Jump to content
  • Create Account

5 Phillies test postive for COVID-19, they and 3 other teams shut down camps


Nine of twelve
 Share

 

so baseball players are robots, segregated from the rest of society, no family or homes?

I’m not so worried about low risk people getting it, I’m worried about them giving it to high risk people. We can’t expect everyone to isolate all of the time, but even low risk people need to avoid high risk situations.

I was hopeful for baseball soon, but I am less optimistic now. :(

 

I've reported on a low-risk, 23 year-old mother of three dying in less than 48 hours from the virus. This virus is the honey badger of viruses. If it's going to kill you, it don't give a flying one who you are, what age you are, or what physical condition you are. It will take you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree with both you and your daughter. Whether the public gives a damn or not, the public still does not understand how the virus is transmitted, and that’s a failure that transcends politics. I think taking advantage of summer and outdoor activities is wise. It seems like kids should be allowed to play little league, but that’s just me.

 

Perhaps the public doesn't completely, but plenty of science sure has shown how it transmits, and responsible reporting has been done on exactly that. If the public doesn't know, it's because Facebook and Joe Rogan are where their news comes from...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm taking you away from your family for 3-4 months. Sounds good?

 

An estimate is that there are 150 MLB babies to be born by the end of the year, meaning many players will be leaving behind very pregnant wives.

 

Why would you phrase it like that? Seems like a loaded question. I wonder how many Latin American or foreign born players don’t get to see their families during the season as it is.

 

But the irony for me is how each team stages an armed forces day to every season, to thank service members for putting themselves in harm’s way overseas. Now the players find themselves in the same situation. I honestly doubt very many would object to playing in a bubble for that short a time, if it came to that. I haven’t seen any good reporting on that question unless you have a link to share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why would you phrase it like that? Seems like a loaded question. I wonder how many Latin American or foreign born players don’t get to see their families during the season as it is.

But the irony for me is how each team stages an armed forces day to every season, to thank service members for putting themselves in harm’s way overseas. Now the players find themselves in the same situation. I honestly doubt very many would object to playing in a bubble for that short a time, if it came to that. I haven’t seen any good reporting on that question unless you have a link to share.

 

That's what you're suggesting, no? To have players live in a bubble environment for 3-4 months away from their families. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am suggesting that. So... what do you mean?

 

I’ve always suggested that the players should be able to choose to do that if they wanted to emphasize safety.

Then why did you ask Ben why he phrased his response that way? That’s what you’re suggesting. If the roles were reversed, would you live in a bubble for 3-4 months away from your family?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then why did you ask Ben why he phrased his response that way? That’s what you’re suggesting. If the roles were reversed, would you live in a bubble for 3-4 months away from your family?

Seen a report on ESPN a few months back, when there was talk of this and the player told the reporter no he would  NOT do it (I think it was a Diamondback player) and then called the reporter and said his wife said yes if that means you get paid.

I think players might do it, Trout for example if he cares about career counting stats, he might do it. Others for a few million might as well, and the younger guys might do it because they could be scared to lose their job.

As for me (and I know you didn't ask me :)) if that was the only way I was going to get paid what I make now, I pretty much would have to wouldn't be much of a choice)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why did you ask Ben why he phrased his response that way?

Proposing to “take you away from your family” is not the best choice of words, not something Manfred or Clark would say, so I will drop it.

 

If the roles were reversed, would you live in a bubble for 3-4 months away from your family?

Instead of answering this question, I will point you back to where I already explained why it’s not a game changer and that more people than you probably realize have already done this, in some form or another. An inconvenience? Of course. Not a deal breaker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposing to “take you away from your family” is not the best choice of words, not something Manfred or Clark would say, so I will drop it.

 

Instead of answering this question, I will point you back to where I already explained why it’s not a game changer and that more people than you probably realize have already done this, in some form or another. An inconvenience? Of course. Not a deal breaker.

I would like you to answer the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seen a report on ESPN a few months back, when there was talk of this and the player told the reporter no he would  NOT do it (I think it was a Diamondback player) and then called the reporter and said his wife said yes if that means you get paid.

I think players might do it, Trout for example if he cares about career counting stats, he might do it. Others for a few million might as well, and the younger guys might do it because they could be scared to lose their job.

As for me (and I know you didn't ask me :)) if that was the only way I was going to get paid what I make now, I pretty much would have to wouldn't be much of a choice)

Yeah, doesn't sound like much of a choice to me to live in a bubble.

 

42% of all MLB players will be paid $100k or less for the rest of the season after declining the latest proposal. The pay off is not significant for nearly half the players who will risk their health/future health if they have complications from covid, and spend time away from their families. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, doesn't sound like much of a choice to me to live in a bubble.

 

42% of all MLB players will be paid $100k or less for the rest of the season after declining the latest proposal. The pay off is not significant for nearly half the players who will risk their health/future health if they have complications from covid, and spend time away from their families. 
 

 I would live in a bubble for 2 months to make $100k if my employer would let me take a leave and let me keep my job.

 

However, that is a heck of a thing to expect of somebody

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Negotiating the finances to start playing was supposed to be the easy part. If players and coaches are already testing positive with a skeleton crew at these facilities, it's going to get worse when the whole team shows up. 

I bet we'll see games at some point that have 2-3 MLB players on the entire bench, with the rest of the team made up of AA and AAA guys. Whether that's because of Covid-19 hitting a team (and everyone on the team needing to quarantine) or a team just giving up (ie: if you're on the Miami Marlins, you just decide "nah").

 

Many games this season are going to look like early Spring Training games. Maybe on a good day we'll get a Polanco and a Sano sighting in the same game, see Rich Hill work an inning, etc. But it's very possible these games are going to be even more meaningless, disappointing those of us with even the lowest of expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why would you phrase it like that? Seems like a loaded question. I wonder how many Latin American or foreign born players don’t get to see their families during the season as it is.

But the irony for me is how each team stages an armed forces day to every season, to thank service members for putting themselves in harm’s way overseas. Now the players find themselves in the same situation. I honestly doubt very many would object to playing in a bubble for that short a time, if it came to that. I haven’t seen any good reporting on that question unless you have a link to share.

The relationship between MLB and the armed forces is really not a rock you want to look under. Ditto any professional sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s not go down the ‘military in sports’ wormhole, please.

 

Hosken, to your point about players playing in a bubble without their families, I think it’s an unrealistic ask. It’s not what they signed up for and not the expectation of their careers. If baseball can’t be played safely without entire teams, on field staff, other necessary personnel remaining in a bubble for 3 months, it’s probably not going to be played ... at least not if the expectation is anything close to mlb level of play. Some may choose to play while others won’t. We’ll see, but I fully expect baseball to shut down before the first pitch gets thrown in this abbreviated regular season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like a disaster waiting for an opportunity. In the area where I live, they can’t even keep the bars and restaurants open, they keep getting cases. A couple have simply reclosed  voluntarily. Even if they can pull it off, which I don’t think they can, the season will be mostly a travesty. Half of it will be played at a spring training level, and watching it on tv without fans in the background  will ring  hollow. And yes, that pun was intentional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st looking at this news about so many cases of covid coming into spring training brought fear & great disappointment & then I thought about it. I see possible 3 scenarios, 1st the players came into camp w/ it, 2nd they caught it at camp (which I believe is our 1st reaction due to irresponsibility of the club) the 3rd I don`t want to go there. After I thought about it the 1st scenario seemed the most plausible. I`m sure the players were tested 1st thing when they arrived under sterile conditions so it means that they entered camp w/ it. That means  w/ such a small sample size & so many players & coaches testing positive that a high % of players & coaches have covid. W/ rise in mandatory testing in many places, we are seeing a spike in the # of cases is because so many people have it across the country & don`t know they have it. The point is if so many people that are tested already have the virus why not open everything up while protecting our high risk loved ones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st looking at this news about so many cases of covid coming into spring training brought fear & great disappointment & then I thought about it. I see possible 3 scenarios, 1st the players came into camp w/ it, 2nd they caught it at camp (which I believe is our 1st reaction due to irresponsibility of the club) the 3rd I don`t want to go there. After I thought about it the 1st scenario seemed the most plausible. I`m sure the players were tested 1st thing when they arrived under sterile conditions so it means that they entered camp w/ it. That means  w/ such a small sample size & so many players & coaches testing positive that a high % of players & coaches have covid. W/ rise in mandatory testing in many places, we are seeing a spike in the # of cases is because so many people have it across the country & don`t know they have it. The point is if so many people that are tested already have the virus why not open everything up while protecting our high risk loved ones

You mean open up all baseball and stadiums?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You mean open up all baseball and stadiums?

I mean all baseball for right now. Finding out now that it is opened up, testing needs to be done immediately so all positive tests can quarantined. That all can be kosher when   preseason 2.0 start up again. I`d also like to see stadium also opened w/ limits. If that can happen, I`d hope that the agreement could be mutually beneficial (owners, players & fans) to expand the # of days played

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Young, healthy people have a low risk of dying from Covid-19 but they still can require hospitalization. CDC reports 30-35% of all hospitalizations are people 45 and under. Many of those will have effects from the virus long after they are "recovered". As others have said, this doesn't even consider how many organization employees are older or have underlying conditions that make them susceptible. Of course, nearly everyone has relatives or friends that fall into the "danger" category for death.

 

Hospitalization rates can be found here

 

A recent collection of anecdotes regarding heathy young people and ongoing symptoms can be found here. I can send links to peer-reviewed research on this developing issue if someone wants it.

 

Baseball could be played again if leaders would take their responsibilities seriously. Starting the game in two states, Florida and Arizona, that have rapidly increasing case rates is not a good idea. 

I read the data about youth getting hospitalized but no where did I see that these youth were healthy or low risk. I think that when we see the category "youth" we tend to think healthy but now days, in many cases, it`s far from the truth. I know many 50, 60 & even 70 yrs. olds who are healthier than majority of the youth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't know why we are focusing on the young people. Even if someone wanted to give them a mortality rate of .1%, are we just supposed to tell Dusty Baker and Ron Gardenhire tough luck? There are plenty of non-20-year-olds who will still be involved

 

Allow them into their offices before anyone else ca be in the clubhouse.  Keep the door closed at all times, and provide them with the TV feed to the game and a dedicated phone line to a healthy, 23 year old marketing intern on the bench, who will relay all the manager's instructions.  Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm taking you away from your family for 3-4 months. Sounds good?

 

An estimate is that there are 150 MLB babies to be born by the end of the year, meaning many players will be leaving behind very pregnant wives.

 

Frankly, we're looking at the very real possibility that a large contingent of notable names opt out of the season. At that point, is it really a legitimate season anyway? Do you want the league back if that's what's being played?

 

Yes, I would like to watch baseball.  Even if it's a bunch of minor leaguers, I'll just consider it a preview of what the league will look like in 2-4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've reported on a low-risk, 23 year-old mother of three dying in less than 48 hours from the virus. This virus is the honey badger of viruses. If it's going to kill you, it don't give a flying one who you are, what age you are, or what physical condition you are. It will take you.

 

So because you can name one 23 year old who died out of literally 104 MILLION people 24 or under, we now have to abandon all use of probability in making decisions?  The flu is actually more deadly to younger groups than the coronavirus--should MLB immediately suspend play any time there's a flu outbreak going forward?

 

Also, the virus does not have agency--it merely seeks to reproduce as much as possible, and humans are simply a good environment for that to happen.  Your ability to resist and defeat the virus' attempts to utilize your body as a host site for reproduction is definitely relevant to your age, and especially your physical condition.  Saying "if the virus is going to kill you it's going to kill you" is meaningless, because I can just as easily say "if your immune system is going to defeat COVID, it's going to defeat COVID".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, doesn't sound like much of a choice to me to live in a bubble.

 

42% of all MLB players will be paid $100k or less for the rest of the season after declining the latest proposal. The pay off is not significant for nearly half the players who will risk their health/future health if they have complications from covid, and spend time away from their families. 
 

 

Per my understanding, the new agreement means that players will get 37% of their original 2020 salaries--since 37% of the 2020 minimum of $563k (that number from b-ref) is $208k, I don't know how you're getting $100k or less for 42% of players.  If rosters are expanded to 30 players, that means 378 players (more than 12 a team) are spending at most 28 games on the active roster (that's if they don't change the roster at all).  Let's say teams used 45 players over the season (keeping in mind that if a player goes on the IL, they still get their MLB pay)--you now need 567 players to be on the roster for 28 games or fewer, which is almost 19 per team.  Still seems unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 I would live in a bubble for 2 months to make $100k if my employer would let me take a leave and let me keep my job.

 

However, that is a heck of a thing to expect of somebody

 

I don't think any baseball player would be required to take a leave from their job as a baseball player in order to receive compensation for being a baseball player.  Therefore, your caveat is not applicable to baseball players, and as I've pointed out, it's not $100k for two months, it's $200k for two months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per my understanding, the new agreement means that players will get 37% of their original 2020 salaries--since 37% of the 2020 minimum of $563k (that number from b-ref) is $208k, I don't know how you're getting $100k or less for 42% of players. If rosters are expanded to 30 players, that means 378 players (more than 12 a team) are spending at most 28 games on the active roster (that's if they don't change the roster at all). Let's say teams used 45 players over the season (keeping in mind that if a player goes on the IL, they still get their MLB pay)--you now need 567 players to be on the roster for 28 games or fewer, which is almost 19 per team. Still seems unlikely.

I got that figure directly from Jon Heyman.

 

https://twitter.com/jonheyman/status/1275457676944670721?s=21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Twins Daily Video

  • ×
    ×
    • Create New...