glory

I'm falling for the Veen hype. The video put me over the top. Between that and the fact that pitchers are risky as hell, I am on Team Veen.

I'm kinda hoping for a Groshans type of pick where we all flip out because it wasn't any of the names we discussed prior to the draft, and then we all look stupid when it turns out to be one of the better picks in the draft.

The owners probably only really care about the playoffs, as with an expanded playoff format, they can get more TV revenue with more playoff rounds/content. Manfred can unilaterally start the season at any length only if players are paid at their prorated rates, so a 50 game season means the players get around 30% of their salaries. In that scenario, the owners greatly benefit with fewer regular season games + expanded playoffs. I'm not sure how many other revenue generating gimmicks there are for baseball right now. I like the idea of an off season HR derby/All star game played in a warm weather climate, but whether the players would agree to that if/when Manfred forces a 50 game season on them is another story. Although, if one or 2 players testing positive is enough to stop the league from functioning, then you definitely have to consider whether it's worth it for either side.

If Manfred can unilaterally start the season at any length as was reported earlier, then looks like 50 games might be where we are heading, especially if MLB isn't going to send a counter proposal back.

The owners are proposing 50 games because that would mean paying the players 30% of their salaries (rather than 50%). You might be right though, they may want to get through the playoffs as early as possible since playoff TV money is going to be huge for them and the 2nd wave might cause a disruption right around the time the playoffs would normally begin. Maybe a little bit of both. A 50 game season would be good in one sense, as mentioned the games would mean more. If you start the season off terribly, even if you're the Yankees, then you're f***ed. If you start the season on a hot streak, then maybe an average team sneaks into an expanded playoff round. It does sound more exciting in that sense, and TV ratings might increase if each game means more. But for a game like baseball to have only 50 games, it goes against everything the sport is. I'm not a purist by any sense, the game has to change in order to attract new fans, so I'm open to practically anything, but 50 seems way too small, even in times like this.

Half the season and normal 9 inning games, except the "runner on 2nd to start the inning" for extra innings, seems like the most reasonable scenario. The diehards will be livid with the extra innings rule but no one is going to want to play a 19 inning game right now, much less watch one.

Yeah, the MLBPA wants 100+ games and the owners want 50ish. A middle ground of 80ish is probably where they will end up meeting, but maybe MLB will squeeze another perk out of it.

A 50 game schedule sounds like absolute trash.

I think the beauty, if there is any, of this whole thing is that both sides care almost entirely about money and nothing else. One narrative after the league's 82 game proposal was "the players are risking their lives for this", but then the PA comes back with a proposal where they'd play 114 games over 124 days + an expanded playoff format which would fall right into a projected second wave of the virus. I'm sure they made that proposal expecting it to be rejected, but still. Just greed versus greed, and both sides don't care about the optics. I can almost respect that.

https://sports.yahoo.com/report-dodgers-p-price-gives-170216875.html Price is a good dude.

NBA and NHL played most of their regular season already, so it's just a matter of finishing the playoffs for them. MLB hasn't even started the season yet so they haven't begun to see revenue at all. If MLB had already played 130 games and just needed to crown a World Series champion, then this issue between the league and union probably wouldn't even exist right now. But they are literally starting from scratch. I think we can assume that safety isn't a big sticking point. The players actually want to play more games than the league does, so they clearly don't have an issue with the safety protocols. If they want to play more and get a prorated salary based on games played, then it's 100% about money. Call a spade a spade here. Owners want to maximize profit and players want to make as much as they can. It's not about the sport or the fans at this point. Bad optics would be an understatement.

Yeah, I'm not a draft expert, but I'd be pretty underwhelmed if the Jays drafted Gonzales. Someone who profiles exclusively as a 2B better be a can't miss offensive talent if he's a top 5 pick.

According to Heyman, 65% of MLB players make $1 million or less. The owners were pretty slick in proposing this because 65% of the league in this scenario will end up getting a prorated cut of their 2020 salary (as the MLBPA originally accepted). Someone who makes $600k (the Jays have a lot of these types) will end up getting around $300k for playing half the amount of games. Someone making $1m is getting slightly less than $500k. So the owners created a proposal that benefits the majority of the league, and only hurts the players making $5m or more per year. I don't think the players will accept this anyway, but smart move on their part. I understand both sides. Owners are owners because they make good financial decisions. They don't want to pay players out of their own pocket, they want to use revenue to pay players/expenses and pocket the rest. That is how all businesses work. So while it looks greedy as hell, the owners are within their rights. Just as the players are within their rights. They have guaranteed contracts and there is no salary cap or revenue sharing, so it revenue goes up or down, it shouldn't impact their money. So I can see their side as well. We just have to hope there is a happy medium.

There needs to be a clear definition of what the role of the taxi squad will be. I'm assuming it is in case of injury to anyone on the big league roster in the absence of the minor leagues to promote/demote players. If that's the case, then top prospects who aren't ready yet won't really serve a purpose. If the taxi squad is partly to counter injuries, and partly to get top prospects reps since there won't be a minor league season, then that's different. Not sure if it's been defined yet.

Yeah, that's going to have to be tweaked.

I think MLB will eventually cave and have a season, but if I could picture any league not coming back in 2020 when it was feasible to do so, it would be MLB. Tone deafness is the calling card for both Manfred and Clark. If MLB does not have a 2020 season because of finances, then they are in for a shock when a lot of fans find something else to do now and moving forward. As I mentioned before the 2020-2021 NBA season is likely going to run head to head with MLB's 2021 season until September, which is when the NFL starts. If that becomes a long term change for the NBA, and MLB decides to cut bait on 2020 (alienating a s*** ton of people in the process), then it might be a hole they can never climb out of.

At least the NBA is coming back.

I don't have ESPN+, but based on one of the Twitter comments it seems Kiley has the Jays taking Meyer.

Taxi squad is probably going to be 40 man roster players + maybe some older AAA prospects (Wall, Palacios, whoever they signed to minor league deals, etc). I doubt anyone is going to dip into their prospect pool of low A-AA guys for this. The MLBPA is not going to allow teams to use players and not have them accrue service time in the process so it would make no sense for any team to do that. Most likely teams send their good prospects to fall leagues (assuming they are open by then) to get their reps in.

The NBA looks like it will come back in late July if all goes well, so MLB better be ready by July 1. That 2-3 week window where they are the only sport in town is better than nothing.