I've been thinking about this since yesterday, and I think the MLBPA walked itself into a trap.

The best position for MLBPA was that the players were very concerned about the health concerns of playing MLB, both for themselves and their loved ones. Indeed, the position of none other than Mike Trout was that he was disinclined to play in 2020 if it meant being away from his pregnant wife (other players made similar points).

But right now, MLB and MLBPA are arguing over the length of the season, for purely economic reasons.

Let's put aside the economic rationale of MLBPA's position of playing 110+ games in 2020 (*). The problem with insisting that the 2020 season be longer (as opposed to MLB's shorter proposal) is that MLBPA just batted away the health concern argument (a 50-60 game regular season HAS to be less dangerous to players and their loved ones than a 100-110 game regular season).

Now it may turn out that MLBPA comes out with an outcome that is satisfactory to its members, but I simply don't see how they can make the health argument in these negotiations (I realize that MLBPA can say: "We're willing to play a 100-110 game regular season so that our members can recoup a significant amount of the money they would have made in 2020" or they can say "We have appraised the risk of playing a 100-110 game regular season versus a 50-60 game regular season, and the level of danger between both options is not material"... but I am simply unconvinced by either potential position).

(*) Going back to MLBPA's economic rationale, from a solely economic standpoint, it makes sense to play as many games in 2020 as you can, so that your members receive a higher amount of their prorated 2020 salaries.

(REPOSTED FROM THE MLB MULLS A SHORTER SEASON COMMENTS PAGE)

Doesn't sound like a proposal that's meant to be accepted.

I'm more pessimistic about games being played this year than I was before.

It sounds like the players' main focus is on the total amount paid. They want to hold the per-game salary the same and play 2/3 of the season. No concessions on decreased per-game revenues.

I don't think deferring salaries works. The problem is not a cash flow issue, it's a revenue issue.

I don't know what the attraction of baseball through November ever is; the potential for night playoff games in the Northeast or Midwest around Thanksgiving seems idiotic. Or would it all be played in Phoenix?

The deeper they go into the meat of the pro and college football seasons, the harder it is to get good TV slots and actual eyes watching.

Add to that a timetable that courts the postulated second wave and, yeah, anything beyond an 82 game conpromise season and back to haggling over pay scale doesn't make sense.

I kind of assume in an extended season proposal the playoffs would happen in AZ or FL. If you can’t have fans it doesn’t matter where you play.