Coronavirus and the 2020 Season (Season Postponed, pg3)

[heyzeus]

Death is far from the only risk to this. There's growing evidence that CV19 causes damage to the lungs and other organs that is either permanent or longterm - any of which are career threatening for an athlete. There's growing evidence that CV19 causes Kawasaki Disease in children, which causes heart damage that also may be permanent in some cases. A healthy young athlete could suffer permanent damage from getting it, or pass it to family members who do. I don't find their concerns overblown just because they're less likely to die than, say, their parents. Who, again, could get this from them!

[go birds]

Easy peasy--quarantine the players so that the risk of spreading is reduced!

And just so i'm understanding, the players wold be ok with risking their lives for their full 162 game contract, but not for, say, half that.

Again, not a shut up an play guy or an owners guy, but i'm just finding it real hard to find sympathy for (mostly) highly paid athletes (who are not in a high risk group) not getting their full salary when 30 million peasants have lost their jobs or are being furloughed.

Here's a solution: just come out and say the season is cancelled, that way, no one gets anything--the greedy owners or the poor players.

[heyzeus]

Easy peasy--quarantine the players so that the risk of spreading is reduced!

It's been discussed as an option, but it sounds like players are humans and would prefer not being separated from their significant others and children for 4 or 5 months? Not easy peasy!

And just so i'm understanding, the players wold be ok with risking their lives for their full 162 game contract, but not for, say, half that.

Source? I haven't seen that opinion expressed anywhere. I have seen the opinion expressed that, no matter how many games will be played, measures that strongly protect player, coach, and staff safety must be put in place, and so far, such a plan hasn't really been explicated. Oh, and that pay should be commensurate with risk and commensurate with the deal that players and owners just agreed to in April. These things seem pretty reasonable, but difficult. If not resolved, there won't be a season. Hell, even if resolved, I don't think there'll be a season. As soon as the first batch of players tests positive, the whole experiment gets shut back down.

[BottenFieldofDreams]

I'm telling you, we need to Steagles the situation. Those players that can't or won't accept the risks can stay home. The Missouri Roydinals vs the Northwest Rockiners. Who wouldn't want to watch that? The Ohio Redians vs the Florida Rarlins. And all players can give three percent of half their pay to Blake Snell, who has to get his.

[go birds]

Easy peasy--quarantine the players so that the risk of spreading is reduced!

It's been discussed as an option, but it sounds like players are humans and would prefer not being separated from their significant others and children for 4 or 5 months? Not easy peasy!

And just so i'm understanding, the players wold be ok with risking their lives for their full 162 game contract, but not for, say, half that.

Source? I haven't seen that opinion expressed anywhere. I have seen the opinion expressed that, no matter how many games will be played, measures that strongly protect player, coach, and staff safety must be put in place, and so far, such a plan hasn't really been explicated. Oh, and that pay should be commensurate with risk and commensurate with the deal that players and owners just agreed to in April. These things seem pretty reasonable, but difficult. If not resolved, there won't be a season. Hell, even if resolved, I don't think there'll be a season. As soon as the first batch of players tests positive, the whole experiment gets shut back down.

it's just hard for me to assume that it's not about money.

It's always about money with these guys.

Also, if you don't wanna play, you have that option.

If you've grown a conscience and being away from your family for half a season when normally youre on the road on and off for roughly 6 months is an issue, then sit this one out. I'd be willing to bet that the blake snells of the world are probably outliers.

But let's be real, this is about the money.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I definitely support the players when it comes to negotiations with the owners on pay, especially since they've already made a concession in that regard.

I also think they're welcome to be concerned about various risks that exist, but I think it's important to contextualize those concerns into what is responsible behavior. There are all sorts of long tail events that have happened that don't necessarily impact what a responsible decision looks like.

[mikechamp]

The Missouri Roydinals vs the Northwest Rockiners. Who wouldn't want to watch that? The Ohio Redians vs the Florida Rarlins.

I like the team names, but can I propose the Florida Mays instead? Seems more appropriate, given the times. As in, "Who May or May not be playing today? Tune in to find out!!"

[tlombard]

Now I am having flashbacks to the episode of Married... With Children when Al and the guys form their own baseball league during the strike only to have it all come crumbling down when the players who are playing just for the love of the game find out that the owners of the teams have a big TV deal for the championship and they can't agree on how to split the cash.

[heyzeus]

Seems kinda weird to take the "let's be real, it's about the money" tack only as applied to the players, but not the owners, who are the ones trying to back away from a compensation agreement. Weirder still to apply such logic when it is undeniably asymmetric risk in play - the owners get to watch games from the safety of home, the players get exposed to a potentially fatal or crippling disease, with only nebulous plans presented thus far to mitigate that risk.

I also seem to recall that during a six month season, half of those games are played at home where a guy can see his partner and kids, while a "bubble" season means x number of months with zero days to see one's family, but "shrug." Just money hungry players.

[go birds]

Didn't the owners already agree to a 50/50 split? I get they are billionaires and can afford to fund the entire league's salaries 10 times over. And I'm typically in favor of players getting PAID, but i'm on the fence here, especially given the economic landscape of the country right now.

I'm not the resident lawyer, but i've got the believe that force majeure provisions may or may not render these contracts null and void, or in the least "suspended(?)". Do the contracts have to be honored when a full 162 game season isn't played? I would think it doesn't but i'm not privvy to those agreements.

These are (mostly) world class athletes with access to better than average medical care. They are just as likely to die of the cliche "flu-like" symptoms as they are the 'rona. That's my belief, just basing it off CDC's numbers.

Regarding the whole "Time away from family" thing, i mean, i think the player should be give the option of participating or not, but if you choose not to participate then you simply won't get paid. We're talking millions of dollars for a few months work. Hey! MLB can provide them with free Zoom accounts!

Its prolly pointless to debate this though. I'm kinda over it. Life sucks without sports entertainment, but i guess i'm slowly but surely realizing that i don't actually need it.

I will say this though...the baseball players will soon find out that they need the fans more than the fans need them.

If manfred kills the season, as he has the right to do, then baseball probably won't be recovering for a long......long......time.