glory

The issue the players will have, and it will be more obvious as the years go on assuming that baseball continues to become more regionalized and less mainstream popular (very likely), is that players do very little to move revenue. I think Philly saw a significant increase in ticket sales right after they signed Harper, but how many players in the league will have that type of name value moving forward? MLB has done so poorly at marketing its players since Manfred took over that Harper seems like a relic from the last era of baseball where a star actually had name value. Baseball fans pay for the front of the jersey, not the back of it. The NBA is different. When LeBron left Cleveland, not only did the Cavs suffer, but the city itself did as well. The players run that league. MLB is run by the franchises, much like the NFL, the only difference is the NFL is widely popular whereas MLB is trending downwards in that area. Mike Trout can disappear tomorrow and would anyone in Los Angeles notice? Would MLB lose revenue because of it? Probably not. It's the way the game is structured. I can see why the players wouldn't want a revenue sharing deal (they want to get paid what they signed for, even if it's prorated), but as the years go on, the MLBPA will continue to lose leverage because the players don't really matter aside from a very select few.

I guess we will know what's up soon enough. Sounds like owners want a revenue sharing deal for the Covid season, which the MLBPA does not want to do. I can't imagine either side is going to prevent a season from happening if it's deemed safe. The optics for that would be horrendous. More likely someone will swallow their pride this year and then in 2022 they can finally have a lockout like both sides seem to want.

I'm not sure of the details, but I believe Manfred could have had the draft be as many rounds as he wanted. The fact that he went with 5, when it has been reported that going with 10 would have been less than $1m per team in added expense, is telling what what Manfred and the owners mindset is. Of course, the MLBPA agreeing to having the draft being no less than 5 rounds in the first place is another issue, but Tony Clark tends to make Manfred look like Einstein by comparison, so I guess we shouldn't be too surprised. Clark would rather 32 year old free agents on the decline get paid and claim collusion when they don't rather than worry about amateur or minor league talent.

I hate the runner on 2nd idea, but I also see the logic in trying to avoid anything beyond 10 or 11 inning games, and I agree that after a while fans will either warm up to it or simply just accept it as part of the game. This rule wouldn't go over well with the core baseball fans, but if the average MLB fan is in their late 50s, then change isn't necessarily a bad thing. They will definitely need to implement this rule (or something similar) in 2020 since without a minor league season they won't be able to send players down and call others up, but I think once they try it out, it's a rule that will end up sticking. Much like the draft rounds.

Manfred has wanted to reduce the draft and subsequently reduce the # of minor league affiliates for a while now. MLB may not have wanted a 5 round draft, but Manfred could have made it 10 or 20. He chose 5. This is a dangerous combination of Manfred reducing draft rounds to save money, and the MLBPA not caring about amateur talent enough to go to bat for them. No doubt in my mind that we will never see the old draft format ever again. I think 20 is likely the new norm.

Yeah, MLB's dying popularity will hurt more than any draft changes they make, but making the barriers to entry even more difficult combined with everything else is going to be a tough sell for any athlete who has options aside from baseball. This is 2020. Baseball isn't what it used to be in terms of American popularity. The NFL has long since past it, and the NBA will probably pass everyone in 10-15 years. Making the minor leagues more exclusive might/should improve the quality of minor league ball, so that might be one benefit to this. MLB will have to find a way to 1) give amateur talent more money up front, 2) ensure less time spent in the minors, and 3) provide way more money to players in years 0-6 of service. If not, we might see more Carter Stewart career paths, which may not necessarily be a bad thing if it means the players actually get paid well.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/09/details-of-mlbs-restart-proposal-from-coronavirus-emerge/ Looks like MLB plans to propose a 78-82 game regular season starting in July. Spring Training would begin in June and last 3 weeks. The schedule would be entirely region based (so I guess Jays only face the AL East and NL East). The playoffs would be the same format that made Trevor Bauer's head explode when it was announced in Feb.

The younger generation today is all about fame and instant gratification. In the NBA and NFL, you are more famous, get paid more upfront, and don't have to grind for a decade before you even get a chance to be paid market value. MLB is building a system where they are making baseball less and less desirable for athletes to even pursue, much less want to play. MLB has become mainstream irrelevant aside from controversies (Astros scandal), and now Manfred is going to ensure that less athletes play the sport seriously beyond middle school. Then there are a whole bunch of other issues with kids playing the sport such as the price of equipment, lack of fields, the amount of people you would need to actually play a baseball game for fun, etc, etc. This is just going to add more reasons for athletes to choose something else. Manfred seriously needs to go, but unfortunately I think he'll stay long enough to f*** the system up beyond repair. I mean I do some logic in trying to scale down the # of minor league affiliates (there are way too many), and maybe less org guys in the minors will improve MiLB quality of play, but it comes with a lot of risk for the game itself.

Yeah that’s pretty s***** for baseball and for amateur talent.

I'm starting to come around to that opinion as well. Fewer games will mean each game will have more meaning, more young players will play due to expanded roster size + the need to have more bodies available, and if any sport can visually not get too impacted by having no fans in attendance, it is baseball (just imagine every game is being played in Tampa or Miami......or Toronto on a Tuesday night when the team sucks). They can try different things with no backlash. It might actually help the sport a bit if the timing and the execution is done properly.

If there is a 80-100 game season, then you definitely call Pearson up and start him in the rotation immediately. It is a no brainer. They can restrict his innings due to a shorter season, and him throwing innings in the condensed big league season is better for him than another lost season in the minors (this time not due to injury). As far as service time, from what I remember being reported before, if the season happens then it will count as a full season for players. If there is no 2020 season at all, then whatever service time a player accrued in 2019 becomes their 2020 service time.

A shorter season means less time for teams to regress to their true talent level. That can only help the Jays. If they start the season hot, and there's only 80-100 games, then the "coming back down to earth" phase is greatly reduced. I think a shorter season can only hurt the good teams and help the average ones, but ultimately it probably won't make too much of a difference. Maybe one team that otherwise would have been average overachieves for 80+ games and goes into whatever type of playoff format the league has in mind. Another interesting question is whether the World Series champion in 2020 (assuming there is a season) will even be looked at fondly by the fanbase whose team wins. Like, if the Jays overachieve in a 100 game season, make the playoffs where Manfred plays around with the format, and somehow we end up winning a title with no fans in attendance and possibly no games even played in Toronto, how would the fanbase react to it? I mean a win is a win but it would have to be diminished to some degree.

I guess it depends on how many players live in Toronto/Canada. I can't imagine that list is long but who knows. Ideally all the home teams play in their regular parks, but with Canada being a different country and the issues with border, customs, different quarantine mandates, etc, it just seems like a pointless hassle. If no fans are in attendance, then the Jays home field can literally be anywhere and it wouldn't matter. With that said, one of the reasons why I like the 3-5 hubs idea is because of what I said above. If there are no fans, then the venue really isn't all that important. Even if they decide that Arizona/Florida/Texas/Vegas/whatever is the best plan, then that works too.

If fans are not allowed, then I honestly don't think the Jays should have any home games in Toronto even if every other team is in their regular stadium. What is the point of going through customs and traveling to a different country multiple times just to play a game that could easily be duplicated in the Jays ST facility in Florida? In that 10 team division idea, the Jays are in the same division as the Rays and Marlins, so home games in Dunedin shouldn't impact that alignment.

Yeah, Passan is hyping up the Korean league on ESPN. No mention at all about this. Troll thread.

We won't see fans in attendance in any sport for the rest of the year, most likely. There will have to be a vaccine before they can pack 20k+ anywhere. Baseball from July-Nov with no fans in attendance either in regular stadiums or in 3-5 random places in the US works for me. Baseball is baseball.

I hope this is true, and I'd expect unless something drastically wrong happens in the next 30 days that some variation of this is likely going to happen (even if it's in hub spots rather than all the stadiums), but Trevor Plouffe is not the source I'd use to get excited about this. Once Passan, Rosey, etc, start talking about, then it might mean something. I will say though that if MLB is the first US sport to return and it happens to fall on July 4th weekend, then that's a huge opportunity to build some new fans.

Yeah seriously. Without fans it really doesn't matter where the games are played. If all of them are played in Arizona, Texas, and Florida, then so be it.

Regular season games with no fans probably won’t be that bad. Most stadiums look half filled/empty routinely anyway. I mean, no fans is going to suck, but is it really any different than 18,000 fans at Rogers Centre on a random Tuesday night? It’s not like the latter causes a great atmosphere. It’s just background noise until something happens for the most part. Where no fans is going to hurt is the playoffs. That’s when every crowd is crazy loud and can impact a game. Regular season, it will probably take a week to get used to it and it will seem common place. Basketball is a game that will look weird without fans.

I believe the tentative plan (based on Nightengale's article) is for spring training to happen in June, and the regular season to begin in the beginning of July. By then I would imagine every state in the USA and Toronto would have opened up, even if it came with heavy restrictions. With that said, if every game is going to have an empty stadium, then realistically the location doesn't even matter. There's no home field advantage with no fans, and teams don't build their rosters around their home stadium (though some will argue the Yankees do), so even if Toronto is still shut down in July, then play the games in their Dunedin complex. Play the games anywhere. As long as there are games and everyone involved is safe, then that's all that matters.

Man, I know MLB wants to save money, but a 5 round draft even in these circumstances sounds very light.

Even if play resumes with no fans, next year’s free agent crop is f***ed. No team is going to spend money. Lots of QO acceptance most likely, and Mookie’s not getting $400m. Time for the Jays to swoop in and sign Betts since the 2021 payroll figures to be minuscule.

I know nothing about amateur talent so I won't speak on the players themselves, but a 2B as a top 5 pick seems like a real bad idea. If it was a SS who had a chance to stick at short and had to move to 2B down the road, then that's more acceptable, but if it is strictly a 2B, there isn't much defensive wiggle room there. If offensive profile is similar, I'd take the CF over the 2B easily. Now, whether to draft a P or a position player is a different discussion. I hate pitching prospects (high volatility, get hurt easily, etc), but have to go with BPA.