Chatter is second week of June potentially, but nothing goes until players and owners strike an agreement.
With the minor league season looking like a no-go, and an expanded roster at the MLB level, whatever season the players and owners agree on will be more about trying to find a way to win a crapshoot of a sprint to a World Series, not evaluating the youngsters. Youngsters who can help now will be on the big club's big roster. Others? Who knows at this point. It's looking like a gap year right now.
Once it's here, it's here to stay, so I'll vote no.
Only if one of the guys ahead of him decides not to play in 2020 or gets hurt in Spring 2.
I think they will figure this out. Negotiations have to start somewhere, and at the beginning of them, there are often claims that things could "get ugly" but I have to think both sides realize how bad of a look it would if money becomes the snag. If health becomes the snag, that's a different story. I don't blame players for wanting more specifics on how this is going to work. That was about the only part of the proposal that wasn't leaked -- the testing plan, etc.
Mike Trout and Clayton Kershaw were both quite skeptical of the previously floated notion of quarantining players from their families. They were saying what many agreed with. It seems the proposal agreed upon by the owners had far less restricting plans. A certain number of players have health issues that will make them more at risk to coronavirus than others, so I wonder what the plan is for them, or if they will be treated differently. Jordan Hicks, who has diabetes, is one example. He hoped to return to play after the All-Star break. A lot of these questions will have to be ironed out in the negotiations between players and owners.
Baseball has never tied player salaries to revenue, and it does not want to start right before a new collective bargaining agreement takes place, as it could be pressured into the new way things work moving forward. Players are also going to point to recent seasons, when MLB revenue climbed thanks to things like TV contracts and MLB advanced media, and how that benefit was not equally reflected in player salaries. So, if owners didn't want to split the pie evenly when times were good, why should players agree to split it when it's going to be bad, especially after they already felt they agreed to a deal on what their pay would look like on March 26, when they agreed to the one year of service time and a pro-rated portion of their salary if games resumed? There's also debate about the pie itself. Does the revenue split players would get include all of the revenue made at Ballpark Village, for example? Players don't trust it, and don't want a cap. Even if it's for one season.
In late March players and owners agreed to an advance of $170 million that would be distributed to players, as the players decided to chop it up. That will be it if there is no more season. That, and the one year service time. That same agreement also included an agreement that players would play for a prorated portion of their salary -- not including the money that had already been advanced -- if the season resumed. That means they would get paid per game what they were supposed to make, although it would be less of course because they were playing fewer games. That agreement also had language about revisiting things if games resumed without fans in the stands. That's the verbiage owners are using to say, hey, we gotta figure out a new deal, so let's go with the 50-50 revenue split. Players seem to think this was settled. Owners disagree.
I dig it. I hope I'm there to cover it.