Weekday Warrior

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Weekday Warrior

  1. I assumed MLB had a plan in place where it wouldn’t have such a paralyzing effect every time a positive test comes in.

    Obviously the Marlins are a unique case, and the Phillies are being extra cautious because the played the Marlins, but why is a positive test in St Louis any different than any other case where a player is shut down after a positive test but the team moves on??

  2. 20 hours ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

    Not if the mayors of those cities ever want to get re-elected.  No one anywhere wants to invite in a covid carrying gang of idiots into their community.  But if you can think of one let us know. 

    And a facility has to be basically major league quality with large enough facilities for social distancing and major league lighting standards etc thus the delay of the Jays playing at their AAA venue until August.  It is the biggest capacity wise in all of the minor leagues with major league dimensions in the field and decent facilities as well.  But the lighting needs to be upgraded thus the delay.  If the modern Buffalo facility needed upgrading I doubt any other non major league park would be acceptable.

    And why would the Marlins be looking for a new venue anyway?  They have a ball park.  You seem to be assuming that the outbreak in Miami in general is to blame for their team outbreak.  But rumors have it several players went "clubbing" during a stopover of the team in Atlanta and that breaking of protocols there was where it started and they spread it quickly to other teammates who then helped spread it etc etc.  IF protocols were followed anywhere the players should be fine.  The Miami ballpark itself is being maintained just fine.  It is entirely on the original handful of stupid, idiot players and there jerk actions in this case.

    Part of the idea behind an alternate ballpark is that Miami being a hot spot probably  factors in to other teams refusing to travel and play there.  It is hard to see the same reluctance from other teams to match up with the Marlins if suddenly they were playing a whole new squad in a whole new location.

    It is a bold idea but I don’t know what the real plan is to resume Marins games anytime soon.  It seems better than waiting out however many weeks it takes to have a quorum of Marlins players and staff safely emerge from quarantine.



  3. 32 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:


    What "venue" wants these lepers at this point.  No one wanted a healthy Jays team so who do you think wants this band of undisciplined covid carriers.


    There has got to be a municipality with a stadium somewhere on the eastern seaboard that wants the money!

    32 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

    And yeah just start the service time clock on ALL the players on the taxi squad.  No problem there.


    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. Wow what an oversight if noone thought of that in advance.

    32 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

    As for calling up some of the taxi squad now as emplacements when they aren't playing games and "on pause" as they termed it?  No how no way.  Marlins players on active team NOT covid positive now may still become positive because of length of incubation period and contact with fellow players that were.  They have to be quarantined and tested and re-tested every day until deemed that enough time has passed that if they are testing negative they will remain negative.

    yep agreed, that’s why I said just activate the replacement team and phase in the regulars in accordance with Covid protocols.  It’s not great for competitive balance but better than taking an entire team out of the schedule

  4. 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 . ..

  5. 18 minutes ago, secretagentman said:

    Actually, it is mostly the 3 SE counties in Florida: Miami-Dade, Broward and West Palm Beach, with Miami being far and away the worst hit.  Most of the rest of the state is more or less in fair to decent shape. 

    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....

  6. 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...

  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.

    • Thanks 1

  8. 15 minutes ago, Brooklyn Dude said:


    I appreciate the link to this article which says this is Randy Levine and the owners understanding of the agreement. 

    But the March agreement between the players and the owners was never made public. 


    This is taken from the article: Randy: “the agreement says that, based on those facts and the economic feasibility of the moment, there has to be a renegotiation on salaries. That is not my opinion, that is what the text of the agreement says.”

    Not quite. This is what the text says: “The Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators.”


    Next comes the interpretation of “economic feasibility.” It is, after all, what both sides are committed to discuss.

    Owners say it would include salary reductions, considering that less money would be made from games without fans. Players say the salaries are set and that the two sides would discuss what could be done to make fan-free games a more financially viable proposition. In that context, players say they would have considered a salary reduction if owners would have provided sufficient financial documentation to support such a request. Owners say they have.

    Nonetheless, “discuss in good faith the economic feasibility” is not the same as “discuss the amount by which salaries shall be reduced.”

    That latter language would have made clear the intent of the two sides, rather than leave the matter open for interpretation. The parties should have been more attentive to clarity, especially considering the words “for clarity,” “for purposes of clarity,” “to illustrate,” and “for the avoidance of doubt” appear a combined 10 times in other sections of the 17-page document.


    And I think therein lies the problem.  Whatever each side thought was agreed upon was not clearly memorialized.  Should it go to an arbitrator, the owners don't feel confident about the outcome and have clearly been conceding quite a few things from their original bargaining position.

    At this point,  they just need to agree to something since they have closed the gap by quite a bit in just the last two days since they got serious.


    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 quoting really just goes to a different issue, namely the owner’s lack of leverage in dictating the terms in a context where both sides agree to have a season (ie waiving the requirement of live games) but can’t agree on season length and/or salaries. I agree with the author that the “have discussion about economic feasibility” language is vague and it doesn’t matter what people thought it meant.


  9. 1 hour ago, Brooklyn Dude said:


    I didn't see anything in the agreement or the summary regarding fan restriction.  If you see something out there,  please share.

    I think everybody knew playing sports at some point would be with some type of fan restriction and the possibility of a second wave in the fall was a possibility. The owners know that a grievance for 48 games or a complete cancellation of the season would most likely end badly for them which is why they want the players to agree to not file a grievance.  I would say 60 games is a gray area that could go either way w/o an agreement,  and 66 would get an agreement and waive the filing of a grievance.

    Any agreement should be announced jointly so there is no more leaking by the reporters.  I think everybody is tired of the back and forth tweets.


    Dude all you had to do was google the words I put in quotes but okay here you go....


    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 recourse. If you think otherwise, show me the language players could say owners violated in the event they enforce the above quoted language.

    The grievance only provides implied value to the players in a context where both parties mutually agree to waive these criteria, and then the commissioner sets a schedule that short-shrifts the players’ contractual right of “input” on setting the schedule.  That is not gonna happen without grievance waiver, the owners would rather cancel the season.

    • Like 1

  10. 35 minutes ago, Brooklyn Dude said:


    Within reason.  I copied and pasted the following:



    Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association have finalized a deal that addresses both salary and service-time issues, among others, as the entire sport continues to wait out the coronavirus pandemic.

    With no start date set for the 2020 season, the two sides had been negotiating for the past couple weeks in an effort to figure out how to handle the potential for a shortened season.

    Both MLB and the MLBPA are committed to playing as many regular-season games as possible, leaving open the possibility of the schedule going into October and the postseason being played into November.

    No agreements were made regarding the schedule, but given the current uncertainty, the deal leaves enough flexibility for the two sides to work together toward that shared goal. Both MLB and the MLBPA have formed subcommittees to continue discussing any unresolved issues related to the 2020 season.

    The Commissioner’s Office will put together a schedule at the appropriate time, then the union will have input before it is finalized. The postseason format could also be altered for 2020, including the prospect of some games being played at neutral sites.




    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 absence of spectators”.

    A grievance under this clause seems MUCH tougher for the players to win on than a scenario where both sides waive the criteria for a season to start and the commish unilaterally sets a super short season.

  11. 16 minutes ago, Brooklyn Dude said:


    The grievance is about whether they played the most games possible as per their March agreement where they both agreed to play as many games as possible as long as the virus was not preventing such.  They could have opened spring training on June 10th with the season beginning on July 4th, as stated in numerous reports.  Any games starting after that,  could potentially be grieved, because the virus is not preventing the work stoppage at this point.

    That may not stop the owners from making the argument it's still not safe if things break down again.  They already said some players have come down with Covid recently.  And yesterday Manfred told reporters he thought they had an agreement to get things started with no mention of sick players.

    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 having a season in empty stadiums.  But this section of the agreement calls for a negotiation, and the players haven’t made an offer in 9 days! 

    All I’m saying in as much as they act like they’ve got the upper hand the players don’t have any good options besides making a deal and with time growing short they need to grab 66 games while they can...

    • Like 1

  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!

    • Like 1

  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.

    • Like 1

  15. 24 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

    It just rings as disingenuous when it's done virtually in concert with Manfred's statement.

    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