had at last been reached. The union disagreed and countered with a 70-game schedule. Angry at receiving a counter when they believed a deal to be in place, owners informed the MLBPA that they would not play a season greater than 60 games in length and would not make a counter-offer.
ESPN’s Jeff Passan reported last night that the league was prepared to make some concessions outside the length of schedule, including its willingness to give up expanded playoffs and the universal DH in 2021 in the event that a full season isn’t played. That would serve to avoid a scenario where ownership gets the expanded 2021 playoffs it has clearly coveted even as players don’t see the salary or length of schedule for which they so ardently pushed over the course of this interminable back-and-forth.
Citing an email from Manfred to Clark, USA Today’s Bob Nightengale reports that next Monday (June 29) is the earliest that a relaunched Spring Training could resume. Manfred himself is quoted saying as much. Nightengale also indicates that the earliest the league believes the season can commence is July 26.
There’s been longstanding speculation that the league’s ultimate goal was to wait this out so long that the length of season the MLBPA desired simply isn’t feasible because of the calendar. Whether that motivation is accurate, we’re nearing that point. A June 29 launch to a new training camp that lasts three weeks would bring us to July 20. That might leave some slight wiggle room to start the season earlier than the July 26 date conveyed by Nightengale, but the league has made abundantly clear that it has no plans to extend regular-season play beyond Sept. 27 or to play more than 60 games.
If no agreement is reached, it’s likely that Manfred will implement a season of shorter length (and without an expanded postseason format). At that point, the union could file a grievance arguing MLB did not make its “best efforts to play as many games as possible,” which was stipulated in the March agreement that allows Manfred to impose a season length.
All of this back-and-forth regarding the season length is happening while the league and union discuss safety protocols following a week that saw 40 players and team personnel test positive for the coronavirus. The manner in which the league formulates a plan to limit and (when they do inevitably occur) address similar in-season outbreaks is the other major and far less clear component of return-to-play negotiations.
oh wait… they’re actually not. no wait, they are… well, maybe!
Agreed. Never seen so much “mis-information” from so many “sports journalists”. Not blaming this site: they are doing exactly what they should.
Reminds me of Wolf of Wall Street, McConnoughey character about stock market, up or down.
Replace stock broker with sports journalist, and stock with vote.
True. Maybe today they will vote to see if they want to take a vote
I think it’s called Stall Tactics 101. At least it feels like it is.
I’m probably wrong but I’d swear the players would rather not even play the season at this point. I could say the same thing about the owners. I’m sure they all want to play this season, but they sure don’t act like it (I’m referring to both sides).
Hmmm, the players voted against it. Gee, never saw that coming. I’m glad they waited that extra time for their inevitable decision.
haha, they did what I said they would do.
Wow, that’s a relief.
Gee I wonder what the outcome will be, considering the game is filled with billionaire greedy owners, and crybaby millionaire players
Everyone make sure to view the MLB black players round table with Harold Reynolds, Josh Bell and Jackie Robinson’s daughter. Way too few views so far on YouTube
The voters are union hardliners so the outcome (rejection of ownership) is easy to predict. 38-0.
They’ll SAY the vote was 20-18 so they don’t look like complete clowns.
Yep the ones with the money screw the little guys.
It’s interesting to read the reactions always, but neither the owners nor the players work for us. They work for themselves, and are positioning for the maximum return. Do they owe the fans anything? I’m not sure about that–the game and its history is something both sides profit from, but these folks are business people, some with longer durations, some shorter. Their relationship to each other, and to us, is purely transactional. What MLB and the Union should be thinking about is whether they are doing long-term damage to their franchises, and the franchise of baseball.
Ultimately, of course, an enduring business and its workforce depend on customers (we fans). They don’t technically “owe” us anything, but business that don’t serve customer needs don’t last (see your last sentence). Owners and players should be following one piece of advice from Warren Buffett: Be long-term greedy.
Players owe the fans everything. Without them, there’s not a dime to be made.
Then the same applies to owners–and in spades, because so many of them benefit from taxpayer largess.
What taxpayer largess?
Public funding for stadiums that lead to private profit. And please don’t tell me about the “economic benefits” of stadium construction blah blah blah; economists have concluded that the return on investment for the public does not justify giving billionaire owners public money
No, but neither do we owe them anything. Who comes to the games? Who causes the television dollars? The fans should be able to stop this as well
Oh geez.. I wonder what outcome will be?
I’m glad the players get the final vote so they get the criticism for being selfish and greedy
The players have the right to negotiate on their own behalf.
What are they negotiating at this point? There isn”t time to have more than 60 games. Either they want a season or they don’t Negotiation is done.
The players should get a right to vote. Every employee should have a say on whether they return to work or not.
It’s their health, it’s their family.
True, but it sure looks like the concern over their health is way behind the dollars.
Neither side actually wants a season, it’s pretty clear.
Whatever the reason, money, greed, power or what, both sides seem like they dont really care if there is a season with an asterisk beside it, and with Covid situation and flare ups, you got to ask yourself, is this season really necessary? Who will sit out if there is a season and what happens if one team has a rash of viruses? Everyone step back, take a deep breath and try to get their act together for next season. Get the nee contract done, behind closed doors and away from media scrutiny. They can take 6 months and get it right and hopefully the virus will be better contained and in early spring we can “PLAY BALL”!
robb5215
Did I miss that asterisk next to the 1981 season? The Dodgers won the World Series based on a 57 game first half.
Dodger fan, and too young to remember the ’81 season, but from what I’ve read the Reds really got a raw deal that year
The point is, it was a 57 game season that put the Dodgers in the playoffs.
There was no asterisk.
The owners’ last offer
– same amount of salary- 37% of full salaries as the previous 83% of 72 games
– reduces the number of games from 72 to 60
– cuts the playoff pool from $50M to $25M
– adds $33M in advance write off
– adds expanded playoffs in 2020 and 2021, worth est $225 million per year- ish
– adds the DH in 2020 and 2021, in both leagues
– adds a rule to start extra innings with a runner on second base
– requires players to waive any grievances for not playing as many games as possible
I can’t see the players voting to agree to this, nor should they.
Patrick OKennedy
So it’s not about the owners being fair, it’s about the players wanting more.
Gosh, and you wonder why things aren’t solved.
They both want more. The March agreement requires “as many games as possible”:.
The owners have been stuck on $1.5 billion since their second offer. Every time they concede something, they take it away somewhere else.
All of this could be for naught. If other leagues can play, that might change the dynamic some.
The players have offered to live in a quarantined situation in their last offer. If they’re going to report in a week, they’d better get that going.
It’s not about “being stuck” at an offer, it’s either fair or not.
The owners have offered 100% of a players prorated salary. That’s fair.
With playoffs included, If the players don’t want to sacrifice three months of their lives and risk their health to whatever they might encounter, for what eventually might work out to be about half their salary. That’s fair as well.
Other than the players health, my only agenda is if the season is started, it has a conclusion.
The more games and the longer the season goes into the fall, the less likely that is to happen.
People have other agendas.
What’s “fair” is a matter of opinion. The agreement requires MLB to schedule “as many games as possible”. They have not done that. The owners being stuck is part of the reason why we don’t have an agreement. The other part is that the players insisted on prorated salaries and as many games as possible. Both terms included in the March agreement.
The players continuing to propose schedules that run past Sept 27 hasn’t helped, when the owners have said they’re not going there, but if they had proposed 82 games, or 78 games, or 72 games with full prorated salaries at the same time that the owners made these proposals for less salary, would we have an agreement? I doubt it.
I still wish the players would make a counter proposal. Something that helps their members- 60% of whom make near minimum salary or less. But that’s not who is on the 38 member committee.
The Owners original proposal allowed for the lower salaried players to make a higher % and the players were against that. Each side is about greed.
The owners original proposal was for 40% less than full prorated salaries.
Salaries above $20 million would have been paid at 10 cents on the dollar, or 20% for 82 games.
After all this, the owners probably think they should have just invoked paragraph 11 instead of entering into that March agreement. Once the national emergency was declared, they could have only had to pay players for games played, saved the initial 170m, and all this BS.
Governmental Regulation–National Emergency
11. This contract is subject to federal or state legislation, regulations, executive or other official orders or other governmental action, now or hereafter in effect respecting military, naval, air or other governmental service, which may directly or indirectly affect the Player, Club or the League and subject also to the right of the Commissioner to suspend the operation of this contract during any national emergency during which Major League Baseball is not played.
So the owners have given. I’m still stuck on fair or not fair.
It’s what I do.
Fair enough! 🙂
Great reply Patrick, if it was accurate, which it is not.
If the players want this to work, they are going to have to live in a bubble for three months.
that still won’t work since someone will carry virus into the bubble.
Vizionaire. You can ensure only healthy people go into the bubble, but you can’t ensure the healthy people will stay in their bubble.
I’m worried about healthy people leaving the bubble, getting infected, and bringing the virus back in.
Do you think a player is going to stay in that bubble for 3 months.. I don’t.
what i meant was; even with repeated tests someone infected can show no sign of infection. this may be the biggest risk since healthy person with virus can infect many more.
But if the bubble is clean, and everyone stays in the bubble, the virus can’t get in.
If you leave the bubble, you don’t come back until you are cleared.
It will take a tremendous sacrifice, and I don’t think all the players are capable of such a sacrifice.
I’m not knocking them, they are human beings. If they vote “YES” on this, they should live up to their commitment. But it’s a very hard commitment to live up to.
To use one example, Trout has made clear he’s not missing the birth of his first child to live in a bubble.
No reasonable person can blame him.
I don’t blame him one bit. I don’t blame the players one bit for voting no.
It’s a fair offer in an impossible situation where everyone seems to be looking for a bad guy.
In this situation, there are no bad guys.
If you are testing only for symptoms you are correct. But a swab test will show the virus present whether the person being tested is showing symptoms or not. Even the number of players showing up to work out who are started to be tested could mean nothing too. If they contracted the virus a month or so ago and the virus ran it’s course with them they could still be showing a positive virus test. No one has said how long after infection will a person still test positive even if they are past the contagious phase and no longer able to transmit the virus. Many viruses will test positive for a long while after you are done being affected by it and not communicable any longer. My wife had tested positive a few years back with one of the viruses that you don’t want to actively have while pregnant.. All they could do was inform her that she had it over the last year but no what to say if she contracted it during the pregnancy or not. Who knows how many of those being tested positive now are actually Covid-19 healed and fully able to be around people as they are not able to infect others.?
Hold them to the same standards as our great infected country, leading the world. No mail in, no text in, no phone in, no carrier pigeon, no smoke signal, no ayes and nays, no hand count, no head count, no one step forward, no one step backward, no homey pokey, it has to be in person.
whyhayzee
That Constitution we have is a tricky thing… Let’s just throw the whole thing out.
By the way, it’s a lot more important who gets the virus than how many. But some people have no discernment.
I hope they vote it down if this proposal includes that cockamaney extra innings idea.
That extra inning idea is for the players, not the owners.
Extra innings should borrow from soccer. Each team picks a pitcher to throw at five batters. The team that hits more batters wins the game. It’s perfect.
You don’t like the extra inning rule.. Fine..
I don’t either, but it’s not for the owners, it’s for the players. The players are not going to mind the rule one bit.
The extra inning rule was put in by Manfred for the minor leagues and the WBC. He proposed it for two years to the players and they agreed to one season. It’s not the players idea. MLB doesn’t make money in extra innings.
It may not be the players idea, but it is still for the players.
Its for Manfred and his pace of play initiatives. I can see why you would think its for the players given that they don’t make anything extra for playing extra innings, but I’m sure, in the moment, the players just want to win the game.
the idea was first proposed by Manfred as one of many ideas as part of his “pace of play” discussion.
I’m not a fan of the put-a-player on extra innings idea, but how does it make a difference to players wanting to win the game. Both teams still have a chance to win the game under the same rules. It just makes it likelier that a team will win sooner, on average.
Unless there is an end-games-in-ties rule that you are talking about.
Haha!!
I’ve lost track of everything. Which side wins if there is no season?
I’ve really slowed down on my commenting lately, not because I am growing tired of baseball, but because we are having the same conversations over and over. I need this to get resolved so that we can finally have something new to talk about. It’s like watching your computer update, but it just sits at 98% for 3 hours.
We are not having the same conversation over and over again.
1) Fauchi recommends baseball ends in October.
2) Forty players and coaches have tested positive.
If you feel about this the same way you felt about this two weeks ago, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Here’s how those conversations would go:
1) Random person: “Just play through it, quit taking that clown’s opinion, and quit whining”
2) Random person: ” Corona isn’t bad, the flu has more deaths.”
I understand your point Halo, (and I have been paying attention to recent events), but when I have conversations with people, most of them generalize whatever they are talking about to try and sound smart.
Ranger Gotcha.
“If you feel about this the same way you felt about this two weeks ago, then you haven’t been paying attention. ”
A lot of people don’t pay attention.
Incorrect. Most of the forty are employees … such as groundskeepers.
sandman,
I’m all up for more information. I always adjust my opinion based on more information.
How do you know how many are players and not players.
Yay
I honestly don’t care if it starts up again or not, but if it starts up again, both sides should do everything possible to ensure the season has a conclusion.
I don’t really think the players care if it has a conclusion and I think that’s all the owners care about.
So I guess that means I’m pro-owner on this one.
I agree that we should all want a conclusion, but I don’t see the basis for your belief that the owners want that more than the players???
I believe that the players want that much more than the owners do. The evidence is in every proposal they’ve made. A number of owners are said to be okay with canceling the season. I haven’t heard that from any of the players. They just want to be paid for playing baseball.
Patrick
The reason for my belief is simple. If there are no playoffs, the owners lose a fortune.
There is nothing altruistic about the owners position. That’s the thing, neither the Union or the Owners have an ounce of altruism towards the fans. I don’t even have a problem with that. I have a problem with the positions the sides take.
There is no mystery to this vote. The players will go for whatever the union leadership is selling them. That is always true.
Exactly. They want to ensure the vote is heavily influenced by Clark and their lawyers. Otherwise, they would let ALL the players vote on it.
So, if the players reject the 60 game proposal, what happens:
– A 50+ game schedule. Manfred might schedule more games to make it closer to ‘as many as possible”, but players lose $250M is in salary
– No expanded playoffs, value est $245 million for 2 years- ish
– No $33M in advance write off
– No DH for 2021
– No stupid extra inning rule
– Grievance procedures very likely
– If I understand correctly, the playoff pool is a percentage of gate receipts, which could be zero (how could that work?)
– The owners claim they will gain money somehow by not playing more games. That is only true to the extent that TV revenue does not require games to be played. They could be keeping that revenue and not playing games or playing the players for those games, but then how does that work for their network partners?
–
If the players reject, there should not be a season.
They can file a grievance, but they wont have a leg to stand on.
If Manfred forces a 50 game schedule then I’ll be pro player.
I honestly think 60 games is too high. There is no way the owners can contain this virus. It’s up to the players. And if you force them to do something they don’t want, it’s not going to be successful. So under those circumstances, 30 is too high.
It could all be an effort in futility. Fauci said “it’s not up to you. It’s up to the virus. The virus doesn’t care about your schedule”. Or something like that.
Uh- guys! there’s an elephant in the room! And he just shat on the coffee table, and it’s stinking up the place.
Why would anyone listen to Fauci anymore. He has been wrong way more often than he has been right.
So many variables with the continuing mutation of the virus (in Italy it has mutated to a much less severe virus), the increase that is being found in people’s immunity from past COVID strains including some COVID cold viruses. etc.
Fauci has been on two sides of so many issues (No mask, Yes masks, etc) he has lost his credibility.
Cases are up because of increased testing. But hospitals are not crowded…
It doesn’t matter if he’s right, the fact that he said it is all anyone needs to justify ending the season in October.
So players have tested positive. What does that mean? Were they sick before, or are they sick now, or is a positive test just a positive test? As people are tested, of course positive tests are gonna go up, but again, what does it mean?
It means they have to be isolated and will not be permitted to rejoin their team until they test virus-free.
Yep. And it takes days to test virus free. Go home, see your wife… You are out two weeks.
Trout is having a child in August. If he sees his newborn kid, he’s out two weeks.
I don’t see how this can work.
Agree Halo11, There does seem to be a lack of common sense regarding the most likely Covid outcomes if the season should start.
Considering Covid is just the flu , idk why they haven’t started yet
Really? You really don’t know?
For the players, it’s probably not that much different than the flu. HOWEVER!!!!!
Unlike the flu, instead of being out two or three days, they’ll be out for a month and in quarantine.
Either you people are not thinking, or you are being dishonest. It cold go either way.
You really need to relax and turn on your sarcasm meter there Halo. I understand you are probably from the land of the world ending, California, but you can still have a little snicker now and then.
“You really need to relax and turn on your sarcasm meter there Halo. I understand you are probably from the land of the world ending..”
Do I detect sarcasm? Ironic.
UGH!
Patrick,
I think he’s being sarcastic. Does anyone think any of these players are going to get really really sick? It’s possible. But I don’t think people think that.
For players in great health, it’s probably a lot like the flu. But they’ll still miss a month and not two or three days.
Unless they are the guy that walks away from it with diminished lung capacity.
roguesaw
Is that happening to this demographic?
But sure…. If that’s a risk, it’s a huge risk.
Halo & Patrick, although it seems evident that the death rate is MUCH higher in older, and/or health compromised people, many young people are getting very sick. Yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle profiled 8 people who got the virus. Many of those profiled were in their 40s/50s, but the most surprising story to me was about a 29 year old female Ironman athlete. She got it in late February, so some 110 days ago. She got REALLY sick and is not yet back in good health. May have long lasting lung issues. I share this bc we all assume that if a player, or multiple players get it, they’ll be fine (due to their good health/conditioning) I’m not sure this is really true. I obviously don’t know. Just sharing what I read. I’d love to see some MLB baseball this year, but not if it ruins guys’ careers.
Amazingly, we still know less than we know.
Bernie Mac died of the flu. My flu broke into pneumonia.
Healthy people get really sick all time with the flu. To some demographics, this is very similar to the flu.
To some, it’s much much much more deadly than the Spanish flu.
Quit the “Dog and Pony Show” if the players and ( or) owners do not want to play then don’t.it is supposed to be about Medical Health, not Financial Heslth.
Regular season starting July 26th? Why bother? The NBA, a much hotter TV property returns four days later — and the post season atmosphere will blow away baseball’s stumbling start and botched opportunity in the ratings.
Besides, even if the commish imposes a 48-60 game season, the players grieve the next day, shutting the sport down again.
As said earlier: Why bother?
A grievance would not stop the season. The season goes forward and they file the grievance, which could take several months.
If the players file a grievance, the season doesn’t stop. They would play on . Kris Bryant had a grievance against the Cubs for several years relating to his service time. It could take a few years before an arbitrator makes their decision. Bigger concern for the owners would be losing and having to pay more money. That and being forced to open their books.
Some people don’t give. a crap about the NBA or even NHL, only baseball.
Very true.
Antitrust exemption…. revoked.
I seriously think the Anti trust should be revoked also … these guys are way out of hand!
So Buster Olney just tweeted this. I’m more interested in the first part. The second is a non starter.
Buster Olney
@Buster_ESPN
Expectation has been that the union will reject the owners’ proposal, and the next logical move would be for Manfred to implement a 60-game season.
Here would be a productive curveball, to help both sides move forward: He could implement at 102% prorata.
——————————————-
So if the owners implement a 60 game schedule, that would strengthen their case against a grievance based on “as many games as possible”.
But then, MLB gives up the expanded playoff revenues for what?
If the owners order a season, then I’m 100% pro player.
I’ve been a fan since 1960. They are losing my interest in a huge way. I never thought it could happen. Nice job.
The players will reportedly turn down the proposal as least partly to maintain their right to file a grievance. If so, the owners smartest move would be to cancel the season. I hope some of the player reps consider this.
Once they reject the offer, I hope Manfred says “Season cancelled hope to see you in 2021.”
So if the union rejects this, no season, done deal?
Canceling the season would not eliminate a grievance. It would increase the amount that the players are seeking, and also change the framework of the case and the claims.
Canceling the season because of the Coronavirus is one thing. Canceling the season in retaliation for the players not accepting the latest offer leaves a pretty strong case for bad faith.
MLB would also be leaving a lot of money on the table.
@okennedy
If the owners cancel because the players will not accept 60 games, and the owners believe additional negotiations would delay to where even 60 would not be possible, then the players will have no leg for their grievance to stand on.
If the players reject the 60 games, Manfred can invoke “when and where”. But that would give the players the right to file a grievance and would cost the owners an expanded post season. Which is probably a bigger issue with management than regular season players salaries. As far as winning or losing a grievance, that would be up to an independent arbitrator. Since none of us really know what’s going on in the negotiations, it would be up to both sides to provide documentation to the arbitrator. My hunch is that management would prefer not to provide an arbitrator their documents. So eventually, after this juvenile game of chicken, both sides will agree to something. Provided the virus cooperates
Up to this point, out of the principle that ownership should never be funded by it’s staff, I have been on the players side, but this is where they need to sign. They have every right to demand there their full, pro-rated salaries.
But the players have managed to finagle another 10 games out of the owners while keeping full pro-rated pay. It might feel like a pyric victory as 60 games of pro rated pay is still a pretty small compared to a full season but the MLBPA needs to read the tea leaves now.
I know the players can say they are honoring the agreement to play as many games as possible but considering the atmosphere of our country and the resurging Covid-Sars, if there is a grievance, I don’t think they will win.
Just throwing this out there.
Players reject latest proposal
Manfred implements a 60 game season, with full prorated salaries.
Players are looking at a playoff pool based on gate receipts, which could be zero.
Owners offer playoff pool in exchange for expanded playoffs.
And they go tit for tat, back up to where we are now.
This whole situation is really starting to not even make sense… Like if the players want more games — then they need to move faster. They’ve gotten to the point now where it isn’t even feasible to play more than 60 games like calendar wise. It honestly feels like one side or the other (or both) actually prefer not to have a season for whatever reason. Because at this point – the two sides were literally 10 games apart and that really doesn’t seem like it should be enough to derail a negotiation. At least not if both sides were being logical. At this point it just can’t even be considered logical anymore.
This is turning into something from the onion. MLBPA to reject owners offers even before voting.
Union to vote to reject latest league proposal , yet continues to tweet out “tell us when and where”
Get lost, you bunch of hypocrites.
Not necessarily. If they reject the offer, Manfred can then set the where and when. Then the union can file a grievance claiming management didn’t negotiate in good faith. If the union votes yes, they would not be able to file a grievance.,So either way there would be baseball. So it’s not being hypocritical, players are just preserving their rights
It’s a farce at this point, and not worth the effort to present this as a real season. It’s not a season, it’s not the rules, the leagues, divisions, the stats compiled will have little meaning at all. Any player with north of a hang nail will be shut down, and not placed at risk. Why would you place a single player in peril over this season? Even the intensity will not be there from most players, because they know this is a lost year. The owners know it, the managers, the players, and most importantly, the fans. The winner at the end will be the winner of a waste of time. If they can agree on anything, it’s that baseball fans like baseball. Scrap the season, and send them down for an extended spring training in Arizona and Florida that lasts till October (all night games because of the heat), and end it with a friendly between the best records of each states training season. Best of 5 or 7 for some F’ing leftist participation trophy. Put every game played on television for their market, and have one game a night on cable for everyone to watch. Done.
You sound like a pretty chipper fella. I think the intensity of the season will be just the opposite of your prediction. All teams have a chance to win. WS bonus is still on the line. Many guys playing 1 year deals for new contracts. Only problem will be when half a roster tests positive after 20 games or so. Then what do you do?
I am chipper about what is good, and not chipper when I think they aren’t. Anyone that is chipper all the time is probably off a little, The reason I think they should be confined to spring camps and stadiums is to minimize Covid exposure. I think there will be cases even under controlled camps, and if it hits any team enough to change their lineups or rotation substantially, the season will be over.. Arizona/Florida is ideal with night games to counter the heat. The teams, to the best they can, should be able to minimize access to the players, and their interaction with the public staying at camps and their hotels. Travel times are very low for each team, and do not require travel hubs for flights. Players can eat on site, and the employees coming and going can be tested to gain access to the team. I think the intensity of play will reflect what this season actually is, not what it is replacing. It will be played hard enough by players on the field as long as nothing bad happens in any way. Sore shoulder, shut him down. Sore hammy, shut him down. No one will risk playing, and management would be irresponsible to risk their players if there is any doubt to the players health. Playoffs will not enter into that choice. I would be shocked if anything short of playing for a new contract enters into it. Any player under control will be shut down. Saying all teams have a chance of winning is overly optimistic. You would admit that is not true at all. The Orioles are not winning this season for example. They were eliminated for this year within 30 seconds of last year ending. A handful of teams may have a better chance of making the playoff if the playoffs are expanded, A handful of teams have a better chance of winning their made up division than they would have otherwise. That is a better way of looking at it. Depending on how a shortened season is played (spreading out games, or playing everyday) may have the opposite effect you would think. Play everyday, you expose garbage rotations. Spread the games out, you shorten rotations, and allow a few mediocre clubs to shave off starts from their terrible pitchers, but this allows great teams to have a top notch starter every game they play, and have their bullpen stacked for nearly every game.
I agree with some of that. And sure, maybe “every team” is an exaggeration. But you will definitely have teams that usually aren’t in October talks, gunning for a spot if they have a few solid weeks of play. I could see a team like Toronto possibly shocking some people, or perhaps Southside Chicago or Cincinnati. With the short season still counting as a full season of service time, I think teams play guys just as much of not more than usual. Chance of injury much lower at 60 games than 162. We’ll see how it all shakes out. They’ve made a mockery of it, but I’m still curious how a short season will feel. If your theory ends up to be true, it will be a dull season. If teams treat all 60 games like a playoff game, the league may just realize how to get more eyes on the game.
I hope you are right, and they all play hard for their participation trophy. I just don’t see teams or players taking any risk with controllable contacts. The players going into free agency, or playing for a contract next year are a totally different story. They will play with as much intensity as Ricky Henderson in a contract year. I think dull may be the wrong term. Games are still games, and fans will watch. I think more games from the start will have more meaning, more at stake with a shortened season. What I worry about is knowing that it all means nothing except for players playing for contracts. The stats are legit, but people will look at the year like they did in 94. They count towards career numbers, but the stats for the season mean nothing. Joe Schmoe cracked 17 dingers to lead the league. The Cy Young winner goes to Pete Zipyear with a 8 and 1 record. Sammy Puddknocker got the Rolaids closer award with a whopping 22 saves. If my team won I would be happy I guess, but not sure what they won. They won their made up division under rules they don’t use, in a made up league, against the other made up league? What rules we flinging around at 4:25 pm today? Where we at? We doing expanded playoffs where everyone gets in but the worst of the trash teams? It would be interesting to see if the Reds can pull off a win of the Mid Northern Central Standard Time Division. Maybe have that match up we all want against with the winner of the North East Above Delaware Division. Maybe the the Coast Line of the Pacific Ocean Division beats out the South Eastern Part Where They Love BBQ So Much Division.
Teach these entitled scumbags a lesson and don’t buy baseball merchandise, tickets to games, TV packages, or provide them with revenue in any way.
Heyman said they are voting right now.
Translation: There has been another delay and voting has been pushed back again.
If the players say no, the next step should be to cancel the season. The outbreaks involving the Yankees, Phillies and Blue Jays should be the reason why.
They will vote no and it won’t have to do with Covid, nor should it. They can mitigate the risk on the virus, they will have positive tests. They are just too stupid to agree on this and move forward. Neither side has a winning grievance and both sides lose by not coming to an agreement.
They should just cancel, as you said, with a no vote and the world will move on. Watch how it hurts the game too…
The truth is neither side cares about the long term impact of the game. I am a hard core fan of the Yankees going back to 8 years old, and I will return provided stuff like kneeling before the flag does not happen. But casual and future fans? They lost them.
have an idea. The MLB owners are looking to their staff (players) to fund their losses. Why NOT ask the fans for the assistance they so direly need? If they can’t have us there, we can send them the money we would have otherwise spent. Collectively fans have more money than the players.
If fans don’t want to support the principle of staff never funding ownership because of our extreme circumstances than hey, why NOT turn to the fans to help fund ownerships losses?
So if every fan contributes $60 to the pool, we can help the owners carry their losses.
So by a show of hands, who’s in? What? Nobody? Huh.. that’s surprising. I guess it’s MUCH easier to tell OTHER people to contribute their money to something than to do it yourself.
So the players are voting.
If this is like a Presidential election, voting will take place over a three week period, and if we are lucky it will be decided late into the night.
So, in three weeks, we’ll know.
Baseball really loves to tortured their fans with everything has to be a very long dragged out process before making any decision or just agree on anything.
PLAYERS REJECT PROPOSAL, 33 VOTES TO 5
This back-and-forth on pay and number of games is silly!
MOST IMPORTANTLY, have they agreed on rules of play? And NOT play?
What about closing down facilities because a team breaks out with cases?
Is the entire team quarantined? Or the team currently playing that team? Or the team that played that team in the last series?
Can the Players Association say ¡No más!