Why would TOR share an awful indoor stadium in a COVID hotbed state? Couldn’t they play in a nice minor league stadium somewhere?
Yes, Buffalo is their Triple-A team and has a nice park.Why would TOR share an awful indoor stadium in a COVID hotbed state? Couldn’t they play in a nice minor league stadium somewhere?
View: https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/1274459737539530752?s=19The players will delay taking a vote on #MLB’s 60-game proposal for several days while gathering information on the safety and health protocols in light of all spring training camps being shut down because of the rash of COVID-19 positive tests.
Wouldn't Manchester be a better option?Yes, Buffalo is their Triple-A team and has a nice park.
New York state has been far more serious in its Covid response than New Hampshire and would undoubtedly be better prepared, if also far more strict. There is also the benefit that they will already be working with the Yankees and Mets on precautions and protocol for both 'spring' training and actual games in NYC and the Jays could adopt the same procedures.Wouldn't Manchester be a better option?
They've also had far, far, far, far more cases.New York state has been far more serious in its Covid response than New Hampshire
You're ignoring when these have happened, NY/NJ were awful in March and April but have gotten much better, they are probably among the safest states currently.Even rating for population, it's not even remotely close. No one should want to be in New York right now - not even the Yankees or Mets.
100% correct (thankfully as I’m on the border of Bergen & Passaic Counties in NJ which was an epicenter of this awful pandemic)You're ignoring when these have happened, NY/NJ were awful in March and April but have gotten much better, they are probably among the safest states currently.
Agreed, the question to ask is about CURRENT levels not aggregate impact over three months. Keep in mind that some of the data reported (especially hospitalizations and deaths) are lagging indicators as well.You're ignoring when these have happened, NY/NJ were awful in March and April but have gotten much better, they are probably among the safest states currently.
That's how it's been in MA, but new cases are pretty light right now. Maybe the South is going through what MA and NY/NJ went through back in April.but if people keep lining up like lemmings to pack themselves into retail stores here in NJ....
I sure hope soCBA wars or not... If the 2020 season does get cancelled, MLB and the players better make sure the 2021 season is played in full. I think you can manage losing this year, but losing the 2021 season as well would be pretty killer.
That's how it's been in MA, but new cases are pretty light right now. Maybe the South is going through what MA and NY/NJ went through back in April.
Are talking you about the pandemic negotiations taking out 2021, as well?I sure hope so
Given the recent mini outbreak in Phillies camp and its subsequent shutdown, it's pretty clear nobody has a handle on how to operate with the virus. I mean they haven't even figured out a socially-distant informal workout, let alone a full schedule of games with 2 full/expanded rosters, umpires, etc. The prudent decision is to shut it all down right away and get to work on figuring out how to play actual games under a continued COVID threat in 2021.I hope this isn't too V&N; I won't be offended if a mod wants to delete or move it.
I think the last few days have really opened my eyes to the denial I've been in about this.
Taking it as read that there will be no federal response to COVID-19 before Jan 20, 2021 — and perhaps not even then — I am suddenly becoming pessimistic about the chances that a 2021 season could happen. Now that one political party has decided that non-pharmaceutical interventions like masks, distancing, and forcing businesses to close are signs of disloyalty or even unconstitutional, as a number of state supreme courts have found, it's hard to see how we are going to be able to implement and gain compliance with the public health regimen necessary to control this thing. And when schools start up in the fall, things could get much, much worse.
So we're really waiting for a vaccine. If everything goes perfectly — and why would we expect that after what we've seen? — we should have a vaccine entering the manufacturing process next summer. It will take awhile to make, distribute and administer the literally billions of doses that we'll need. That just isn't happening by Fall 2021, realistically. I really hope I'm wrong about this, but I don't see how I could be.
Perhaps advances in therapies soften the blow somewhat. There are tentative indications that this may be happening, and that may be why our exploding case numbers over the last few weeks haven't (yet) led to a climb in the death rate. If true, that is amazing news in humanitarian terms, but I don't think it means much for sports. But we still have no idea what the long-term prognosis for even "mild" cases of this disease, and given the unconfirmed suggestions that some of the lung and cardiovascular damage caused by the disease may be permanent, you can see why a young athlete with a long and promising career ahead of him might not want to take chances.
You're assuming competent leadership at MLB working together with the Player's Association for the joint safety and benefit of all involved. Nothing we've seen over the past three months has given me any hope that common sense will suddenly break out in baseball.Given the recent mini outbreak in Phillies camp and its subsequent shutdown, it's pretty clear nobody has a handle on how to operate with the virus. I mean they haven't even figured out a socially-distant informal workout, let alone a full schedule of games with 2 full/expanded rosters, umpires, etc. The prudent decision is to shut it all down right away and get to work on figuring out how to play actual games under a continued COVID threat in 2021.
Much like the shotgun approach being taken by developing multiple potential treatments/vaccines in parallel, MLB should begin working through 3 or 4 safety/scheduling/economic scenarios, and then implement the one most closely matching the situation next February. The worst thing they could do is shut everything down and wait until the winter meetings to begin sorting out 2021. Unless there a legit vaccine that can be widely deployed by ST (unlikely), a shitload of planning will need to get done.
Stop 2020, and start preparing for 2021 now.
How can they prepare for 2021 when it's an unknown what the conditions will be next February? Should they hammer out salary agreements in advance for what they were trying to do this year, for playing games in a "bubble" or for games that allow for fans with social distancing?Given the recent mini outbreak in Phillies camp and its subsequent shutdown, it's pretty clear nobody has a handle on how to operate with the virus. I mean they haven't even figured out a socially-distant informal workout, let alone a full schedule of games with 2 full/expanded rosters, umpires, etc. The prudent decision is to shut it all down right away and get to work on figuring out how to play actual games under a continued COVID threat in 2021.
Much like the shotgun approach being taken by developing multiple potential treatments/vaccines in parallel, MLB should begin working through 3 or 4 safety/scheduling/economic scenarios, and then implement the one most closely matching the situation next February. The worst thing they could do is shut everything down and wait until the winter meetings to begin sorting out 2021. Unless there a legit vaccine that can be widely deployed by ST (unlikely), a shitload of planning will need to get done.
Stop 2020, and start preparing for 2021 now.
Unless you went through massive denial of science and full belief that Covid is over then I doubt it. I really hate people hereMaybe the South is going through what MA and NY/NJ went through back in April.
Seems like today is the day.That's old news now, the player's association is set to vote around 5 PM after some more tweaking to the proposed deal this afternoon.
That's an absurd position. The players are considering holding to the existing contract. If they do so, the Commissioner is obligated to set a season. If that happens, they are able to argue that he didn't do as much as possible.Those of you who have been portraying the owners as bad guys and the players as good guys should consider whether "we'd rather litigate than play the season or negotiate" fits your definition of a good actor.
I get there's a lot of bad behavior in all directions here, but wow.
And my guess was quite wrong:News should be coming any minute, I think the players might have voted yes (just guessing from people's tone on Twitter).
For sure. Teams with relatively high payrolls and relatively low tv deals will be saving $ by not playing.I wonder if any teams (probably those without their own RSN) might benefit financially, or have a stronger cash flow, by not playing this year, and carrying back the NOL to past year's income and claim tax refunds.
Probably moot as we'll never see the books.
word is players voted against owners proposal 33-5.
This is almost certainly to try to avoid (losing) a grievance, because the main thing there will be if MLB really tried to fit in as many games as possible to the available window. Without that threat, I bet we'd be at 48 or 50.How generous of him to give them more than 48 games. It's almost like they may not really be losing money playing in empty ballparks.
Delaying the process. Just heard on MLB Network that the players estimate they have lost about 35 games because the owners weren't negotiating in good faith.Sorry for the dumb question -- what would the player grievance be over? Not scheduling more games?
I disagree. They are giving them 12 extra games. If they had given them 10 more there is no grievance and they get their expanded playoffs for two seasons. The numbers and risk don't add up to me.This is almost certainly to try to avoid (losing) a grievance, because the main thing there will be if MLB really tried to fit in as many games as possible to the available window. Without that threat, I bet we'd be at 48 or 50.
Thanks. I'm really curious what the March agreement specifically said about everything going out the window if fans couldn't attend games. We've heard representations about the language, but I wonder what the exact language was. That's really the owners' best defense against any claims of bad faith.Delaying the process. Just heard on MLB Network that the players estimate they have lost about 35 games because the owners weren't negotiating in good faith.
Is either side negotiating in good faith? We haven't really seen movement towards a middle ground at all, have we?Delaying the process. Just heard on MLB Network that the players estimate they have lost about 35 games because the owners weren't negotiating in good faith.
Based on what, though? The sequence of offers suggests the players have been all over the map. It’s tough to argue your initial offer of 114 games was in good faith when you end up at 70 (as players did). And it’s impossible to argue the other side is responsible for delay when you start with an offer like that.Delaying the process. Just heard on MLB Network that the players estimate they have lost about 35 games because the owners weren't negotiating in good faith.
114 went down to 70 because the owners argued for two months that players should give up their previously negotiated pro-rata salary. Which they knew and admitted the players didn’t need to. That’s the source of the grievance.Based on what, though? The sequence of offers suggests the players have been all over the map. It’s tough to argue your initial offer of 114 games was in good faith when you end up at 70 (as players did). And it’s impossible to argue the other side is responsible for delay when you start with an offer like that.
MLB owners are usually dirty as heck but the facts on this one appear favorable to them.
This is not to defend owners overall—they have been treating players unfairly for 100 years. But the players strategy here continues to be either incredibly risky (bet it all on an uncertain grievance) or just dumb (sadly more likely given what we know)
I agree, just stating what I heard from the players perspective. I don't think they have any chance of winning a grievance.Is either side negotiating in good faith? We haven't really seen movement towards a middle ground at all, have we?
Your view of “bad faith” appears to only apply one-way; I think the law requires mutual good faith so my prior question still stands.114 went down to 70 because the owners argued for two months that players should give up their previously negotiated pro-rata salary. Which they knew and admitted the players didn’t need to. That’s the source of the grievance.