Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, May 11, 2020

JMLB 2020 season threatened by compensation, DH rule possible

Joel Sherman’s take.

Jim Furtado Posted: May 11, 2020 at 09:28 AM | 64 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 2020 season, mlbpa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. JRVJ Posted: May 11, 2020 at 05:31 PM (#5949491)
MLB and MLBPA are probably positioning at this point, but it boggles my mind that they may well be stupid enough that they won't find a solution.

These are unparalled times, and the idea that owners would get no TV revenue and that players would get little to no salary when the world economy is in an absolute tail spin and the COVID-19 pandemic is raging, is beyond me.

Now, if the point is that players vote and decide not to play because they are afraid that playing could endanger their health, that I can understand (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand) What I can't understand is no MLB season because the negotiators for MLB and MLBPA can't find common ground.
   2. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 11, 2020 at 05:45 PM (#5949496)
What I can't understand is no MLB season because the negotiators for MLB and MLBPA can't find common ground.
The players’ position is that there already was an agreement that their salary would be based on the percentage of games played. I expect them to stick to that since they’ve got a pretty good case, although it’s possible they might agree to defer some of the salary owed for a bit.
   3. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 11, 2020 at 05:54 PM (#5949500)
Am I misunderstanding Sherman's piece (or the underlying facts), or are the owners arguing that players should get paid less for playing than they would if the season wasn't played?
   4. SoSH U at work Posted: May 11, 2020 at 06:11 PM (#5949508)
I wondered if this was about the Japanese league.

   5. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: May 11, 2020 at 06:15 PM (#5949509)
1) As projections for U.S. deaths today bounce back up to ~137K by August, due to dramatic increases in mobility, I will believe baseball is back - much less in 30 ballparks - when I see it.
2) If the owners think they'll come out financially behind my playing games in 2020 vs not playing games, they will not budge. As they learned after the 1994 strike, they will not likely be punished financially by a work stoppage, even if they are seen as more than 50% responsible for it.
3) To me, it is definitely fair for the players to be paid a percentage of their salary equal to the percentage of the season that is played. If it is not going to be based on a percentage of the total revenue generated (like the salary cap sports are), then you have to do it off of something. Clearly, there will be a significant loss of revenue due to lost gate receipts. Maybe some of it will be made up by increased demand for the TV/online product? Regardless, if the owners are going to get less revenue from lost gates all year, then the players getting paid based on the number of games played seems pretty fair.

I do not have a ton of confidence at the moment that this will be settled cleanly.
   6. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: May 11, 2020 at 06:16 PM (#5949511)
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
   7. winnipegwhip Posted: May 11, 2020 at 06:28 PM (#5949516)
No one disputes the revenues are going to be lower. If the owners want concessions from the players they should open the books to show their projections based on previous financials. And if those revenue reductions are overstated they should give some extra money to the players.

Of course I know the answer to the idea of opening the books.
   8. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 11, 2020 at 06:30 PM (#5949517)
To me, it is definitely fair for the players to be paid a percentage of their salary equal to the percentage of the season that is played.
How is that fair if the owners already expressly agreed to a different formula?
   9. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 11, 2020 at 06:36 PM (#5949520)
If it is not going to be based on a percentage of the total revenue generated (like the salary cap sports are), then you have to do it off of something.
Well, that's what the owners have proposed - basing it on a 50/50 split of revenues.

Regardless, if the owners are going to get less revenue from lost gates all year, then the players getting paid based on the number of games played seems pretty fair.
How is that more fair than basing it on a 50/50 split? Everyone loses revenue from the games that are not played, but the owners also lose revenue from not having fans at the games that are played. Paying players their full prorated salary for those games would put all of that hit on the owners.

Aside from the standard "owners are billionaires" and "good luck getting them to be honest about total revenues" rebuttals - why would the players' position be more fair, at least in concept? "They already had an agreement" isn't particularly convincing in these circumstances, especially given the reported fuzziness about whether the agreement covered games played with no fans.
   10. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: May 11, 2020 at 06:46 PM (#5949524)
I'm not convinced from anything I've read that an iron-clad agreement between players and owners on pretty much anything was achieved; unlike other sports, MLB seems to be doing a lot more "thinking out loud" through the media, which is different from announcing agreements.

And in terms of what is fair, I'll say this: I've been a baseball fan since I was seven years old during the strike season of 1981, and throughout the last 39 years, the one thing the players hold more important than anything else is...avoiding a salary cap. In fact, I'd argue they've been on the losing end of the last few labor agreements, and it is largely because they are willing to give in on other things in order to stick with this one thing- that there will be no hard salary cap.

Well, if they think getting their pay based on a percentage of the revenue that comes into the sport is either a salary cap, or a long way down the slippery slope that ends in a salary cap, then anything else will seem fairer to them.

If MLB somehow gets 81 games in this year, and the players all get half their salary for 2020 (maybe a little more, when you put in the playoffs, so it'd be, say 60% of theor salary), that's pretty fair. Then, it is not based on revenues, which is what the MLBPA seems to prioritize.
   11. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: May 11, 2020 at 06:56 PM (#5949530)
How is that fair if the owners already expressly agreed to a different formula?


That is the current agreement. The owners want to alter the agreement (pray they don't alter it more) based on no gate revenue. as in, a prorated salary, reduced by X% for no gate. The owners claim X is 40.
   12. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 11, 2020 at 07:30 PM (#5949540)
That is the current agreement.
Sorry, yes. Was reading too quickly and misread that. Yes, that's fair, because that's their agreement. How (this question is rhetorical, not directed at you) is anything other than that fair, given that it's not what they agreed to?
   13. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 11, 2020 at 07:39 PM (#5949544)
From TFA:

MLB interprets this sentence in the agreement “the Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators” to mean a new arrangement would have to be negotiated if there is revenue derived from attendance (at least to begin there will be no fans at games).
If the players' position is "we have an agreement, and that's that," one could certainly argue that that isn't a good-faith discussion. The fact that fanless games is specifically called out as a circumstance not addressed by the existing framework indicates that it's far from ironclad that the existing framework should also apply to fanless games.
   14. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 11, 2020 at 07:40 PM (#5949546)
Aside from the standard "owners are billionaires" and "good luck getting them to be honest about total revenues" rebuttals - why would the players' position be more fair, at least in concept? "They already had an agreement" isn't particularly convincing in these circumstances, especially given the reported fuzziness about whether the agreement covered games played with no fans.
MLB owners have decades to recoup their lost 2020 profits, most players only have a few prime years. “They already had an agreement” may not be convincing to some, but MLB agreed to pay the players based on the percentage of games played when it should have been fully aware of the consequences. How many bites at the players’ salary do folks want to give the owners?
   15. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 11, 2020 at 08:02 PM (#5949555)
MLB agreed to pay the players based on the percentage of games played when it should have been fully aware of the consequences.
...which is why they carved out an (admittedly somewhat vaguely worded) exception for fanless games.
   16. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 11, 2020 at 08:04 PM (#5949557)
MLB owners have decades to recoup their lost 2020 profits, most players only have a few prime years.
Counterpoint: Even when we return to 162-game seasons for which players will be fully paid, MLB attendance is likely going to be way down until we have a vaccine. We're talking about one year of lost profits for the players, but who knows how many for the teams?
   17. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 11, 2020 at 08:15 PM (#5949561)
...which is why they carved out an (admittedly somewhat vaguely worded) exception for fanless games
Not much of a carve out - vaguely worded probably doesn’t cut it. Specific over general and all that.
   18. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 11, 2020 at 08:17 PM (#5949563)
It's not the best, but if the existing agreement framework controlled for all circumstances, there would be no need to mention fanless games as being treated any differently. It would render that clause surplusage.
   19. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 11, 2020 at 08:22 PM (#5949569)
And reading it as "We will discuss a different salary structure if games are played without fans" would read all sorts of words into the clause that can't possibly be read into it. It says something very different: that if they can't play with fans, they'll discuss whether to play the games at all.
   20. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 11, 2020 at 08:30 PM (#5949577)
It says something very different: that if they can't play with fans, they'll discuss whether to play the games at all.
That's certainly a plausible interpretation, but nowhere does it say that one of the inviolable parameters of that discussion is that the structure of the full-attendance agreement would still control. And if, in the course of that discussion, the players take the "full prorated salaries or nothing" position, that's not a good-faith discussion. I would also argue that it's at least arguably not a more "fair" position, conceptually, than a 50/50 revenue split.
   21. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 11, 2020 at 08:41 PM (#5949584)
It's not a good faith argument to argue that the salary agreement that one just negotiated, which had no exceptions, should be torn up if a contingency that both sides already knew about — since they addressed it elsewhere in the agreement — occurred.

And there's nothing automatically conceptually fair about 50/50.
   22. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 11, 2020 at 08:45 PM (#5949586)
So what would a good faith discussion of the economic feasibility of fanless games look like? Under your construction there would seem to be only one, in which the players say “no negotiation on salaries, take it or leave it,” and then the owners decide whether or not it’s feasible to play. That’s not a discussion in any reasonable sense of the word.
   23. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 11, 2020 at 10:04 PM (#5949602)
The owners have an obligation to try to play games in 2020. The mere fact that they might lose money is insufficient to negate that obligation. But if it's not economically feasible, then they don't have to.
   24. McCoy Posted: May 11, 2020 at 10:08 PM (#5949604)
Brockmire
   25. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 11, 2020 at 10:08 PM (#5949605)
That doesn’t really answer my question.
   26. dejarouehg Posted: May 11, 2020 at 10:29 PM (#5949613)
Leave it to baseball to potentially screw-the-pooch when the opportunity to grab the sports spotlight and improve is lagging (though not to me) profile.

What I don't see discussed enough is the altered TV-revenue paradigm. Loss of revenue from fanless games and all that goes with it is a flagrant consequence. Who is going to pay same/similar/remotely close advertising rates to what was paid in previous seasons? Yes, they may well have the sports fan spotlight all to themselves, but will they have the money to spend? When will there be an economy that provides real disposable income?

I think there is a decent chance that this condition lingers multiple years and the entire sports cost structure is turned on its head. Players will long for the day when they whined about being insulted with eight-figure contract offers; owners will not only not enjoy the seemingly endless rise in franchise value but may see values head south. The pool of potential buyers may well shrink as well.

As for playing this year, it comes down to this......

The players are taking a serious health risk to play again. There's no altruism in this, they just want their pro-rated money. On a pure financial analysis basis, the owner's position makes more sense to me. However, I believe on the whole, the health risk the players are taking justifies a level of over-compensation.

My question is, will 82 games feel like a legit season? Let's hope there will be reason to even discuss it.
   27. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 11, 2020 at 10:59 PM (#5949618)
I’m completely pro-player if they collectively decide they don’t want to take the health risk. But the idea that, say, 20% more pay would override the health risk just seems a little...unseemly? Disingenuous? Not quite sure what the right word is.
   28. Stevey Posted: May 11, 2020 at 11:30 PM (#5949624)
On a pure financial analysis basis, the owner's position makes more sense to me


Only if the owners decided to hang out nice bonuses in years where revenue was higher than expected, and, well, they dont. When a pre-arb player puts up a six win season, he still gets the minimum because he agreed to it. The owners need to be held to what they agreed to as well. They dont get to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
   29. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 12, 2020 at 01:48 AM (#5949637)
I assume people addressed the topic while I wasn't really around here, but I don't see how this is going to be feasible. Even if you don't have any fans, you've probably got 100 people or more to put on each game. You've got players, coaching staff, umpires, grounds crew, and various other staff, from clubhouse attendants to security to ballgirls/batboys (someone has to do those jobs). Plus all the radio and tv personnel - announcers, cameramen, etc.

Even if you limit travel, how the hell does one expect to keep them all healthy? You going to sequester all of them for four months? And what happens if one player or coach tests positive? Do you quarantine the whole team for two weeks?
   30. Mayor Blomberg Posted: May 12, 2020 at 02:18 AM (#5949639)
yes, David, that was discussed in the precursor thread, back during the "we can do it all in Arizona. ... Or Arizona and Florida. ... And Texas" phase of the plan. Don't forget food and transit and hospitals and, indeed, once family leaves the bubble (if they enter) they don't come back.

At least when they were in Phoenix or South Florida, there was no need for air travel. But maybe they can just avoid TSA checks and have the bus driven onto the tarmac?

If the new system contemplates players living at home that really tempts fate.
   31. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 12, 2020 at 02:59 AM (#5949643)
To have a chance of playing in July, MLB needs to start serious planning now. Seems worth doing, even if the chances of pulling it off are somewhat iffy. The Florida-Texas-Arizona plan still seems more likely than getting the green light from all, or enough, MLB home team jurisdictions, some of which are virus hotspots. It’s almost 8 weeks to July 4th, hard to predict how things will look. If MLB starts the season, they have to be prepared to quarantine those who test positive, and keep going even if there are isolated cases.
   32. Stevey Posted: May 12, 2020 at 07:46 AM (#5949654)
You've probably got 100 people or more to put on each game.


Some European soccer team estimated it at about 300. I can't imagine it will be any less here.
   33. Ron J Posted: May 12, 2020 at 08:26 AM (#5949660)
29. The estimate I saw was 288. That's probably low now that I think about it. 300 people for UFC 249 and we're talking 24 fighters.

EDIT: 1200 tests for a one day event.

EDIT2: The PGA expects to do somewhere around one million tests for their partial season
   34. Ron J Posted: May 12, 2020 at 08:31 AM (#5949662)
And since DMN appears to be here now, as I understand it if MLB makes an actual claim of inability to pay (as opposed to just moaning about it) or any form of financial distress they'd have to open their books. Is this correct (I suspect it's more complex than that)
   35. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 12, 2020 at 12:00 PM (#5949721)
My question is, will 82 games feel like a legit season?

No. If the season happens, 2020 will be looked back on as a weird asterisk season. No fans. Total different league structure. Universal DH. 81 games.

If will be both fun and different, and later looked back as a kooky outlier.

   36. Rally Posted: May 12, 2020 at 01:53 PM (#5949763)
Universal DH is just an example of powerful people following the concept of never letting a crisis go to waste. Throw it in there and if you oppose it then the response is "why are you trying to stop baseball from coming back?"

An 82 game season might give somebody a chance to hit .400, but probably won't happen since strikeouts are so high. Closest anyone has come since Ted 1941 is Tony Gwynn's .394 in 1994. But with even more games missed in 1981, batting champs Bill Madlock and Carney Lansford hit .341 and .336, very normal batting champ averages.

In my experience running simulations for more than 35 years, I've had 2 players hit .400 for a season (qualified), and both happened in strike-shortened years. You may wonder why or how simulation players go on strike. Those were just busy years for me and I was unable to play the full schedule, so player strikes became part of the narrative.

   37. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 12, 2020 at 02:06 PM (#5949767)
29. The estimate I saw was 288. That's probably low now that I think about it. 300 people for UFC 249 and we're talking 24 fighters.
Yeah, but each of those fighters is independent; they don't share the same staff. (AFAIK) Whereas I'm pretty sure that all 25 (or however many it is now) players on the roster use the same 1B coach.
   38. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 12, 2020 at 02:50 PM (#5949788)
My question is, will 82 games feel like a legit season?
It will be different, like many things this year, but it still will be Major League Baseball. Is this term of the Supreme Court legit even though they held some arguments by phone and heard fewer cases than scheduled? Is the House of Representatives legit even though it hasn’t met since March 14? Was MLB legit in 1944-45, when it was largely old men & 4-Fs? If there is MLB in 2020, the context will be part of the story, but so will the games.
   39. SoSH U at work Posted: May 12, 2020 at 03:01 PM (#5949793)
I think when we look back at the season as a whole, we'll recognize it as being not the same.

But I've never heard anyone speak of the '81 Dodgers WS title as anything less than legitimate. I wonder if this year's champ will be viewed similarly.

I suppose it depends somewhat on who wins. If the Dodgers finally break through, no one will think much of the shortened season being a factor. But if the Rockies grab the last WC spot and get hot for three weeks, that title would likely be mentally asterisked.

   40. Mayor Blomberg Posted: May 12, 2020 at 03:24 PM (#5949806)
Was MLB legit in 1944-45, when it was largely old men & 4-Fs?


I've certainly heard that.

But I've never heard anyone speak of the '81 Dodgers WS title as anything less than legitimate.


Other than reminders that the NL team with the best overall record didn't make the playoffs.
   41. SoSH U at work Posted: May 12, 2020 at 03:34 PM (#5949812)
Other than reminders that the NL team with the best overall record didn't make the playoffs.


Yes, there are complaints about that, but I never hear it applied to the Dodgers' title. YMVV.

   42. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 12, 2020 at 03:52 PM (#5949817)
I would agree that while there are questions about the 1981 season in general, I've never heard the Dodgers' title questioned.
   43. Adam Starblind Posted: May 12, 2020 at 04:01 PM (#5949823)
The owners have an obligation to try to play games in 2020. The mere fact that they might lose money is insufficient to negate that obligation. But if it's not economically feasible, then they don't have to.


Since this is a business, it's rational to interpret "economically feasible" to mean "at least break even on the games."
   44. Jaack Posted: May 12, 2020 at 04:07 PM (#5949827)
Yeah, titles aren't the same as individual performances in funky seasons. The '45 Tigers are just as much of champions as anyone else, but Snuffy Stirnweiss was never a great player.

Which is to say a .400 hitter in 2020 gets a giant astrisk, but the 2020 champions shouldn't get disregarded, even if it's someone unexpected.
   45. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 12, 2020 at 08:53 PM (#5949915)
No, "economically feasible" and "profitable in the short run" are not the same thing.
   46. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2020 at 09:04 PM (#5949919)
Coaches, trainers, medical staff, traveling staff, front office staff, umpires, clubhouse attendants, and security to just name a few groups that will be in close proximity to the players.
   47. Mayor Blomberg Posted: May 12, 2020 at 09:14 PM (#5949921)
Why FO staff? Do GMs really need to be at the games or in the clubhouse?
   48. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2020 at 09:20 PM (#5949923)
FO talks to at the very least coaches, trainers, and medical staff. The FO can and does travel with the team. But yeah, people in the front office are known to be in close proximity with players.
   49. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 12, 2020 at 09:35 PM (#5949931)
FO talks to at the very least coaches, trainers, and medical staff.
Pretty sure that can be done via these things called telephones. Or zoom. I think FO staff can pretty easily distance. But the on-field people obviously cannot; they have to be physically with each other and the players.

But whether it's 300 people or 100, the point stands: unless you plan to sequester all of them for the season, someone's going to get infected. And then what? Everyone in contact with that person has to go into isolation for two weeks? Be pretty hard to play if one is not allowed out of one's place.

   50. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2020 at 09:40 PM (#5949933)
Well sh!t, coaches could do their duties via telephone and zoom as well. Cross them off the list!
   51. Rally Posted: May 13, 2020 at 08:05 AM (#5949969)
Social distancing in MLB:

1. Fielders cannot hold baserunners
2. A new set of bases are introduced to the field - fielder's bases and runner's bases. They must be set at least 6 feet apart.
3. No tag plays. If a fielder receives the ball while on the fielder's base, the runner is out unless he is touching a runner's base.
4. No run downs - in between runners are out if the fielder at fielder's base they are closest to receives the ball.
5. Catcher must stand at least 6 feet behind the batter. Third strikes caught on a bounce are considered outs.
6. Umpires will work remotely and have full access to all cameras - no need for them to be on the field. Calls will be made over loudspeaker.
7. MLB suspends regulations against wearable tech for the season. Signs will be given electronically, so traditional sign stealing methods won't work. Teams will probably hire some hackers, but also network security consultants.
8. All mound visits will be conducted via Zoom

Any other suggestions?
   52. McCoy Posted: May 13, 2020 at 08:12 AM (#5949970)
No spitting, no chewing, no blowing of noses, no bubblegum, no sunflower seeds.
   53. Stevey Posted: May 13, 2020 at 09:54 AM (#5949990)
Pretty sure that can be done via these things called telephones. Or zoom.


Front offices prepare binders of information for each game for the coaching staff and players to use. Either you need FO staff on site to prepare the information for them, or you allow the players/coaches access to technology during the game to make decisions, and well, we just had a little problem with teams using that tech inappropriately.
   54. SoSH U at work Posted: May 13, 2020 at 10:08 AM (#5949996)
Front offices prepare binders of information for each game for the coaching staff and players to use. Either you need FO staff on site to prepare the information for them, or you allow the players/coaches access to technology during the game to make decisions, and well, we just had a little problem with teams using that tech inappropriately.


Or, in a perfect world, you take advantage of the conditions to stop that crap.
   55. Ron J Posted: May 13, 2020 at 11:10 AM (#5950039)
#53 I work in an environment that used to have a lot of paper flows. It's now being done via email attachments, shared documents, collaboration tools (a the joins of a Microsft Team install. 2 solid days of reboots as it moved to complete the install).

Hell, any of the lawyers here probably faced bigger changes to the work culture. It certainly can be done.

Mind you, baseball tends to be funny about change. Mass resistance of any given change until suddenly everybody's adopted it. Not big on gradual changes.

Coaches though. Some of their job requires they be physically present. Hard to correct any kind of mechanical flaw remotely -- at least given the current state of technology. Whether that justifies their inclusion in any bubble is an open question (personally I think so). In theory that's a job that can be done by veteran players. In practice, probably depends an awful lot of the team and the veteran in question.
   56. Adam Starblind Posted: May 13, 2020 at 11:56 AM (#5950054)
No, "economically feasible" and "profitable in the short run" are not the same thing.


That's not what I said. What do you think it means?
   57. Sunday silence: Play Guess How long season lasts Posted: May 13, 2020 at 12:06 PM (#5950060)
“They already had an agreement” may not be convincing to some, but MLB agreed to pay the players based on the percentage of games played when it should have been fully aware of the consequences.


MLB should be fully aware of the consequences in March, but then you say:

It’s almost 8 weeks to July 4th, hard to predict how things will look.


arent you contradicting your own self here?
   58. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 13, 2020 at 01:38 PM (#5950101)
No, he's not contradicting himself. They weren't (and aren't) fully aware of what would happen, but they were fully aware of what could happen. (We know that, because they even mention the possibility of attendanceless games in the agreement. But not in the part of the document addressing salaries.)
   59. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 13, 2020 at 01:47 PM (#5950108)
So you’re taking the position that the parties agreed to have a good faith discussion of the economic feasibility of fanless games, but that discussion would be limited only to the economic feasibility where the players automatically get their full prorated salaries?

That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
   60. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 13, 2020 at 01:48 PM (#5950109)
. . . arent you contradicting your own self here?
Not really. In late March, MLB should have known that there was a very real possibility that many games could be lost, and that playing in front of spectators could be especially problematic due to the bans on mass gatherings. That we are still unsure of how quickly those limitations will be relaxed doesn’t mean MLB wasn’t, or shouldn’t have been, aware of the risks in late March.
   61. Stevey Posted: May 13, 2020 at 02:19 PM (#5950123)
#53 I work in an environment that used to have a lot of paper flows.


The issue isn't getting the appropriate data into the hands of those who need it. It's preventing teams from using those tools to give the players/coaches data that shouldn't be accessible.
   62. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: May 13, 2020 at 03:00 PM (#5950145)
Who needs MLB when we've got absolutely glorious and ridiculous Taiwanese action like this...

https://twitter.com/conn_stapleton/status/1260579639459753984
   63. Ron J Posted: May 13, 2020 at 03:05 PM (#5950148)
61 Right. But honestly that's not an issue of whether management is on site or not.
   64. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 16, 2020 at 02:04 PM (#5951203)
I would rather they cancel the season entirely than play a partial season with the universal DH.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAngels' Andrelton Simmons opts out as Los Angeles' season draws to a close
(38 - 4:23pm, Sep 23)
Last: Rally

NewsblogWhy losing Justin Verlander marks beginning of the end of Astros' sad legacy
(47 - 4:15pm, Sep 23)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT - NBA Bubble Thread
(2850 - 4:01pm, Sep 23)
Last: Fourth True Outcome

NewsblogSeeding, not record, will determine who bats last in this year's neutral-site World Series
(11 - 3:41pm, Sep 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

Newsblog8th? BBTF Central Park Softball Game: October 3
(97 - 3:23pm, Sep 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe AL MVP Battle Could Come Down to Philosophy
(10 - 3:17pm, Sep 23)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogMLB officially cancels 2020 Arizona Fall League
(2 - 3:07pm, Sep 23)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(9718 - 2:50pm, Sep 23)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogMultiple Reports Link Angels To Dave Dombrowski
(12 - 2:27pm, Sep 23)
Last: The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV)

NewsblogRob Manfred exclusive: Commissioner says MLB plans to have fans at NLCS, World Series
(6 - 12:49pm, Sep 23)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Brave New World
(161 - 12:12pm, Sep 23)
Last: MY PAIN IS NOT A HOLIDAY (CoB).

NewsblogYou can trust OMNICHATTER!, for September 22, 2020
(27 - 10:20am, Sep 23)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(978 - 10:50pm, Sep 22)
Last: It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out

NewsblogThe Cubs finished their worst offensive season ever at Wrigley Field. Can they just blame it on 2020?
(18 - 9:55pm, Sep 22)
Last: Walks Clog Up the Bases

NewsblogPassan: Inside a final week like MLB has never seen before
(7 - 8:41pm, Sep 22)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

Page rendered in 0.5428 seconds
48 querie(s) executed