Baseball: Bruised, But Back
Ken Rosenthal had a nice piece in The Athletic today looking at some of the implications of the 60-game 2020 season. Rosenthal sees the chances of blockbuster trades as being less likely this year, given the threat of COVID-19 cancelling the playoffs, and the likelihood that many of the races will still be close by the August 31 trade deadline.
While I mostly agree with Rosenthal, I think the chances of a blockbuster trade will be tied to how many teams decide they just want to dump all of the payroll they can this season. I'd be surprised if no team decided to do a good old fashioned salary dump, particularly if a team considering the move got off to a bad start. Revenue sharing has pretty much put a stop to this over the past few years, but there is unlikely to be any revenue sharing in 2020. There will also be plenty of uncertainty over exactly how 2021 might go down.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if some teams decide to save money for this year and next, targeting 2022 for being competitive again. If a club like that had a top player under contract through next season, they might be willing to make deals. If a team was trying to acquire a player and willing to take on all of the salary, a penny-pinching trading partner might be willing to take considerably less in talent coming back for the salary relief. I think that a situation like this is the most likely scenario for us to see a consequential trade.
On the other hand, I can't imagine that any team looking to dump a player with an expiring contract this year could expect much of anything back. It wouldn't make sense to offer anything of value with uncertainty hanging over whether the Playoffs will actually happen. If those players get traded at all by the August 31 deadline, I can't imagine a trading team getting more back than salary relief and some token grade c prospect.
Although I think we Mets fans can be relatively secure that our club won't take on any salary this year, I feel fairly secure that they won't be looking to dump anyone just for salary relief. With the ongoing sale of the club I can't see them transparently weakening the team to save some money. I'm more worried about this coming off-season if a sale seems unlikely to go through.
Another thing Rosenthal brought up was the unbalanced schedule, especially the so-called rivalry series. I find it rather unbelievable that, in a 60-game season, clubs will be playing 6 games against their rivals. For the Mets, that means 6 games - a full 10 percent of the season - against the Yankees, while the Nationals play 6 games against the Orioles. This isn't only going to effect how Division races turn out, you're also competing for the wildcard against teams who might wind up playing their 6 games against some cupcake.
Further complicating all of this is that teams will play 20 games total against the AL Eastern Division. Since you can subtract 6 rivalry games from the 20, that leaves 14 games against the other 4 teams. So the Mets and other NL East clubs will presumably be playing 4 games against 2 AL East opponents and 3 against the other 2. So this means that the schedule will be further tilted by which 2 teams the Mets play the extra game against. Finally, since 3 isn't divisible by 2, how is that going to work for home and away? Since I'm assuming they're not playing any 1 game series, it most likely means that they'll be playing a 3 game series at home against one team, and a 3 game series on the road against the other.
We're used to MLB's greed in scheduling these interleague rivalry series where competitive fairness is never taken into account. Still, in a 162-game season a team can overcome some unfairness in how the schedule plays out, but in a 60-game season this is incredibly unfair. Add to this the weakness of the Central Divisions of both leagues compared to the Eastern and Western Divisions, and a team like the Cardinals has a much easier path to a wildcard than anyone in the NL East or West - particularly since their 6 rivalry games are against the Royals. There isn't even the slightest pretense at teams starting off with an equal chance at the Playoffs.
On the other hand, I can't imagine that any team looking to dump a player with an expiring contract this year could expect much of anything back. It wouldn't make sense to offer anything of value with uncertainty hanging over whether the Playoffs will actually happen. If those players get traded at all by the August 31 deadline, I can't imagine a trading team getting more back than salary relief and some token grade c prospect.
Although I think we Mets fans can be relatively secure that our club won't take on any salary this year, I feel fairly secure that they won't be looking to dump anyone just for salary relief. With the ongoing sale of the club I can't see them transparently weakening the team to save some money. I'm more worried about this coming off-season if a sale seems unlikely to go through.
Another thing Rosenthal brought up was the unbalanced schedule, especially the so-called rivalry series. I find it rather unbelievable that, in a 60-game season, clubs will be playing 6 games against their rivals. For the Mets, that means 6 games - a full 10 percent of the season - against the Yankees, while the Nationals play 6 games against the Orioles. This isn't only going to effect how Division races turn out, you're also competing for the wildcard against teams who might wind up playing their 6 games against some cupcake.
Further complicating all of this is that teams will play 20 games total against the AL Eastern Division. Since you can subtract 6 rivalry games from the 20, that leaves 14 games against the other 4 teams. So the Mets and other NL East clubs will presumably be playing 4 games against 2 AL East opponents and 3 against the other 2. So this means that the schedule will be further tilted by which 2 teams the Mets play the extra game against. Finally, since 3 isn't divisible by 2, how is that going to work for home and away? Since I'm assuming they're not playing any 1 game series, it most likely means that they'll be playing a 3 game series at home against one team, and a 3 game series on the road against the other.
We're used to MLB's greed in scheduling these interleague rivalry series where competitive fairness is never taken into account. Still, in a 162-game season a team can overcome some unfairness in how the schedule plays out, but in a 60-game season this is incredibly unfair. Add to this the weakness of the Central Divisions of both leagues compared to the Eastern and Western Divisions, and a team like the Cardinals has a much easier path to a wildcard than anyone in the NL East or West - particularly since their 6 rivalry games are against the Royals. There isn't even the slightest pretense at teams starting off with an equal chance at the Playoffs.
4 comments:
There are so many great unknowns this year with oversized rosters that reduce in size, no real minor league operation but a 30-man taxi squad for replacements due to injury or poor performance. The 60-game schedule is like an extended spring training. The extra round of playoffs is a cheap grab at making more money for the owners.
Mike, lots of good points. I think the Mets will be playing playoff baseball all year - and probably will be challenged to actually get in the playoffs.
Strange, strange year. Let's hope the young people across the country begin to get the message on COVID - far too many of them act like there is nothing happening and that they are invincible - no masks, no social distancing, don't care. Can't be bothered.
Saw it at a local eatery, and at the beach. In their "scientific" analysis, if they hang out mask free for a day or two, and don't get sick, well it's all a bunch of mullarkey then. And they will get it and spread it to higher risk older people. That more than anything else could derail this season. And kill people. Letting the rioters and protesters do their thing with little Covid pushback sent a very bad message - if they can do it, well it must be OK, so we'll just go back to normal.
Well, when NY has far fewer hospitalizations (under 1,000) than Arizona and Texas (several thousand each now), someone needs to wake up the brats. If that is possible.
You calling me a brat? I'm not denying it...
Reese as Yogi might have said, "if the mask fits, wear it!"
No, just seeing kids being clueless kids.
Example: wife and I hit the beach yesterday - sat two chairs, absolutely no one nearby - say, 75 feet away. Went to the car for food - then back to chairs about 20 minutes later, still very sparse - but two 16 (about) year old girls on towels TWO FEET FROM OUR CHAIRS. One of those Ripley's Believe It Or Not things. I wish I took a picture. Kind of like being the first person to park in a 500 spot lot - and you pick a spot to be away from other cars, but the next two pulling in park right next to you.
Cranky old man that I am, I grabbed the two chairs and snapped, "Nice way to socially distance, ladies" - and whipped our chairs about 10 feet to where they were still nowhere near anyone else. I just wondered what planet they had been on the last 3 months.
Well I did see Alicea Silverstone in "Clueless" once. Kind of like that.
Post a Comment