MLB 2020: This One’s For Kobe

[Inkdaub]

I wasn't sure about them when I first heard...but I freakin' love the cardboard fans.

[KingintheNorth4]

There is a Corona virus outbreak among the Miami Marlins team and staff.

 

Tonight's game against Baltimore has been canceled.

[Argonath Diver]

Damnit, Florida Team, you couldn't even make it one week?

I'm not surprised one bit by this. Best case scenario is they play with MiLB players joining the Negative-results players, and zero further positive tests emerge.

If multiple Phillies players test positive now as a result of that series, I expect we will see a lot of calls to shutter this whole shebang. 

Shitty way to start a rainy Monday reading this.

[Slurktan]

22 minutes ago, Argonath Diver said:

Damnit, Florida Team, you couldn't even make it one week?

I'm not surprised one bit by this. Best case scenario is they play with MiLB players joining the Negative-results players, and zero further positive tests emerge.

If multiple Phillies players test positive now as a result of that series, I expect we will see a lot of calls to shutter this whole shebang. 

 

And rightfully so. Canadian Government looks better for denying the Jays request.

[DMC]

Wondering how many more times something like with the Marlins happens before MLB pulls the plug.  Anyone wanna call an over/under?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

More like over/under until they try their own bubble.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

More like over/under until they try their own bubble.

I don't think a bubble is workable for MLB or the NFL based both on the size of their rosters and the necessary stadiums.  Basketball has an advantage there.  Hell, you could build one huge facility that could have 15 games going on on different courts.  You can't do that with the other two.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think a bubble is workable for MLB or the NFL based both on the size of their rosters and the necessary stadiums.  Basketball has an advantage there.  Hell, you could build one huge facility that could have 15 games going on on different courts.  You can't do that with the other two.

No, probably not. I'm still skeptical that any of this can work. But if there's money on the table, every league will try.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, probably not. I'm still skeptical that any of this can work. But if there's money on the table, every league will try.

I think the NFL could've figured this out if they really wanted to. They had the time, they could've spent the money. They don't need stadiums, they just need football fields, practice facilities, and housing for a few thousand people. That's a tall order for sure. But if the league was willing to spend $100 million or thereabouts, I think they could've gotten it done. Same goes for baseball. Baseball could've basically bought out a tourist destination town anywhere (to use their hotel space), marked out some playing fields, and paid to bring in whatever medical and training equipment was needed. Let the players bring their families, everyone stays put for the season. Sure it'd be expensive as hell, but not nearly as expensive (or reputation damaging) as losing a season.

But neither league was willing to think creatively or spend money, and, at least with baseball, it sounds like the players refused the idea of bubble; which is an absolute necessity.

[kairparavel]

Florida going to Florida, right down to their baseball team...

Quote

But Sunday afternoon, the status of the game amid a coronavirus outbreak was decided by a group text-message between Marlins players.

https://www.inquirer.com/phillies/miami-marlins-coronavirus-outbreak-phillies-mlb-season-20200727.html

 

Quote

It could be easily argued that every Marlins player and staff member came in close contact over the weekend with the infected players. If so, the operations manual says those individuals should be quarantined or isolated pending the results of an Expedited Diagnostic Test, which the Marlins received Sunday morning. Instead of quarantining and thus postponing Sunday’s game, the Marlins played a 3-hour, 44-minute game against the Phillies and then learned Monday morning that eight additional players had tested positive

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

I think the NFL could've figured this out if they really wanted to. They had the time, they could've spent the money. They don't need stadiums, they just need football fields, practice facilities, and housing for a few thousand people. That's a tall order for sure. But if the league was willing to spend $100 million or thereabouts, I think they could've gotten it done. Same goes for baseball. Baseball could've basically bought out a tourist destination town anywhere (to use their hotel space), marked out some playing fields, and paid to bring in whatever medical and training equipment was needed. Let the players bring their families, everyone stays put for the season. Sure it'd be expensive as hell, but not nearly as expensive (or reputation damaging) as losing a season.

But neither league was willing to think creatively or spend money, and, at least with baseball, it sounds like the players refused the idea of bubble; which is an absolute necessity.

It's tricky. So they're going to pay a lot of money to....probably lose a lot of money? If you're of the mindset that everything will return to normal next year, why would you do what you're suggesting? That sounds like a plan to have in place if you think this will be a several years events (it could be, but who knows?). 

Also, and I have zero knowledge about how any of this works, but what exactly is the insurance situation for these major leagues? I've got to believe there's something in the contract language for situations like this. 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

That's a tall order for sure. But if the league was willing to spend $100 million or thereabouts, I think they could've gotten it done.

I don't know for sure, but an educated guess based on the costs of fields that could be suitable for baseball or football, I think you're vastly underestimating the cost of such a venture.

[dbunting]

I take small victories with the Tigers these days. I just like the fact that they can't lose 100 games this season!

[Fez]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I don't know for sure, but an educated guess based on the costs of fields that could be suitable for baseball or football, I think you're vastly underestimating the cost of such a venture.

Maybe so. Although I dunno. If you play multiple games per day you probably only need 5-6 fields for either sport; a large enough youth sports academy probably already has that; and in good enough quality for professional play. There are tons of other expenses of course, and I have no idea how much it would all add up to. But those kinds of expenses are things that the NBA is happily paying for right now.

The NBA does have the advantage of far fewer players, but MLB had $10.7 billion in revenue in 2019 and the NFL had $15 billion. If there's no season there's no revenue. Expenses would also be much lower, but not zero. I don't know what number either league would need to come in at before the cost of properly having a season gets to be higher than the cost of not having a season, but I suspect it's a pretty high number before its reached.

On top of that, I think the lasting reputation boost of being able to pull something like this off would be huge and yield dividends down the road.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

If you play multiple games per day you probably only need 5-6 fields for either sport

Hm..yeah that might work for baseball.  Not for football though.  Can't play three games in one day on the same field.  Then you're just risking players' safety in a whole other way.  Anyway, I of course agree that the owners have the money to do it, no matter the cost.  But they didn't become owners of sports franchises by being charitable, nor risk-taking.  I'm sure all owners of all three sports are well aware these seasons have a high potential of getting canceled no matter what they do.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

Maybe so. Although I dunno. If you play multiple games per day you probably only need 5-6 fields for either sport; a large enough youth sports academy probably already has that; and in good enough quality for professional play. 

You may be able to pull something like this off for baseball, but you can't for football. The fields would get chewed up so quickly, and if you're say the Chiefs, are you risking Mahomes on that in what could be a lost season anyways?

ETA: DMC with the 

Quote

If there's no season there's no revenue.

No, if there's no season there are massive sunken costs. Do you think it's cheap to own a stadium that has no games, concerts, events, etc. going on?

[DanteGabriel]

There's a new thread, you reprobates:

 

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Hm..yeah that might work for baseball.  Not for football though.  Can't play three games in one day on the same field.  Then you're just risking players' safety in a whole other way.  Anyway, I of course agree that the owners have the money to do it, no matter the cost.  But they didn't become owners of sports franchises by being charitable, nor risk-taking.  I'm sure all owners of all three sports are well aware these seasons have a high potential of getting canceled no matter what they do.

Well, if the NFL had 6 fields, they could do 6 games Saturday, 6 games Sunday, and 4 games Monday. That'd give them a day between each game to re-sod and otherwise repair the fields.  

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, if there's no season there are massive sunken costs. Do you think it's cheap to own a stadium that has no games, concerts, events, etc. going on?

Those sunk costs are happening either way. There'll be no fans at the games they try to do in their stadiums and there won't be any other events either. If anything that's another argument in favor of getting some revenue wherever they can. Play the season, get the TV and other media revenue (and probably sell a bunch more merchandise than they otherwise would).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Hm..yeah that might work for baseball.  Not for football though.  Can't play three games in one day on the same field.  Then you're just risking players' safety in a whole other way.  Anyway, I of course agree that the owners have the money to do it, no matter the cost.  But they didn't become owners of sports franchises by being charitable, nor risk-taking.  I'm sure all owners of all three sports are well aware these seasons have a high potential of getting canceled no matter what they do.

As a whole the leagues do, but some owners really don't have as much as you'd think. It's why, for example, the Raiders had to trade Mack. Davis didn't have the capital required to place in escrow to sign him. I'd bet this isn't all that uncommon across various major sports, especially for the people who inherited their teams without any other major source of revenue. Isn't that why the Lakers are in part kind of a joke organization in spite of their very popular brand, whereas your Yankees can spill money over the bar and forget that they even opened their wallets? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

There's a new thread, you reprobates:

 

Gronk infected all the Sox's players!!!!!!!