Will There Be a 2020 Season?

[ChiSox59]

10 hours ago, BigHurt3515 said:

I don't understand why the players feel like there should be no salary concession?

They've already agreed to pro-rated salaries.  Ie: contract says you make $20M, season is now 81 games instead of 162, get 50%.  

They don't want further reduction.  

[Richie]

On 5/26/2020 at 2:20 PM, Dam8610 said:

Huh? https://coronavirus.illinois.gov/s/restore-illinois-introduction

Illinois was the last state to begin reopening. I don't know how much more clear I could be. lol

[Richie]

This is starting to look f**ked. 

Very sad. 

[reiks12]

yeah im done, likely going to be no 2021 either. Ill let the millionaires and billionaires go at it and go about my life

[bmags]

Looking at how Silver handled this compared to Manfred, it couldn't be more clear how much worse Manfred is, but also how much worse baseball owners hold the players in contempt. He's just an extension of that.

 

[flavum]

If they cancel this season over money, they’re going to find out fans don’t care about them as much as they think. Baseball is a great diversion for a lot of people, but the entertainment options out there aren’t scarce. In the end, I think they come to an agreement with a lot of players opting out of this season for various reasons. 

[ChiSox59]

22 minutes ago, flavum said:

If they cancel this season over money, they’re going to find out fans don’t care about them as much as they think. Baseball is a great diversion for a lot of people, but the entertainment options out there aren’t scarce. In the end, I think they come to an agreement with a lot of players opting out of this season for various reasons. 

But like - why would players opt out if games went on?  They likely get paid nothing in that scenario, hurt their future marketability, and are only a year older in a game that your best years are numbered.  I could see some older players towards the end of their careers that have made a ton of money just deciding to sit out, but I'd be very surprised if "a lot of players" went this route.  

[Texsox]

The owners versus the employee dynamic doesn't change from the lowest paid employee to the highest paid employee. I imagine kings and serfs had the same problems. 

[southsider2k5]

18 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

But like - why would players opt out if games went on?  They likely get paid nothing in that scenario, hurt their future marketability, and are only a year older in a game that your best years are numbered.  I could see some older players towards the end of their careers that have made a ton of money just deciding to sit out, but I'd be very surprised if "a lot of players" went this route.  

Pre-existing conditions would be the biggest reason.  Both for themselves and any family members.  Also of note is take a look at the umpires, managers and coaches especially.  We are talking about A LOT of people who fit square into the "at risk" categories.

[ChiSox59]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Pre-existing conditions would be the biggest reason.  Both for themselves and any family members.  Also of note is take a look at the umpires, managers and coaches especially.  We are talking about A LOT of people who fit square into the "at risk" categories.

Yeah, I mean I get the umpire and coaching staff angle for sure. They're also replaceable, especially considering milb is unlikely to be playing games in 2020. But generally speaking, professional athletes are about at the lowest risk of anyone.  I am sure they are concerned for their families, but they can always stay away from their families for a couple months if needed.

I just don't think that many guys are going to punt millions of dollars to sit at home.  You only have some many years where you can make big bucks playing a game, and wasting a year because you're scared to get a virus that is incredibly unlikely to kill you seems like a stretch.  Not to mention the affect it could have on your market moving forward.  Like I said, if MLB games resume, I am sure we'll see a few players opt to sit out. I think its pretty unlikely it is large number.  

[southsider2k5]

16 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Yeah, I mean I get the umpire and coaching staff angle for sure. They're also replaceable, especially considering milb is unlikely to be playing games in 2020. But generally speaking, professional athletes are about at the lowest risk of anyone.  I am sure they are concerned for their families, but they can always stay away from their families for a couple months if needed.

I just don't think that many guys are going to punt millions of dollars to sit at home.  You only have some many years where you can make big bucks playing a game, and wasting a year because you're scared to get a virus that is incredibly unlikely to kill you seems like a stretch.  Not to mention the affect it could have on your market moving forward.  Like I said, if MLB games resume, I am sure we'll see a few players opt to sit out. I think its pretty unlikely it is large number.  

I am going to guess there are more players than we realize have underlying conditions.  There is no reason to tell us, so they don't.  But things like asthma doesn't preclude you from being an effective baseball player, but it sure would be a big problem if you were exposed to COVID.

[Balta1701]

22 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Yeah, I mean I get the umpire and coaching staff angle for sure. They're also replaceable, especially considering milb is unlikely to be playing games in 2020. But generally speaking, professional athletes are about at the lowest risk of anyone.  I am sure they are concerned for their families, but they can always stay away from their families for a couple months if needed.

I just don't think that many guys are going to punt millions of dollars to sit at home.  You only have some many years where you can make big bucks playing a game, and wasting a year because you're scared to get a virus that is incredibly unlikely to kill you seems like a stretch.  Not to mention the affect it could have on your market moving forward.  Like I said, if MLB games resume, I am sure we'll see a few players opt to sit out. I think its pretty unlikely it is large number.  

While the players likely aren't at risk of dying nearly as much as the rest of the population, the risk isn't zero, and it's now well known that there are serious complications in a number of cases that we don't really have a good ability to predict.

If, hypothetically, we had worst case scenario and it raced through the whole league - 900 players, nearly all get it. There's a reasonable probability 1 to 2 die (0.1 to 0.2% death rate for healthy, young individuals). Bad enough as it is, but then at least several dozen have long-term organ damage, including kidney and lung damage, and maybe a couple come down with various other post-disease complications like the stuff they've recognized in a few hundred kids so far. That's what Blake Snell was talking about. That's what, a 5% chance that this season, for way less money, dramatically damages you physically and leaves you in really bad shape for the rest of your career. Is that worth the risk?

If you've convinced the players that you have a fully operational testing and safety system, then maybe only ones like Carrasco opt out (leukemia last year), but if you're Mike Trout, would you take a 75% pay cut and risk something that could cost you the rest of your career and even damage your life? If you're someone who's a year away from Free Agency, with no long-term security, wouldn't you be extremely nervous about that?

[southsider2k5]

 

[ChiSox59]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

While the players likely aren't at risk of dying nearly as much as the rest of the population, the risk isn't zero, and it's now well known that there are serious complications in a number of cases that we don't really have a good ability to predict.

If, hypothetically, we had worst case scenario and it raced through the whole league - 900 players, nearly all get it. There's a reasonable probability 1 to 2 die (0.1 to 0.2% death rate for healthy, young individuals). Bad enough as it is, but then at least several dozen have long-term organ damage, including kidney and lung damage, and maybe a couple come down with various other post-disease complications like the stuff they've recognized in a few hundred kids so far. That's what Blake Snell was talking about. That's what, a 5% chance that this season, for way less money, dramatically damages you physically and leaves you in really bad shape for the rest of your career. Is that worth the risk?

If you've convinced the players that you have a fully operational testing and safety system, then maybe only ones like Carrasco opt out (leukemia last year), but if you're Mike Trout, would you take a 75% pay cut and risk something that could cost you the rest of your career and even damage your life? If you're someone who's a year away from Free Agency, with no long-term security, wouldn't you be extremely nervous about that?

Yeah, I mean the bolded is absolute worst case scenario - as noted.

Trout is perhaps a guy that would make sense to sit out.  But he's signed long term and makes more money that he'll ever need, so he's not a great example.  He can afford to walk away from $8-15M, or whatever it ends up being if the parties can come to an agreement.  But the vast majority of players are not in that position.  I don't know the accuracy, but Kevin Pillar tweeted yesterday that 65% of the MLB players make $1M or less, which sounds about right. Plenty of the guys that make between $1M-$5M annually are of course making a ton of money, but most of them probably live a lifestyle expecting those kinds of pay checks (mortgages, cars, etc.).  I think the VAST majority of players are going to come back, even if they're making something like 30-50 cents on the dollar. 

I think its far more likely that the league and players association can't come to an agreement at all than anything more than ~5% of players just sitting out and forfeiting their pro-rated salaries.  I hope its something we get to find out, because a full season of no baseball would suck.  

[Y2Jimmy0]

This is a pretty solid summary of what the MLBPA is trying to accomplish with offering the extra games: https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/2498291/the-mlbpa-and-owners-are-in-a-brawl-right-now-and-heres-a-full-breakdown-of-it

 

The owners have no interest in playing 100 games. They need to get the playoffs in. I also seriously doubt that the owners will pay prorated salaries. If the latest proposal from owners went to a vote, I think the players would vote yes with 65% of the league making under $1 million. It's going to be interesting to see who gives in here and where taht occurs. 

[Ducksnort]

2 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

This is a pretty solid summary of what the MLBPA is trying to accomplish with offering the extra games: https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/2498291/the-mlbpa-and-owners-are-in-a-brawl-right-now-and-heres-a-full-breakdown-of-it

 

The owners have no interest in playing 100 games. They need to get the playoffs in. I also seriously doubt that the owners will pay prorated salaries. If the latest proposal from owners went to a vote, I think the players would vote yes with 65% of the league making under $1 million. It's going to be interesting to see who gives in here and where taht occurs. 

I think the players have their hands tied here to be honest. All these guys speaking up via social media their thoughts, no matter how right they might be, if they don't agree to something, they aren't getting paid at all this season. The way I'm seeing it unfold, unfortunately right now it's take what you can get to play, or get nothing at all.

[Balta1701]

16 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Yeah, I mean the bolded is absolute worst case scenario - as noted.

Trout is perhaps a guy that would make sense to sit out.  But he's signed long term and makes more money that he'll ever need, so he's not a great example.  He can afford to walk away from $8-15M, or whatever it ends up being if the parties can come to an agreement.  But the vast majority of players are not in that position.  I don't know the accuracy, but Kevin Pillar tweeted yesterday that 65% of the MLB players make $1M or less, which sounds about right. Plenty of the guys that make between $1M-$5M annually are of course making a ton of money, but most of them probably live a lifestyle expecting those kinds of pay checks (mortgages, cars, etc.).  I think the VAST majority of players are going to come back, even if they're making something like 30-50 cents on the dollar. 

I think its far more likely that the league and players association can't come to an agreement at all than anything more than ~5% of players just sitting out and forfeiting their pro-rated salaries.  I hope its something we get to find out, because a full season of no baseball would suck.  

How good is baseball this year if Trout, Cole, Springer, Betts, Bryant, Snell, Lindor, and other guys who either are taking huge paycuts or who are free agents-to-be all sit out the year? 

The minority that is the most affected by the pay cuts or at the largest risk for career damage might not be able to win a vote, but they can completely destroy baseball as we know it.

[Y2Jimmy0]

3 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I think the players have their hands tied here to be honest. All these guys speaking up via social media their thoughts, no matter how right they might be, if they don't agree to something, they aren't getting paid at all this season. The way I'm seeing it unfold, unfortunately right now it's take what you can get to play, or get nothing at all.

This is the real question to me: will the owners lose more money by not playing or will they lose more money by playing and paying prorated salaries? If they won't lose as much by not playing, I think they offer their tiered payment system to whoever wants it and if not they'll cancel the season. That point about the players has been lost in all of this though. People don't quite grasp that they won't see another penny after Sunday without a new agreement. 

[Y2Jimmy0]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

How good is baseball this year if Trout, Cole, Springer, Betts, Bryant, Snell, Lindor, and other guys who either are taking huge paycuts or who are free agents-to-be all sit out the year? 

The minority that is the most affected by the pay cuts or at the largest risk for career damage might not be able to win a vote, but they can completely destroy baseball as we know it.

Those guys aren't going to sit out the year. Have you ever played a team sport? If their teammates choose to play, these guys will b**** and then they'll strap up and play. Someone might sit for legit health concerns, but they won't sit out the year because their salaries got reduced if the rank and file voted to play. 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

27 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

This is a pretty solid summary of what the MLBPA is trying to accomplish with offering the extra games: https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/2498291/the-mlbpa-and-owners-are-in-a-brawl-right-now-and-heres-a-full-breakdown-of-it

 

The owners have no interest in playing 100 games. They need to get the playoffs in. I also seriously doubt that the owners will pay prorated salaries. If the latest proposal from owners went to a vote, I think the players would vote yes with 65% of the league making under $1 million. It's going to be interesting to see who gives in here and where taht occurs. 

I don't think they would.  I think the would  respect the top players far too much to be that selfish.  I know I would never vote yes to let Mike Trout take a 75% pay cut so I could make $250k.  

[MiddleCoastBias]

16 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Those guys aren't going to sit out the year. Have you ever played a team sport? If their teammates choose to play, these guys will b**** and then they'll strap up and play. Someone might sit for legit health concerns, but they won't sit out the year because their salaries got reduced if the rank and file voted to play. 

I don't know, what about college football players that sit out of their team's bowl games because they know they'll be high picks in the draft and don't want to risk injury and their future paycheck?

Their teammates get pissed because they "bailed on the team", but the players have that right because they don't want to jeopardize what they're worth.

MLB stars playing for a fraction of what they're worth might see it the same way - why risk injury in a circus of a season for less than they're worth?

[Timmy U]

1 hour ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

This is the real question to me: will the owners lose more money by not playing or will they lose more money by playing and paying prorated salaries? If they won't lose as much by not playing, I think they offer their tiered payment system to whoever wants it and if not they'll cancel the season. That point about the players has been lost in all of this though. People don't quite grasp that they won't see another penny after Sunday without a new agreement. 

Define “owners.” It is impossible for the Yankees, BoSox, Phillies, Dodgers, Cubs, etc to lose more money collecting TV revenue than by not collecting it. The Pirates, however, are another matter. Just like the NHL, baseball has a long history of caving to owners and markets that should be allowed to contract. For 5he Yankees to cancel a season to save the Pirates is nauseating. But I am a union member myself, so kind of biased.

[ChiSox59]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

How good is baseball this year if Trout, Cole, Springer, Betts, Bryant, Snell, Lindor, and other guys who either are taking huge paycuts or who are free agents-to-be all sit out the year? 

The minority that is the most affected by the pay cuts or at the largest risk for career damage might not be able to win a vote, but they can completely destroy baseball as we know it.

I don't see how any of the guys you listed besides Trout and Cole would make any sense to sit out.  I know your argument is going to be why risk injury for reduced pay if you're an impending FA like Betts or Springer.  But sitting out isn't going to do them favors either.  The other dudes make no sense.  

[Squirmin' for Yermin]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

How good is baseball this year if Trout, Cole, Springer, Betts, Bryant, Snell, Lindor, and other guys who either are taking huge paycuts or who are free agents-to-be all sit out the year? 

The minority that is the most affected by the pay cuts or at the largest risk for career damage might not be able to win a vote, but they can completely destroy baseball as we know it.

It's still really good..  No baseball or no players that will be FA?  Maybe one player per team?? MAYBE... I doubt any sit out.. They all know there likelyhood to get seriously affected is astronomically low and they know they get $0 if they don't play... It's their only negotiating tool though, so I don't blame them for trying.. But the same amount of Yankees fans will go to the games if Cole is there or not. The same amount of Rays fans will go if Snell is there or not.. The same amount of fans will go if Bryant is there or not. and so on.

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

I don't think they would.  I think the would  respect the top players far too much to be that selfish.  I know I would never vote yes to let Mike Trout take a 75% pay cut so I could make $250k.  

Being part of a union, I bet most would. It's all for the collective good. Whatever helps the majority of the players is usually the view. Mike Trout is going to make more next year than most of the players make in their entire career. They won't be too worried about him.