I'd be curious to know how the Orioles missed out on Kaline. Feel like back then, they should have had the inside track. And it's not like those late 50s teams were so stacked that he couldn't be put on the roster.
It is certainly about the $$$, the union wants players to be paid and owners want some tv revenue. They (MLB) will claim it is an attempt to get back to normalcy, but there would be little normal about it. Without fans it will be more like a scrimmage or sim game IMO. Honestly, if I was a vet player, sacked away millions (like Chris Davis), I'd hang up my spikes rather than go through this mirage ball in the desert.
But is that true? Or is it completely true? Do 20-year-old players who, for example, tear an ACL and miss a season come back at the same level they were a year before? Does physical maturity and working out and studying film not play some role in development? It can't be all game action.
We could look at WWII. Lots of guys early in their development took a year or three off, then came back to play in the majors.
Carl Furillo. Was a prospect, got to the high minors where he hit .280 at the age of 20. Missed three years due to the war. Came back at 24, in 1946, and was a starter for the Dodgers for the next 15 years.
Guys like Al Dark and Dale Mitchell didn't start their pro careers until 24 because of the war. Then were almost immediately MLB starters. Hoot Evers played one MLB game in '41, hit .322 in the Texas League in '42, missed three years for the war, then was immediately a starter for the Tigers and others for 12 years. Warren Spahn went 17-12 in the Eastern League in '42, missed three years, came back and had a 2.94 ERA in the majors in '46. Ted Williams and Stan Musial lost years to the war, but aside from the blanks you couldn't tell. They were great before and after.
Then there's guys like Charlie Fox or Clyde Vollmer who were prospects before the war and kind of had their careers derailed.
I don't know. But I don't necessarily think a year off is a huge deal.