How many 2021 games in the schedule?

[Teenwolf]

MLB is looking to delay the start of the 2021 season to a date when all players will have been vaccinated. Also trying to delay so that more fans are able to physically attend games.

I had been thinking we would get a 162 game season, but it seems the financial aspect dictates how this plays out.

Looks like we will again see MLB and MLBPA dispute season length well into the season and settle on whatever the owners decide. This article says owners want a delay to "at least May".

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/...until-may.html

[revo]

Ugh. I had read a Peter Gammons column a couple of weeks ago that quoted an unnamed exec as saying he expected no more than 130 games, and now I understand why -- they will just wait for the vaccine. I get it, but that blows.

[revo]

According to Evan Drellich, the MLBPA is uninterested in a shorter season if it means pro-rated pay. And of course, MLB is not interested in paying players their full pay if games are cancelled.

So here we go again!

[chancellor]

According to Evan Drellich, the MLBPA is uninterested in a shorter season if it means pro-rated pay.

Well, this is short-sighted and stupid, especially if the target is 130 games. 80% of pay as long as all players are credited with a full season (like they did last year) is a pretty big win for a huge percentage of the players. I mean, if they're getting a full arb year and pension year. Plus, if I'm a pitcher, I might just want to go with a slightly shorter season after throwing so little last year.

[Judge Jude]

deja vu all over again

with a twist - now they can play all 162, perhaps, but not with full or near-full stadiums for a while

I get the angle of both sides, but geesh, work out a compromise

[madducks]

[ThatRogue]

Well, this is short-sighted and stupid, especially if the target is 130 games. 80% of pay as long as all players are credited with a full season (like they did last year) is a pretty big win for a huge percentage of the players. I mean, if they're getting a full arb year and pension year. Plus, if I'm a pitcher, I might just want to go with a slightly shorter season after throwing so little last year.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bill...ndemic-2020-12

https://www.radio.com/sports/mlb/gallery/the-richest-mlb-owners-ranked-by-net-worth

I think the team owners will be okay, regardless. Play the full season and pay the players. Otherwise, sell the team to someone who will.

[chancellor]

I think the team owners will be okay, regardless. Play the full season and pay the players. Otherwise, sell the team to someone who will.

Well, certainly, if it's safe to play the full season, they should do so. However, we'll probably differ on what's safe and how to play the full season.

While, yes, the owners are rich to the tune of an order of magnitude greater than Mike Trout will be, that doesn't mean anyone can force them to sell or pay full salaries for part of a year played. It's a question of what is the best deal the players can get. And getting pro-rata time served is incredibly valuable - especially if the MLBPA can negotiate expanded rosters similar to last year. That means many players will get lifetime medical benefits and vest in the pension. All players will improve their yearly payout from the pension. And there's the long-term contract to be settled. MLBPA for the first time ever, IMO, finally showed some ability last year to negotiate with foresight and with the greater player population in mind. They need to continue that trend and improve it this time around.

[ThatRogue]

Well, certainly, if it's safe to play the full season, they should do so. However, we'll probably differ on what's safe and how to play the full season.

Agreed...it’s probably not safe to play the season, but I don’t think owners are particularly concerned with player/fan safety...except to the point where they might be have liability.

While, yes, the owners are rich to the tune of an order of magnitude greater than Mike Trout will be, that doesn't mean anyone can force them to sell or pay full salaries for part of a year played. It's a question of what is the best deal the players can get. And getting pro-rata time served is incredibly valuable - especially if the MLBPA can negotiate expanded rosters similar to last year. That means many players will get lifetime medical benefits and vest in the pension. All players will improve their yearly payout from the pension. And there's the long-term contract to be settled. MLBPA for the first time ever, IMO, finally showed some ability last year to negotiate with foresight and with the greater player population in mind. They need to continue that trend and improve it this time around.

Again, I fully agree that the MLBPA should continue to focus on larger, longer-term issues for the overall body of players. And, while no one can dictate how owners conduct business, collectively we should hold them accountable every time they attempt to “cry poor”. Never have they shared excess profits nor the benefits of valuation growth with players outside what has been included in the CBA.

[chancellor]

Some financial math to think about - player salaries were posted recently and came out to $1.75 billion, including bonuses and dead contracts. In 2019, according to Forbes, payroll accounted for about 55% of a teams budget. So total costs were $3.2 billion in rough terms. I'd even accept the argument that it's closer to $3.5 billion since some of the fixed cost load like stadium maintenance was still required for the whole year.

I'm not sure what total MLB income was with the shorter season and expanded playoffs, but I'm struggling to believe Rob Manfred's assertation that MLB lost $2.8 to 3 billion last year. That said, MLBs losses were still significant, so I fully expect most owners will do more belt-tightening. As revo noted, that's an opportunity for the bold (Cohen?) or the old (Reinsdorf?) to land a lot of quality players this year.

[Moonlight J]

IMO, anything over 120 is gravy.