What Happens if the MLB Season Gets Delayed?

I know the lions den I may be walking (typing?) into here, and I will take the heat, but there is one premise in the article I just can't agree with which is the part of why talks are stalled (the rest of the article was very informative, and I loved it).  I have spent over 20 years of my working life in unions, and I have seen more than enough of the give and take in contract talks, and all of the propaganda out of each side, to say I have never seen a contract impasse yet that is totally one sided.  In this case if an outside arbitrator can give it a fresh look and make recommendations, why would the union reject that?  We are already at a point where no matter what happens, no one is going to "win" this battle of the wills.  Neither side is blameless in the debacle.  I have no desire to see baseball hurt itself over when a player can become a free agent or how much of a minimum or maximum a team must spend on payroll.  The owners come out ahead in the long haul, and the players make a damn good wage for playing a game.  Both sides think they can do better, and are butting heads.  Bring in a neutral observer and get it done.  But anyone thinking one side or the other is totally to blame has already made up their mind who they are rooting for and will never see the other side.  Public sentiment for either side gives them the encouragement to dig in, and all that does is ensure no baseball. 

To quote a song, "there ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only you and me, and we just disagree".   Time to make up, boys.  If that mean you need a marriage counselor, get one.  A divorce is not an option. 

This flat out stinks. Boo baseball for putting yourself in this position. Get a deal done. There's plenty of blame to go around to both sides. 

Just sad.  Thanks for the review of other disrupted seasons. I know it is unbalanced, but I think they should just start wherever point they are at in the schedule and just lose the ones that were missed even if it does mean we lose a chance to see the Dodgers at home.  

No arbitrator, no counter offer by the owners, significant issues for the players.  Will we wake up one morning and see that both sides capitulated and the lockout/strike is over?  It is my dream.

3 hours ago, Mark G said:

I know the lions den I may be walking (typing?) into here, and I will take the heat, but there is one premise in the article I just can't agree with which is the part of why talks are stalled (the rest of the article was very informative, and I loved it).  I have spent over 20 years of my working life in unions, and I have seen more than enough of the give and take in contract talks, and all of the propaganda out of each side, to say I have never seen a contract impasse yet that is totally one sided.  In this case if an outside arbitrator can give it a fresh look and make recommendations, why would the union reject that?  We are already at a point where no matter what happens, no one is going to "win" this battle of the wills.  Neither side is blameless in the debacle.  I have no desire to see baseball hurt itself over when a player can become a free agent or how much of a minimum or maximum a team must spend on payroll.  The owners come out ahead in the long haul, and the players make a damn good wage for playing a game.  Both sides think they can do better, and are butting heads.  Bring in a neutral observer and get it done.  But anyone thinking one side or the other is totally to blame has already made up their mind who they are rooting for and will never see the other side.  Public sentiment for either side gives them the encouragement to dig in, and all that does is ensure no baseball. 

To quote a song, "there ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only you and me, and we just disagree".   Time to make up, boys.  If that mean you need a marriage counselor, get one.  A divorce is not an option. 

First let me say I don't think you are wrong.  It was a bit of a head scratcher for the Players Union not to agree to at least try a mediator.  Although from what I understand given past history it hasn't worked out all that well in the past.

I also agree that we make up our minds one way or the other on the good guy, bad guy scenario.  I have gone back and forth on calling out each side in this ongoing process.  As a fan though I feel like I have certain emotional hot points in regard to player treatment and what I feel is best for my team or my teams situation.  I really don't like service time manipulation.  If they play over half the games in a season then give them credit for a full season if they play less than half then give them super 2 status.  That way they might as well just start the young guys at the start of the season instead of waiting.  The other injustice I see is that young players that are extremely productive don't get paid enough for that production and there is no guarantee they will make it to a big payday if their arm gives out or their bat starts to slump.  I get that everyone in the working world has a pay your dues moment but a baseball career can be relatively short.  I think there should be a bonus system for young players that exceed production expectations.  Those are things I would like to see addressed and when MLB doesn't even seem to want to look at ways to make that better well in my eyes they look like a bad guy.

Same for the players union when they want to raise the cap when I am rooting for a team that cannot even compete for the best Free Agents without greatly impacting the rest of the team they can field.  So that proposal makes them feel like the bad guy to me.  While I see your point that both sides have their reasons for why they see things the way they do as fans I still think you end up picking sides.  I do get that they agree to disagree and there will be no perfect solution but it is hard to keep emotion out of it.

A pox on both their houses if they don't settle this soon.  IF the season has to be shortened, it will make getting off to a fast start extremely important.  With what is looking like a young starting rotation, this will be a challenge for the Twins, especially if spring training is truncated.  In fact, even if the full season is played, it is important for the Twins to start fast to put last year in the rear view mirror.  The White Sox games will be a very important, and a good barometer of where the Twins are at.

I think the union rejected the mediator offer because the owners didn't even counter the union's latest proposal, they went directly to "lets get a mediator". Federal mediation in this case is non-binding and really has had little effect in previous MLB negotiations. The owners want total control and I think that means a disrupted regular season and most probably significantly.

Really discouraging for fans. From my 30,000-foot perspective it seems the players lose a lot of leverage once they start losing game checks. Especially considering the owners were looking to pay as few game checks as possible coming back from the COVID stoppage in 2020.

How does the Saints roster look after removing everyone on the Twins 40-man roster? 

To answer Nick's original question - "What happens if the MLB Season gets delayed"?

It all depends on HOW LONG it gets delayed...

Based on TD, most of the fan base currently blames the owners. That might have something to do with the players not accepting outside mediation. They have the advantage at present in the court of public opinion, Why submit to another "court" where they might not fare so well?

I don't think the owners start making the big bucks until school lets out. Opening Day on May 15th would be just fine for them.

If they decide to add more playoffs I would be in favor of going back to a 154 game schedule. Drop a week of regular season games so the World Series isn't in the middle of November.

First it is when the season is delayed, because it will be.  Then it really depends on how delayed it is.  I would assume if only by a few weeks, it may be part of the agreement, but may do some built in DH to make up, or just cancel them.  Most likely they will need to rewrite the schedule if they cancel games.  

I expect a full rewritten schedule with a reduced amount of games, just how many will be the question. 

Sorry city of Anaheim: we were going to travel in August to see the Twins/Angels, plus stops at Disneyland and a nice VRBO... don't know if that's happening now.

3 hours ago, Dman said:

First let me say I don't think you are wrong.  It was a bit of a head scratcher for the Players Union not to agree to at least try a mediator.  Although from what I understand given past history it hasn't worked out all that well in the past.

I also agree that we make up our minds one way or the other on the good guy, bad guy scenario.  I have gone back and forth on calling out each side in this ongoing process.  As a fan though I feel like I have certain emotional hot points in regard to player treatment and what I feel is best for my team or my teams situation.  I really don't like service time manipulation.  If they play over half the games in a season then give them credit for a full season if they play less than half then give them super 2 status.  That way they might as well just start the young guys at the start of the season instead of waiting.  The other injustice I see is that young players that are extremely productive don't get paid enough for that production and there is no guarantee they will make it to a big payday if their arm gives out or their bat starts to slump.  I get that everyone in the working world has a pay your dues moment but a baseball career can be relatively short.  I think there should be a bonus system for young players that exceed production expectations.  Those are things I would like to see addressed and when MLB doesn't even seem to want to look at ways to make that better well in my eyes they look like a bad guy.

Same for the players union when they want to raise the cap when I am rooting for a team that cannot even compete for the best Free Agents without greatly impacting the rest of the team they can field.  So that proposal makes them feel like the bad guy to me.  While I see your point that both sides have their reasons for why they see things the way they do as fans I still think you end up picking sides.  I do get that they agree to disagree and there will be no perfect solution but it is hard to keep emotion out of it.

This is all reasonable.  There is no perfect system where everyone gets treated fairly.  Players don’t get paid big money the first 3 years.  Chris Davis / Jason Heyward and many many others get paid an absolute fortune to underperform or even perform at or near replacement level. Look at Pujlos and Cabrera.  They are going to get paid huge for 5 or 6 years at near replacement level.  Many others are overpaid for 2-3 years.  Ironically, the frequency of these bad contracts helps mitigate the spending advantage the top revenue teams have over the bottom revenue teams given those bottom revenue teams so rarely sign these deals.  Maybe they should enact a clause allowing teams to cancel these deals but 1/2 of the money goes into a fund to be distributed among all prearb players.  I am being facetious but it would be more fair than players getting paid $150M to perform at replacement level and prearb players making $600K.

The system that is in place basically has an internship and then players get paid big.  The good ones make generational wealth in 10 years and retire at 35.  ?  Does it really matter if they make $600K for the 1st 3 years?  It’s not like they are suffering making twice what the average doctor makes.  More importantly, this compensation system is crucial to below average revenue teams every having a shot to build a contender. Is it worth further eroding parity so that these guys can get paid earlier?  Granted, there will be some players that suffer career ending injuries before they get to the big money.  There are also plenty of Mark Appels who never even earn a roster spot but get a bonus that is 3 times more than the average guy makes in a lifetime.  

Is every player who ever makes it to MLB level entitled to earnings such that they can retire whenever they are done playing?  As it is, any player that can maintain a roster spot even as a bench player will make enough to retire. An “Ehire Adrianza” bench type player will make $12-15M over their career. Let’s call it $7M after taxes.  If they buy a $1M home and spend $1M on living expenses over their career they have $5M to invest.  Let’s just say they buy an apartment building.  If they hire a property management firm so they don’t need to be bothered with anything, they can return about 6% OR $300K/year.  An average everyday player is going to make enough to retire at 35, live like a king and leave a trust fund that would all their kids to live like a king never working a day in their lives.  How is it a problem they have to work a couple years at a reduced rate?

One of the best parallels is MDs and their internship.  They spend 8-10 years in school and come out with a half-million in student loads and then work insane hours for little pay for a couple hours.  When they are done with that program the average doctor makes 1/2 of what the MLB minimum will be in the next CBA.  IMO, we should be far more worried about how any changes impact parity than if players need to wait a couple years before they can afford a private jet.
 

18 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

If I were a betting man, I’d bet on MLB playing less than 100 games this year. 

I think you are right and I would not take that bet.

To quote a good old boy southern legislator whose name currently escapes me, "It's hard to get pigs away from the trough without making them squeal." Right now neither side in these negotiations is squealing and they aren't going to start squealing until the trough runs dry. Then they'll start eating each other. And that's when it will take an arbitrator, not a mediator, to settle this.

I think I'm going to take up fishing this summer. Seems like a good time to wet a line again.

7 hours ago, Mark G said:

I know the lions den I may be walking (typing?) into here, and I will take the heat, but there is one premise in the article I just can't agree with which is the part of why talks are stalled (the rest of the article was very informative, and I loved it).  I have spent over 20 years of my working life in unions, and I have seen more than enough of the give and take in contract talks, and all of the propaganda out of each side, to say I have never seen a contract impasse yet that is totally one sided.  In this case if an outside arbitrator can give it a fresh look and make recommendations, why would the union reject that?  We are already at a point where no matter what happens, no one is going to "win" this battle of the wills.  Neither side is blameless in the debacle.  I have no desire to see baseball hurt itself over when a player can become a free agent or how much of a minimum or maximum a team must spend on payroll.  The owners come out ahead in the long haul, and the players make a damn good wage for playing a game.  Both sides think they can do better, and are butting heads.  Bring in a neutral observer and get it done.  But anyone thinking one side or the other is totally to blame has already made up their mind who they are rooting for and will never see the other side.  Public sentiment for either side gives them the encouragement to dig in, and all that does is ensure no baseball. 

To quote a song, "there ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only you and me, and we just disagree".   Time to make up, boys.  If that mean you need a marriage counselor, get one.  A divorce is not an option. 

No lions den at all I think, it's a fair and honest assessment.

26 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

This is all reasonable.  There is no perfect system where everyone gets treated fairly.  Players don’t get paid big money the first 3 years.  Chris Davis / Jason Heyward and many many others get paid an absolute fortune to underperform or even perform at or near replacement level. Look at Pujlos and Cabrera.  They are going to get paid huge for 5 or 6 years at near replacement level.  Many others are overpaid for 2-3 years.  Ironically, the frequency of these bad contracts helps mitigate the spending advantage the top revenue teams have over the bottom revenue teams given those bottom revenue teams so rarely sign these deals.  Maybe they should enact a clause allowing teams to cancel these deals but 1/2 of the money goes into a fund to be distributed among all prearb players.  I am being facetious but it would be more fair than players getting paid $150M to perform at replacement level and prearb players making $600K.

The system that is in place basically has an internship and then players get paid big.  The good ones make generational wealth in 10 years and retire at 35.  ?  Does it really matter if they make $600K for the 1st 3 years?  It’s not like they are suffering making twice what the average doctor makes.  More importantly, this compensation system is crucial to below average revenue teams every having a shot to build a contender. Is it worth further eroding parity so that these guys can get paid earlier?  Granted, there will be some players that suffer career ending injuries before they get to the big money.  There are also plenty of Mark Appels who never even earn a roster spot but get a bonus that is 3 times more than the average guy makes in a lifetime.  

Is every player who ever makes it to MLB level entitled to earnings such that they can retire whenever they are done playing?  As it is, any player that can maintain a roster spot even as a bench player will make enough to retire. An “Ehire Adrianza” bench type player will make $12-15M over their career. Let’s call it $7M after taxes.  If they buy a $1M home and spend $1M on living expenses over their career they have $5M to invest.  Let’s just say they buy an apartment building.  If they hire a property management firm so they don’t need to be bothered with anything, they can return about 6% OR $300K/year.  An average everyday player is going to make enough to retire at 35, live like a king and leave a trust fund that would all their kids to live like a king never working a day in their lives.  How is it a problem they have to work a couple years at a reduced rate?

One of the best parallels is MDs and their internship.  They spend 8-10 years in school and come out with a half-million in student loads and then work insane hours for little pay for a couple hours.  When they are done with that program the average doctor makes 1/2 of what the MLB minimum will be in the next CBA.  IMO, we should be far more worried about how any changes impact parity than if players need to wait a couple years before they can afford a private jet.
 

A wee bit of an oversimplification on the numbers perhaps (if I had to nitpick a point ), but I think you make a solid point overall.

Thank God that MLB can't touch or affect HS or college games/seasons (yet), because at least we have those guys to watch and root on.

Supply chain and labor shortages are sure to affect MLB and their ballparks.  I wonder if owners know this and assume they can't staff ballparks until college kids/summer help is available and in the meantime lock things out to get as good of a deal as they can.  

4 hours ago, AceWrigley said:

I think the union rejected the mediator offer because the owners didn't even counter the union's latest proposal, they went directly to "lets get a mediator". Federal mediation in this case is non-binding and really has had little effect in previous MLB negotiations. The owners want total control and I think that means a disrupted regular season and most probably significantly.

The MLBPA didn't counter-propose either. They left a one penny tip on a $20 bill. It was a direct insult.  

While both sides certainly have their faults, owners especially for what I feel is inflaming tensions prior to the start of the negotiations and the asinine full team control until age 29.5 first offer back in September, since then, in my opinion, it's been almost all the MLBPA throwing a temper tantrum.

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

An average everyday player is going to make enough to retire at 35, live like a king and leave a trust fund that would all their kids to live like a king never working a day in their lives.  How is it a problem they have to work a couple years at a reduced rate?

How is it a problem that the owner can't buy a brand new 100 foot yacht every year? He might have to buy a new yacht every other year instead.

12 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

Great comment, all very fair. I didn't mean to imply that one side is totally at fault overall, although obviously I'm much more sympathetic to the players.

My point was this: owners initiated the lockout. Owners waited 6 weeks to engage in any kind of negotiations. Owners claimed they were going to submit a new proposal and didn't, then said they want to bring in a mediator. It's all just terrible optics for the billionaire class charged with overseeing this great game. 

As far as the fundamentally unfair ground rules, this graphic sorta says it all to me: 

Is the red line gross revenue or net revenue.  And if net revenue, how was the net amount decided? What expenditures were figured? .Many costs have gone up. The salaries of the players are just a part of the total costs of running a baseball team. Do these figures take into account revenue sharing?  Many other questions about these statistics.  I don't have near enough information in these statistics for me to accept them as proving anything. 

4 minutes ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

I apologize if I am being rude, however I don't have near enough information in these statistics for me to accept them as proving anything. 

No worries mate. I think the rude bar is set pretty high when it comes to labor negotiations. ?

I tend to side with the Players Association if for no other reason that they are bargaining from a disadvantage; the owners don't open their books enough to know the full financial picture.

15 minutes ago, Nick Nelson said:

That graphic is terrific. FYI - the Twins are an "average" team. They have the resources to run a $175M payroll without blinking. They'll probably end up at $125M and pocket the rest.

To the owners and the players: Quit whining, quit posturing and get a mediator and compromise or you will kill the goose who has been laying the golden eggs that you all have been enjoying.  You have certainly affected my spring training trip and I don't appreciate it. And while you are deciding how to divvy up your millions of dollars,  will somebody please reimburse me my 400 dollars for spring training game tickets to see the Twins play the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies and reimburse me for my Ft. Myers Airbnb which I rented to the tune of a thousand bucks?  

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

Great comment, all very fair. I didn't mean to imply that one side is totally at fault overall, although obviously I'm much more sympathetic to the players.

My point was this: owners initiated the lockout. Owners waited 6 weeks to engage in any kind of negotiations. Owners claimed they were going to submit a new proposal and didn't, then said they want to bring in a mediator. It's all just terrible optics for the billionaire class charged with overseeing this great game. 

As far as the fundamentally unfair ground rules, this graphic sorta says it all to me: 

There could be a few problems using average, Nick.  A few teams that have seen their local tv revenues go thru the roof will skewer this graph.  Could be a few or even lots of teams that have a curve more similar to the blue and gold lines.  Got a feeling the Twins, and most of the Central Division, would be among them.