SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 20, 2016 23:52:12 GMT -5
www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/cba-notes-season-length-roster-size-luxury-tax-intl-draft.html?fv-home=true&post-id=77835I thought this needed a thread and I'm surprised it hasn't been talked more in this forum. The two biggest takeaways so far- -Roster limits seem to be definitely expanding to 26 active players in the regular season and shrinking in September to 28 or 29 players. Also the rules committee is going to set rules in place so that you can't change the active roster status in September to take advantage of taking away starting pitchers from their inactive days so you can add more bullpen arms. This is being implemented because obviously for pace of play reasons (eliminating more pitching changes). -The second big takeaway is that the owners are pushing hard for the 10 round international draft and it's getting some pushback from the players association. My guess is that the draft still gets implemented but it might come next year instead of this coming one. -The luxury tax is getting raised to a unknown amount. -I heard a rumor on MLB network radio that signing players with qualifying offers might only cost a second round pick instead of a first round pick. That way it still hurts to sign free agents but not to the point where it's taking away from the players who are looking for big money contracts. If this were to happen, this would be the one time where I've seen the rules favor the large market teams a little. In the world of parity in baseball it would be the only advantage that a large market team could have to exploit. Of course I have no way of proving this rumor though. -Nothing about pace of play looks like is being implemented. For me, I love it but I can see media outlets like Felger and Mazz complaining about this. Nothing about clocks in baseball yet. -No DH in the NL is coming just yet (maybe in the next CBA it'll get implemented, all I know is that the NL DH rule is coming at some point). -The last thing I can takeaway is that the players association is looking to reduce regular season games sometime in the near future, I'm sure they're pushing hard for this. For now, they're expanding the days off in the regular seasons. Unfortunately for us fans I can see the season reduced to 154 games in order to implement more playoff games in the future possibly (like 3 game wildcards or 7 game division series). Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 20, 2016 23:59:35 GMT -5
The reason why I hate the regular season reducing is because it takes away from regular season milestones. Strikeouts, hit totals, homerun total records, battting average and on base records are less meaningful are all affected if they reduce the regular season and I absolutely hate that.
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Nov 21, 2016 1:07:38 GMT -5
Definitely in favor of shortening the regular season if it allows for a 3-game wild card and then 7 game divisional series. Literally don't care one bit about the single season hit record or any counting stat like that.
Absolutely want to see the pace of play addressed. Enforcing pitch clocks will probably help a little, but how much? I guess if you can save 10 minutes a game, that's almost 27 hrs saved per team per season.
100 pct abolish the DH or use the DH in the NL. Whatever it is, just make it uniform. It's insane that they have different rules for the two leagues. It's like if in the NBA each team in the Eastern Conference could have a sixth player who was designated to stay within their offensive 3 pt line all game, but Western Conference teams didn't have this rule. There isn't a good argument against it that doesn't invole, "oh it's quirky and I like it" or "it makes things different, oh boy," etc.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 21, 2016 3:23:57 GMT -5
I love the roster increase and getting rid of the stupid 40 man rosters in Sept is a good idea. I would really like to see the roster limit of 28 or 29 for Sept be for the whole season and have no increase in Sept.
I hate the whole idea of trying to speed the game up. Sure it gets boring with 3 pitching changes in an inning but that's situational baseball and I like that.
Salary caps will increase when revenue does, so no shock there.
I am so torn on DH in NL. It makes sense to equal playing field. On the other hand some people prefer NL to AL and hate DH. Some pitchers love to hit and most pitchers love pitching to pitchers. Unless most of the NL players demand a change I think we should just leave it be.
The whole Qualifying offer system needs a major overall. Reducing it to a second round pick sounds like a bandaid. It hurts non elite free agents. So they might be thinking Phillies don't take risk that Hellickson accepts offer if they are only getting a 2nd round pick. Just have to add how bad did the Phillies mess up things with Hellickson? Wow they could have got a really good deal at deadline, but wanted the 1st round pick and bigger draft pool. I think they need to find a way that non elite free agents don't have any draft pick attached to them. Have to think Hellickson could have got a 3 year 30 million deal if no draft pick was attached, heck maybe more. Instead he gets almost half that. If he sucks next year, the current system could have cost him millions.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 21, 2016 5:09:38 GMT -5
Just a few comments.
If the do get an international draft but delay it for a year, imagine the bidding wars next year.
I'd prefer the DH in the National League. You say potato I say potato.
I agree with Umass that the QO sytem needs revamping. Why not just give the losing team a draft pick without penalizing the signing team. The only effect would be more total picks in the first and supplemental. This year, for example, there would be eight extra.
I like the 26 man roster, it fits the modern game better.
If they want to speed up the game, just limit to one mid-inning pitching change per inning. You would still have match-up strategy but would be for 2-3 batters not just one. LOOGY's would object.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Nov 21, 2016 7:41:23 GMT -5
www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/cba-notes-season-length-roster-size-luxury-tax-intl-draft.html?fv-home=true&post-id=77835I thought this needed a thread and I'm surprised it hasn't been talked more in this forum. The two biggest takeaways so far- -Roster limits seem to be definitely expanding to 26 active players in the regular season and shrinking in September to 28 or 29 players. Also the rules committee is going to set rules in place so that you can't change the active roster status in September to take advantage of taking away starting pitchers from their inactive days so you can add more bullpen arms. This is being implemented because obviously for pace of play reasons (eliminating more pitching changes). -The second big takeaway is that the owners are pushing hard for the 10 round international draft and it's getting some pushback from the players association. My guess is that the draft still gets implemented but it might come next year instead of this coming one. -The luxury tax is getting raised to a unknown amount. -I heard a rumor on MLB network radio that signing players with qualifying offers might only cost a second round pick instead of a first round pick. That way it still hurts to sign free agents but not to the point where it's taking away from the players who are looking for big money contracts. If this were to happen, this would be the one time where I've seen the rules favor the large market teams a little. In the world of parity in baseball it would be the only advantage that a large market team could have to exploit. Of course I have no way of proving this rumor though. -Nothing about pace of play looks like is being implemented. For me, I love it but I can see media outlets like Felger and Mazz complaining about this. Nothing about clocks in baseball yet. -No DH in the NL is coming just yet (maybe in the next CBA it'll get implemented, all I know is that the NL DH rule is coming at some point). -The last thing I can takeaway is that the players association is looking to reduce regular season games sometime in the near future, I'm sure they're pushing hard for this. For now, they're expanding the days off in the regular seasons. Unfortunately for us fans I can see the season reduced to 154 games in order to implement more playoff games in the future possibly (like 3 game wildcards or 7 game division series). Thoughts? Increased rosters to 26 or 27 is great. Expending rosters to 30 in September makes sense. Its a long season with lots of wear and tear on body and mind. Flying coast to coast and playing that next day can take a lot out of people. Play more day night double headers would free up days and not cut the owners gate receipts and still play all the games. Start the playoffs the last week in September and be done with all of it the 3rd week in October. Luxury tax helps the sox and maybe 4 or 5 other big market teams. DH rule should be the same in both leagues, however you decide to use it. The idea of qualifying offers is to try and help the small market teams. Most players are going to follow the money, short career with a chance to earn big money. Not sure the QF will ever work in the spirit of intent. If you reduce the number of games I can see adding more playoff games. But the season/ world series needs to end sooner. Cleve and Chicago could have been very tough to play in this year. Cold and snow happens quite often in late oct early nov on the lakes.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 21, 2016 9:05:58 GMT -5
Adding an extra roster spot doesn't really jibe with the "the game is too long and there are too many pitching changes" mentality, but okay.
The biggest "problem" in baseball (which is pretty damn perfect, all things considered) is the September roster thing. Basically, I think a team should be able to carry 40 players but "dress" (to put it in hockey terms) only 26, and to make any of the previous three starters inactive you need to put them on the disabled list.
I'm in favor expansion right now. There are several markets that could support a team, and I really don't care for the uneven leagues. Also, the talent level in the major leagues right now is absurd. Just watching Triple-A baseball as much as I do, the quality of play is very, very high. There are a lot of reasons for this - influx of talent from Asia and Venezuela, rebounding of Puerto Rico in recent years being chief among them.
|
|
|
Post by sportnik on Nov 21, 2016 9:28:35 GMT -5
Is MLB really going to setup an international draft that effectively gives the team with the worst record the top two picks in the draft (the first pick in the "domestic" draft and the first pick in the international draft)?
That is a bridge to far in terms of giving advantages to bad teams and result in mulitple teams tanking seasons to try to gain this advantage.
Why not just add the international players to the draft, like the NBA does? The NHL does the same thing. Why would MLB create a separate draft for international players? This doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 21, 2016 11:41:18 GMT -5
The whole Qualifying offer system needs a major overall. Reducing it to a second round pick sounds like a bandaid. It hurts non elite free agents. So they might be thinking Phillies don't take risk that Hellickson accepts offer if they are only getting a 2nd round pick. Just have to add how bad did the Phillies mess up things with Hellickson? Wow they could have got a really good deal at deadline, but wanted the 1st round pick and bigger draft pool. I think they need to find a way that non elite free agents don't have any draft pick attached to them. Have to think Hellickson could have got a 3 year 30 million deal if no draft pick was attached, heck maybe more. Instead he gets almost half that. If he sucks next year, the current system could have cost him millions. I think the first-round pick becoming a second-round pick makes perfect sense. The disparity in the potential impact of a player picked in the first round versus the second round has been documented, but the loss of the pick still "hurts," particularly in the sense that you're losing a decent amount of cap money. Docking a team cap money probably makes a bit more sense as a "punishment" anyway. You're also forgetting that the QO-offering team doesn't get the signing team's pick. It's a supplemental pick at the end of the first round. No reason that'd need to change, although the pick would be ~ 8-10 spots farther back than it had been if no first-round picks are being forfeited. I think that's a fair compromise, though. The QO-system works because it designates the, at least, "upper tier" of free agents, if not the "elite". You can't say that both Hellickson and the Phillies got screwed here. The Phillies shouldn't have offered him the QO if they weren't ready to pay him $17M for one year instead of getting a pick. And Hellickson will make more than half of the proposed 3/30 deal you say he could've gotten, and actually, the Fangraphs crowdsourcing had him getting around 4/60, so you might have been under-selling it. But if he's getting $17.2 this year, all he needs to do is pitch well enough to get either 2/12.8 for your contract or 3/42.8 to meet the FG contract. So he actually doesn't even need to pitch as well as he did in 2016, in theory. And by the way, the Phillies can still trade him if someone else wants him on the 1/17.2 contract. ----- On another note, read that while the season might not get shortened, they may just lengthen the number of days in the season to give teams another 4-5 off days. I'd prefer the season get shortened, frankly. It's only been a 162-game season since 1962. I'd prefer they take 8 games off the schedule, making it 17 against intra-division opponents, and perhaps even shorten the season's length by two days. At any rate, we're definitely not getting longer playoffs. The biggest point of removing games is to add off-days.
|
|
jodyreidnichols
Veteran
Dustin Pedroia injured
Posts: 1,551
Member is Online
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 21, 2016 12:56:14 GMT -5
Add double headers, it solves problems for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 21, 2016 13:08:44 GMT -5
I think the 26th man on the roster is nearly a given.
Also think that some sort of maneuvering will happen on September rosters, be it only 30-35 men, you can only dress 30, or something to that regards. Having up to 40 guys available is crazy.
There will clearly be something in regards to international prospects. I'm just not sure they'll be able to get everyone, including foreign players/governments, to get on board before this CBA is hashed out. My guess is that a true draft may be proposed for midway through the CBA or for the next one. There has to be some sort of grace period, otherwise you end up penalizing certain teams and rewarding certain teams without notice. If you went over the limit this year, and all of a sudden those penalties are gone, well then everyone should have had that opportunity.
The DH should be added to the NL, but it won't, at least not yet. I wonder how the phasing out of true DH guys will impact this moving forward. There's no way the MLBPA ever agrees to get rid of it, as it adds jobs for guys late in their career. I'm surprised NL teams are still good with their pitchers hitting, especially with pitcher salaries seemingly growing quicker than that of hitters
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 21, 2016 16:09:34 GMT -5
The whole Qualifying offer system needs a major overall. Reducing it to a second round pick sounds like a bandaid. It hurts non elite free agents. So they might be thinking Phillies don't take risk that Hellickson accepts offer if they are only getting a 2nd round pick. Just have to add how bad did the Phillies mess up things with Hellickson? Wow they could have got a really good deal at deadline, but wanted the 1st round pick and bigger draft pool. I think they need to find a way that non elite free agents don't have any draft pick attached to them. Have to think Hellickson could have got a 3 year 30 million deal if no draft pick was attached, heck maybe more. Instead he gets almost half that. If he sucks next year, the current system could have cost him millions. I think the first-round pick becoming a second-round pick makes perfect sense. The disparity in the potential impact of a player picked in the first round versus the second round has been documented, but the loss of the pick still "hurts," particularly in the sense that you're losing a decent amount of cap money. Docking a team cap money probably makes a bit more sense as a "punishment" anyway. You're also forgetting that the QO-offering team doesn't get the signing team's pick. It's a supplemental pick at the end of the first round. No reason that'd need to change, although the pick would be ~ 8-10 spots farther back than it had been if no first-round picks are being forfeited. I think that's a fair compromise, though. The QO-system works because it designates the, at least, "upper tier" of free agents, if not the "elite". You can't say that both Hellickson and the Phillies got screwed here. The Phillies shouldn't have offered him the QO if they weren't ready to pay him $17M for one year instead of getting a pick. And Hellickson will make more than half of the proposed 3/30 deal you say he could've gotten, and actually, the Fangraphs crowdsourcing had him getting around 4/60, so you might have been under-selling it. But if he's getting $17.2 this year, all he needs to do is pitch well enough to get either 2/12.8 for your contract or 3/42.8 to meet the FG contract. So he actually doesn't even need to pitch as well as he did in 2016, in theory. And by the way, the Phillies can still trade him if someone else wants him on the 1/17.2 contract. ----- On another note, read that while the season might not get shortened, they may just lengthen the number of days in the season to give teams another 4-5 off days. I'd prefer the season get shortened, frankly. It's only been a 162-game season since 1962. I'd prefer they take 8 games off the schedule, making it 17 against intra-division opponents, and perhaps even shorten the season's length by two days. At any rate, we're definitely not getting longer playoffs. The biggest point of removing games is to add off-days. I forgot about the teams getting a comp pick and not the actual pick. So a 2nd round pick only lowers the comp pick. I agree the QO system should only be for elite free agents or top tier ones. Here's the thing Hellickson is not that type of player. That's why I feel the system doesn't work. Using your numbers of 4 years 60 million. What if Hellickson suffers an injury or is just flat out bad for the rest of his career. I'll call this pulling a Sandoval. The QO system could have cost him 42.8 million. This is why the players association hates the QO, it can drive down salaries. They need to fix it so non elite guys aren't hurt by it. As long as teams get comp first round picks, they will continue to gamble that the player won't accept the QO. Sure a team signing a guy like Hellickson only losing a second round pick will help, but it still hurts him. You really can't argue it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 21, 2016 18:08:08 GMT -5
I forgot about the teams getting a comp pick and not the actual pick. So a 2nd round pick only lowers the comp pick. I agree the QO system should only be for elite free agents or top tier ones. Here's the thing Hellickson is not that type of player. That's why I feel the system doesn't work. Using your numbers of 4 years 60 million. What if Hellickson suffers an injury or is just flat out bad for the rest of his career. I'll call this pulling a Sandoval. The QO system could have cost him 42.8 million. This is why the players association hates the QO, it can drive down salaries. They need to fix it so non elite guys aren't hurt by it. As long as teams get comp first round picks, they will continue to gamble that the player won't accept the QO. Sure a team signing a guy like Hellickson only losing a second round pick will help, but it still hurts him. You really can't argue it doesn't. No, it's already set up so that only top tier free agents get the QO. The Phillies just determined that in this market, Hellickson was. If Hellickson thought he could get 4/60, he could have turned down the QO. He determined that taking $17 million this year was better than what he could get as a free agent. Given the SP market, I think he might have made the wrong decision, but that's his problem. The player's association hates the qualifying offer because of what's happened to players like Ian Desmond whose markets are driven down AFTER they turn down the QO incorrectly. Look at the players who then receive one-year offers for less than the QO - it's their fault for reading the market wrong. Six of the 12 players who turned down the QO and then signed a one-year deal fall into this category. The problem with the system is that, incredulously, players and agents are failing miserably in gauging what their markets will be with a QO attached. But when a team isn't going to have to give up a first-rounder to sign one of these players, they'll be more willing to sign them and therefore pay them more. Further reading: www.si.com/mlb/2016/03/01/qualifying-offer-impact-free-agency-ian-desmond
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 21, 2016 20:26:40 GMT -5
I forgot about the teams getting a comp pick and not the actual pick. So a 2nd round pick only lowers the comp pick. I agree the QO system should only be for elite free agents or top tier ones. Here's the thing Hellickson is not that type of player. That's why I feel the system doesn't work. Using your numbers of 4 years 60 million. What if Hellickson suffers an injury or is just flat out bad for the rest of his career. I'll call this pulling a Sandoval. The QO system could have cost him 42.8 million. This is why the players association hates the QO, it can drive down salaries. They need to fix it so non elite guys aren't hurt by it. As long as teams get comp first round picks, they will continue to gamble that the player won't accept the QO. Sure a team signing a guy like Hellickson only losing a second round pick will help, but it still hurts him. You really can't argue it doesn't. No, it's already set up so that only top tier free agents get the QO. The Phillies just determined that in this market, Hellickson was. If Hellickson thought he could get 4/60, he could have turned down the QO. He determined that taking $17 million this year was better than what he could get as a free agent. Given the SP market, I think he might have made the wrong decision, but that's his problem. The player's association hates the qualifying offer because of what's happened to players like Ian Desmond whose markets are driven down AFTER they turn down the QO incorrectly. Look at the players who then receive one-year offers for less than the QO - it's their fault for reading the market wrong. Six of the 12 players who turned down the QO and then signed a one-year deal fall into this category. The problem with the system is that, incredulously, players and agents are failing miserably in gauging what their markets will be with a QO attached. But when a team isn't going to have to give up a first-rounder to sign one of these players, they'll be more willing to sign them and therefore pay them more. Further reading: www.si.com/mlb/2016/03/01/qualifying-offer-impact-free-agency-ian-desmond www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/jeremy-hellickson-to-accept-qualifying-offer.htmlHe declined it because other teams didn't want to part with a pick to sign a non elite guy like Hellickson. If he didn't cost a draft pick he would have got a long term deal and a lot more guaranteed money. The draft pick cost him a long term deal. In this market can you really argue against that? The Phillies didn't think Hellickson was a top tier free agent. They thought some team that really needed pitching wouldn't care about the pick and they were wrong. They gambled and lost. Just because your one of the better starting pitching options in one of the worst free agent classes I've every seen, doesn't make you top tier or elite free agent. You have a totally different way of looking at the QO system, if that's what you think great. It's just not what the players and player assocation thinks. If they thought the system was great they wouldn't be trying to fix it or scrap it all together.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 21, 2016 20:27:54 GMT -5
I still think that if team 1 signs a qualified free agent from team 2, team 2 should get team 1's first round draft pick in the next draft, regardless of position in the draft.
I would love to see more double headers.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 22, 2016 10:10:41 GMT -5
No, it's already set up so that only top tier free agents get the QO. The Phillies just determined that in this market, Hellickson was. If Hellickson thought he could get 4/60, he could have turned down the QO. He determined that taking $17 million this year was better than what he could get as a free agent. Given the SP market, I think he might have made the wrong decision, but that's his problem. The player's association hates the qualifying offer because of what's happened to players like Ian Desmond whose markets are driven down AFTER they turn down the QO incorrectly. Look at the players who then receive one-year offers for less than the QO - it's their fault for reading the market wrong. Six of the 12 players who turned down the QO and then signed a one-year deal fall into this category. The problem with the system is that, incredulously, players and agents are failing miserably in gauging what their markets will be with a QO attached. But when a team isn't going to have to give up a first-rounder to sign one of these players, they'll be more willing to sign them and therefore pay them more. Further reading: www.si.com/mlb/2016/03/01/qualifying-offer-impact-free-agency-ian-desmond www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/jeremy-hellickson-to-accept-qualifying-offer.htmlHe declined it because other teams didn't want to part with a pick to sign a non elite guy like Hellickson. If he didn't cost a draft pick he would have got a long term deal and a lot more guaranteed money. The draft pick cost him a long term deal. In this market can you really argue against that? The Phillies didn't think Hellickson was a top tier free agent. They thought some team that really needed pitching wouldn't care about the pick and they were wrong. They gambled and lost. Just because your one of the better starting pitching options in one of the worst free agent classes I've every seen, doesn't make you top tier or elite free agent. You have a totally different way of looking at the QO system, if that's what you think great. It's just not what the players and player assocation thinks. If they thought the system was great they wouldn't be trying to fix it or scrap it all together. I don't disagree with much of what you wrote. But consider: 1) Doesn't making the draft pick a second rounder instead of a first rounder fix a lot of what you describe to be the issue there? Isn't giving up that kind of pick more in line with the type of player we're talking about? If you're, say, the Baltimore Orioles, doesn't giving up the 67th pick sound a lot more palatable than giving up the 23rd? 2) Isn't the fact that the Phillies misread the market for Hellickson their fault rather than the system's? Even back in July, didn't it seem like the return they could've gotten for him would've been better than the pick? Hell, Drew Pomeranz returned Anderson freakin' Espinoza in that trade market - you'd think they could've gotten someone pretty good where Hellickson might've been the next-best starter on the market. 3) Part of my point, probably poorly stated, was that if teams were ACTUALLY going to give Hellickson 4/60, then someone would've given up a first-round pick and given him a deal that was still decent, like your 3/30. Having a first-round pick attached doesn't make a 4/60 pitcher someone that nobody wants to sign for any price. You're telling me none of the other 9 teams with protected picks wouldn't have been interested at all if they'd valued him as a 4/60 pitcher without the pick? Maybe he wasn't valued that highly. Now, maybe if a team valued him at 3/30, then the pick brings it down to like, 3/15. And yeah, at that point... you're taking the 1/17.2. I'm not saying the system is perfect. I'm saying it needs tweaking, not scrapping entirely. I think the system is headed in the right direction, but giving the QO less teeth in terms of penalty for signing that player is probably something that needs to happen, and doing so will address the issues that the PA has with it.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Nov 22, 2016 10:50:50 GMT -5
International Draft, QO, length of schedule, DH. That's a lot to reconcile as quickly as everyone hopes. My solution for the DH is simple. Senior Circuit NL purist DH antagonists are legion at every level, including owners, staff, players, season ticketholders, media. They like playing the game as it was originally played, sort of. The AL will never give up the DH. Why should they? The NL and AL have always enjoyed differences, even different commissioners. I don't see the need to homogenize baseball re: the DH.
One quick solution to the interleague play issue, including World Series, is to allow each team to freely choose, on a game to game basis, to play with or without a DH, regardless of league. This maintains differences, adds strategy, allows choice, hurts no one, mollifies almost everyone.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 22, 2016 11:07:03 GMT -5
International Draft, QO, length of schedule, DH. That's a lot to reconcile as quickly as everyone hopes. My solution for the DH is simple. Senior Circuit NL purist DH antagonists are legion at every level, including owners, staff, players, season ticketholders, media. They like playing the game as it was originally played, sort of. The AL will never give up the DH. Why should they? The NL and AL have always enjoyed differences, even different commissioners. I don't see the need to homogenize baseball re: the DH. One quick solution to the interleague play issue, including World Series, is to allow each team to freely choose, on a game to game basis, to play with or without a DH, regardless of league. This maintains differences, adds strategy, allows choice, hurts no one, mollifies almost everyone. One of the problems today with pitchers batting is that they give it up very early in their careers so they're even more terrible than they used to be. Some pitchers in the majors haven't run the bases in 10 years and then they have to leading to a higher risk of injury. Pitchers facing pitchers is almost never an actual competition. It's like 'get it over with' or 'let's see if the pitcher screws up terribly by not striking out the pitcher batting.' Of course there are exceptions.
|
|
jodyreidnichols
Veteran
Dustin Pedroia injured
Posts: 1,551
Member is Online
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 22, 2016 11:12:12 GMT -5
International Draft, QO, length of schedule, DH. That's a lot to reconcile as quickly as everyone hopes. My solution for the DH is simple. Senior Circuit NL purist DH antagonists are legion at every level, including owners, staff, players, season ticketholders, media. They like playing the game as it was originally played, sort of. The AL will never give up the DH. Why should they? The NL and AL have always enjoyed differences, even different commissioners. I don't see the need to homogenize baseball re: the DH. One quick solution to the interleague play issue, including World Series, is to allow each team to freely choose, on a game to game basis, to play with or without a DH, regardless of league. This maintains differences, adds strategy, allows choice, hurts no one, mollifies almost everyone. Allowing each team to freely choose is the illusion of choice, when would a NL not take advantage of this, ever? If you come up with anything it will be the exception that proves the rules not breaks it.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Nov 22, 2016 11:26:38 GMT -5
Not an illusion at all, merely limited. If I were a NL manager, I might choose the DH, but do you really think the Giants would not allow Madbum to hit? Not all NL pitchers are terrible hitters. Not all AL pitchers are excellent at pitching. It would be a choice, and would be one less issue for the negotiators to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 22, 2016 11:32:14 GMT -5
Not an illusion at all, merely limited. If I were a NL manager, I might choose the DH, but do you really think the Giants would not allow Madbum to hit? Not all NL pitchers are terrible hitters. Not all AL pitchers are excellent at pitching. It would be a choice, and would be one less issue for the negotiators to worry about. The AL is already allowed to choose to whether to use a DH or not and they choose to use one 100% of the time. That's not a choice.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 22, 2016 11:39:36 GMT -5
Not an illusion at all, merely limited. If I were a NL manager, I might choose the DH, but do you really think the Giants would not allow Madbum to hit? Not all NL pitchers are terrible hitters. Not all AL pitchers are excellent at pitching. It would be a choice, and would be one less issue for the negotiators to worry about. Madison Bumgarner hit .186/.268/.360 last year. He's a terrible hitter.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Nov 22, 2016 11:58:05 GMT -5
If allowing a NL team in interleague play to choose to use a DH in a NL or AL park, and an AL team to use a DH in a NL park isn't a quick fix to a gnarly issue, while maintaining the differences each league chooses to play by, then it seems choice loses to orderliness, which is always unfortunate
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 22, 2016 12:12:32 GMT -5
If allowing a NL team in interleague play to choose to use a DH in a NL or AL park, and an AL team to use a DH in a NL park isn't a quick fix to a gnarly issue, while maintaining the differences each league chooses to play by, then it seems choice loses to orderliness, which is always unfortunate Any manager given the choice to use a DH who wouldn't take advantage should be fired before turning in the lineup card. 1) The best bench player on any MLB team is a better hitter than the best-hitting pitcher on that team. Substituting that better hitter will literally always improve the team's chance of winning. 2) Allowing your pitcher to focus on pitching rather than always having to hit will always be a good thing. Keeping your pitcher from getting tired running bases, swinging, etc. is always a good thing. 3) Not having to remove pitchers because their spot in the order is coming up will always be a good thing. Teams are always going to take the option that makes the team better. That option will always be to use the DH. The rule isn't "having" or "not having" the DH, but it's really allowing or not allowing teams to use the DH. Personally, I have actually come around a bit on the leagues having two sets of rules. I get the point of view that thinks that's dumb, for sure. But it's a quirk that actually gives meaningful difference to the two leagues, since there isn't, say, a geographical one like the NBA or NHL. I guess there's the historical difference of their origins too (I had no idea that the AL and NL were actually separate legal entities until 2000, which is kind of mind-blowing really), but given that we've had a couple of organizations go back-and-forth at this point and enough expansion, I think that's diluted quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 22, 2016 12:37:26 GMT -5
It seems like everyone likes the 26 man roster, but I don't get it. Won't this simply move all teams from a 7 man bullpen to an 8 man bullpen?
The biggest problem with how the game is played currently is that the games are too long. Adding another bullpen arm will push for more pitcher changes which will increase the game length even further. Aside from employing one more person at an MLB salary and making roster management slightly easier (and less skillful), what is the benefit?
|
|
|