- This topic has 498 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The 38-member exec board votes today at 3 pm on MLB’s proposal built around a 60-g season, prorated pay. The expectation remains they reject. If so, will Manfred move to implement a season?
— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) June 22, 2020
A serious accusation that some of the national “scribblers” may be on the take.
I said this to someone privately, may as well say it here. If Jessica Mendoza’s conflicts can become a two-week story, then we also need to have a conversation about who is paying the highest-profile voices on MLB’s labor issues. Preferably before the CBA negotiation.
— Joe Sheehan (@joe_sheehan) June 22, 2020
Funny to see one national media figure taking on another for perceived reporting bias. I guess the biggest pot of them all knows a black kettle when he sees one…
These are facts but they are framed very negatively. Speculation is it came from a union leader who likely espouses rejecting deal. For instance “No additional Salary Advance Relief” means none beyond the $33M Clark/Manfred just negotiated that aids 769 players (60% of players) https://t.co/NFXlO1DV1u
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) June 22, 2020
The ball is back in Manfred’s court to set the season under the terms of the March agreement (or cancel it).
Sources tell @JeffPassan and I players have voted against the league's latest proposal to play 60 games. The vote was 33-5 against.
— Jesse Rogers (@JesseRogersESPN) June 22, 2020
The Major League Baseball Players Association today released the following statement: pic.twitter.com/1OnFBsoEjd
— MLBPA Communications (@MLBPA_News) June 22, 2020
So 3 things can happen.
They return to the bargaining table
Manfred makes everyone play a 60 game season.
The owners put it to a vote and get 8 votes and cancel the season.
Brian, I was not talking about replacement players but players already in the organization on the MLB bench or on the 40 man at Memphis. If a contracted player refused to play for fear of the virus and that was excusable then the organization could call up a replacement to take the place of the player who refuses to play. He would not get paid and the person taking his place would get whatever pay level he had earned which in many cases would be major league minimum. Are you saying if a player opted not to play for health reasons he could not be replaced?
With the players rejecting the 60 game schedule, I do not see a season happening in 2020. You cannot play too much longer of a schedule than that, and do not see much benefit in Manfred making an executive order to play. That would greatly harm chances of a reasonable settlement in December 2021.
This is the most pessimistic I have been on 2020 MLB. Think we are in for a big downturn in MLB revenues for the next few years, unless 2021 is back to business as usual and an agreement is struck that does not impact 2022. The chances of both of those happening do not look real good right now, but of course things can change.
Maybe the owners and Manfred just cancel the season now. Time to quit seeing who can dig the deepest hole. If the owners will really lose money by playing games, that will cut their losses. The spike in Covid-19 cases in many states gives them an easy out that seems grievance-resistant.
Manfred could say they are doing it in the interests of player safety and well-being, which is paramount to MLB’s core values. That type of compassion pairs well with the latest whopper the MLBPA claimed about being fully committed to getting back on the field for the fans.
MM3 asked:
Are you saying if a player opted not to play for health reasons he could not be replaced?
No. I did not understand the context of your earlier post. I thought you were talking about replacement players like in 1995.
To your point, the rumors are of a taxi squad that would be the source of replacements for injured players during the season. However, if players opt out of the season, they would almost certainly do that before even reporting to Spring Training 2.0. So they wouldn’t need to be replaced since they weren’t active in the first place.
What *is* important about the first part is that it lays out the league’s argument in a grievance battle. https://t.co/r4ijWGxyid
— Maury Brown (@BizballMaury) June 23, 2020
Interesting spin…
Thought: MLB knows it's impossible to get health and safety stuff done by tomorrow, Manfred/owners can say (for the grievance) that they tried for 60 games and players prevented it from happening. Not so sure this thing is done yet.
— Drew Silva (@drewsilv) June 23, 2020
bikemike said:
With the players rejecting the 60 game schedule, I do not see a season happening in 2020.
It is important to note that the players did NOT reject a 60-game schedule. They rejected the terms offered by MLB to modify the March agreement. Manfred can still set a schedule of 60 games and may do that for defensive reasons, as the prior tweet suggests.
bikemike said:
…do not see much benefit in Manfred making an executive order to play. That would greatly harm chances of a reasonable settlement in December 2021.
I don’t see it that way. At this point, the players want Manfred to dictate the details of the 2020 season. I think no season at all (if done by owners for non-COVID rea$on$), would cause a lot more harm to future negotiations. If games are played in 2020, the players are assured of their full prorated salary, which is what they said they wanted all along. (FWIW, I believe the players when they say that they want to play.)
GameCard said:
Jon Heyman just reported this: MLB will set a schedule and have a season, it announces
Not yet. It is still rumor at this point. The Players have to agree on health and safety, including signing a waiver, and to report by July 1. The owners gave them 24 hours to respond. (MLB’s announcement is included about four posts above this one.)
Passan tweets what Brian just said.
Major League Baseball has asked the MLB Players Association if players can report to camp by July 1 and will sign off on health-and-safety protocols. The union has been asked to respond by 5 p.m. Tuesday.
In other words: MLB is planning on a season.
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) June 23, 2020
As I’ve learned over the last three months, never, ever, ever, ever think MLB and the MLBPA are close to anything until the ink is dry on an agreement. Health-and-safety issues could cause a snag, and the whole thing could cascade. But the optimism and motivation are both there.
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) June 23, 2020
GameCard said:
Brian…I would say that MLB is going to play.
I think that is where it will end up, too, but MLB has not announced it yet.
The Wuhan Virus is being wildly exaggerated by the media and should no effect on a shortened season.
First of all, the media does not speak with one voice and they do not make the decisions for MLB. Baseball – officials and players alike – have legitimate concerns about the virus – as do all professional sports.
GC, we get that your personal point of view is different from the people who actually have a stake in the matter. You’ve made that very clear.
There will be a 60 game *schedule*. Only the virus knows whether we get all the games in. https://t.co/XYrRbDSyG2
— Maury Brown (@BizballMaury) June 23, 2020
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.