- This topic has 498 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Multiple asterisks next to this season. There will be no legitimacy in division, league, or world champions.
Oh how I agree and you can add batting averages, ERAs, and a multitude of other things. Actually all stats from 2020 would do well to just be ignored in the records as less than half of a season is not much of a representation of anything. But I am sure we will be loaded with asterisks until the end of time. AND that damned DH.
This is an interesting perspective. Players can take their message directly to fans, but owners need media like Nightengale and Heyman to carry their water. It is interesting how far MLB.com went to avoid the conflicts, which I guess is good considering the most likely alternative was owner-slanted messaging.
“The players now have a whole new game to play and I think it’s a game they’ll win hands down everytime.” –@EvanDrellich
Social media has changed everything.
New episode of “Starkville” podcast 👇
Apple: https://t.co/cyBiSEgZEP
Spotify: https://t.co/yD04UodoYE
— The Athletic MLB (@TheAthleticMLB) June 24, 2020
Earlier on the thread, there was discussion about legitimacy of records if broken. Here is an example.
Players are as adept as owners with shooting themselves in foot while delivering their own messages — not sure that’s an advantage. A lot of shills carrying water on both sides.
Certainly some players have mis-stepped, but others are quite articulate. What kind of candor do we ever get from owners? (Of course, they have much more to lose by doing so.)
Like it or not, the traditional tide of the public almost always favoring the owners has clearly shifted as players get a larger voice.
Brian, the prevailing sentiment I see is a lot of disdain for both sides. I guess winning can be defined as not losing as badly as the other guy. I believe that is what’s happening here.
Multiple national fan polls I have seen were strongly slanted toward the players. One, ran by Forbes’ Maury Brown, I posted earlier on this board (67% owners fault, 5% players, 28% both – over 1,100 votes).
Here is another.
(However, if you have seen data to the contrary, please share it.)
According to SB Nation’s Reacts survey:
The majority of fans who responded, 66 percent, said they are on the players side of negotiations. On top of that, only 22 percent say players are being unreasonable in their requests, as opposed to 36 percent who said the same about owners.
https://www.redreporter.com/2020/6/5/21280891/mlb-reacts-mlbpa-baseball-manfred
There is no doubt this escapade hurt the game, and by association, everyone in it. However, for me, the bottom line is that the owners could have begun the season weeks ago under the March agreement, but instead they tried to squeeze more money from the players. Ultimately, they accepted what they could have had all along.
We lose because we get only 60 games – because that is all the owners wanted to play. That is their right, but I am not going to place the responsibility for the long delay evenly, because it wasn’t.
It appears the majority of fans feel similarly.
Brian, I wouldn’t use a poll to shape how I feel and what I see about this situation. Polls from people like Brown are only good for getting a desired preordained answer based on that source’s follower-ship. They are not scientific and are the polar opposite of random collection.
Here’s a poll that was heavily slanted toward the owners side. Means nothing to me. Twitter polls and the like are nothing more that meaningless groupthink. Anyway, you missed my point if you think I’m saying the owners are the winners.
https://www.cleveland.com/tribe/2020/05/where-do-you-stand-on-mlbs-salary-debate-poll.html
Thanks for sharing, but that poll was in May. Much happened after that. Mostly owners submitting the same proposal structured slightly differently, wasting another month.
I already shared my point of view. Not much more to say.
However, for me, the bottom line is that the owners could have begun the season weeks ago under the March agreement
Brian, a lot did happen since May, but I saw the players lose ground with many fans after their “when and where” rebuttal. Nothing I’d hang my hat on, though. 😉
I agree there’s not much to else to say, but this is a point I see glossed over by the players’ side. I’d like to know your thoughts on it if you care to share. The March agreement also had a caveat on starting the season if there were limits on travel and fan attendance, and that issue would open the door for further discussion of playing in empty stadiums in an agreement that would be feasible for both sides. Why does the players’ side cite the agreement for prorated salaries, but ignore the agreement’s caveat on travel and attendance restrictions? The way COVID-19 unfolded is precisely the case for which the March agreement called for addressing the issue. Clearly, the big concern for this caveat by the owners was lost $$.
None of us know the exact wording of the March agreement, as it was never released.
This set of tweets comes from a labor lawyer not associated with baseball. It is long, 17 tweets, but it explains the situation well, IMO. (The guy needs to get a blog!)
Here is the relevant part to your question.
“the document from an MLB attorney admitting the March Agreement said exactly what the PA said it meant all along.”
The assertion is that MLB admitted in writing that the March agreement did not bind the players to renegotiate salary. Eventually, MLB gave up asking them, though the MLBPA had said it was a non-negotiable item from day 1. Weeks were lost, but it appeared the owners were ok with that since it meant lower financial losses.
The central premise of this column, just found b/c @dougglanville responded, is another misguided retrospective both-sidesism that finds "Shame on Manfred and Clark: staying safe should’ve been Job 1 on this negotiation – not a fanatical campaign to extract every last dollar." 1/ https://t.co/ICjW8oi8d0
— eugenefreedman.bsky.social (@EugeneFreedman) June 28, 2020
As far as my personal opinion, like I said, the owners had a right to define the length of the season. They took the minimum number of games they could to avoid a grievance they did not want to take the risk of losing (or at least being forced to share financial data they want to keep private). The players had a right to hold to the March deal for full per-game prorated salary. So 60 games (at most) is what we get.
The owners could have implemented a longer schedule at any time, but in doing so, taken greater losses. (Also, in the last few days, fans in ballparks later look more possible, and if so, the losses will be less.) In fairness, they also could have scuttled the season entirely, but they did not.
What approach would have been better for owners to protect the long-term good of the game and the value of their multi-billion dollar asset? I guess we will never know.
Who cares at this point. If I’m at work dealing with idiots trying to wear no masks all day long then you should too.
1 front desk employees tested positive and one who worked with her tested negative and they made her go out for 14 days.
Baseball knows it’s going to have issues and they know a labor strike is coming. The ones that can will have fans in the stands if they can. It’s up to the owners to keep player safe but the players
have to do their parts too and I don’t think some of the demo can do that IMO and baseball knows it.Polls for me are as useful as teats on a boar hog. My stats class in college taught me that figures lie and liars figure and if I don’t know the makeup of a poll and the question asked I don’t take any notice of it.We don’t need a poll to sway anything or anybody when you only have two participants in a negotiation: MLB and MLBPA.
But always remember that greatest poll in history with two words: President Hillary.
The polls were only cited to suggest that by the end of the negotiations, it seemed more fans were upset with the owners than the players. If so, I understand why. That does NOT mean that you (any readers here) feel that way personally or that you (any readers here) are being asked to change your mind.
Freedman is nothing more than a big shill for the players. He’s off base on several points. What I stated was news broken by Passan and reported by every major news outlet without a serious rebuke that I can see. If you’re basing your opinions on Freedman, you’re not getting a balanced review.
OK, if you share the specific Passan points (as I respect his reporting), I will try to answer or we can let it go. On the other hand, I don’t discredit folks, whether I happen to agree with them or not, unless I have reason to do so. A labor lawyer has a perspective that few others can offer, but if points are invalid, I am open to understand that.
I am sure this has been discussed but I missed it. Are guys not on the ML active roster (whether that be 30, 28, or 26 men) need to clear waivers to be put on the taxi squad? Do guys on the taxi squad use an option (if applicable)?
CC asked:
1) Are guys not on the ML active roster (whether that be 30, 28, or 26 men) need to clear waivers to be put on the taxi squad?
2) Do guys on the taxi squad use an option (if applicable)?
The best way to think about it is that the “alternate camp roster” is handled like a minor league affiliate.
1) No, they just need to be reassigned to the minors or optioned out.
2) Yes. So would any 40-man players not among the 60.
P.S. As an aside, as I read the MLB 2020 Operations Manual, I learned we have a terminology problem. “Taxi squad” only refers to the three extra players who travel with the MLB team on the road. Springfield is called the “alternate training site”. Maybe a catchy name for that roster will emerge.
Springfield is called the “alternate training site”. Maybe a catchy name for that roster will emerge.
May I suggest the name “Wannabes West”…….lol
The 2021 vesting option for #stlcards reliever Andrew Miller is cited as an example of contract intricacies still being negotiated. https://t.co/OrYvrisP5X
— Brian Walton (@B_Walton) June 29, 2020
I am interested to see how this is resolved. Miller and Carp’s vesting options could loom large when it comes to the 2021 and 2022 payrolls respectively.
It looks like MLB teams as a group are trying to get out of expensive vesting options if they can, which on one hand is understandable given the losses, but from the players’ perspective, they have a contract and a general assumption that normal proration applies. Like you, I wonder how they can resolve this. It feels like an either-or situation.
OK, if you share the specific Passan points (as I respect his reporting), I will try to answer or we can let it go.
Brian, here is an article with Passan’s points on the March agreement that I was referencing. I agree it would be nice to see the actual agreement. Interesting the neither side side leaked excepts of the agreement that might’ve bolstered their argument.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28962850/mlb-mlbpa-agree-stipulations-return-2020-season
Not that it’s an important issue, but I recall we agreed that fake crowd noise is a bad idea for broadcasts. I’ve been watching some of the tennis events where they are doing that. It definitely has a phony feel to it.
Thanks for the link, Euro. I saw nothing there that is in conflict with my comments. The only mention I could see that might be related is this:
“Medical experts determine that there would be no health risks for players, staff or fans, with the commissioners and union still able to revisit the idea of playing in empty stadiums.”
This was the third bullet in a section covering the health and safety requirements to open the season. There is no mention of money in that part of the article.
I did notice that the article said that Passan has the actual agreement. But even if we could see it, it would probably be as vague as we suspect it to be.
This comment from the article is about nothing except money. Emphasis added is mine.
There are no bans on mass gatherings that would limit the ability to play in front of fans. However, the commissioner could still consider the “use of appropriate substitute neutral sites where economically feasible“;
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.