Quote from MrPadre19 on January 30, 2021, 5:08 am

Arenado keeps his opt out after 21’ and gets another after 22’.

If he leaves after 21’,which is doubtful,the Cardinals don’t only get him for the season for free....they “made” money.

Minus the prospects they sent of course.....which should not be major.

I believe Gomber is included and should be the only significant loss.

 

Quote from fenn68 on January 30, 2021, 7:44 am

Quote from MrPadre19 on January 30, 2021, 5:08 am

Arenado keeps his opt out after 21’ and gets another after 22’.

If he leaves after 21’,which is doubtful,the Cardinals don’t only get him for the season for free....they “made” money.

Minus the prospects they sent of course.....which should not be major.

I believe Gomber is included and should be the only significant loss.

 

I guess there is still a chance the deal falls through since as of yesterday Arenado had not officially waived his no trade clause ... apparently some negotiation on delaying the opt out year ... adding another option year at the end of the current deal (or buyout money) ... and no clear timing of the COLO payments to reduce the contract to STL.

Seems like the “agreement” is only between COLO and STL which sets that part of the deal but only creates a window for STL to negotiate with Arenado’s camp to work out their part of the deal .... that “no trade” clause waiver normally comes with conditions from the player’s side. Should know by the end of the weekend since these window have a fixed timeframe.

Quote from fenn68 on February 1, 2021, 10:01 am

Well, the owners have proposed on plan for 2021 that:

1. delays the start by 1 month
2. reduces the games to 154
3. pays players for the full 162
4. requires more doubleheaders, maybe less off days
5. delays the end of the season
6. includes the NL DH
7. includes expanded playoffs to 14 teams running into November

For health and safety makes some sense to delay ... offset a bit by more games in a condensed period from a players view. Economically makes sense for the owners from the combo of revenue from expanded playoffs and the odds of expanded attendance later in the year.

We will see what the Union counter proposes (expect them to reject this proposal). Players Union does not want to give on the expanded playoffs without getting more ... and although this would only be a 2021 agreement ... some concern they would be compromising a major bargaining chip for the new CBA next winter. The other "concern" I heard ... apparently there is room in this proposal that would allow for Manfred to cancel additional games (without player pay) unilaterally. Not sure about that but that unilateral wiggle room needs to be locked down.

At last a formal proposal is on the table ... and "appears" to be close to a workable baseline.

Quote from fenn68 on February 1, 2021, 10:58 am

Listened to Harold Reynolds on "Hot Stove" this morning ... normally not impressed by his analysis but in this case I was surprised in his comments about the MLB schedule proposal. Note he was a player and was for four year on the negotiation team during the lockout/strike and is in regular contact with current active players ... so has some credibility to speak in this arena.

What he highlighted was what appears to be a disconnect between the Union leadership (Clark and probably very influential professional negotiator the Union hired) and the rank and file. He was clearly more supportive of the economic value of the DH and expanded playoffs to the players than apparently the Union leadership is willing to concede. Got the sense that was the view of a lot of the rank and file players.

Quote from fenn68 on February 1, 2021, 2:08 pm

To no surprise:

FEB. 1: The union “doesn’t like expanded playoffs” in the league’s proposal, Jon Heyman of MLB Network tweets. It’s no sure thing the union will even put forth a counterproposal, per Heyman.

Quote from hoffy51 on February 2, 2021, 2:49 am

"Doesn't like expanded playoffs" = bargaining chip for negotiations. ie. to hell with the dangers of covid for the players, I'm going to more than delaying the start of the season for "expanded playoffs."

Quote from fenn68 on February 2, 2021, 5:06 am

If “health and safety” was the only concern ... why did not the owners just propose a delay and not drop in these unrelated changes?

Players are contending they just completed a 60 games season and expanded playoffs with minimal player impact from COVID ... and that was at the beginning of the season. Add that compressing the schedule (more double headers and less off days) with no roster expansion will be detrimental to player health. Plus, and apparently more of a concern than I would have thought, since the owner proposal is so late (2 weeks prior to ST) that many of the players (especially pitchers) are well into their pre-season ramp-up and having to stop and re-start is also a health risk.

In 2020 the owners and players agreed playing during COVID ... so why different in 2021? At least for the two sides.

Quote from fenn68 on February 2, 2021, 5:13 am

Without a detailed analysis of the owner’s proposal .. only have to go off what is reported but a major Union issue is if the reports are correct the proposal allows for UNILATERAL changes by Manfred that could cancel games without pay. That would never fly.

Also, saw a report that some of the TV networks are not happy with sliding baseball into November and interfering with the planned schedules (including the ramp of of football coverage).

Quote from MrPadre19 on February 2, 2021, 5:41 am

A little(maybe a lot) different in a 162 game season considering travel.

Back to normal scheduling means air ports,airplanes and hotels all over the country again.

But attempting to delay ST 2 weeks before the start is just wrong.