[jrgum3]

If nothing is agreed by June 10th then it is all but over. Mlb had a great opportunity and seems to be blowing it. If no season this will have long lasting implications. Both sides seem not to give a fck about the fans. Sad they can't see that they basically blew a big opportunity to be the first main sport back with all eyes on them. Fck em all I say

Even though I love baseball I think a lot of fans will no longer be fans of the game if they don't come back this season and this time they may be gone forever. I'm torn because baseball is my favorite sport and I'd probably still watch but I know I'll be in the minority.

[stevenash]

Even though I love baseball I think a lot of fans will no longer be fans of the game if they don't come back this season and this time they may be gone forever. I'm torn because baseball is my favorite sport and I'd probably still watch but I know I'll be in the minority.

Don’t kid yourself, they’ll be back.

[BigSpoon]

Even though I love baseball I think a lot of fans will no longer be fans of the game if they don't come back this season and this time they may be gone forever. I'm torn because baseball is my favorite sport and I'd probably still watch but I know I'll be in the minority.

I think the majority of fans will be back right away. Fans have been treated far worse before.

[Otters27]

I think the majority of fans will be back right away. Fans have been treated far worse before.

I don't know. Uncharted waters.

[EmpireMaker]

5:22pm: The league and the union have continued to battle this week in the form of letters, per Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic. Halem sent one to the union Wednesday explaining why the league’s not on board with its 114-game proposal, saying that “we do not have any reason to believe that a negotiated solution for an 82-game season is possible” and detailing why extending the regular campaign into October isn’t feasible from the league’s perspective. As of now, the league’s also unwilling to give service time to a player who opts out of a potential season for health and safety reasons.
MLBPA negotiator Bruce Meyer responded that he’s not sure MLB even wants a season to take place. “We are happy to hear that ‘the Commissioner is committed to playing Baseball in 2020,’” Meyer wrote, “since MLB’s course of conduct continues to lead to doubts.” The union also called MLB’s unwillingness to play into October “wholly unjustified.”
For now, MLB seems inclined to pursue a schedule of 50-some games, but that would also displease the union. Furthermore, the two sides haven’t even finalized health and safety protocols in the event a season does happen, though Meyer wrote, “We will be available at your convenience to continue those discussions, including over the weekend.”
10:26am: Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association remain at odds over both the length of a would-be 2020 season and the manner in which players would be compensated in a shortened schedule. Both sides have their own brand of mathematical gymnastics to show how much revenue would (or wouldn’t) be lost, and neither side has been inclined to budge whatsoever to this point. To recap — an abbreviated timeline of how this has played out:

• March 26: MLB and the MLBPA “agree” to conditions for return to play; players will receive prorated salaries if a season is played or a $170MM advance payout divided among all players if the season is canceled. Players will accrue the same service time they did in 2019 even if no season is played.
• April 16: Initial reports surface that ownership will seek further pay cuts from players due to a lack of gate revenue. The league points to a clause in the March agreement stipulating the two sides will “discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators.” The union contends prorated salaries were agreed upon with or without fans in attendance.
• May 11: After nearly a month, ownership finalizes an economic proposal that includes a revenue share with the union. Before it is even formally proposed to the MLBPA, union chief Tony Clark wholly dismisses the proposal, likening it to a salary cap.
• May 26: After another two weeks of calculated leaks from both sides and public back-and-forth, ownership presents a “sliding scale” for further pay reductions that amounts to a mean 38 percent cut on top of prorated salaries (lesser percentages for lower-paid players but greater cuts for higher-paid stars). The season would consist of 82 games.
• May 31: The union counters with a proposal for 114 games and prorated salaries.
• June 3: MLB rejects the MLBPA’s proposal and indicates it will not offer a counter-proposal. Instead, commissioner Rob Manfred and the league’s owners begin discussions on an even shorter season — reportedly 48 to 54 games — at prorated rates.

Now, per ESPN’s Jeff Passan, the league is focusing in on a 48-game season. Fans and players alike recoil at the notion of such a truncated season, but the Associated Press yesterday obtained an email from deputy commissioner Dan Halem to the union in which Halem wrote: “You confirmed for us on Sunday that players are unified in their view that they will not accept less than 100% of their prorated salaries, and we have no choice but to accept that representation.”
The dramatically shortened schedule being discussed by the league is a reflection of the losses they’re willing to accept. The extent of those losses remains a point of contention, as the league has not yet provided the MLBPA with what it terms to be sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims.
Nonetheless, Passan takes a look at the numbers both sides have put forth. If the league is willing to play prorated salaries on a 48-game schedule and the union is indeed accepting an 82-game season at a prorated level, then the difference amounts to 34 games’ worth of prorated pay. Even accepting the figures ownership has floated at face value, the dispute — at least viewed through this lens — boils down to about $326MM in total, Passan surmises.
Ownership might look to spin the number to be greater, just as the union might look to cast doubt upon the fact that the losses are even that sizable. Regardless, if the players will indeed accept an 82-game season and prorated pay, the dispute comes down to roughly one month’s worth of games. On the surface, that appears like it should be a surmountable obstacle, but of course neither side has been particularly enthusiastic about compromise in any capacity.
Still, SNY’s Andy Martino writes that at least one person involved in the talks believes the outcome will indeed be a compromise: something in the vicinity of 65 to 80 games with slightly less than prorated salaries and temporary suspensions of the luxury tax and qualifying offer systems.
That sounds amenable to onlookers, though the involved parties surely view things differently. FiveThirtyEight’s Travis Sawchik examines why the players may be so reluctant to agree to further cuts, noting that the oft-cited “millionaires vs. billionaires” characterization of the public squabble isn’t necessarily reflective of the average big leaguer. Nearly two thirds of the league last year had not yet reached three years of MLB service time in 2019, meaning most had yet to even secure their first million-dollar contract. Add in their tax bracket, union dues and agent fees, and the actual amount that players take home off their pre-arb salaries is indeed probably lesser than most would assume from the outside looking in. It’s worth pointing out, of course, that ownership could push back with similar means of demonstrating that their revenues are less than most would assume.
Taking a step back from the finer details, it’s rather remarkable to look at the above timeline, realize that it spans more than two months, and think that the two sides are still, in essence, diametrically opposed without any real willingness to compromise to get a product back on the field. The NHL and NBA have approved plans for a return to play, but the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA with collective bargaining talks looming in 2021 continues to stand in the way of a suitable compromise.

[Chi_archie]

5:22pm: The league and the union have continued to battle this week in the form of letters, per Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic. Halem sent one to the union Wednesday explaining why the league’s not on board with its 114-game proposal, saying that “we do not have any reason to believe that a negotiated solution for an 82-game season is possible” and detailing why extending the regular campaign into October isn’t feasible from the league’s perspective. As of now, the league’s also unwilling to give service time to a player who opts out of a potential season for health and safety reasons.
MLBPA negotiator Bruce Meyer responded that he’s not sure MLB even wants a season to take place. “We are happy to hear that ‘the Commissioner is committed to playing Baseball in 2020,’” Meyer wrote, “since MLB’s course of conduct continues to lead to doubts.” The union also called MLB’s unwillingness to play into October “wholly unjustified.”
For now, MLB seems inclined to pursue a schedule of 50-some games, but that would also displease the union. Furthermore, the two sides haven’t even finalized health and safety protocols in the event a season does happen, though Meyer wrote, “We will be available at your convenience to continue those discussions, including over the weekend.”
10:26am: Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association remain at odds over both the length of a would-be 2020 season and the manner in which players would be compensated in a shortened schedule. Both sides have their own brand of mathematical gymnastics to show how much revenue would (or wouldn’t) be lost, and neither side has been inclined to budge whatsoever to this point. To recap — an abbreviated timeline of how this has played out:

• March 26: MLB and the MLBPA “agree” to conditions for return to play; players will receive prorated salaries if a season is played or a $170MM advance payout divided among all players if the season is canceled. Players will accrue the same service time they did in 2019 even if no season is played.
• April 16: Initial reports surface that ownership will seek further pay cuts from players due to a lack of gate revenue. The league points to a clause in the March agreement stipulating the two sides will “discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators.” The union contends prorated salaries were agreed upon with or without fans in attendance.
• May 11: After nearly a month, ownership finalizes an economic proposal that includes a revenue share with the union. Before it is even formally proposed to the MLBPA, union chief Tony Clark wholly dismisses the proposal, likening it to a salary cap.
• May 26: After another two weeks of calculated leaks from both sides and public back-and-forth, ownership presents a “sliding scale” for further pay reductions that amounts to a mean 38 percent cut on top of prorated salaries (lesser percentages for lower-paid players but greater cuts for higher-paid stars). The season would consist of 82 games.
• May 31: The union counters with a proposal for 114 games and prorated salaries.
• June 3: MLB rejects the MLBPA’s proposal and indicates it will not offer a counter-proposal. Instead, commissioner Rob Manfred and the league’s owners begin discussions on an even shorter season — reportedly 48 to 54 games — at prorated rates.

Now, per ESPN’s Jeff Passan, the league is focusing in on a 48-game season. Fans and players alike recoil at the notion of such a truncated season, but the Associated Press yesterday obtained an email from deputy commissioner Dan Halem to the union in which Halem wrote: “You confirmed for us on Sunday that players are unified in their view that they will not accept less than 100% of their prorated salaries, and we have no choice but to accept that representation.”
The dramatically shortened schedule being discussed by the league is a reflection of the losses they’re willing to accept. The extent of those losses remains a point of contention, as the league has not yet provided the MLBPA with what it terms to be sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims.
Nonetheless, Passan takes a look at the numbers both sides have put forth. If the league is willing to play prorated salaries on a 48-game schedule and the union is indeed accepting an 82-game season at a prorated level, then the difference amounts to 34 games’ worth of prorated pay. Even accepting the figures ownership has floated at face value, the dispute — at least viewed through this lens — boils down to about $326MM in total, Passan surmises.
Ownership might look to spin the number to be greater, just as the union might look to cast doubt upon the fact that the losses are even that sizable. Regardless, if the players will indeed accept an 82-game season and prorated pay, the dispute comes down to roughly one month’s worth of games. On the surface, that appears like it should be a surmountable obstacle, but of course neither side has been particularly enthusiastic about compromise in any capacity.
Still, SNY’s Andy Martino writes that at least one person involved in the talks believes the outcome will indeed be a compromise: something in the vicinity of 65 to 80 games with slightly less than prorated salaries and temporary suspensions of the luxury tax and qualifying offer systems.
That sounds amenable to onlookers, though the involved parties surely view things differently. FiveThirtyEight’s Travis Sawchik examines why the players may be so reluctant to agree to further cuts, noting that the oft-cited “millionaires vs. billionaires” characterization of the public squabble isn’t necessarily reflective of the average big leaguer. Nearly two thirds of the league last year had not yet reached three years of MLB service time in 2019, meaning most had yet to even secure their first million-dollar contract. Add in their tax bracket, union dues and agent fees, and the actual amount that players take home off their pre-arb salaries is indeed probably lesser than most would assume from the outside looking in. It’s worth pointing out, of course, that ownership could push back with similar means of demonstrating that their revenues are less than most would assume.
Taking a step back from the finer details, it’s rather remarkable to look at the above timeline, realize that it spans more than two months, and think that the two sides are still, in essence, diametrically opposed without any real willingness to compromise to get a product back on the field. The NHL and NBA have approved plans for a return to play, but the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA with collective bargaining talks looming in 2021 continues to stand in the way of a suitable compromise.

all the back and forth is depressing

[koz-man]

I think the majority of fans will be back right away. Fans have been treated far worse before.

I know all of my circle will be on board...

[JMobile]

So that'll make two continents that Matt will get torched on.

He might be better out there

[Carseller4]

Look for a deal this week.

[batt33]

all the back and forth is depressing

You would figure they would get a clue with the other major sports getting things going....

[EmpireMaker]

If you trust Braves’ third base coach Ron Washington, Austin Riley has a long and bright future ahead of him with the Atlanta Braves, per The Athletic’s David O’Brien. Said Washington, “He’s a very, very special kid. He’s on that special level with Ozzie (Albies) and (Ronald) Acuńa (Jr.) and all those young guys. He’s on that special level with them.”
Given Washington’s stellar reputation as an infield instructor, his word carries some weight. He goes on in O’Brien’s article to laud not only Riley’s long-term future with the bat, but with the glove as well, calling Riley “a tremendous third baseman.”
While it’s certainly encouraging for Braves’ fans to hear Washington speak so highly of Riley after an up-and-down rookie season, the path ahead is not without obstacles. For starters, he hasn’t locked down his spot in the starting lineup. All accounts suggest he’s going to have to earn his keep while being pushed at third by Johan Camargo. After his first month of big-league action, it would have seemed unfathomable that Riley wouldn’t have the 2020 third base job locked down, but Camargo remains very much in the running, despite struggling himself in 2019. Camargo’s year was worth -0.6 rWAR after hitting only .233/.279/.384 over 248 plate appearances. He’s played much better in the past (4.4 fWAR from 2017 to 2018), and the Braves appear confident he can at the very least hold the line for a year.
Should Camargo get the bulk of playing time at third, Riley could get at-bats as a designated hitter – at least in theory. But O’Brien notes that the scuttlebutt out of Atlanta pegs Marcell Ozuna as the likeliest option to see heavy minutes as a potential DH. Makes sense with Ronald Acuna Jr., Ender Inciarte, and Nick Markakis on hand to handle the outfield rotation. Riley himself could even see some minutes out on the grass depending on how things shake out.
But the real question at hand here is this: is Austin Riley the third baseman of the future for the Atlanta Braves? Ron Washington certainly seems to think so. If we trust Washington’s eye for defensive talent and assume Riley can stick at third base (or even become a plus defender), the question is whether his approach at the dish can improve enough to take advantage of his otherworldly power.
After all, Riley’s power numbers last year were excellent. He managed a .471 SLG with 18 home runs in just 274 at bats. His isolated power was .245 ISO, well above average and a number you’d hope for out of a middle-of-the-order bat. For context, Acuna Jr. walked away from 2019 with a .238 ISO. A full season at Riley’s mark would put him among the top-40 mashers in the league by isolated power. His power plays.
But even with those numbers, Riley’s total offensive contribution amounted to 14 percent below league average by wRC+. He needs to round out the rest of his game – and that starts with cutting down strikeouts. Riley’s walk-to-strikeout numbers are not anywhere near where they need to be for everyday reps (5.4 BB%, 36.4 K%). Both numbers need to see significant positive regression. The good news is, Riley looked the part in spring training, where signs pointed to Riley being able to make the necessary adjustments.
Third base is a loaded position for Atlanta – in terms of poignancy – and Riley has big shoes to fill. Putting aside the big picture pressure of manning the spot once belonging to the legendary Chipper Jones, even recent history has set a high bar for Riley. Last season, Josh Donaldson returned to All-Star form with a .259/.379/.521 line, 37 rainmaking bombs, 96 runs, 94 RBIs, 132 wRC+, good for 4.9 fWAR/6.0 rWAR. Good luck replicating those numbers out the gate.
Elsewhere in the NL East, another legend moved westward after a memorable 2019. Anthony Rendon gave the Nationals seven underrated seasons at the hot corner before joining the Los Angeles Angels this winter. We could talk all day about Rendon’s performance this postseason, but those in Washington, Rendon-as-superstar was old hat: He’s been a 6+ fWAR performer for three seasons running. Beyond his consistency, there’s simply no replacing the slow-heartbeat clutch-hitting Rendon provided the Nats on their World Series run – but someone is going to have to try.
Enter Carter Kieboom. Rendon’s nominal heir apparent – at 22-years-old – is about half a year younger than Riley, and he comes sporting a shinier prospect pedigree. He’s the 21st ranked prospect overall by MLB.com and Fangraphs, while Baseball America puts him as the 15th overall prospect (admittedly, Riley wasn’t far off, topping out as Baseball America’s 22nd ranked prospect before last season).
Much like Riley, Kieboom’s role at the outset of whatever season comes next is TBD. There’s an even greater chance the Nats roll with veterans Starlin Castro, Howie Kendrick and Asdrubal Cabrera sharing at-bats between third and second. At least, that was the plan had the season begun on time. Depending on how live baseball in the pipeline shakes out, the Nats might prefer Kieboom break camp with the team just to ensure he’s continuing his development via live baseball. With a potential DH in play, there may even be enough at-bats for the Nats to accommodate playing time for Kieboom and their veteran triumvirate.
Also like Riley, Kieboom wasn’t overly impressive in his first taste of big-league action. Apologists have plenty of cause to support Kieboom even after hitting just .128/.209/.282 over an 11 game stint early in the year (which included 4 errors at shortstop). Reason being: he wasn’t ready. Kieboom’s April promotion was a case of injury-depleted desperation. The Nats were in a bind with Trea Turner on the shelf. Wilmer Difo wasn’t getting the job done as Turner’s understudy, and the Nats were off to a slow start (11-12 at the time of his debut).
The small sample hasn’t done much to lessen the optimism over Kieboom’s potential, especially after he raked for a line of .303/.409/.493 for Triple-A Fresno. The shortstop-by-nature has a long-term future at third or second in Washington, though the suggestion has been that his power will play enough to handle third, and the Nats’ other top young bat has spent most of his career at second (Luis Garcia).
Riley is about a half-season ahead of Keiboom’s trajectory, giving us more familiarity with his game at the pro level. But for comparison’s sake, Riley hit .293/.366/.626 in 44 games at Triple-A in 2019. They’re both former first-rounders (Riley #41 overall in 2015, Kieboom #28 overall in 2016), but their draft status won’t help as each looks to fill the shoes of franchise legends.
And yet, they’re not the same. Riley is a hulking light-breaker who’s defensively playing up to stick at third base. His frame is redolent of a young Ryan Zimmerman before Mr. Nat made the move across the diamond to first. Kieboom’s not a small man himself (6’2″, 190 lbs), but some scouts thought he could stick at shortstop, and he brings a contact-oriented approach. He can stroke it to all fields with potential plus power and a track record of taking walks and putting the ball in play. They’re different molds as far as third baseman go, but neither has much leeway as they try to establish themselves in the majors. Not with both the Braves and Nationals looking to contend in a season that could be as short as 50-some games.

[jrgum3]

Don’t kid yourself, they’ll be back.

Fans may gradually come back but it would be a major black eye for baseball if they don't play this year. That being said, I actually do believe baseball will be played but it is looking like we'll have to settle for an abbreviated season. Not ideal but I'll take something over nothing any day.

[Cross]

Such an asterisk even if they come back.

[jrgum3]

Matt Harvey might play for Korean team

Thats interesting. Import pitchers generally are better than their Korean counterparts but I think Harvey would still get hit around by some of the better teams in the KBO.

[Chi_archie]

Such an asterisk even if they come back.

Huge asterisk

[stevenash]

Whatever happened to Preston Tucker?

[koz-man]

June 8th

2012

Six Mariners pitchers combine in the franchise's third no-hitter when starter Kevin Millwood leaves the game with an injury and five relievers, keep the Dodgers hitless in the team's 1-0 victory at Safeco Field. Brian Runge, the home plate umpire, was also behind the dish for Philip Humber's perfect game, making him the first ump to call balls and strikes for two no-hitters in one season since Drew Coble accomplished the feat in 1990.

[stevenash]

June 8th

2012

Six Mariners pitchers combine in the franchise's third no-hitter when starter Kevin Millwood leaves the game with an injury and five relievers, keep the Dodgers hitless in the team's 1-0 victory at Safeco Field. Brian Runge, the home plate umpire, was also behind the dish for Philip Humber's perfect game, making him the first ump to call balls and strikes for two no-hitters in one season since Drew Coble accomplished the feat in 1990.

It was the anniversary of Joyce's blown out call the other day too.

[jrgum3]

Whatever happened to Preston Tucker?

I'm not sure why he couldn't get it done at the Major League level but he's absolutely killing the ball for the Kia Tigers in KBO. Obviously the pitching is pretty bad in the KBO but the guy is having a great season so far.

[JMobile]

So does Mookie Betts becomes a free agent next season?

[Heltah Skeltah]

Yes he does. Probably now only gets about half of what he would have if all this didn't happen. Owners and players have a very fractured relationship now more than ever. Owners will use this against them every way they can.

[stevenash]

On this date, June 9, 2019, exactly one year ago to the day David Ortiz was shot in the back in a bar in Santo Domingo

Papi was getting his load on.

[Cross]

Another week, another new proposal.

[jrgum3]

I am hoping the players accept the 75 game proposal the owners put out there. It seems like the best they or anyone can hope for at this point.

[EmpireMaker]

4:24pm: A variety of other notable details of the new proposal have now emerged. Initial reactions from the players’ side to the latest draft agreement seem less than favorable. The league has communicated its view that the sides “need to reach an agreement by Wednesday” in order to prepare for a 76-game campaign.
Players would be guaranteed half of their prorated salaries, per Ronald Blum of the Associated Press. If the postseason goes off without a hitch, the players would collectively stand to earn 75% of the prorated portion of their original salary guarantees.
The league has also suggested some major tweaks to the 2020-21 offseason, as Jeff Passan of ESPN.com covers on Twitter. The qualifying offer would go on hiatus. Instead, a team would get draft compensation for losing a player who signed a multi-year deal for over $35MM or a one-year deal for over $17.8MM. Signing such a player wouldn’t require any sacrifice of draft picks.
1:17pm: The new proposal sent this morning by Major League Baseball to the Players Association in many ways boils down to a repackaging of previous, similar offers, but it does come with at least one particularly notable change, per Joel Sherman of the New York Post (Twitter link). The league asked for 2020 postseason fields to expand even beyond the previously discussed 14 teams, adding another team per league and bringing the total to 16 playoff clubs.
The idea behind the league’s latest expansion would see a traditional bracket format play out, with the No. 1 seed playing the No. 8 seed, No. 2 vs. No. 7, etc. until each league has played down to one winner to square off in the World Series. The first round of play, Sherman adds, would be just a three-game set.
That’s a particularly strong deviation from the norm, where the top teams in each league have long been assured at least a five-game series against the weakest playoff entrant. The prospect of a sub-.500 No. 8 seed upsetting a dominant N0. 1 seed would create some excitement, to be sure, but the watered down playoff field and short early-round formats would undoubtedly be a turnoff for a very vocal set of MLB fans as well.
The league’s motivation here is clear. Postseason television contracts represent ownership’s best stream of revenue without fans in attendance at MLB games, and further broadening the playoff field would ensure that more games are played and that fans from more markets tune in to see the early rounds of play. The latest proposal from MLB to the MLBPA calls for owners to share some of those television rights with the players — typically, player postseason shares are derived from gate alone — so it’s only logical that owners are keyed in on making those games as lucrative as possible.
Today’s proposal will surely be rejected by the union, but it’s interesting that the league has now requested even more playoff expansion. On the surface, that’s something the MLBPA could incorporate into a counter-proposal, although it remains eminently possible that we simply see commissioner Rob Manfred implement a heavily truncated season with fully prorated pay. As few as 48 to 54 games have been speculated upon in the past week.

[ApricotSinner32]

5:22pm: The league and the union have continued to battle this week in the form of letters, per Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic. Halem sent one to the union Wednesday explaining why the league’s not on board with its 114-game proposal, saying that “we do not have any reason to believe that a negotiated solution for an 82-game season is possible” and detailing why extending the regular campaign into October isn’t feasible from the league’s perspective. As of now, the league’s also unwilling to give service time to a player who opts out of a potential season for health and safety reasons.
MLBPA negotiator Bruce Meyer responded that he’s not sure MLB even wants a season to take place. “We are happy to hear that ‘the Commissioner is committed to playing Baseball in 2020,’” Meyer wrote, “since MLB’s course of conduct continues to lead to doubts.” The union also called MLB’s unwillingness to play into October “wholly unjustified.”
For now, MLB seems inclined to pursue a schedule of 50-some games, but that would also displease the union. Furthermore, the two sides haven’t even finalized health and safety protocols in the event a season does happen, though Meyer wrote, “We will be available at your convenience to continue those discussions, including over the weekend.”
10:26am: Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association remain at odds over both the length of a would-be 2020 season and the manner in which players would be compensated in a shortened schedule. Both sides have their own brand of mathematical gymnastics to show how much revenue would (or wouldn’t) be lost, and neither side has been inclined to budge whatsoever to this point. To recap — an abbreviated timeline of how this has played out:

• March 26: MLB and the MLBPA “agree” to conditions for return to play; players will receive prorated salaries if a season is played or a $170MM advance payout divided among all players if the season is canceled. Players will accrue the same service time they did in 2019 even if no season is played.
• April 16: Initial reports surface that ownership will seek further pay cuts from players due to a lack of gate revenue. The league points to a clause in the March agreement stipulating the two sides will “discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators.” The union contends prorated salaries were agreed upon with or without fans in attendance.
• May 11: After nearly a month, ownership finalizes an economic proposal that includes a revenue share with the union. Before it is even formally proposed to the MLBPA, union chief Tony Clark wholly dismisses the proposal, likening it to a salary cap.
• May 26: After another two weeks of calculated leaks from both sides and public back-and-forth, ownership presents a “sliding scale” for further pay reductions that amounts to a mean 38 percent cut on top of prorated salaries (lesser percentages for lower-paid players but greater cuts for higher-paid stars). The season would consist of 82 games.
• May 31: The union counters with a proposal for 114 games and prorated salaries.
• June 3: MLB rejects the MLBPA’s proposal and indicates it will not offer a counter-proposal. Instead, commissioner Rob Manfred and the league’s owners begin discussions on an even shorter season — reportedly 48 to 54 games — at prorated rates.

Now, per ESPN’s Jeff Passan, the league is focusing in on a 48-game season. Fans and players alike recoil at the notion of such a truncated season, but the Associated Press yesterday obtained an email from deputy commissioner Dan Halem to the union in which Halem wrote: “You confirmed for us on Sunday that players are unified in their view that they will not accept less than 100% of their prorated salaries, and we have no choice but to accept that representation.”
The dramatically shortened schedule being discussed by the league is a reflection of the losses they’re willing to accept. The extent of those losses remains a point of contention, as the league has not yet provided the MLBPA with what it terms to be sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims.
Nonetheless, Passan takes a look at the numbers both sides have put forth. If the league is willing to play prorated salaries on a 48-game schedule and the union is indeed accepting an 82-game season at a prorated level, then the difference amounts to 34 games’ worth of prorated pay. Even accepting the figures ownership has floated at face value, the dispute — at least viewed through this lens — boils down to about $326MM in total, Passan surmises.
Ownership might look to spin the number to be greater, just as the union might look to cast doubt upon the fact that the losses are even that sizable. Regardless, if the players will indeed accept an 82-game season and prorated pay, the dispute comes down to roughly one month’s worth of games. On the surface, that appears like it should be a surmountable obstacle, but of course neither side has been particularly enthusiastic about compromise in any capacity.
Still, SNY’s Andy Martino writes that at least one person involved in the talks believes the outcome will indeed be a compromise: something in the vicinity of 65 to 80 games with slightly less than prorated salaries and temporary suspensions of the luxury tax and qualifying offer systems.
That sounds amenable to onlookers, though the involved parties surely view things differently. FiveThirtyEight’s Travis Sawchik examines why the players may be so reluctant to agree to further cuts, noting that the oft-cited “millionaires vs. billionaires” characterization of the public squabble isn’t necessarily reflective of the average big leaguer. Nearly two thirds of the league last year had not yet reached three years of MLB service time in 2019, meaning most had yet to even secure their first million-dollar contract. Add in their tax bracket, union dues and agent fees, and the actual amount that players take home off their pre-arb salaries is indeed probably lesser than most would assume from the outside looking in. It’s worth pointing out, of course, that ownership could push back with similar means of demonstrating that their revenues are less than most would assume.
Taking a step back from the finer details, it’s rather remarkable to look at the above timeline, realize that it spans more than two months, and think that the two sides are still, in essence, diametrically opposed without any real willingness to compromise to get a product back on the field. The NHL and NBA have approved plans for a return to play, but the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA with collective bargaining talks looming in 2021 continues to stand in the way of a suitable compromise.

[Chi_archie]

I am hoping the players accept the 75 game proposal the owners put out there. It seems like the best they or anyone can hope for at this point.

Doesn't seem likely

[stevenash]

The MLB draft is tomorrow.
In 2009 (11 years ago) Mike Trout was drafted 25th.

Here's a list of the 24 drafted before him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_M...Baseball_draft

[Stallion]

So we are looking at a 46 game season now???

[Cross]

Nothing new, owners not willing to concede at all, see ya in 2021 maybe.

[EmpireMaker]

The Major League Baseball Players Association is preparing to send a counter-proposal to the league which will call for 89 games at prorated salaries and expanded playoffs, ESPN’s Jeff Passan reports (Twitter thread). It’s 25 fewer games than the 114-game proposal the union last sent and 13 games more than MLB’s 76-game proposal on Monday. Of course, the league’s proposal only guaranteed players 50 percent of their prorated salaries — plus another 25 percent should a 16-team postseason be played to completion. As such, it’s hard to envision this deal being accepted — or even considered — by the league.
The new number of games does bring the midpoint between the two proposals to 82 games — the originally proposed number by the league. And ESPN’s Jesse Rogers reports that the union proposal contains expanded 16-team playoffs in both 2020 and 2021, which would surely hold appeal to ownership. The Athletic’s Evan Drellich adds that the players’ share of the playoff pool would be set at $50MM in the event that attendance is either limited or prohibited. Should fans be able to attend — unlikely in 2020 but plausible in 2021 — the players’ share would be dependent on gate revenue, as usual.
The players are also willing to commit to “broadcast enhancements” in the regular season and the playoffs, per Rogers, which would presumably lead to players regularly being mic’ed up to interact with the broadcast team during play. They’d also concede that non-high-risk players opting not to play during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. players who have family members at higher risk) would not receive salary or service time. High-risk players could opt not to play and still receive both.
Tonight’s proposal also contains several new elements. Bleacher Report’s Scott Miller tweets that an All-Star Game and Home Run Derby could be held after the World Series concludes — which could create further revenue for teams. The Wall Street Journal’s Jared Diamond, meanwhile, tweets that the union proposal seeks to establish a joint, $5MM fund with the league to support minor league players and drive social justice initiatives.
Still, the biggest issue hasn’t been the potential for expanded postseason play or even the overall number of games, but rather the disagreement on player salary. The union has steadfastly insisted upon prorated salaries, while ownership has continued to push the notion that additional pay cuts are necessary (while making brash claims about team profitability). Ownership has also staunchly refused to consider playing beyond the end of October, and that’s sure to be another roadblock in this latest proposal; Rogers reports that the proposal calls for the regular season to begin on July 10 and run through Oct. 11. As Diamond observes, that would ensure that MLB playoffs don’t go up against the NBA playoffs, which are set to conclude on Oct. 12.
If the sides cannot come to an agreement on salary terms, it seems increasingly likely that commissioner Rob Manfred will implement a roughly 50-game season with prorated salaries. All of the reported components of tonight’s proposal may create optimism that an actual negotiation could finally commence, but MLB Network’s Jon Heyman gives plenty of reason for caution (Twitter link). One ownership source reacted to Heyman: “We’re nowhere.”

[koz-man]

It was the anniversary of Joyce's blown out call the other day too.

That was a hard one to watch. The look on Galarragas face was priceless.

[Chi_archie]

That was a hard one to watch. The look on Galarragas face was priceless.

remember it like it was yesterday

[batt33]

Nothing new, owners not willing to concede at all, see ya in 2021 maybe.

yeah Kinda looking that way..I really thought they would be back by July 4th awhile ago....

[ApricotSinner32]

Man this place fuking stinks