Quote from Ben Davey on October 18, 2020, 1:11 am

As good as Profar was, how much do you want to bet that he can keep it up over a 162 schedule?  Are you willing to make Profar your one FA signing?

I agree that the bench might be the biggest thing that needs to be upgraded.  If we pick up Moreland's option, that what we really need is that bopper to go against LHP.  We kind of had that with France, but as of right now is it Ona?  Profar?  Cro, Hosmer, and Grisham are always weak against LHP but we had no one to give them a break.

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 18, 2020, 10:08 am

Quote from Ben Davey on October 18, 2020, 1:11 am

As good as Profar was, how much do you want to bet that he can keep it up over a 162 schedule?  Are you willing to make Profar your one FA signing?

I agree that the bench might be the biggest thing that needs to be upgraded.  If we pick up Moreland's option, that what we really need is that bopper to go against LHP.  We kind of had that with France, but as of right now is it Ona?  Profar?  Cro, Hosmer, and Grisham are always weak against LHP but we had no one to give them a break.

How about Mejia/Nola?  One C, one DH.

Quote from fenn68 on October 18, 2020, 11:29 am

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 18, 2020, 10:08 am

Quote from Ben Davey on October 18, 2020, 1:11 am

As good as Profar was, how much do you want to bet that he can keep it up over a 162 schedule?  Are you willing to make Profar your one FA signing?

I agree that the bench might be the biggest thing that needs to be upgraded.  If we pick up Moreland's option, that what we really need is that bopper to go against LHP.  We kind of had that with France, but as of right now is it Ona?  Profar?  Cro, Hosmer, and Grisham are always weak against LHP but we had no one to give them a break.

How about Mejia/Nola?  One C, one DH.

Maybe a Nola (R) / Mejia (R/L) / Moreland (L) triad?

Does add some protection for an injury to either Nola or Mejia (less than an IL stint) that could open a hole at DH in the short term.

Moreland DH vs. RHP and Nola or Mejia DH vs. LHP.

Watching Nola last season he does not look to have the build to catch more than 110ish games while keeping his hitting. Resting him (or using him at DH) might preserve him both offensively and defensively into September of a 162 game schedule. Mejia being a switch-hitter would give them a lot of flexibility as to when Nola rest or DHs. With either Nola or Mejia on the bench ... they have a RHH PH for Moreland if a LHRP comes in.

Only "risk" is that if they need to pull either Nola or Mejia into catch due to an injury ... the DH is lost for that game.

Also, since very likely the pick up Moreland's option (has value with or without a DH) ... using Mejia at league minimum likely is a cheaper than finding RHH DH option to complement Moreland plus need that second catcher for (in my thinking) about 50 starts.

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 19, 2020, 9:42 am

Side note of a potential inequity ... based on today not what might be in 6 months ... but we are seeing fans at sporting events in FLA/TEX and much of the mid-west (maybe 25% capacity) while other locales still without fans (CA). Will that give more flexibility to the teams in “open” locales over “closed” locales given the revenue generation?

Interesting question.  Isn't the revenue split on Home / Away gate revenue roughly even, like 65 /35 to home team?

If so, helps any team that plays those allowing fans, but to a lesser extent.

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 19, 2020, 9:46 am

This just popped into my head re: Moreland.

If the Pads buy him out, they pay him 500K immediately.   If they retain him they DON'T neccly pay him 3 MM over the course of the season, b/c there is a significant chance <100% of schedule is played in 2021...

If that happens, the "decision" $  amount decreases from 2.5 MM down to ??

A minor but real variable in the decision that leans in favor of retaining him, even if there were no NL DH.

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 19, 2020, 10:05 am

Anyone else thought of this?

What if majority of MLB teams are still at "no fans" for a portion of the season?  For example, first 25% of season / 40 games?

Obviously owners would want to shrink schedule & salaries equally, players would not.  But wouldn't it actually make sense -- up to a point -- for owners to actually pay 100% of full season pay for LESS than 100% of games played, since games played with no fans are just pure losses?  No brainer for players to accept that.

Makes complete sense for a nominally shorter season like 160 or 156 games.  Spreading the full salary payroll over only "some revenue" games works out better for owners, even though they are paying out more per game than paying out slightly less per game for games with no fans/revenue (beginning of season).  Obviously a lot of variation team to team with different payrolls, but the principle would seem to hold.

Only question really is where the idea "falls apart" and stops making sense for the owners.  25% of games may be way too high.  10%?   Reduce games played to only "with fans in attendance".... everywhere?  % of everywhere?...  prorate salaries to that # of games, but then pay 110% of THAT salary to players?

Ex.   Only play 122 games.  Minus 40 = (about) 25% of schedule.  Players get 75% of their full salary, but x 110% = 75% + 7.5% = 82.5% of their full salary for only playing 75% of games.  Better for players than per game prorated like this season.  Better for owners than absorbing any games without fans, even though paying out 10% "more" per game.  The # of fans/game is likely to grow as 2021 season plays out; owners biggest cash flow issue is right now & beginning of season.

Quote from fenn68 on October 19, 2020, 11:16 am

What do they know and when will they know it?

Impossible to get the owners and union to agree under normal circumstances ... then we saw the animosity in 2020 .. then consider the CBA is up at the end of 2021.

Have to consider the nuclear solution ... if all the scenarios that are probable result in owners losing money ... do they just shut down 2021 season and not add to the losses from 2020? Perversely that may be strategically good for the owners give the CBA is up ... players lose a full season of pay in 2021 after a reduced 2020 may become less militant about rejecting owners’ offer and striking in 2022.

However, if they play and there are attendance inequities .... most likely the alter the revenue sharing formula and create a league wide pool (temporary) to share ... but not without a lot of argument among the owners.

Plus keep in the back of the mind that a major factor in resuming 2020 was to get to an expanded payoffs system (for the TV revenues) ... that as it stands is not in place for 2021 ... less incentive for the season to be played unless they can get the union to agree (and that will take money concessions).

If you are the owners, without a clear path to the season, would you even run ST?

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 19, 2020, 9:37 pm

Didn't they agree to expand the playoffs AFTER the 60 game season started?  It was a whirlwind of  ever changing possibilities leading up to finally the 60 games we got... so hard to keep straight the sequence of events...

If it were written in stone that there would be no fans at any stadium all year, maybe owners would consider the "nuclear" option, but extremely unlikely IMO.  HAVE to come up with something for minor leaguers... can't lose another year like that.  Maybe run out of Arizona & Florida complexes but rotate teams in to play at home stadiums either when that team is away or as a day "bonus game" when home?

On the other hand, I think it's wildly naive to think that in just 4 months all MLB & minor leaguers are going to report for ST, have it with 200 guys or whatever in each team's camp, then hold full length "normal" seasons for both MLB AND the Minors... I just don't see any path to it starting "on time" after the late start & finish this year and just where we're at as a country re Covid-19.

 

Quote from Ben Davey on October 19, 2020, 10:56 pm

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 19, 2020, 9:37 pm

Didn't they agree to expand the playoffs AFTER the 60 game season started?  It was a whirlwind of  ever changing possibilities leading up to finally the 60 games we got... so hard to keep straight the sequence of events...

If it were written in stone that there would be no fans at any stadium all year, maybe owners would consider the "nuclear" option, but extremely unlikely IMO.  HAVE to come up with something for minor leaguers... can't lose another year like that.  Maybe run out of Arizona & Florida complexes but rotate teams in to play at home stadiums either when that team is away or as a day "bonus game" when home?

On the other hand, I think it's wildly naive to think that in just 4 months all MLB & minor leaguers are going to report for ST, have it with 200 guys or whatever in each team's camp, then hold full length "normal" seasons for both MLB AND the Minors... I just don't see any path to it starting "on time" after the late start & finish this year and just where we're at as a country re Covid-19.

 

You are right about the changes happening after the season started.  But the season is ending at a normal time.  You are right that more so than the majors, the minors cant survive another season without fans.  I believe fans make up something like 80% of their revenue so no fans cause them to all go bankrupt.

While I dont expect it to just "go away" for once baseball doesnt have to be first.  Baseball is played outdoors where it is safer so the idea of having fans isnt farfetched.  Thats different than the two indoor sports.  Both hockey and basketball pushed their start to January to give some sort of an offseason, but more importantly give a chance to have fans.  If come mid-Feb (when spring training starts), NBA/NHL are at even 50% capacity, then we will be fine.