McAdam: Five thoughts on MLB's latest proposal to resume play

Each week brings with it a new plan, hatched to get the 2020 baseball season -- somehow, someway -- underway.

First, it was an Arizona-only format, with players living in isolation and all 30 teams utilizing Cactus League sites and Bank One Ballpark in Phoenix

Next, it was Arizona and Florida, with teams training, then playing out the schedule in their usual spring training facilities.

Then came a proposal involving Arizona, Florida and Texas.

And on Tuesday, according to USA Today, MLB is considering a proposal under which as many as half the teams would begin the season in their own major league ballparks, initially with no fans in attendance, but with the possibility of fans being allowed as conditions improve and the pandemic's spread slows.

Beginning in either late June or early July, the 30 teams would be divided into three geographic 10-team divisions without regard to traditional American and National League affiliations and play either entirely or mostly within their division,  with the regular season continuing through October. That would be followed by a reconfigured postseason. The goal would be to play at least 100 regular season games.

Here are five thoughts on the latest plan:

1. At least initially, it's highly unlikely Fenway would be one of the hosting sites.

The state of Massachusetts currently ranks third among all states with the most number of COVID-19 cases and the curve has yet to be flattened. Playing games at Fenway, even without fans, would be a highly risky proposition and further strain the area's medical community resources.

Exactly where the Red Sox would play their games in the early part of the schedule is unclear, though it's a fair assumption that it wouldn't be in the Northeast, the area hit hardest by the virus.

Such an arrangement could be seen as a competitive impediment for the Sox, though with no teams playing in front of fans, it's tough to argue that any team would realize a true home-field advantage.



2. The division grouping might provide a break for the Red Sox.

Under the temporary alignment, the Sox would have the same four opponents they have in the AL East -- the Yankees, Baltimore Orioles, Tampa Bay Rays and Toronto Blue Jays -- while also gaining five others: the New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Washington Nationals, Pittsburgh Pirates and Miami Marlins.

That new group would then feature the defending world champions (Nationals), two teams who were essentially .500 teams last year (Mets, Phillies) and two of the worst teams in the game (Pirates, Marlins).

It's virtually impossible to project how the long layoff and strange circumstances will impact play on the field. Undoubtedly, if this were to come to fruition, the likelihood of surprise performance by some teams -- both good and bad -- would be greatly enhanced.

But of the Sox' nine opponents in the division, fully one-third (Marlins, Orioles and Pirates) would probably constitute three of the five worst teams in the game. For a team like the Sox, going through a rebuild and without their best pitcher for whatever is left of 2020, that's not a bad thing.

3. It's clear that MLB found some heavy resistance to the "isolation'' plans.

Two of the game's biggest stars -- Clayton Kershaw and Mike Trout -- voiced serious objections to being quarantined in a hotel for upwards of four or five months. Both were understandably troubled by being unable to see any family in that stretch and wondered how things such as births and other family emergencies would be treated.

Under the current plan, players would not have to quarantine or restricted to going from hotel to ballpark and back again, though obviously, some social distancing rules would be in effect.

4. Tradition be damned.

No sport clings more closely to tradition and history than baseball. It's been the most resistant to change, and often the slowest to adapt. That approach has been both part of its charm, and on occasion, to its detriment.

No, this wouldn't be a 162-game schedule. No, not every team would play the teams to which it's accustomed, though wisely, virtually every meaningful rivalry (Red Sox-Yankees, Cubs-Cardinals, Dodgers-Giants etc.) has been preserved via the geographic groupings. Meanwhile, some interleague rivalries (Yankees-Mets, Dodgers-Angels, Giants-A's, White Sox-Cubs) would be further enhanced since not only would there be the potential for more games played, but also, the added prospect of competing with them in the standings.

And as with interleague play, there's the attraction of fans seeing more of players whom they don't customarily see. For Red Sox fans, this would include additional chances to watch Bryce Harper, Jacob deGrom, Juan Soto, Max Scherzer and others. That exposure is a good thing for the game.

5. Economic hurdles remain.

Even if MLB and the MLB Players Association can sort through the myriad logistical issues -- travel, accommodations, players' health -- there remain some significant labor issues that could stand in the way.

Most notably, after an agreement to advance the players approximately one-fifth salary for the 2020 season back in March, there was also an understanding that the players would be paid on a pro-rated basis should a shortened-season take place. Under that pact, if baseball played, say, 81 games, players would be paid half of their scheduled salaries (minus the one-fifth advance that was already issued).

Now, however, the owners are maintaining that agreement was agreed to with the assumption there would be paying customers in attendance. Such a scenario is months from happening -- if at all -- and the expectation is that the number of fans allowed to attend will be severely curtailed to reflect social distancing policies. The players' stance: fans in attendance was not a stated condition and we expect this agreement to be honored, fans or no fans.

It would be a shame for the players and owners to find a way to overcome all the issues associated with the pandemic, only to ultimately be unable to salvage the season due to a labor dispute.

But unfortunately, given the current strained relationship between MLB and the union, that possibility can't be totally dismissed.