Official MLB baseball thread.

Damn, I was only off by 10 million!

I’m glad he didn’t go to the Giants, because I like them. I’m also glad he didn’t go to the Dodgers, because I hate them. Philly is just what he deserves... I can’t wait to see the batteries flying at him in right field when he misses routine plays.
 
Detective Beauregard said:
Damn, I was only off by 10 million!

I’m glad he didn’t go to the Giants, because I like them. I’m also glad he didn’t go to the Dodgers, because I hate them. Philly is just what he deserves... I can’t wait to see the batteries flying at him in right field when he misses routine plays.
Click to expand...


Yeah, he is a good player, no doubt. But there are some problems with his game that I think will get more and more exposed as he gets older. He really got less per year than expected .. think the thought was around $300M over 10 years .. about $30M/year ... he ended up at $25M/year on average
 
Detective Beauregard said:
Yeah, I remember hearing about that Nationals offer. Also, I think this contract is front-loaded, but the exact details aren’t out yet.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I still think the number of players that should get a contract that long are few and far between, especially for a player that is already showing signs of a decline. It can really easily turn into an albatross. though if they are paying a lot the first 5 years and it goes down after that, maybe not super horrible .. and maybe hope the NL gets the DL (which I hope never happens)
 
I also hope the NL never adopts the DH. It’s why I find AL games boring - there’s so little strategy!

These contracts are ludicrous from a length perspective, especially for an NL team. Harper will be almost 40 when his contract is up, and there’s no way he’s in the outfield at that age. Hell, even first base seems unlikely.

Trout is easily the best current player in baseball, and seems to have no ego (unlike Harper and Machado). I wish him the best.
 
Various rule changes, most of these I like, would like the trade deadline to be a bit later given waiver trades are a thing of the past. I do think the result of this will be more vets at AAA versus younger players as an "emergency reserve"
I really like the 26 man rosters and limiting the September call-ups, though I would make that number a little higher than 28 (maybe 30).

On balance, I think these are good changes for the game.


-- Pitchers will be required to face a minimum of three batters in a game beginning in 2020.

-- There will be a single July 31 trade deadline, starting this season, with teams prohibited from making any type of trade after that date.

-- Mound visits will be reduced from six to five during games beginning this year, and perhaps reduced to four visits in 2020.

-- There will be an All-Star election day starting this summer where fans can determine the starting players in the All-Star Game with 24-hour voting.

-- The Home Run Derby will now pay $1 million to the winning player.

-- Commercial breaks during innings will be shortened by 20 seconds to 2 minutes.

-- Position players will be prohibited from pitching in games that don’t go into extra innings, unless a team is ahead or behind by at least eight runs.

-- Committees will be appointed by the Commissioner’s office and the union to formally discuss the game’s economic concerns. They will study ways to make the free-agent market more active. They will discuss eliminating the incentive for teams from purposely losing to gain top draft picks. They will explore efforts to prevent teams from manipulating service time that delays their top prospects from being called up to the major leagues.

-- And finally, beginning in 2020, all teams will have a 28-man roster in the final month of September, after having a 26-man roster the first five months of the season.
 
Most of these ideas I can get behind, but I really hate the idea of a three batter minimum for pitchers. If a pitcher comes in and just clearly doesn't have it and can't find the strike zone, it's going to suck to have to be forced to stick with him and make him suffer through three batters anyway.

I'm also not a fan of how it looks like they're slowly moving in the direction of eliminating mound visits entirely.
 
Lampwick 43 said:
Most of these ideas I can get behind, but I really hate the idea of a three batter minimum for pitchers. If a pitcher comes in and just clearly doesn't have it and can't find the strike zone, it's going to suck to have to be forced to stick with him and make him suffer through three batters anyway.

I'm also not a fan of how it looks like they're slowly moving in the direction of eliminating mound visits entirely.
Click to expand...


I am okay on the 3 batter deal, though my understanding is that it is 3 batters or the end of an inning or an injury.

On one hand, I think 5 batter -3 pitcher innings really bog down the game, this will pretty much be the end of the lefty specialist. Because really it generally takes 2 batters to figure out the guy does not have it and if they did not already have someone up in the pen at least that long to warm up another pitcher. At most, I think this makes the pitcher face one batter more than they otherwise would have.

My problem with mound visits is when the catcher keeps going out there because they cannot get on the same page with what pitch to throw or the signs (if they cannot get on the same page repeatedly, that is really their problem), especially in non leverage situations. I would rather they do something like 2 per inning max versus a running total over the game. But I really do not think the 6 limit really came into play much (if at all last season).

I do not have the problem with the time of the games being longer, my problem is really with the pace of the games ... a 4 hour back and forth game can be exciting as hell, a 2 hour game can be boring.
 
bearfan said:
They will discuss eliminating the incentive for teams from purposely losing to gain top draft picks. They will explore efforts to prevent teams from manipulating service time that delays their top prospects from being called up to the major leagues.
Click to expand...

What's the problem behind this?
 
Perun said:
What's the problem behind this?
Click to expand...


In short, there have been a lot of teams tanking the season to get a higher draft pick and rebuild. Which in some cases is a sensible strategy.

The problem for the players is that these teams do not spend much money on players so it limits the market for free agents, the problem for fans is that there are several teams that go into the season essentially saying "we are going to try to lose a lot of games and hope the player we draft will work out". In baseball, it generally takes anywhere from 2-4 years for those players to reach the majors after they are drafted.

Sometimes it does make sense to do that, but I think the perception is that too many teams are doing it and it is not really a sure path to success. Recently the Cubs and Astros have done it really well, but there are many cases where teams try that route and just end up sucking for a decade plus. These are really rough numbers, but in the past going into a season you would have 20% of the teams that looked really good, 70% that could have a good year if a few things break their way, and 10% that you knew would be bad. Now the numbers are more 20% really good, 30% maybe, and 50% on their way to a bad year. Of course surprises (good and bad) always happen.


Service time is teams keeping players in the minors for the first 3 or so weeks of the season to delay their free agency by a year.
 
Perun said:
Hm, I see... thanks.
Click to expand...
There is more to it than that, but that is the crux of it. It is a big deal for the players and the current labor agreement ends in 2 years and that will be a big part of the negotiations. I think forming that group to start discussing this now is a huge step to avoiding a lockout or strike. Plus some of the rules changes (like adding a roster spot for each team, creating 30 more big league jobs)
 
Do you think this would make the game more interesting in the long run?
 
Perun said:
Do you think this would make the game more interesting in the long run?
Click to expand...

I think it would because you would not have half the league giving up on the season before it starts. I think there are cases where teams need to rebuild .. prime example being a team where a lot of its better players get old/injured/less effective at the same time. But generally that is 3 or 4 teams a season. I also think the players need to realize that (as happened in the past) teams will not be giving out longer contracts to players over 30. Teams need to spend more money on players, but players should accept the fact it will be for shorter terms for all but the top players.

It is a 162 game season and the worse teams will usually still win 60 games, the best will rarely win over 100 games. So you really have those 40 games in the middle that decide good or bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top