2019-2020 Official Regular Season Thread

[msgkings322]

Maybe not.

But maybe they infect a family member who ends up dying.

And your assumptions that young people can’t get sick from this are flat out wrong.

Extremely low risk under the conditions they will be playing. Less than car accidents

 

[msgkings322]

I am not changing the calculus.

Owners are expecting the players to bail them out. This isn’t what the two sides agreed upon when this whole thing first started and the players absolutely should be upset.

Most people can’t get past the $ figure, but the reality is anyone would be justifiably angry if or in the same position.

I do think the owners are being dicks for changing the deal. But if the owners stuck to the original deal, yes the players need to play under that arrangement

 

[msgkings322]

But this is the crux of every labor dispute.

Why should the players give up salary so the owners can turn a profit? Why can’t the owners just accept losses for the year?

They will argue about their millions of dollars and both sides will end up looking bad. And the general public will always take the side of the owners which is wrong in my opinion.

The owners definitely need to share the pain

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Ok.

Forget about the actual $ numbers involved for a minute.

If your employer asked you to take a fraction of your normal salary to work in more hazardous conditions, how would you react?

You can't really not look at the numbers though. Because it's not just about today it's about the future of the sport. Baseball already took hits with steroids and the strike and now this? That's my point. It doesn't play to the public. Now I don't ultimately know the X's and O's behind the situation but if the owners are offering 50% if you take it to 55 it doesn't really play considering they're getting more than the other sports (I believe)

There's plenty of people taking pay cuts around the country for the record.

 

[tlance]

I do think the owners are being dicks for changing the deal. But if the owners stuck to the original deal, yes the players need to play under that arrangement

If the owners were sticking to the original deal, there would be no issue.

 

[DJ Fieri]

Smudge returns!!!!!

 

[bksballer89]

 

[bksballer89]

30 teams play-in tournament would be stupid.

No reason why teams who were 15,20, or 30 games under .500 should get a chance to win a title. About 65 games were played. We knew basically all the playoffs teams.

I can live with playoffs plus if that's talking about 7-10 seeds in each conference but my preference is 16 teams straight to the playoffs. Have playoffs teams play 3-5 warm up games against teams they wouldn't see until the conference finals so Miami can play games against Toronto, Boston, Philly, or Brooklyn since those teams are on the opposite side of the bracket

 

[tlance]

30 teams play-in tournament would be stupid.

No reason why teams who were 15,20, or 30 games under .500 should get a chance to win a title. About 65 games were played. We knew basically all the playoffs teams.

I can live with playoffs plus if that's talking about 7-10 seeds in each conference but my preference is 16 teams straight to the playoffs. Have playoffs teams play 3-5 warm up games against teams they wouldn't see until the conference finals so Miami can play games against Toronto, Boston, Philly, or Brooklyn since those teams are on the opposite side of the bracket

Would like to hear clarification on this, but my assumption would be that playoffs plus isn’t expanding beyond the 16 teams, simply providing a structure for warm up games. At least that is what I would hope for.

 

[bksballer89]

Would like to hear clarification on this, but my assumption would be that playoffs plus isn’t expanding beyond the 16 teams, simply providing a structure for warm up games. At least that is what I would hope for.

found out a little more.

• Playoff Plus: The number of teams that receive a chance to continue playing through either a play-in tournament or replacing the playoffs first round with a group stage. (Note: The number of teams to return in this scenario would be either 18, 20, 22, or 24).
• Regular Season: Under this proposal, all 30 teams would resume the season where it ended and continue on as scheduled.
• Regular Season + Play-In: All teams play the same amount of games which would then include a play-in tournament and conclude with a traditional postseason.
• Playoff Plus play-in: A play-in tournament which includes bubble teams playing for the eighth seed; a play-in tournament for the seventh and eighth seed; or a stage that replaces the first playoff round and all groups. In this scenario, every team would play two games against each group opponent and the top two teams from each group would advance to a traditional second round.

Further discussions in the survey include the amount of scrimmage game that would be played before a restart (2, 3, 4 or 5), the total of regular-season games that would be played (72 or 76), whether or not to do a traditional playoff format or reseed all teams and when the season would end (Labor Day, Sept. 15, Oct. 1, Oct. 15 or Nov. 1).

NBA Issues Survey On Possible Formats To Resume Season

 

[dtgold88]

Workout facility is open now. 1 player at a time.
I read that there are about 8 players still in town.

Bubble idea anyway if that even works
Fingers crossed. Still feel like it will take a miracle for this to happen

Like the equivalent of the parting of a sea or a guy rising from the dead is needed for the NBA to return?

 

[dtgold88]

I wouldnt say anything in this world is a lock right now

Once they agree on terms. Testing still needs to take place. Im betting may players will not come back until things are more under control.
I for one would love to have the Raptors on defending our title. I hope it works out .

I agree with you not a lock but seems no worse than 50-50 (or better than a miracle needed).

 

[dtgold88]

Great coach, RIP

agree......cannot say many include him in a short list of top coaches and he probably should be.

 

[dtgold88]

Agreed.

The difference between finishing a season and starting one is huge.

Not sure I would want to start the season if I were an MLB player and owners were asking me to take a fraction of an already prorated salary to play in a more dangerous environment.

But once you have finished 60 games and all you really have to do is find a way to complete the playoffs, no way I would want to miss that.

agree would think more pressing for NBA, but while I'm sure they don't want to take less than their prorated salary some might think that's better than nothing.

and the only way they'd get a significantly low "fraction" is if the playoffs never take place. If that happens, the sport is shut down anyway.

 

[dtgold88]

MLB owners are being greedy morons.

I get that they are going to lose money this season and they want to minimize that. But the players already agreed to take a prorated salary. Then the owners come back and want them to take even less.

More dangerous environment or not, that's just some greedy bullshit.

I'd say I hope the season gets canceled and the owners get all the blame for it, but I can't because:

1. Thanks to that pitcher that popped off, fans will blame the players.

2. The Dodgers have a great shot at the World Series.

Owners are better off playing no season than a season without fans financially. doesn't seem so crazy to want the players to give a little more back. and if the season gets played in full (full meaning toe condensed 80 game season gets finished) the players likely get what they wanted.

Owner fear is starting up, having to shut down and not finish the season and losing a ton of money. Unreasonable to want something back should the big moneymaker (the playoffs) not go forward?

 

[dtgold88]

The players also gave up a lot of money when they agreed to pro-rate their salaries, which I don't think they had to do either.

The owners also have a hell of a lot more money than the players, so they should probably give up more, especially since the health risk is on the players.

Did they have to give up anything? No. But owners also did not have to give them service time for a season that wasn't played.

Truth be told, bigger health risk probably on managers/coaches. Not many healthy guys age 20-40 have been in much danger from this virus.

 

[dtgold88]

It all still has to be negotiated obviously and a lot will come down to how bad the players want to play vs. how much money the owners are willing to lose.

Unless there is some miracle that happens that allows them to play a full season with fans, they are going to lose money.

I'm no expert on these things, but I would be surprised if not having the season means losing less money than having a 100 game season (I think that was the model they've been looking at) with no and/or limited fans in the stands.

MLB not the NFL......their money comes from fans in stands far more than it does in the NFL. Many reports out there saying owners will lose more playing a season without fans as opposed to no season. Especially if the season starts and they cannot finish as playoffs is their big moneymaker.

 

[dtgold88]

Agreed.

I don’t think there will be a season either.

and if there is, I bet a lot of players end up sitting out.

a lot? Depends what is considered a lot. some might. some might threaten and then play. Doubt anyone who cares about service time sits out as I would think if the season goes on and they choose not to play they do not get their service time.

 

[Wamu]

MLB not the NFL......their money comes from fans in stands far more than it does in the NFL. Many reports out there saying owners will lose more playing a season without fans as opposed to no season. Especially if the season starts and they cannot finish as playoffs is their big moneymaker.

Really? If so now I really want MLB to get the season going. Fuck those greedy billionaire owners.

 

[dtgold88]

yeah the comments of that one pitcher didn’t do the players any good, talking about how he had to get his. I heard Matt Joyce in yesterday and he made a lot of sense. He said hey if you guys want to talk about sharing revenue the next 10 years let’s talk about it but you haven’t before now.

Huh? Most owners would love to have salaries tied to revenue sharing like NBA and NFL. It's the players who are against it.