We lost Opening Day last year, but won the next 4 so we were 4-1. And before last year we had 8 straight Opening Day wins (the last 3 coming on walkoffs). The only seasons the Orioles never had a winning record were 1955, 1956, 1988, 1991, 2007, and 2010.  

Assuming you are referring to the date, they were 71-70 on September 8, 2017. They started last year 4-1.

He tried to walk it back a bit today, saying he MEANT that the way things turned out with there being a bit of a second spike in Corona Virus, they never would have been able to do more than 60 games. I don't think anyone is buying that interpretation of what he said yesterday, but given him credit for the effort.

Since seeing some his work close-up in the MASN dispute, I've bounced back and forth between viewing Manfred as an idiot and as a guy who was forced to take some on-productive positions (in my opinion) at the direction of the owners, or based on his interpretation of what those owners wanted. This statement, offered gratuitously, seems just plain stupid -- surprisingly candid, but just stupid. One of the qualities Manfred has shown at every turn is arrogance, and my best guess is that Manfred made the statement as a way of claiming victory for the owners: I out-negotiated the union once again. We got what we wanted, and they  didn't. Watch out for me in the CBA negotiations -- I'll beat the union again. I didn't follow these negotiations very closely, but a month or so ago I got curious, and I went back and reviewed pretty closely the statements and actions of both sides since June.  It became pretty clear to me that MLB, at least since late April or May, has been dragging out the negotiations. Every regular season game played benefits the players, because they get paid their pro rated salary for that game, and hurts the owners because most of them will have expenses (those per-game salaries and other costs of puttng on a came) that exceed what they take in from the media rights for that game. On the other hand, every post-season game is expected to bring profits to the owners from national television (and possibly from some limited paid attendance), while the players on the playoff teams get only a share of any gate receipts (with a floor) and none of the media revenues, and none of their season's salaries for post-season games. Early on, MLB put a cap on the post-season of November 1 (or early November) based on concerns that the  virus might become more widespread around that time. So, as far as the length of the season is concerned, the only issues were the start date and whether to add the extra playoff round that the owners were seeking. From the time of a settlement, you could count the days until October 1 (the start of the playoffs), subtract about a week to get organized and three weeks for summer training, and the number of days left (minus a few days off) is the number of games in the season. Manfred and MLB used a number of familiar tactics -- making proposals that they knew would anger the players, calling the players/union names in public, lying in public about whether an a deal had been reached --  to put off that agreement and reduce the number of games. I thought they were going for 40-something or 50, or maybe for 0.    On the other hand, you can blame the union, and Tony Clark in particular, for putting the players at the mercy of Manfred and the owners by agreeing to base their pay on the number of games played, while putting that number in the control of a party with an interest in minimizing it and a negotiator with no apparent scruples in getting there. The union walked right into that, and who knows whether it did so with its eyes open to that possibility?  One of a lawyer's critical roles in negotiating agreements like these is to advise the client of the possible consequences of proposed contract terms under a wide variety of situations. I have read that Clark negotiated and signed the March agreement without a lawyer present. If that's true, and there's nothing to explain that, I would fire him (or change his role) for the offense of overestimating his own abilities.. It's a fuzzy area of contract law, and it differs somewhat from state to state, but generally if you and I are negotiating a contract, we aren't obligated to act in good-faith or to avoid scummy tactics like the ones Manfred used. This situation may be different for a couple of reasons. The March agreement remains unavailable to the public, but the union has argued, and it makes sense, that it provides for, or by its nature anticipates, future negotiations over the length of the 2020 season. If so, the  March agreement probably imposes on the parties an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in those negotiations, which it appears MLB violated. Second, the federal labor laws impose on employers and unions lots of obligations to bargain with one another in good faith. It would seem logical to me that the teams and the union had that obligation here and that the crap Manfred pulled  was not good-faith bargaining with the union, but I don't really know much about labor law.

I mean, if they win the first game, it would probably the latest in a season they have been over .500 in a while.