Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Weekday Warrior

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Weekday Warrior

  1. There has got to be a municipality with a stadium somewhere on the eastern seaboard that wants the money! Fair point at least until the Super 2 coming up in a few days for prospects earmarked for a 2020 debut, but having a back up team was supposed to be the whole point of the travel squad. If there isn’t already another mechanism for teams to call up replacement players other than via the taxi squad the league needs to add one so as not penalize teams who are using it partly to keep top prospects on their development track for 2021 and beyond but not for actual 2020 use. Wo
  2. I don’t know why Miami isn’t already just calling up its taxi squad and moving games to a totally new venue that isn’t in such a hot spot. The taxis squad should be their team, and when un-infected players from the regular squad clear protocols based on their exposure they can swap them back in . ..
  3. So what happens if teams refuse to travel to Miami? An alternate playing facility like what TOR is doing seems like the logical solution
  4. That is more specific but the same point remains, all I am seeing so far is an outbreak with players on a team based in a hot spot, which doesn’t imperil the MLB season as a whole unless the Miami Marins can’t get a handle on it to the point where they can’t field a legal roster. I guess we will know soon enough if in game transmission is likely happening after the Philly and Braves testing comes back, which would add to the risk of losing the MLB season, but even then I think they’d try to tighten up and enforce protocols first....
  5. I’m not seeing this as a crisis for the season yet. Florida is the top Covid hot spot in the country, and there is no evidence yet of in game transmission occurring. Clearly individual players need to be more vigilant with their social distancing, mask wearing and hand washing to avoid clubhouse transmission, but if those outbreaks stay within the team that is why they have taxi squads...
  6. The old saying “no news is good news” probably not applicable in the current baseball landscape...
  7. I personally would still roll with a stars and scrubs strategy. Just do a little advance research on who seems most committed to not opting out. I find it really hard to intentionally end up with my budget spread around evenly on a bunch of mid tier players and still be competitive. I usually get my mid tier guys unintentionally just from price enforcing. Aggressive in season management is going to matter more than auction strategy this year.
  8. You’re obfuscating totally different aspects of the agreement. The owners’ season cancellation option and forced regular season length are birds of totally different feathers. Do you think the journalist is grossly mis-representing an unambiguous aspect of the agreement (ie season resumption is not mandatory for anyone without open stadiums)? I ask again that you show the me the link that even hints that season cancellation is grievable by the players the same way a forced season schedule is and under what language in the agreement they could do so, All that other text you’re quotin
  9. Dude all you had to do was google the words I put in quotes but okay here you go.... https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-06-10/why-mlb-players-will-prevail-on-getting-full-prorated-salary “The “Resumption of Play” section of the agreement sets three criteria: no restrictions against fans attending games; no restrictions on travel through the United States and Canada; no unreasonable health or safety risk to players, staff or fans.“ Regardless of what people realistically expected, that is what the agreement says, so if owners cancel the season there really isn’t much recou
  10. That is just a summary relaying the gist of the agreement, which very specifically says one of the criteria for having any season is "no restrictions against fans attending games" (google it). In theory the players could cancel a season over this missing criteria too (of course, why would they?), but if the owners do it the agreement is clear it is their right to do so, in which case I see no other specific language in the agreement that the players could grieve under besides the clause calling for the parties to “discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the abse
  11. Okay but that particular grievance hinges on the Commish exercising the option to unilaterally set a season, right? We now know that is never going to happen without a grievance waiver, it would be too big a craw in the owners’ throat to pay them for even one more game that wasn’t actually played. The owners would rather cancel, which the March agreement gives them the absolute right to do if stadiums aren’t open. If the season is cancelled, the only grievance the players could file would be an alleged failure by the owners to negotiate in good faith over the economic viability of
  12. I guess they had to push each other to the brink of nuclear war in order to feel sure they didn’t leave anything on the negotiating table The players can grouse all they want about 60 games being too short but we all know closing at 66 is their best deal One things is for sure, the players’ bad faith lawsuit is swirling the drain, the clock is ticking and they haven’t made any offers since June 9th!
  13. Supposedly as many as 8 owners voting in favor of season cancellation now. Players union has done a good job playing hardball (no sarcasm) but they really need to pivot back to a more conciliatory stance if they want to be realistic. Will probably take a few more days of tweeting about how they are ready and just want to know when and where before they get it out of their system and pick up the phone...
  14. Sorry but the players’ high and mightyism collapsed as soon as their lawyer said that they’d sue for a billion dollars the instant the league announced a schedule. That isn’t just a small footnote to the whole “tell us when, tell is where, we’re ready” slogan, it is a glaring omission. Maybee half a billion to 3/4 billion would be a reasonable pie in the sky to shoot for if they thought they could convince an arbitrator to have days on the calendar almost totally supersede economic and health factors, but a billion is over the top.
  15. The players’ $1 billion dollar claim is disingenuous ... so yeah of course the league is going to position themselves to ratchet that figure down per the criteria in the March agreement
  16. Raising Covid19 is a natural response to the players’ $1 billion grievance threat. I assume the players’ $1 billion calculation is the difference in prorated salaries between the 50 games the league might impose and the max number of possible games before Sep 27 had the league acted in what they say is good faith. But the March agreement says days on the calendar is just one of multiple factors that go into setting a schedule. Economics is another factor that the owners rely on, but health and safety is another factor that the owners are entitled to invoke. A $1 Billion dollar g
  17. If prorated salaries were the preexisting contractual default anyway where games are cancelled on account of disasters, what exactly was the quid pro quo the owners got in March for agreeing to service time and the $170 mil salary guarantee? Seems like the March agreement was just an affirmation of everyone’s mutual desire to salvage a season if possible with a basic framework in place for doing so
  18. I am not advocating this, just trying to deconstruct the thought process
  19. Question: does canceling the season outright put the owners in a better stance to defend the players’ “billion dollar” grievance claim than mandating a 50 game season?
  20. Breakdowns like this are exactly why people use mediators....
  21. As an FYI the same link makes it seem like there will be a loss of broadcast revenue too, which you were previously treating as fully guaranteed....
  22. Do you have a link to back up this assertion that owners may only be losing 30% of total revenue? A link to back up the assertion that they are making the same local and national TV money as a 162 game season? Even if these things are true, I still don’t see the equivalency. Revenue is not profit to the owners, there are still many other costs that come out of revenue besides player salaries. But player salary is a personal profit to the player.
  23. I just don’t see the equivalency there, sorry, and it certainly doesn’t affect my position that the players didn’t make a “concession” when they “agreed” to less than a 162 game season
  24. That’s not at all what I am saying. I was only talking about the games lost from the full 162 game season due to an act of nature not being a “concession”, as opposed to post-reopening games.
  25. It’s not a concession when they had no reasonable expectation of collecting that per game salary in the wake of the pandemic. Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see the owners dig a little deeper and pay for a longer season for the good of the game and keeping the players happy, but I am also grateful they aren’t cancelling the entire season (which they have a right to do). Neither of us has the evidence one way or the other as to whether the owners are truly losing money on empty stadium games, but the owners sure don’t seem too scared of a grievance process fleshing that info out
  • Create New...