OT: MLB 2020 Season Proposal

[Doctor Worm]

From a financial standpoint, there is very little incentive for the players to accept this offer. The owners are asking them to play 76 games and get paid for 57 (75% of 76). Or they can hold fast and have Manfred decree that they play 50 games and get paid for 50.

So at the margin, the owners are proposing that the players play an additional 26 games, and get paid for exactly seven of them.

If your boss offered you that deal, would you take it?

Actually, the owners' offer is even worse than I thought. They are not guaranteeing 75% of the players' salaries. Per the linked article, and if my math is correct, they're only guaranteeing 52%! The remaining 23% is only payable if the playoffs are played. Apparently the owners are concerned that a second COVID-19 wave might force a cancellation of the playoffs.

So under this proposal, if the players completed a 76 game season and then the playoffs were cancelled, the players would be making significantly less than if they defaulted to the 50 game season.

No sane person would agree to this.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29282308/source-new-mlb-proposal-union-76-games

 

[Rhuarc]

I think there's actually going to be too many sports going on at one time in the Fall and will be tough to keep track of it all.

I highly doubt baseball will figure this out. Both sides have always been blind to actually giving a **** about the fans.

 

[Doctor Worm]

I think they'll wind up playing a 50 game season. Some fans will care. Some will view it as illegitimate. I will likely view it as illegitimate, and care anyway.

 

[Doctor Worm]

UPDATE (sort of): The posturing continues. Players offered an 89 game proposal at 100% of salary, which the league quickly dismissed. Manfred says that the league will make a counterproposal, which the MLBPA will quickly dismiss. But they will continue to inch closer. Maybe after a few more iterations they will come to an agreement.

If not, the default position is that the league will impose a 48 game season at 100% salary, which the players can then take or leave. They'll take.

Bottom line from Manfred: "I can tell you unequivocally we are gonna play Major League Baseball this year."

 

[Terry_2426]

Think they'll end up playing 62-68 games overall when all said and done.

It is wild seeing people being anti-players in this situation--owners need to a majority of this one on the chin, not the players.

 

[mikebal9]

Think they'll end up playing 62-68 games overall when all said and done.

It is wild seeing people being anti-players in this situation--owners need to a majority of this one on the chin, not the players.

I'm anti both. You ok with that?

 

[Doctor Worm]

The waltz continues. ESPN reports that the owners are expected to issue a proposal today for a 70-75 game season, payable at 80-85% of prorated salary. In other words, another unacceptable proposal, but one that comes closer to acceptability than the last one.

The MLBPA will no doubt respond in kind. It's likely that sometime in the week or so, they will meet in the middle. If not, then we're in for a 48 game sprint. Either way, I agree with Manfred that there will be baseball this year.

 

[mikebal9]

The only question is whether the players will cave on less than 100% of pro rated salaries.If the owners really want to test that out, they should offer something like 90-95% and see if they can open the door. I suspect the players wouldn't go for even that.

 

[Doctor Worm]

The waltz continues. ESPN reports that the owners are expected to issue a proposal today for a 70-75 game season, payable at 80-85% of prorated salary. In other words, another unacceptable proposal, but one that comes closer to acceptability than the last one.

The MLBPA will no doubt respond in kind. It's likely that sometime in the week or so, they will meet in the middle. If not, then we're in for a 48 game sprint. Either way, I agree with Manfred that there will be baseball this year.

Interesting response by MLBPA. They did NOT offer a counter-proposal. Instead, they appear willing to have MLB impose a 48 to 55 game schedule at 100% prorated salary. To quote Tony Clark: "Further dialogue with the league would be futile. It's time to get back to work. Tell us when and where."

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id...est-offer-ask-league-set-2020-season-schedule

 

[RBS05]

Blocking shots has nothing to do with the approach to attacking the opposing team bringing the puck out of their defensive zone, which is what the trap is for.

The purpose of the trap is to use the winger on the side the puck is being carried up to squeeze the player carrying the puck out of his zone against the boards, taking the ice away from him, while the center and opposite side winger skate back and towards that side to take away the passing lanes towards the middle. This way the puck carrier has two choices- pass the puck back into his defensive zone for the defenseman to try a pass across to bring it up the other side, or rush to get over the red line and dump the puck deep for the forwards to chase it. If he passes back, everyone skates forward and to the middle to reset the trap. If he goes forward, either he succeeds in dumping the puck or there is a turnover.

Teams have been doing this, or a variation on it, since the Maple Leafs started it in the 1920's. The reason the trap was so effective with the Devils was that if the puck carrier succeeded in dumping the puck in, Brodeur was such a great skater and puckhandler that he was, in effect, an extra defenseman. He would get to the corner, gather the puck and scoot it back out of the zone before the other team's players could get down to it. That's why the Brodeur rule was made. If the NFL was as myopic there would be a Lawrence Taylor rule today banning defensive players from hitting the QB's arm.

Finally, since you clearly find the thought that the Rangers would use a trap as an offensive comment, please read this article from the New York Times from 1997, where the Rangers were using the trap under Colin Campbell, well before Torts used it.

I have no problem acknowledging that the Rangers, like many teams, have used the trap or a variation of it, like you said in my response.

My issue was that you claimed it was "the exact same trap" used under Torts. It wasn't the exact same trap.