Breaking Down the Latest Steps Toward a 2020 MLB Season

Last week, former Twin (and 2020 Winter Meltdown guest) Trevor Plouffe tweeted that baseball was working toward a spring training reboot on June 10th, with a target of July 1st for Opening Day. Surprisingly, he indicated games would be played at teams' home parks.

https://twitter.com/trevorplouffe/status/1257422311772360706

Plouffe later added that players in six different organizations had relayed this information to him. Then, over the past weekend, Ken Rosenthal filed a story for The Athletic detailing MLB's plan to return. Here's the framework he shared:

• An ~80 game season beginning in early July.
  
• Regionalized schedule, with games being played only against teams from the same division (or same interleague division).
  
• Expanded playoffs, with seven instead of five entrants from each league.
  
• Teams opening in "as many home parks as possible," with those that are unable relocating to spring training parks or other MLB stadiums.
  

In other words, Plouffe's scoop has been more or less verified by the top baseball reporter in the country. Good on ya, Trevor. But Rosenthal was careful to caution that these plans are far from solidified. He opened his article by stating "Nothing is official," and ended it by calling this arrangement "a preferred blueprint."

Significant hurdles remain, including testing capacity, full endorsement from medical communities, relaxing of regional restrictions, and creation of a feasible protocol in response to a positive test. Still, the gears now in motion support John's counterpoint stance from last month: a 2020 baseball season is going to happen, because there's too much money at stake for it not to happen.

In a twist of irony, however, it turns out one of John's core premises in the article – "This is not a negotiation between the MLB and MLBPA" – may have been a bit overly optimistic. And therein lies a new and problematic sticking point.

One of the provisions cited by Rosenthal was that, given a lack of ticket revenue, "the players would be asked to accept a further reduction in pay." Subsequent reports (along with common sense) suggest this request will not be met warmly. NBC Sports indicated the proposed stipulation is "sitting terribly with players," who felt they already had a good-faith agreement in place. One source opined that there is "going to be a war" if MLB demands further pay cuts.

I can see both sides of this, but lean far more toward the players' grievance: they're going above and beyond to do their jobs, while assuming all the risk, and would hardly be sucking dry the coffers of billionaire owners receiving huge TV revenues. Why should they have to make this concession?

But it doesn't matter what I think, or anyone else on the outside for that matter. If owners don't see a clearly beneficial bottom-line calculation, they aren't going to keep pushing. And the same goes for players, who conversely have many other implications to factor in beyond finances.

Whereas money was supposed to be the mighty uniter and motivator in this scenario, it may be driving an immovable wedge at a crucial moment, preventing the league from even being able to even seriously explore the extreme logistical barriers that would be confronted following an agreement.

My position has never been that baseball will not be played in 2020, but rather that it doesn't make sense to push for a season of record. My reasoning has been based on two fundamental issues (beyond all the practical pitfalls in simply making it happen):

1. If we're playing a shortened schedule in eerily quiet spring training stadiums, with reconfigured divisions, is it even worth trying to compete toward an official result in MLB's annals?
   
2. If a considerable portion of players are opting out of this arrangement, is it even fair to try and hold a season as normal, with rosters unevenly affected and huge stars potentially absent?
   

The new proposal hinted by Plouffe and elaborated upon by Rosenthal does serve to alleviate my first concern; I could get down with an 80-game season, with an altered schedule that still remains generally true to the existing divisional structures. But rising tensions around pay cuts only further accentuate the second concern; if MLB owners remain deadset on this demand, I have to assume that – at best – they'll get partial participation.

In that scenario, baseball can still happen. And I'd be giddy to see it, provided they find a way that's safe and responsible. But should an official MLB season be played, in the guise of naming a 2020 champion and staying true to the game's historical legacy? I still say no.

Regardless, it's definitely encouraging to see orchestrated efforts underway and formal plans taking shape. We should have a clearer picture of the path ahead by midweek, as Rosenthal's timeline called for a formal proposal being presented to players on Tuesday.

MORE FROM TWINS DAILY

— Latest Twins coverage from our writers

— Recent Twins discussion in our forums

— Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email