June 29, 2020 at 6:56 pm #131832
This was from the second to last paragraph.
“While both sides believed they made concessions, they settled around an obvious point: No sports league wants to be seen as bickering about billions of dollars amid an international health and financial crisis…”
This must have been Passan’s editorial comment, as that is exactly what was ahead.June 29, 2020 at 7:10 pm #131833
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“;
Wow. We are are as far apart as Manfred and Clark!
Here is the full context of your quoted section. It discusses when the season would start. The “economically feasible” statement directly relates to a potential ownership decision to play in neutral site. There is no hint of player salary here. This is clearly about the additional ownership financial commitment it would take to play in a neutral site (“because of a virus-related shutdown in their home cities” is surely implied but not stated directly).
As part of the agreement, obtained by ESPN’s Jeff Passan, the players and MLB primarily agreed that the 2020 season will not start until each of the following conditions are met:
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”;
There are no travel restrictions throughout the United States and Canada;
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.
Remember that owners had the power to decide when the season would begin – or not play at all. The players had no say in that.
My guess is the owners knew there was nothing in writing that bound the players to take less money, so they tried to negotiate it into being, rather than claiming lack of good faith and heading into a grievance hearing they did not want to risk losing.
(I am getting repetitive so I will stop here.)
June 29, 2020 at 8:40 pm #131839
- This reply was modified 3 days, 12 hours ago by Brian Walton.
Why would a business owner place a caveat on starting the season without fans if it wasn’t for revenue? And why would the agreement say alternatives could be considered that were economically agreeable to both sides…..unless it was for revenue? That caveat opened the door to work out a modified arrangement that would be economically feasible to both sides and it didn’t exclude any specific negotiating points such as salary. All things could be put on the table. The players didn’t have to agree if they didn’t want to. That was their leverage. The owners clearly had the right to hold off on starting the season (even longer if they chose) because there are still limits on fan attendance.
The fact that neither side was willing to bend much at all shows they are both greedy, all while feigning concern for the fans. I won’t mind a bit if they pay a price, because in the end, it’s the fan who take the shaft. That’s why I’ve joked a couple times we need to start a MLBFA (F=fans) to stick it back to MLB/MLBPA. Also, Sherman Act exemption hurts the fans, not the players. Elite players in the post free agency era have benefited hugely from MLB’s exemption. The exemption costs the fans plenty though, as the game has become so commercially/corporately slanted and demand is inelastic as far as we can see.
You’re right, as you’ve expressed more of your take on this, I don’t agree with your position at all. That’s okay, that’s what makes the world turn. We both love baseball and the Cards, which is more important to us as a community of involved third parties and fans.June 29, 2020 at 10:13 pm #131843
We agree 100% on the real losers. I wish the concern over the fans had at least been a good acting job. It wasn’t. They didn’t really even pretend to care.June 29, 2020 at 11:01 pm #131844bccranParticipantPaid - Annual
Maybe one of our younger internet savvy posters can start a fan grievance petition. We could probably get millions of fans around the country to eventually endorse it as it goes viral, get some media coverage, and “call out” the greedy owners and players.July 1, 2020 at 4:19 pm #131986
All I can say is WOW. Look at that quote in the highlights. How can one draw any conclusion other than the owners wasted weeks trying to drive the players down in salary when they had no intention of giving the players more games in return.
Given the players had no intention of taking less salary, the owners should have made the decision to dictate the start of play so they could have at least opened on July 4.
Whole both sides drew their lines in the sand, at least the players were open about their position from the start. Only now do we know how the owners felt. So much time wasted when there never could have been a compromise…
— AM 570 LA Sports (@AM570LASports) July 1, 2020July 1, 2020 at 5:06 pm #131996
As a reminder, it was widely reported that the March agreement required MLB to use “best efforts to play as many games as possible.”
As it is said, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Manfred must have forgotten he was staring down the barrel of a bad faith grievance that he intentionally delayed negotiations. Might have just handed the union their case.pic.twitter.com/JNeO4pMC0N
— Sports Law Lust🎙 (@SportsLawLust) July 1, 2020July 1, 2020 at 5:32 pm #1320001982 willieParticipantFree
well its all done me in on sports for the rest of the year. the owners have just been totally unreasonable from the start. with all the spikes in cases, im stil not sure they are going to get a season in. We are starting to get more people having it at my work. Either way, all that and the cardinals owner being stupid has soured my taste for it anyway. If they manage to get a season in, I hope you all enjoy it. Hopefully, ill chat with you all in the spring.July 1, 2020 at 6:45 pm #132002BlackHillsCardParticipantFree
Several posters on here only wanted to blame the players when Manfred makes it clear it was MLB that holding up the deal.July 1, 2020 at 6:49 pm #132003
Sorry you feel that way, 1982, but I do understand. You are welcome any time.July 1, 2020 at 6:57 pm #132004Minuteman3ParticipantFree
I haven’t bothered to keep a close watch on negotiations other than to say they should have kept them completely closed until some agreement was reached. So I will be watching when they say PLAY BALL. Also good news to hear that the Cards and White Sox will be in the Field of Dreams game in August.
Unfortunately I did decide to drop NASCAR after 52 years. They did several things to their fans that I can’t excuse. But that’s all I have to say on that subject.July 2, 2020 at 9:35 am #132038
Manfred is being ripped by the national media. Why in the world would he admit this? For being such a smart guy, this was a really, really dumb admission to make. I cannot believe his bosses are happy about this at all – and it will get a lot worse if Clark and the union decide to press the matter.
MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred on The Dan Patrick Show: “"The reality is, we weren’t going to play more than sixty games, no matter how the negotiation with the players went or any other factor”
So we dragged baseball thru the mud publicly for.. no reason? Stay baseball baseball.
— trey wingo (@wingoz) July 2, 2020July 2, 2020 at 11:44 am #132058gscottarParticipantPaid - Annual
I try to stay objective but Manfred and the owners have bungled this whole thing every step of the way. In my opinion they deserve every negative thing said about them.July 2, 2020 at 4:16 pm #132067
For being such a smart guy, this was a really, really dumb admission to make.
How do we know Manfed is smart? To be serious, I’m sure he is, but some smart people aren’t good at answering impromptu questions during interviews and interpersonal communications in general. And to be fair to Manfred, the Wingo tweet and other similar castigations of Manfred didn’t complete Manfred’s explanation. Right after saying they weren’t going to do more than 60 games regardless, Manfred explained that the reason was the covid situation, i.e., given all the uncertainties of health and “the virus” they couldn’t have gotten the season going any earlier due to the inherent complexities that needed to be worked out. It’s very clear if you listen to the full interview he was saying the health and virus issues have been THE limfac. It’s hard to argue there’s not some credible merit to that given there are so many activities that governors all across the nation are not allowing that seem as safe or safer than getting hundreds of people together to play a sport than has to ignore social distancing and masks while playing.
Manfred did a very poor job of emphasizing his point, which has allowed his detractors to emphasize his answer as a half truth. How can he not be ready to do a better job talking to a guy like Patrick? Like I said, maybe this is not his strong suit. I would not feel at all comfortable with him arguing my case in a court of law. Now, I also wonder if the owners are reaching breaking point with him.July 2, 2020 at 5:16 pm #132069jj-cf-stlParticipantFree
I wish I were savvy enough to link so you could just click on it.
In USA Today the article May 14th, “It’s time to get together and do a good thing for the country”, Nightengale, it lists 3 provision from the March agreement.
1) About mass gatherings
2) About USA / Canada open travel
3) About games without fans
I don’t know if this is owner PR, or if it’s in the March agreement, but provision 3 calls for further negotiations (after March) “discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at appropriate substitute neutral sites.”
Eventually 22 games (27%) gets shaved off the 82 game agreement, to date. I guess MLBPA didn’t hire someone to read the fine print.
If this is old news sorry. I had never seen these provisions.July 2, 2020 at 7:30 pm #132071mudvilleParticipantPaid - Annual
I thought Manfred’s comment was incredibly dumb and bungled also. But then when I read Euro Dandy’s explanation and understood that what Manfred said was taken out of context, I realized that all Wingo was doing was trying to manipulate his audience into agreeing with his personal bias. Sports media personalities aren’t any more ethical than the national media personalities. They mirror one another except for their content. The world would be a better place if these goons were out chasing butterflies rather than appearing in the media. I sure hope the aspiring writers here don’t end up that way in their careers.July 2, 2020 at 8:18 pm #132075
Let’s not lose sight of the numbers. All the talk about being the first sport back for the good of America and a July 4 ideal opening date proved to be just BS. However, if they had started on July 4, they could have played a three-month season instead of two, and still ended on time. 80-90 games would have been far more legitimate and satisfying for all – except the owners.
There is no indication health approvals would have stopped them from starting the season this weekend. The delay was caused by the owners stalling, submitting variations of the same proposal that they knew the players would reject. If the players had folded on the money, however, MLB would have played sooner.
The simple truth is that the owners did not want to play 80-90 games with the financials decided in March. That is their right, but let’s not make excuses for why they decided 60. It was financial, not COVID.
Update: Just to be clear, I mean 80-90 games vs. 60 games in the normal calendar. The owners did have a COVID reason (as well as a TV network objection) to be against extending the season. At one point, the players were reportedly willing to play deeper into the fall. The owners had the right to reject that idea.
Another earlier idea of playing more games in fewer days by scheduling doubleheaders was also reportedly opposed by owners. The reason I heard was fear of fatigue and injury, but it appears to me that the real issue is the player salary for the additional games. Again, an ownership call, but the supposed reason is what I question.July 2, 2020 at 11:34 pm #132082858booyahParticipantFree
We all know why Manfred would go on Dan Patrick and admit something this stupid and then try and backtrack…..
Because the man in incompetent and is not fit to oversee the game of baseball. The owners can’t be pleased.July 3, 2020 at 12:36 am #132083
It was financial, not COVID.
These aren’t two independent variables. It’s not even a mere case of correlation. It’s more specifically a case of causation. Without COVID, there is no financial issue. That’s like saying today’s double digit unemployment is due to the poor economy, not COVID.July 3, 2020 at 7:20 am #132086
Please show how COVID kept MLB from playing 80-90 games, but allows them to play 60.
It is not complicated. The owners did not want to play as many games as possible. A number of them reportedly did not want to play at all in 2020 – and their reason was sure as heck not fear of COVID.July 3, 2020 at 7:31 am #132089bccranParticipantPaid - Annual
Didn’t fear of possibly having to shut it back down again after it had been restarted factor into their thinking?July 3, 2020 at 7:40 am #132091
Excluding their fear of extending into the fall, how would the number of games materially change the risk of shutting down? In fact, by scheduling doubleheaders, they could have played more games in the exact same time window.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.