Some teams don't. There was scuttlebutt (and reality) during the lockout of 2004 in the NHL that some teams lost money from having games with the current structure, so they were better off not have games -- and lost a whole season as a result. That's not as widespread in baseball. There are teams that very much want that revenue from the tickets and TV that come in April (the Cardinals are one) and then there are teams that realize the return on those games does not eclipse the revenue generated from those games. The issue for MLB is the 30 owners have 30 different markets and 30 different views of the economy, and it's clear that Manfred cannot get all 30 to agree, so at times he's got to get 23. If there are eight teams that see April as a loss then ... here we are. But it's not a universal opinion from owners.
If the owners declare an impasse they can impose rules on the players/leagues. There will be a court battle. There will be talk of replacement players. It will get messy. This is what happened in 94-95 due to the player strike. The owners declared an impasse in Dec. 1994, and was there baseball immediately that followed that spring? No, the major-league players filed in court, and it wasn't until there was movement in court that the big leaguers returned for a condensed spring training and a start to the 1995 season. Spring training opened with replacement players, you'll recall.
No. I have proof of life all around me here, 150+ strong.
(Not to mention all the questions and eyeballs on this chat -- about baseball.)
The expectation is that this season, like 2020, will start with a larger roster to accommodate more pitchers and protect against some work use/injury. So it could start at 28 and reduce over the first month to the prescribed 26. That is if roster sizes are still set at 26 when a new CBA is reached (and they likely will be).
Rain is coming down and causes a pause in workouts for some groups.
They will look in the free-agent market for possibilities, yes. That is not their priority, as you've probably heard me explain before. They have a list of relievers they will chase when the market reopens and there's a new CBA. If a lefthanded bat emerges for them to snag, they'll do that. They also see Nootbaar as part of that conversation.
Alas, no. There's no way to plan summer activities this year until baseball figures out its schedule. Will I be in Florida when I originally planned to be New York, or back in St. Louis for "summer camp" when there was that trip to Chicago? Impossible to know. Trust me, I wish I did.
I have. I agree. Excellent addition. Some creative food offerings.
They do realize that, which is part of the concern. They do realize that. And there are more options for entertainment than ever before. We can stream movies, binge TV shows, and we can do that all on our phones. People have instantaneous access to a galaxy of content that is available when baseball is not. That is a clear and present danger to the sport.
He was not one of the owners who voted against raising it. It's worth noting that DeWitt has not seen the CBT as something the Cardinals would get near, and it's not something they feel inhibits their business model's ability to compete. Some of that has to do with the division their in. Looking at Milwaukee and Cincinnati and Pittsburgh is different than the Rockies looking at the Dodgers, San Diego, and San Francisco. In past conversations -- he's not commenting on the current negotiations -- DeWitt has downplayed CBT/luxury tax as a factor for the Cardinals.
There are eight members of the executive board, 30 players reps, and 30 alternates. There are times that the conversation can grow toward that 68 number. There is NOT a vote of those players to determine whether they accept a CBA or on the proposals they make. There is NOT a vote of the executive board, a players' union official confirmed. The players' union has empowered (and honestly, they've HIRED) Tony Clark and Bruce Meyer to be their representatives in these negotiations and make the decision on what to accept. The executive board, including Max Scherzer and Andrew Miller, have large voices when it comes to the executives making that decision.
Some of the contracts that teams have with rightsholders require the upfront money paid to be returned in the event that there are not games played, as paid for. That number is less than the full slate of games for a number of reasons -- national games taken from the local schedule, rainouts, ppd., games and so on. When that gap vanishes because of cancelled games, then some teams have to issue a rebate to their rights holders. And the amount of that money is different from city to city. It's prorated per game based on the total for the year.
I don't know. My crystal ball was cracked. But looking into the kaleidoscopic fragments created by the fissures, I see the players getting financial gains (and some, a few years from now, will be seen as substantial by creating better launch points for young players into arbitration), the players losing some of their salaries but not their service time, a short season, a big playoff, and odd schedule ... and owners doing just fine, just just fine in most places. And the fallout from this lockout being felt in markets like Tampa Bay and Oakland.
I think that is a lot to ask of Bob Costas to remain impartial after being in the room and hearing the arguments. I wouldn't expect that of anyone who cares as deeply about baseball as we know he does and so many of us do.
Enough to get a headliner as a reliever. They are well positioned and have the space to do so. Not a closer-type money, not a Holland-type salary, but a deal that can be multi-years and meet the market price of a setup reliever who could become the team's closer.
I cannot confirm that. The Cardinals feel they need to add at least one reliever, and they could add two. They want to look at lefthanded bats as mentioned earlier. They have a shopping list yet to complete.