And the MLB 2020 season negotiations begin

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Tough, given that the Jays were told off only last week...

I did not phrase that well...

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I did not phrase that well...

Not at all!

I know your point. You know mine.

(mildly giddy) Hhnngg, 16 more hours ...!

[cephasjames]

MLB and Players Association in last-minute discussions over playoff expansion for 2020 season, per report

Could still have a 16 team playoff this year.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by TheMaus2

still, for all the hemming and hawing over giving players full pro-rated salaries for a full season and then turning around to extend Mookie has it's ironies to it.

Meh. Pro-rated salaries are about a very odd season in 2020. Contract extensions for any player are about 2020 and beyond and for what are expected to be normal seasons. Are MLB teams supposed to not think about the future because of one extremely rare season out of its almost 150 years?

Now, if anyone wants to complain about a 12 year extension, I'm all on board that.

[Syd Thrift]

But their argument wasn't that they were losing money *this* season, it was that they were out of money because of COVID-19. And yet, clearly the large market teams are nowhere near out of money, and instead of trying to implement some kind of short-term revenue sharing with the players' approval, the owners kept trying to impose pay cuts.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Now, if anyone wants to complain about a 12 year extension, I'm all on board that.

I'm sure lots of people do

You can find them also not understanding basic economic concepts in the Bobby Bonilla Day thread

[CONN CHRIS]

It seems to me that Betts is one of the few players that I would have to shrug and say "yeah, whatever it takes" to nearly any salary deal reached. I still am surprised that the Red Sox didn't try harder to figure out a way to keep him.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

It seems to me that Betts is one of the few players that I would have to shrug and say "yeah, whatever it takes" to nearly any salary deal reached. I still am surprised that the Red Sox didn't try harder to figure out a way to keep him.

And hell, if he does have a late career decline, the Mets are always there to take on that bloated salary...

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

And hell, if he does have a late career decline, the Mets are always there to take on that bloated salary...

(opens mouth)

...

(closes mouth)

(nods and weeps)

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

But their argument wasn't that they were losing money *this* season, it was that they were out of money because of COVID-19. And yet, clearly the large market teams are nowhere near out of money, and instead of trying to implement some kind of short-term revenue sharing with the players' approval, the owners kept trying to impose pay cuts.

Yes, their claim has been that they would be out of money because of covid-19. Which is happening this season. They are banking on having money in future seasons based on the idea that covid-19 won't be affecting those seasons and they'll be getting their usual income. Again, they aren't giving him all that money at once. The contract is a promise to give him that money in future seasons. Seasons they believe they will have the money to afford his contract. Its not hypocritical to say, "This year, because of covid, we don't have the money. But in the future, when covid isn't an issue, we belive we will." Again, are MLB teams supposed to not think about the future because of one extremely rare season out of its almost 150 years?

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Yes, their claim has been that they would be out of money because of covid-19. Which is happening this season. They are banking on having money in future seasons based on the idea that covid-19 won't be affecting those seasons and they'll be getting their usual income. Again, they aren't giving him all that money at once. The contract is a promise to give him that money in future seasons. Seasons they believe they will have the money to afford his contract. Its not hypocritical to say, "This year, because of covid, we don't have the money. But in the future, when covid isn't an issue, we belive we will." Again, are MLB teams supposed to not think about the future because of one extremely rare season out of its almost 150 years?

Uhh
Amazing how absolutely backwards people can get things

That teams believe they'll have money in the future, and can think about the future, is exactly why they don't need to play poor now.

"We have been extremely profitable, we expect to be extremely profitable, but this year not so much, so we're going to pay you less". Nope.

[CBeisbol]

A Washington National tested positive today
Opening day

Not really sure how the league thinks playing is a good idea

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Uhh
Amazing how absolutely backwards people can get things

That teams believe they'll have money in the future, and can think about the future, is exactly why they don't need to play poor now.

"We have been extremely profitable, we expect to be extremely profitable, but this year not so much, so we're going to pay you less". Nope.

Meh. As we budget as a family sometimes there are lean months for whatever reason - unexpected expense, fewer paychecks, etc. In those months, even though we know we'll be okay the next month, we tighten things up and don't spend as much. Just because we may have enough in the future doesn't mean we spend like it in the present. I don't think what LA did is all that bad.

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

A Washington National tested positive today
Opening day

Not really sure how the league thinks playing is a good idea

Not just an National, but it was Soto.

MLB will need A LOT of luck and plowing through to see the season through until the end

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

Not just an National, but it was Soto.

MLB will need A LOT of luck and plowing through to see the season through until the end

I specifically didn't name him because it doesn't matter

It's not about missing his performance on the field

It's that there's COVID in the Nationals clubhouse. It seems unlikely it's going to be limited to one player

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Meh. As we budget as a family sometimes there are lean months for whatever reason - unexpected expense, fewer paychecks, etc. In those months, even though we know we'll be okay the next month, we tighten things up and don't spend as much. Just because we may have enough in the future doesn't mean we spend like it in the present. I don't think what LA did is all that bad.

I think a family budget might be different than a multi-billion dollar sports organization.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Because the United States is riddled with a disease that other first-world nations have managed to control, Canada will not allow major league baseball to take place there.

Expect the Blue Jays to play in Buffalo.

Sanity prevails. We're taking a beating for it around the league, but I'm happy to see science and experts being followed over damn the torpedoes, we must get back to normal now.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

I think a family budget might be different than a multi-billion dollar sports organization.

The amount of money is different, yes, but the idea of planning and situational awareness is not.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

The amount of money is different, yes, but the idea of planning and situational awareness is not.

So, when you're having a tough month you prorate your water bill and then ask the water company if you can just pay some percentage of whatever you have left after paying the other bills?

Or, you have to pay your water bills and wait until next month to buy a second boat?

[CBeisbol]

MLBPA and MLB agree to 16 team playoffs



Also, Gerrit Cole's hair looks longer than most Yankees'