10:10am: The league and Union have formally announced the changes. A full rundown of the new rules is available, but here’s a more concise overview:
Effective Immediately
- There will be no trades after July 31. August trade waivers have been eliminated, though players can still be placed on and claimed from outright waivers, as they would throughout the rest of the year.
- All-Star voting will still be conducted by fans online, but the top three players at each position, in each league, will now participate in an All-Star Election Day. The top three vote-getters at each position, in each league, (top six in the case of outfielders) will receive bonus payments.
- The Home Run Derby will now come with $2.5MM of prize money, including a $1MM prize for the winner.
- The maximum number of mound visits per game will be reduced from six to five.
- Commercial breaks between innings are reduced to two minutes in length for all games.
- The MLB and MLBPA will form a “Joint Committee” to discuss further issues and rule changes.
Effective Beginning in 2020
- The standard roster size in regular season games and postseason games will increase from 25 to 26 players. Beginning on Sept. 1, roster size will expand further to a 28-player maximum (as opposed to the current 40). A maximum number of pitchers will be designated by the Joint Committee. (Passan reported that the league has proposed no more than half a team’s players can be pitchers.)
- Position players are only eligible to pitch in extra innings or when a team is leading or trailing by seven or more runs. Certain position players may be designated as “two-way players,” but to be eligible, they’ll need to have accrued at least 20 innings pitched and started 20 games as a position player/designated hitter in the current season or the preceding season (including at least three trips to the plate in each of those lineup appearances).
- A pitcher must face at least three batters per appearance unless he is removed due to injury or the half-inning in which he is pitching ends before three batters have come to the plate.
- The minimum length of stay for pitchers who are optioned to the minors or placed on the injured list will increase from 10 days to 15 days. This change is still “subject to input” from the newly formed Joint Committee.
March 14, 7:10am: Passan has several updates this morning, adding that there’ll be cash prizes in the annual Home Run Derby beginning in 2019, including $1MM to the winner, as an enticement for the league’s top talent to participate. Commercial breaks between innings are being shortened for a second time as well.
Pitchers will be required to face a minimum of three batters beginning in 2020, barring injury (previous reports on that possibility suggested that said ruling would also exempt cases in which a pitcher finishes an inning). More controversial issues among fans, including the implementation of a 20-second pitch clock and a universal DH, have been tabled for now but will continue to be discussed.
March 13: Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association have reached an agreement on a series of changes regarding roster construction, per both Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription required) and Jeff Passan of ESPN. While it seems that this wave of agreed-upon changes will not technically impact actual in-game rules, the two sides have agreed to make July 31 a hard deadline for the completion of trades, thus doing away with the convoluted August waiver system. That change will go into effect for the 2019 season, and beginning in 2020, the standard roster size will expand from 25 to 26 (with a 13-pitcher maximum). September rosters, meanwhile, will shrink from 40 to 28 (with a 14-pitcher maximum).
As Passan details, the All-Star Game selection process will also be getting a facelift in 2019. Fans will still be permitted to cast votes online, but the top three players at each position will then be included in a newly implemented All-Star “Election Day” which figures to provide new avenues to marketing the game’s top talent both in mainstream media and via social media.
The precise manner in which the singular trade deadline will impact action on the summer trade market won’t be known for certain until we have multiple seasons of data, but from a distance it figures to heighten July trade activity. Contending clubs, one would imagine, will be forced to be more aggressive when seeking to acquire talent, while borderline teams who would previously have waited until mid- or late-August to sell off assets in a series of waiver claims will now be forced to make a decision much sooner. The idea is divisive among the GMs to whom Rosenthal spoke, but it seems that the Union’s hope is that pushing up the final date for in-season improvements will also prompt expected contenders to be a bit more aggressive in the offseason.
The broadest, most far-reaching development comes from Passan. As part of the recent agreement, both the league and the Union have already agreed to “imminently” begin discussing the labor issues that have been thrust to the forefront of the industry despite the fact that the current collective bargaining agreement doesn’t expire until 2021. Among the topics to be discussed will be the state of free agency, service time manipulation and the luxury tax.
The MLBPA, player representatives and players themselves have become increasingly frustrated with the current state of free agency, lamenting the stagnant market (particularly for second- and third-tier free agents). While many are quick to point out that in some instances, players have harmed their own markets by aiming too high early in the offseason (e.g. Dallas Keuchel, Craig Kimbrel), one of the greater issues on the player side has been the slow disappearance of the so-called “middle class” of free agency. Players such as Adam Jones (via USA Today’s Bob Nightengale), Matt Wieters (via MLB.com’s Jenifer Langosch) and Brad Brach (via The Athletic’s Patrick Mooney) are among the many who’ve been open about frustrating forays into the open market. Veterans Justin Verlander, Marcus Stroman and numerous others have been active on social media in calling out the glacial pace of free agency.
While commissioner Rob Manfred has staunchly dismissed suggestions that a significant portion of the league is no longer attempting to win, players and Union officials have decried widespread tanking/rebuilding efforts that have created decreasing levels of parity and discouraged teams from venturing into free agency amid record MLB revenues.
It’s an exorbitantly layered conversation and one to which there’s no clear and easy fix, so it’s promising that the two sides have agreed to at least begin even preliminary discussions that could lead to a system which all parties find more palatable. Certainly, there won’t be any resolution on those issues anytime in the near future, but the early efforts to maintain labor peace will assuredly be among the more fascinating storylines to follow in the months and possibly years to come.
The September roster changes is very bad
Why do you feel that way zachattack?
Is it really necessary to have more than 28?
I think 28 is a good number, but I think they should be able to call up 40 but only be able to play 28 in a given game.
Similar to hockey. Agreed.
Agreed
Ahrrr
Agree
That idea doesn’t work. It becomes a 32 man roster because the team only names one starting pitcher and sits the rest.
I’d imagine he feels that way because rosters become humongous and it changes the way the game is played. I agree it is an issue and kind of silly to expand rosters by that large of a percentage.
I think he’s saying the opposite and doesn’t want to do away with the 40.
I tend to agree. To me, if a team is out of it, it gives them a good chance to bring up some youngsters and give them time. Plus, everyone makes a big fuss about service time manipulation, but now you know for sure them elite prospects aren’t going to be September call ups.
On the other hand, it won’t waste 20-30 days of service time when they bring up a prospect in September, so now maybe they won’t all have to be shipped to AAA to start the next season for a few weeks-the clock won’t have already started
They weren’t called up before anyway.
September call ups do not count towards service time anyway.
September call ups don’t count as service time? Please explain.
I thought players called up in September didn’t accrue service time.
jim stem…..
People are confusing rookie status and service time. Sept. call-ups do accrue service time towards arbitration and free agent eligibility. When it comes to Rookie status……
“In order for a player to be eligible for a Rookie of the Year Award in 2017, he must be within certain thresholds at the start of next season. First, he must not have reached 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Majors. Second, he must not have spent 45 days on an active Major League — except during post-Sept. 1 periods of roster expansion.”
“So the key thing to remember when prospects are called up this month is that while September at-bats and innings do count against rookie eligibility, days on the roster do not. In other words, if a prospect spends most of the final month riding the bench in the Majors, it’s not going to prevent him from being eligible for the Rookie of the Year Award next season.”
mlb.com/news/september-callups-and-roster-rules-ex…
Example for reasoning? I find it to be good. There won’t be as many lopsided games where contending teams in a pennant race have fairly easy victories against teams giving their AAA guys seasoning.
But now teams will have a harder time getting their AAA players seasoning. It hurts the bad teams that need their young guys to develop in order to become good again.
Just play them anyway. If you are already a bad team, just put some of your current players on the DL and play the young guys.
Not really. The bad teams generally trade away a few guys at the deadline, and create more playing time for players who are just coming up.
+Oxford
So a few guys can get their experience but not as many as before and thats the point.
teams might just start releasing veterans Sept 1 to make space.
Or better yet August 31st so they can still be post season eligible.
I think this is essentially the nba’s buy out protocol they have every year.
I was going to say that or like NHL more guys put on Waviers or DFA. Needs to be at midnight the Deadline. Also have the top vote getter in each League draft the Teams for the All-Star Game like in the other Sports. Also at Draft got to be Trades happening.
They still wouldn’t be eligible unless they were in another organization by the end of the league day on August 31. If I remember correctly the rule says you must be in an organization prior to September 1 to be eligible for postseason play with that organization.
This is the big reason everyone misses out on. September is a full month of baseball. To have 30 games impacted by 12-15 tanking teams fielding their Triple-A squad and other crazy variables for a full month was always outrageous.
I admit, it was fun for the fans though. It was always fun to see guys come up and have a big September. Sometimes have us all getting overexcited about a guy who hit 7-10 homers in September, never to do so in a season again.
September baseball was definitely fun, but it had a negative impact on the end result IMO. Especially with the imbalanced schedules.
yeah but i do see the argument that it will make the post season worse because a lot of times those rosters bring up a lot of] pitching and defense to relieve guys that are worn out.
Give a little to take a little…well I agree but it’s business. If i was a team owner then I would not agree as I would love to see what my potential prospects can do or would do to help enhance my team.
I agree. I like the 40 man roster and the number of call ups it allows. I understand the concerns of how it affects the way games are managed in August and September, but they could have kept the 40 man limit and just require managers to designate up to 28 players who are active for a given game. They can turn that list in at the same time they turn in the lineup card.
This is a great idea but then do the other 12 players get service time, and do they actually deserve it if they are only on the “active” roster for a couple games per week?
With the number of teams potentially in the playoffs, dont forget wild card chase teams who are just out of the picture, i think more teams are going to be standing pat and not looking to trade. The extra month gives time for the playoff picture to solidify and identify the borderline sellers and bad contract swaps. The usual sellers like the marlins and orioles will reap larger initial returns because they will be highly sought after as trade partners so that is the plus for them. I fear the market as a whole is going to be slow and as a fan who loves both the trade deadline and the waiver deadline the season will be less exciting.
How exactly are the Orioles the usual sellers? They were sellers for the first time since 2011 last year.
What extra month?
Lousy Smarch weather.
The extra month would be the now defunct august waiver deadline. Usually that is when the players who have large or bad contracts sneak through waivers and get traded.
Its good for Fantasy Baseball
That was actually my first thought. I hated from a fantasy perspective how a lot of teams benched their good players in September over young guys
Is it because you want more people on the roster so you have the chance to make more friends forever?
i don’t think it is that bad. though i do think that once a team is mathematically eliminated they ought to be able to have a 60 man active roster.
Actually I think that’s the best change. It’s stupid to expand the roster for one month and give managers 12 relief pitchers so they can make 4 or 5 pitching changes in one 75 minute inning while the league office is screaming for ways to speed the game up.
Do you really enjoy seeing Joe Maddon carry 20 pitchers so he can match up with every batter from the sixth inning on?
….worse yet, as a Phillies fan, what Kapler did last September was mind numbing….He would swap out position players in the 4th/5th inning due to the opposing team changing pitchers…arrrrgh….
cpdpoet……….
A large part of the Phillies collapse last September was Kapler trying to prove he was the smartest guy on the field.
Hopefully he has learned a little. I was encouraged a little by his statements in this article…. mlb.com/phillies/news/bryce-harper-plays-against-y… but I’m not sure I trust his gut.
Or watching Craig Counsell bullpening like Ned Yost?
”MLB and the union will formally announce Thursday several major rule changes, most which will be implemented in 2020, two officials told USA TODAY, They spoke only on the condition of anonymity.”
Why is this important? Nightengale was the only one who quantified how much shorter commercial breaks:
“…breaks will be shortened by 20 seconds to 2 minutes.”
Lol at this one:
“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.”
Thia is reported by Nightengale. usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/03/14/mlb-new-r…
I disagree. I think that is the best of the changes. There is no reason for a team to carry up to 40 players for 1 month, with the vast majority of them not eligible for a postseason roster if they hadn’t already been called up.
Agree. The roster changes and change in comnercial breaks are the only changes that I support. The remainder are just meddling for the sake of meddling.
Not if you’re a fan of AAA baseball it isn’t. This is actually great and rewards teams for having farm systems in their own backyards. Now MLB teams can’t pull up the players that got the AAA teams into the playoffs in September, just to have them sit on the bench and do nothing. I like it.
Owners don`t want to pay more for players coming up and sitting around !!!
If a team fills out the full 40 man with call-ups it comes to a bit over $1.3m
and if your behind 7 runs in the first inning you can have an infielder pitch!!
is that what I`m reading or 10 runs after 2 same thing . an postion player can play . what next . a Non Runner and a Time period for games. and they lowered the visits to 5 from 6 . then what 4 and then 3 and then we will have more complete games. The union and owners agreed so it is what it is
Disagree. I think the 40 man active rosters are silly and excessive, and get away from the spirit of the game. They result in endless pitching changes and pinch hitters, and promotes tanking by allowing teams who are out of it to just start nobodies all the time since they have so many guys on their roster. May be a hot take that many disagree with but just my opinion, I think competitive baseball should be played all season. A team fighting for their division shouldn’t luck out by playing the Orioles in September who are starting their AAA lineup.
Would love to see more moves to improve parity (e.g., more sharing of broadcast revenue like the NFL does, draft “lottery” system to counterbalance tanking, salary floors, etc.)
The best way to counterbalance tanking would be to invert the draft orders. Give the #1 pick to the team with best record that does not make the playoffs and the worst team should get #20 with the rest of the first round made up of the playoff teams.
I have presented this idea for the NBA several times, but I think it would work even better in baseball where draft picks are not quite as franchise altering. a top pick in basketball can turn around a bad team immediately, but in baseball it takes several years and even then it’s a much bigger gamble. But I do think that idea would make teams and fans prefer to win 75 games vs. 62 games. Right now I think it is the opposite for teams and I KNOW it is the opposite for some fans.
As far as teams tanking to miss the playoffs, Two words. BLACK SOX. Start banning players/managers/GMs for throwing games. The precedent is there.
This is just a crazy idea that I thought of right now, but what if instead of draft positions the system awarded “draft dollars.” Maybe a lottery system to randomize the worst performing teams, or doing it on a rolling 3 year record or something. But the idea is that each team would get a bucket of “draft dollars” to spend on the draft. Just like in an auction style fantasy league if there was someone you really loved you could spend the majority on one player, or you could spread it around more evenly. Highest bidder wins the player. These aren’t “real” dollars, just draft capital. The available bucket would be based on record, or lottery, etc. so the neediest teams would have a little bigger pot to play with, but it would really add some new strategy to amateur scouting and drafting.
So an auction style draft with 1000 players? That would take weeks.
Maybe. Maybe a silent bidding system would expedite. The idea is to partially to change the tanking dynamic. For instance if there was a consensus #1 there is motivation to finish #32 as opposed to finishing #31. But now all of a sudden if you are that #32 team you may place a different emphasis on drafting for a larger quantity of quality guys. For instance if you know your off needs lots of help wouldn’t it make more sense to get 3 guys in the #10-#15 range rather than the #1 overall guy?
If time to complete the auction is really too long maybe there is a mechanism for just the top 100 players to go in this fashion and then it reverts to normal draft style.
Just an idea.
I was following…
Then you said #32 and lost all respect.
There’s only 30 MLB teams, Bud.
I thought of this same idea for free agents! Which I think makes more sense they could also do away Scott Boras!!!!
Let’s have a draft we’re the winner of the World Series gets #1, then loser of WS gets #2 and you see where I’m going
muy complicato.
Not if it were a dutch auction. Could be done in a day.
I mean, Manfred does keep hinting at expansion…
I see what your saying, but then I see “maybe WC” teams suddenly dropping a few games because 6th place seems a whole lot nicer than 5th.
So a team’s going to purposely lose to stay out of the playoffs, just to improve their draft??
For Bryce Harper? Probably
Absolutely. Winner take all game with loser getting 21st or 22nd pick, or just barely missing playoffs first 1st pick. hmm…
This isn’t the NBA. WC teams win the championship and 1st round picks are no sure thing.
First off, only once since the winner take all bracket was added in the WC has a WC team won the WS – and then there was an anomaly of two WC teams in the series to begin with.
In prior years, the WC was nothin much worse off than the 3rd place seed – relegated to a road series in a best of 5.
So, since 2012 we’ve had 14 WCs and 1 winner. That’s a 7% chance of winning the WS.
On the flip side, take a WC bubble team and give them the number one talent in the draft? One they control at least 6 or 7 seasons?
I don’t think it’s a tough choice.
That’s going to change too. Doubt your going to be able to control players for 7 years and then prevent them from getting big contracts afterwards. Something has to give.
Oh yeah. Six or seven years of Mark Appel would be whole lot better than a playoff appearance.
14WCs and 1 winner is misleading anyway because even if the WC won every single World Series you would only call it a 50% chance of winning.
bingo!
How about each round of the draft is completely determined by draft lottery? Throw all the teams in a barrel and start picking them out. Then there is no incentive for tanking at all.
That sounds good on paper but it could lead to some lopsided results. There could be a coincidence where a team gets lucky the entire draft and gets top picks pretty much every round
You would get rid of the incentive for tanking but then you have the problem where good teams have an easier time staying good while bad teams have a harder time becoming good again.
I think having the same great teams dominate year after year and the same crappy teams stay crappy is more detrimental to the sport than the crappy teams tanking.
I disagree. I believe it would create more incentive for bad teams to get mid-range free agents in order to pick up that extra couple of wins. Right now, there is absolutely no incentive for Kansas City or Baltimore to pay $3 million for someone like Carlos Gonzalez or another low to mid-range FA and instead use a minimum salary player. Yes, they are younger and can develop, but they can do that in AAA as well.
Plus, having a higher draft pick does not equal having a better player. This is MLB not the NBA. Yes Bryce Harper was picked #1, but Mike Trout was picked at the end of the first round. Albert Pujols, arguably the best player of the 21st century so far, was picked in the 13th round.
2001-2008 happened and Barry Bonds is still the best.
That’s why he said “arguably.”
Exactly.
What’s actually more important then position is the amount of money available for teams to spend.
This # is what needs to be addressed. The teams who pick in the top 3 or 4 get so much money and rarely ever even pay slot value for their 1st pick. That allows them to take someone at 1 and then someone again with their 2nd pick which is somewhere in the 30’s. They have so much money left they’re able to pay the guy they picked in the 30’s or 40’s more then teams get to pay their 1st pick in the 20’s.
It’s essentially giving the teams that tank multiple 1st and 2nd rd picks.
That’s how the Astros ended up getting Cameron who cost as much as a top 10 pick.
How can anyone see a system which rewards a team trying to lose with multiple top 10 picks as the best system available?
The best way to change this system is either give teams the ability to rollover draft capital or pull from next years pool.
Or do alternating rounds working from worst to 1st.
The team that picks 1st in the 1st rd picks last in the 2nd rd. The team who picks last in the 1st rd picks 1st in the 2nd rd. That would even out the money a little more.
I realize having a higher draft pick doesnt not necessarily equate to picking the better player. Thats in all sports. You can always make the wrong pick. However, having the higher draft pick NECESSARILY means that the team has a better opportunity to draft the better players before others. This means, in a system where the top teams are awarded top picks, that the better teams will have a better opportunity to stay good than the bad teams. The bad teams then have a worse opportunity to get the better players. I am pretty sure this is why the draft is structured the way it is in almost all sports. Its an attempt to try and balance out the teams.
I did agree with you about the incentives the change would create. So you disagreeing with me about and then counter arguing with a point I said i agreed with is confusing to me. I’ll reiterate my original point: I agree that you would get rid of the incentive of tanking but other problems would arise (such as the aforementioned better teams have a better opportunity to stay better, leading to potentially having a stagnant league where the same good teams are good every year and the same bad teams are bad every year) which I think are worse problems than a handful of teams tanking.
Honestly, I have a bigger problem with the Rays doing absolutely nothing to try and capitalize on a 90 win season or the Pirates not doing enough to help their playoff roster not so long ago than I do a team like the Orioles or the Marlins throwing in the towel in the beginning of the season. It makes sense for a rebuilding team to not pour resources into a team that wouldnt win it all anyway and the draft positions do help in the end (look at the Astros and all their 1st round picks and see how they were able to land Correa, Bregman, Springer, but if they had lower picks they might not of had the chance the grab them, and they would have had a higher chance of staying a bad team).
I can’t agree more about tanking!!! It is exactly like the Black Sox scandal. Teams that intentionally lose should be punished severely. I think that there isn’t enough MLB talent to have so many teams in MLB. I think that MLB should go back to the original 16 teams and create a AAAA league for the rest.
There is plenty of talent. The problem is that, much like the NBA, all of it is starting to glom together. There are 30 teams and yet no one would have been surprised if both Machado and Harper went to the same team. With 30 teams, that should NEVER even be a possibility. I’m not saying the players shouldn’t have a say, but competitive balance in the league should be of the highest priority to the Commissioner’s Office. More than game length or TV contracts or salaries or anything else. If the league stops being competitive, there is no point in playing.
I know it would never happen, but I would love for free agents to have to sign contracts with the LEAGUE. Then they could be drafted by all 30 teams in what could be a very interesting expansion type draft each year. That way they could get their money, but competitive balance would remain.
Eh, i really dont like the idea of players signing with the league. We should keep it closer to capitalism where if a team wants to spend and get better then they should spend and get better and get farther away from becoming a participation trophy league.
I really dont see the problem if a team got both Harper and Machado. If the Phillies grabbed them both, more power to them. If you were an opposing team and you didnt want both players to go there, maybe you shouldve done something about it rather than just beg the league hand them to you.
It’s not a participation trophy situation. It’s equalizing the playing field. I’m not saying that the Pirates should get credit for the Yankees winning the World Series. I’m saying the Pirates should have an equal opportunity to win it. And that’s just not true right now. You can argue all you want about “they should spend more,” which is true to an extent, but Pittsburgh and Minnesota and Kansas City and Cincinnati will never have the same big market amenities that free agent players gravitate towards. That alone puts them behind, and then you factor in the television money is not distributed equally among team and what you have is an unfair playing field.
I don’t believe any kid should get a trophy just for showing up. But I do believe that a rich kid shouldn’t play with a baseball glove and cleats while a poor kid has to play with a wool mitten and bare feet. Equal playing field is not the same as participation trophy.
When you play a game of Monopoly, all players start with the same amount of money. It’s not as if the horse should start with 3 times the money as the thimble just because people like him more.
Life isn’t equal, not in nature, not in society. Wasn’t meant to be, never will be, so let’s stop trying to pretend that it should be.
The very existence of genetics and disease guarantee there will always be one more thing for someone to point to and say “that’s not equal”.
The rays have been relevant with bottom barrel payroll for many MANY seasons. There’s different ways to succeed, the real problem is when teams don’t try to make up in other areas when they lack in money. It’s easy to throw up your hands and say, well, we spent what we budgeted, nothing else we can do – successful franchises don’t stop with that garbage.
But this is not life, IT’S A GAME. In games, all players (by that I mean teams) are supposed to start equally or else the game is unfair. I really don’t see why genetics and disease are important in the discussion.
Baseball seems to have far more parity than the other major professional sports leagues do.
The problem with baseball’s parity is not at the top. Every few years, all teams will have a small window to be competitive. The problem with baseball’s parity is at the bottom. Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees and Red Sox will extremely rarely be in contention for the worst record. In fact, they are in playoff contention nearly every season. In the case of true parity, every team should make the playoffs every so often, but every team should be among the worst every so often as well.
I mean, the lowest-budget team in baseball is Oakland, and they won 97 games last year and are almost never the worst team in baseball. Should we be punishing smart teams by arguing that at some point they should be terrible? Why not reward smart teams for utilizing their resources wisely? I’m not entirely opposed to a salary floor, except it would do what it has done in the NBA, where teams routinely just take on contracts of useless players who they have no intention of playing.
Baseball has had the most unique championship teams in the last ten years of the NBA, NFL and MLB, and the most overall teams who have made the “finals” of those three sports in that same time span. (I don’t know anything at all about the NHL but just a quick glance shows that two teams have won six of the last 11 Stanley Cups, and the NHL has a hard cap from what I can tell.)
+davidcone
I agree with this. Bad teams are constantly turning the corner and becoming good again. Since the 80s, its rare for a team to win back to back WS rings. We havent had it since the Yankees in 98, 99, and 00. When you have former perennial losers like the Royals win it (against former perennial losers in the Mets), and then former perennial losers in the Cubs win it (against former perennial losers in the Indians), and then former perennial losers in the Astros win it, the league is fine from a competitive standpoint. Theres a good chance the Padres can become one of those teams soon, along with a handful of other teams that have been rebuilding for quite some time and have top prospects close to MLB ready.
Its nothing like the Lebron v top team of the time era in the NBA or the Patriots win it every other year era in the NFL scenarios.
Bad teams can turn the corner for a year or two or maybe three, but if they are a low-payroll team in a small market they will soon revert to their previous stinkatude and stay there for a long time. Your own example of the Royals is evidence of how this has always worked. At some point these “miracle” teams will have to start spending serious money on arbitration salaries and free agents and remain fully invested in their scouting and development operations. Small-market teams simply cannot afford do both. It’s a structural problem with baseball, and no amount of examples of bad teams becoming briefly competitive will change it.
Youre right that teams have ups and downs. Small market teams’ downs are lower than big market teams’ downs. Small market teams are at a disadvantage, there is no denying that. But when you have a plethora of examples for diversity in terms of WS winners, then the league is fine in my opinion. No team can be good forever. It will always and forever be brief pockets of being competitive for each club. Even juggernauts like the Yankees and Dodgers have their brief windows too, albeit they can afford to have them more frequently than teams like the Royals, even if it is to their own long term detriment.
In the NBA it has been Lebrons team vs a different dynasty team for so long. It was Heat v Spurs for so and so many years and then Cavaliers v Warriors for so and so many years and now its Warriors v Whoever for the next few years at least. Its not like that in baseball and thats my point. After the 80s ended, parity should be the least of MLB’s worries. We havent had a back to back WS winner in almost 20 years. Every team has its window in the MLB, even the small market perennial losers who wont spend. Thats all you can really ask for. Its a competition at the end of the day and they evidently (see: diversity in championship winners compared to other sports) have done enough to prop up the ones too weak to win on their own.
But at some point they SHOULD be terrible. They are not smarter, they are richer. Can you seriously argue that the Dodgers made smart investments by throwing a lot of money at every Cuban player that came off the boat? No they just had more money than everyone else and if it works great, if not they’ll just buy something else. The Yankees are paying Jacoby Ellsbury a lot of money to not play, but to them it’s no big deal. They can just trade peanuts for Giancarlo Stanton because they can afford him and the Marlins cannot. If you were to put the Ellsbury situation on the A’s or Twins, they wouldn’t even be competitive for 5 years.
The reason baseball has the most unique championships is because baseball is less reliant on star players than the other leagues. If you put Kevin Durant on the Hawks or Bulls or just about any other team, they are almost automatically a serious playoff contender. If you put Mike Trout AND Clayton Kershaw on the Orioles or Royals or Tigers and they will still likely lose 90+ games this year.
Baseball teams DO have windows to win, I am not arguing that. BUT when the Royals win for 2-3 years, they are almost guaranteed to lose a lot for a minimum of 5 afterwards. When the Dodgers win for 2 years, they just buy younger players and keep right on rolling. THAT is where parity fails.
I mean, one of the teams with the biggest payrolls in baseball last year was the Orioles, and they were terrible. They couldn’t just buy their way to relevance. The Giants won, what, 73 games last season? And last time I looked, they were a top-5 payroll team in baseball. Sure, the Yanks can paper over a bad contract more easily than the A’s, although the A’s have had their share of mistakes too (Billy Butler, anyone?) but shrewd front offices are winning despite low payrolls. And if you’re worried about Yankee dominance, you should check out baseball during the pre-free agency years, when the reserve clause was still in place. There was nothing approaching parity. The Yankees won every year, and they just used other majpor league teams (The Kansas City A’s, most notably) as their de facto “development” team. Baseball has way more parity now than it did then.
The lottery has not really stopped NBA teams from tanking. Not sure it’s a good system. Think instead of a lottery, there could be a rule that you can have a top ten draft slot three consecutive years or can’t pick in the top 5 back to back years, something along those lines. This would allow bad teams to get high end talent but incentivize a quick turnaround.
There is already enough welfare for nothing half the poor mouthing teams share as it is in the form on competitive balance picks after rounds 1 and 2 of the rule 4 draft free handouts of cash from too many of the larger market teams now.
Until that cash can be 1005 accounted for and proven to have gone towards expenditures of improving so called poor clubs? See no reason to add anything extra the way these same clubs have gone about not spending to put as poor of a team(s) as they have on the field over a certain period of years in order to game the system supposedly set in place to assist them.
There is no handouts among businesses to competitors in any free market system. This entire concept of assisting a competitor to stop them from folding is just wild to begin with and the amount of people see who have no comprehension of basic business 101 defending it here and other places? Equally astonishing and wild.
What kind of business is being taught now? How to prop up poor models to weak to survive?
The teams compete but baseball is the business. Keeping the teams balanced for competition and excitement will keep people in the seats. That means revenue for baseball. Don’t think of the teams individually as businesses where the loser has to declare bankruptcy or get bought out by the WS champions. The teams compete but working together increases revenue.
Baseball is a business in itself but the teams are running their own businesses at the same time. Its not mutually exclusive. Winning teams will make more money (merchandise, ticket sales, international recognition, etc) than losing teams. Generally, MLB as a whole doing better will have the individual teams better off, yes, but there is more to it than that.
This isn’t a baseball argument but you *might*want to look at the numerous billion-dollar+ businesses that pay no taxes and rely on taxpayer subsidies. The failed Amazon move to NYC is a very good example of a corporation attempting to soak the taxpayers in order to increase the profits of its owners, and almost every single MLB team plays in a taxpayer-funded stadium that uses taxpayer-funded infrastructure.
False analogies. The 30 MLB teams are called franchises for a reason. The reason is they are in business together. They only “compete” to the extent their business is a game. Otherwise the 30 teams “compete” with each other just about as much as one McDonald’s “competes” with another McDonald’s.
I’m always surprised by how often this basic fact is not understood.
If you’re looking at ways to improve parity, nothing should be “like the NFL does”. For the last 20 years Nfl parity is 3rd out of the 4 sports in pretty much every measurable category – different playoff teams, different conference championship appearances, different championship appearances, different champions
The Patriots and small sample size really throw that calculation off. Baseball parity is bad. It took the Royals a generation and a half to go from relevance (early 80s) to relevance (early 10s) and every year between was basically the cellar. Similar with the Pirates. The window from bottom to the top in the NFL is much shorter (5-ish years) with reasonable drafting.
When you have the Royals (who faced the Mets), Cubs (who faced the Indians), and then Astros win it all in succession (you know, all former perennial losers and laughing stocks of the league) baseball parity is fine. Just because rebuilds take long doesnt make it unequal, especially if everyones rebuilds take that long. The reason its shorter in the NFL is because there is no farm system where top prospects play in for years before reaching the big show. This jumps them ahead by 2-5 years (relative to top baseball prospects) and go straight onto the squad.
You could probably make an argument that it takes longer to rebuild since the parity is baseball is good. Wouldnt it be that if all 30 teams are more equal then it would take a while for each team to get its turn when its finally their turn they have a good chance of getting eliminated by another team that is having their turn?
Baseball parity was bad in the 80s, but not anymore. The 96-03 Yankees dynasty and the even year Giants are just as, if not more, rare than the Patriots dynasty.
If you want to look at bad parity, turn to the NFL.
***turn to the NBA
Unlike the NFL and NBA though, “tanking” and the resulting draft order are way less significant in MLB. Scan the first round of most MLB drafts and you’ll find 15 players that nobody has ever heard from. The volume of players available and number of rounds in the MLB draft devalue the first round pick relative to the NBA and NFL.
Team salary structure with both a floor and a hard cap make sense. The current luxury tax system tax is just that, a pay-to-play system that allows the rich teams to exert their force on the market. This revised system forces players to possibly settle for lower value deals to join a higher spending/more competitive club, or seek out the big value deals on teams with lots of cap space.
Tanking guarantees nothing–MLB is not like other sports (thankfully). The draft is no sure thing, no need to mess w it.
Unless they do away with the luxury tax limits, nothing is going to change drastically with free agency.
If there were no luxury penalties and no salary caps, the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs would just sign everybody.
Not true they don’t have unlimited funding. The days of George Steinbrenner signing mentality have long been done away with
You’re correct about the Steinbrenner spending. The softcap and penalties are what has done away with it. No team has unlimited funding, but certain teams can afford to easily go over the cap.
Why would those teams spend that much more money than they currently do? I agree some teams would spend a bit more just because they want to avoid that penalty…but the fact that they don’t want to spend money on a penalty should show that they wouldn’t want to spend money on players as well. Money is money to them, no matter where it goes.
The luxury tax is not a slap on the wrist, it is quite steep. It is the main reason that the big teams aren’t spending like they used to
Matt Wieters has a lot to say for a guy that goes home to first in 5.7 years.
How’s your home to first looking at the mlb level? He has a lot to say because he’s an mlb player, albeit barely.
You don’t need to be A MLB player to notice that he is slow
LOL
nothing against Wieters personally, but he is simply a replacement-level player at this point. Boras and D.C. threw him a bone on his last contract and got very little return on their investment. He really has no room to complain.
Grandal has room to complain. I have a feeling that Keuchel and Kimbrel (depending on their eventual contract details) will also be justified in their complaints.
“Alex, I’ll take ‘baseball labor trouble’ for 500.”
“That’s the daily double.”
“Alex, I’ll like to do 1500, please.”
“Okay, the answer is, Matt Weiters under performance on past big money signings.”
“What are good reasons many teams reluct for mid to big money signings?”
“Correct!”
Matt Wieters has been awful for years. How dare the GM’s notice this and kill any interest in signing him.
I think I like the “Election Day” idea. Although it would be weird if a guy has a huge lead the entire time over #2 and #3, but then loses in the one day. But I guess it is the same concept of the Wild Card game. The second WC can be several games behind the first WC and lose it all in one game. So it could be weird, but I think I like it.
Find a floor for baseball and be done with the tanking argument.
So a team couldn’t overpay bad players to purposely put together a 100 loss team?
Why would anyone actually fo that?
NBA teams do that all the time
Payroll becomes a fixed cost for tankers, not much else changes.
Easy – you absorb a bad contract that comes bundled with one or two good prospects.
The trading team frees up tax space and a roster spot. The receiving team boosts payroll it needs to spend without sacrificing it’s premium draft slot and adding some prospects for the effort…
This could happen.
MLBPA should like this, it would mean the demand for better players continues to rise.
Not a lot of owners will be jumping at the bit, for that strategy.
The amount of economic illiteracy one has to have to support a floor for anything is so small the famed electron microscope couldn’t locate it.
Making people spend money never, ever, does more good than harm.
There’s instances where the market place is so out of wack, that it’s economicaly viable to place a floor.
Look, the MLBPA complains about teams not spending there revenues on their players. Easiest way to address that problem, place a floor, and let the market place find its equilibrium.
Middle of the road players? Wieters was a complete bust for the gnats and boras pushed him on them to get them to sign Harper and other clients, which didn’t happen anyway
Changing the September roster will hurt the September call ups. The service time is something the union agreed to on the original contract. Now I suppose the September call ups will happen at the beginning of the season and a few players will be sent down after not adjusting to the majors. Then the union will complain AGAIN about service time.
The tv ratings are down though revenue is up. Mlb needs to change the tv market. If the rest ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Pushed them? They have no voice to say no we’re not spending our money? Come on so many fans just think ownership is a victim. No you just have no earthly clue how much money they’re holding back. Meanwhile legitimate talent that can contribute offensively or defensively are offered 1 year deals worth 30-40% less than historic market value or even worse are offered minor league deals.
I wonder how the pitcher limit will work with two-way players. I feel like there may be unintended consequences of that as well.
None of the two way players have been good enough for this to even matter yet.
Would Ohtani, when he begins pitching again, beca pitcher or DH?
I would imagine there would be some kind of low innings threshold that can’t be passed unless the player is listed as a pitcher, like 10 inn per season or something like that. It would allow for the occasional mop-up duty position player to pitch as well.
Unless he can pitch this season, which I believe he won’t due to injury, Ohtani won’t be listed as a 2-way player in 2020. So that’s troubling
ShieldF123……
“Certain position players may be designated as “two-way players,”
Ohtani can be designated as a pitcher. There is nothing in the DH rule that says a pitcher cannot be a DH when he isn’t pitching.
The rule also states “they’ll need to have accrued at least 20 innings pitched and started 20 games as a position player/designated hitter in the current season or the preceding season (including at least three trips to the plate in each of those lineup appearances).” By including “current season” it covers a situation like his.
Hey, maybe players wouldn’t be frustrated with free agency if they actually played better.
$1mil minimum salary. Rookie eligibility expires (arb clock begins) as soon as a player is added to the 26 man roster and 5 years of team control instead of 6 is what the players should be fighting for. If the owners won’t pay players after age 30, they need to make as much, and get out from team control, as early as they can.
If you make the minimum salary higher, people will just complain that Blake Snell is only getting $1 million instead of $2 million.
That’s a terrible reason to not raise minimum salaries. Though I wish they would raise it for minor leaguers instead. Obviously nowhere near major league levels. Just tired of them always arguing for luxury over labor.
I want team minimum wage for physical therapist to go up from 85k!
I want a cap on ticket prices, and teams that do not average 75% of stadium capacity must lower all prices the following year.
There already is a cap on ticket prices. It’s called the free market. Teams will charge what the market will bear.
fiflew- He’d be an arb 2 guy right now and a FA after next year in that plan. Eliminating that complaint.
Totally agree. There is no way to force teams to spend on free agents who really aren’t worth big money. But the rules you’ve laid out above could triple a player’s earnings before he reaches FA. They get paid when they are valuable. That is the way most other jobs work.
Minor league salaries should be doubled as well, from rookie ball to AAA.
Minor league salaries cone with signing bonuses for drafted players and those who are undrafted still make a decent living compared to most high school graduates. If anything, o would prefer to see a CAP minor league team salaries. I get real tired of seeing foreign players get megamillions to suit up as over hyped players who are “too good” for the minors while hard working, talented college players get overlooked and ignored.
You should maybe look at what minor league players get paid. It’s below minimum wage, and the US Congress, last year, actually passed a law ensuring it would remain below the minimum wage.
Simple, is better.
Two trading deadlines is overly-complicated.
Just streamline everything.
Hopefully they take your advice.
Hopefully not…hence why is a poster and not a GM. Read/post more often…u will see why
It was sarcasm. He’s making another worthless post. Re-read it. He’s “suggesting” changes to the deadline that per the article are already a done deal.
If two has become the level of too complicated, I blame the school system.
Blame the politicians that mandate the school system even though they’ve never been teachers and the parents that allow their kids to always take the laziest way out.
Actually not always true.. Not sports related but I put much more stock in Pols who have information regarding a subject where they came from, like education u just mentioned, Doctors and I’ll give u 1 huge guess which side of the isle most of the specialists come from.. As in non lawyers.
They should have moved it back a couple weeks though. That way teams that are on the bubble will have a better idea where they stand and we will see more activity.
dont like the hard trade deadline. do you realize how many august trades help decide world series winner? the roster sizes are fine and should make things better actually. 1 more major leaguer per team making at least the minimum salary, the union hasz to love that and i do too. i do believe they are trying too hard to make baseball more entertaining and on the face the game is strategic like chess, and should remain that way. no clocks, no loud music in between innings, no cheerleaders shooting shirts in the stands, if you love baseball you love it for what it is
I love baseball, but I’ll gladly take a free t-shirt from a cheerleader.
Yeah no cheering either right? Come on man it’s still a business and they need to do everything they can to make it more entertaining for non baseball super fans. They can’t just market to the increasingly small percentage of people who love baseball for what it really is.
They shouldn’t sell food or drinks at the stadium either, you should be coming to watch the game, not eat at a restaurant. They should remove the bathrooms too, if you’re getting up during the game and not watching every second you’re obviously not a real baseball fan.
I think the 25 to 26 makes a lot of sense with all the relief arms being used today. The reduction of the September 40 to 28 also makes sense for teams fighting for a playoff spot.
So that’s going to be one more relief arm being blown out from pitching 3-4 times a week and and then how many more in September? Want to protect pitching arms? Teach better lower body mechanics, throw more strikes and teach starters how to get through more than five innings. Pitch counts in professional baseball at any level have done nothing to prevent injuries. What it does is epically fail to make pitchers learn to pace themselves properly. “I’m done in 100 pitches, so who cares if I get the win or pitch into the 8th. I did my job by getting through five and only gave up three runs.” See Steven Matz, Vince Velasquez, etc. none of these young pitchers will ever learn to win their own games and a manager uses 5 pitchers to finish 5 out of 6 games a week after the starter hits his 100.
Naaa, I like the Idea of a 26 roster but the september 40 man was good, why change that. The bad teams can call up their prospects and fans can enjoy and see the future for some time.
They sure enjoyed Vlad and Eloy!
Not sure. Only benefit I can think of from a team angle is saving money – gives the team cover to not call up the extra 6,10,12 players and pay them a pro-rata mlb minimum salary. Offsets the cost of carrying a 26th player through the year.
Ironically, MLBPA probably assumes the 26th man will be an unsigned veteran. I bet the 26th man is an extra mlb-minimum young utility or pen player instead, and the middling unsigned vet plight stays unchanged. They increased the roster, not the cbt limit.
The trading deadline in hockey has become a huge day in the sport with almost wall-to-wall tv coverage on that day. I’m guessing MLB has seen what that day has become for the NHL and may be trying to do the same for the sport. I think it’s a great idea and will generate a lot of interest.
NHL? what’s that?
RIP to Terrence Gore’s career
Can’t really say he ever had a career in the first place. The man somehow made it to the MLB without even being remotely good at baseball lol
95% chance he is on the royals opening day roster. We are going to try and run everyone out of the park. If it works (like our bullpen formula), free agency will change quick and revert back to awarding speed.
Just like after our monster bullpens in 13-15 changed how teams emphasize building 3-4 closer quality deep bullpens now.
Gore has a job because he is the perfect 25th man for a royals team with no chance unless they do something no one else is.
Didn’t the 1990 Reds demonstrate the value of a bullpen with three closers? Dibble, Charlton, and Myers were dominant in innings 7-8-9 and could go multiple innings if asked. KC followed a solid, proven strategy. Milwaukee (and others, but MIL did it best) showcased a different strategy last year by tapping their best relievers for the highest leverage situations in each game. That was different, historically speaking.
Very true. Cincy did it 25 years earlier than KC did. Baseball is cyclical in many ways but sometimes generations forget. I’m a Royals fan and personally I think it’s ridiculous that Dayton Moore thinks he can take a team of guys with an OBP under 3 and re-invent the game. I think it’s mainly an excuse for not spending money. Which, come to think of it isn’t a bad idea. The last time he was allowed to spend money we ended up overpaying for Ian Kennedy and are still stuck with him.
Oh my God, ask a reliever to go multiple innings today and it’s abuse. He’s always worn out after 20 pitches and afraid his arm will fall off.
I figure the average amount of torque a pitcher produces today is more than it ever was – so lots of pressure on their arms on each pitch.
In another post of yours, you mentioned the lack of mechanics in today’s pitcher (less use of lower body mechanics). I agree there are far more “throwers” than ever.
Yeah for sure. I wasn’t saying the Royals invented the strategy. I was saying they exploited a market weakness. And because they won, the market changed drastically for RPs.
They aren’t inventing SBs either, but if it works and they steal 300 bases and surprise people with their record, speed will see a market correction too.
6-8 years ago the emphasis wasn’t on signing a ton of RPs, and right now people don’t go out chasing SBs.
What about teams like the Pirates or Rays where they can’t afford to staff a 26th player?
If the paying of a single extra (and likely minimum wage or close to it) salary is going to put a franchise in the red, then the owners of that franchise are beyond clueless and need to sell the team to somebody who knows how to do business.
In the industry, we call that a “joke.”
Why reduce the size of the September roster? Let a team call up an extra 10 players in September. Just limit the number of players who are allowed to be active each game.
That’s easily manipulated by not activating the 4 other SPs and anyone else who’d not be available that day.
And that’s easily mitigated by saying any pitcher who starts a game counts on the active roster for the following 3-4 games.
The “opener” gets around this.
Wouldnt that be the point? Why have the starting pitcher on the roster for Wednesday if he pitched 8 innings on Tuesday . he can pinch hit if the game goes into extra innings, but that spot can go to someone else
Except for the limits on how many total Ps they’ll be able to activate…
Roster size should be 28 all season long., not 26.
40 man roster is out of date and for low revenue teams should be increased to 45.
Universal DH.
Regardless of the count, a fouled pitch caught by the catcher is an out.
Eliminate the ability of a base runner to tag up and advance on a fly ball. (SF)
Why would you eliminate the sac fly? It’s been an integral part of baseball forever. Changing things just to make changes is silly.
Lol. Also, from now on we use brooms instead of bats.
I don’t agree with the DH. AL can have the DH but keep NL from the DH. Pitchers where always suppose to hit and was only adopted by the AL. Before DH was invited, pitchers hit or in most cases, bunted runners over. That is baseball, not this prima Dana DH crap.
Bad hitting pitchers is a direct result of them not hitting after age 18. I’d rather see both leagues adopt one rule: pitchers hit AND use a DH. Keep the strategy AND the offense. Bat 10. Done.
I think they should eliminate second base all together. Make them really work to get to third. Having a base in the middle is for pansies.
The fact that you put time and thought into this and that’s what you came up with is just sad.
I simply do not believe teams are tanking in baseball. It just does not carry the impact in this sport that it does in the NFL, NHL, or most specifically, the NBA. The NFL has a much higher success rate for first and second rounders. The NHL is solid on first rounders, and the top end of the round is far safer than MLB. The NBA meanwhile, is utterly ridiculous in that most picks after the top three are a total crap shoot. It’s painfully obvious why teams tank in the NBA.. It just doesn’t carry anywhere near the same impact in MLB.
I see most of the teams that are not in the chase as being intelligent. If you are not in it and don’t have a logistical chance to outbid others for a quick turnaround, then load up your system on talent and try to build. It makes no sense to put a mediocre team out there every year. It also makes no sense buying mid-tier free agents or lower just because you have money to spend when you still won’t compete. It took decades for NBA teams to figure that out and some still haven’t. Save your money for when your newly built up system matures and needs to sign extensions, as well as bringing in the few missing pieces. It’s smart business.
There is so little value in getting the #1 pick in baseball I just don’t think teams are purposely losing. They are just being smart by staying away from players looking to get paid for their ‘past’ instead of what they will be worth over the contract.
As far as the luxury tax, I guess teams don’t remember how bad things were before the tax. If you weren’t a fan of one of the deep pocket owners teams you were basically second tier. You might as well contract to about 6 teams and be done with it if you want to go back to that nonsense.
The Astros & Cubs would beg to differ that there’s no benefit in tanking.
How did the Cubs benefit by taking? Other than Bryant, most of Theos damage was done via trade not the draft.
Baez, Schwarber, Almora. All top 10 picks.
On average, the #1 overall pick produces more WAR than any other pick in the draft.
The WAR stat is the dumbest most overused generic stat in baseball. MLB is s team sport so I still think the avg/hr/rbi/obp is the most important stats for a position player
The average in those stats is also higher for #1 than any other individual pick
You dont have to believe something for it to be true.
Tank for better draft picks in baseball is stupid. How many top 5 draft picks ever become impact players in one year, if ever? Very few.
this will cause more rule 5 picks and less out of options players going to worse teams where they can actually have a chance.
I think they should eliminate losing a draft pick if signing a super 2 player. Add cash instead of a pick. The losing club gets 5-10% from any contract signed. That money will then be transferred over to additional draft pool money. Example, if a guy signs for 100 million dollars, the organization losing a super 2 player, gets 10 million dollars in additional draft pool money. Or split it 50-50 between draft pool and international signings. Either way, the money goes to the players and can not be profitable.
It may help the small market clubs and also add interest back to offseason FA signings. Clubs are falling back on depth which includes prospects in the organization. From big market to small market clubs, organizations are depending on their minor league system to bail them out of injuries or suspensions. Adding money to draft pool or international signing pool, it allows organizations to pay a little extra to a draftee to sign with them. Also, the money is a one time deal and can’t not be reused if the draftee doesn’t sign. Like every year, the draft money is reset.
I always thought losing a draft pick over signing a player was bad for business prospective. It favored the losing organization way too much by giving them additional draft pick. This is where I think a better scenario would be a 50-50 split between international signing and draft pool signings would better suit the needs. It also prevents owners from pocketing the money for profit. If you gave the money to FA market, I believe owners would capitalize the money and pocket it. Also, I think clubs should be required to have minimum of 100 Million payroll at start of season. This will have owners opening the pocket books and failure to do so, is loss of first round draft pick and 30% of pool money. It’s time that baseball becomes more like a salary cap (in a sense) to even out the clubs. MLB is rich in money and no one can tell me that none of the 30 ball clubs can’t afford 100 million a year. With revenue sharing being the biggest contributor to small market teams, they should be able to handle a league minimum. That is what revenue sharing suppose to bring, bigger spending on players. I haven’t seen much of it since it came out by the small market teams.
I would like to think a salary cap floor will be implemented next, and for fewer pitching changes.
Last I checked it takes two in order to make a deal, Players and their agents looking for record busting deals are just as much to blame as the front offices. Anything said less than that is disingenuous to say the least.
As for service time ‘manipulation’: I’m tired of hearing about it. Players, and their bloated agents, can hem and haw all they want, but lets face it, this push to bring up many of these players immediately hurts baseball instead of helping it. I think it has also contributed to insanely sloppy baseball play on the field and for all the crying about length of the game one should consider that errors also do nothing to help reduce the time of a game when you give a team extra outs in an inning. Some of these guys are studs with a bat sure, but many are just awful with the glove (and other baseball skills like base running and situational hitting, etc), and last I checked, the game still requires you to catch the ball to get an out (lest they change the game to say that if the ball touches a glove the hitter is out, or some other nonsense).
Win ! Ownership! Loss Union!
It must be true! Didn’t you just say so?
Increase rosters to 26, but decrease MLBTR posts to one paragraph
Does this mean that the luxury tax threshold is going up as well to account for the 26th player?
The 28-man roster in September rule also gives teams a perfectly legitimate excuse to send a player down in September for service time purposes. They have something to gain other than manipulating service time by doing so (the extra roster spot).
I like that August trades are over. But summer trades should be too.
I understand that pro sports teams don’t actually compete with each other, they’re associated businesses who work together to stage a competition, but at least do it right. Make it a competition, don’t make it this convoluted scheme with players going from one team to another in the middle of the supposed competition, out of business reasons.
Make the seven month baseball season pure competition, and leave the business dealings to the off-season. It’s ridiculous that two “competing” teams can exchange players midway through the competition. It’s also ridiculously unfair when one team can help another. It should be 30 teams, standing on their own, from the start of the season until the WS is over. That’s a pure competition, with real team spirit and real animosity, because you don’t end up having to play on the same team with a guy you were squaring up against last week.
And sure, when players get injured, someone has to take their place. But it shouldn’t be players off a COMPETING team’s roster. If you’re allowed to bring in a replacement, it should at least be someone who hasn’t played for another major league team during the current season. There are plenty of replacement level players, at every single position, in the minors.
I’d go for that plan. Simple and clean, though probably way too radical for the teams and many fans to endorse. It sure would cut deeply into trade rumors business. Never going to happen of course but a nice clean slate exercise.
The “competition” is between entire organisations, not just the 25 men on the field. The Cubs, Astros and Red Sox all made mid-season trades that increased their WS odds immensely. All of those trades resulted in the ultimate payoff.
The Cubs knowingly overpaid (calculated risk) for Chapman and it was worth it to their success on the field and for their bottom line. Franchise had exploded in value since WS win and they will now be a perennial contender based on nothing more than payroll size.
Astros took a calculated risk on Verlander (in 2017) and it has kept them at the top of the West going into 2019. Looking back, they stole him from the Tigers. But that is down to their ability to evaluate, develop, and take a risk at the right time.
Red Sox – Rays trade speaks for itself.
Are you saying those decisions by the front office don’t (or shouldn’t) matter? Why shouldn’t those abilities be factored into the competition? Making those decisions in the off-season is a crapshoot, which is why teams are no longer doing in in November. It’s not bad business, it’s a smart way to handle personnel.
And to your point of teams “helping” each other…
At the point of those trades, the Yankees, Tigers and Rays were about as much competition to their trade counterparts as the Durham Bulls were. Teams never “help” other teams. They are both trying to help their own organisations.
Nobody is arguing that in-season trades aren’t a big factor currently. Of course they are.
The entire point of eliminating in-season trading would in fact be to make the competition about the entire organization. Teams would be more reliant on their players in the minors if they did not have the luxury of trading to fix holes in the roster during the season. Teams would have think seriously in the offseason and into spring training about the team they want to field, which would have the effect of making them decide early about about players in the last year of their contracts. They’d have to decide whether those players are going be extended or traded or allowed to play out their contracts, before play begins. They also couldn’t dawdle as much as they do now on free agent signings.
As a fan I am much more interested in the game of baseball than the business of baseball. This idea has the potential to improve the game by dispensing with the concept of rental players and forcing every team to draw a hand and actually play it. The concept has real merit (if no chance of actually happening).
Does anyone know how they are determining who is a pitcher? Does Ohtani count as a pitcher on days he is not pitching? Can a position player come in and pitch in an extra inning game? I really does like thia new rule.
This is a sensible agreement and an encouraging sign of more good things to come when it had appeared that the two sides were heading towards a possible work stoppage with the next CBA.
While I think the 40 man roster should shrink, I thinking going down to 28 is too low. I wouldn’t mind it being 30 or 32. You’re taking away a lot of young players chance to play in September and impress management to win an invite to spring training.
Teams should also be punished for tanking. If a team is caught tanking, their first round pick should either be disqualified or moved to last in the round, thus bumping everyone else up one slot. Teams should always be trying, and if they make any comments or are caught trying to lose, suspend the manager, fine the owner, take away draft picks. That would end the tanking very quickly. So would a draft lottery.
I’m betting that they shrunk the September roster down to 28 to make up for the five months’ of pay that 26th guy is getting all season. That was the only way to expand the roster, without costing some of the stingier owners extra money.
Hopefully in the next CBA, when spending rules are renegotiated, they’re gonna bring it back up. Maybe not to 40, but a few more than 28.
As for tanking, it’s not just about a team trying to lose. It’s also about not trying to win. That’s the big issue: teams that know they’re not gonna make the playoffs, so they don’t bother adding a few wins to try and finish fourth instead of last.
Besides, investigating someone every time there’s suspicion of tanking would cause endless controversy and bickering. It would be much easier to just punish finishing last. And big market teams that finish last should be punished worse.
Love this
I laugh at the “ stagnant market” comment. Ummm in the real world it is called a market, sometimes you price yourselves out of the market. It is called for us In the real world market adjustment or a fact of life. Amazes me how someone like Verlander is always piping up. He signed for 7-175 million and SUCKED for three years and still got his $25 mil. Bryce Harper career 280 avg 26 hrs and 75 RBI’s. A year and gets 300 mil. That is why I don’t buy tickets anymore. Their greed has spoiled the game. When is the last time any of them have made themselves available for more than 2 minutes before and after a game.
So the owners should just keep the money instead of giving it to the players who produce the revenue?
Ticket prices aren’t coming down. TV contracts aren’t getting smaller. The money has to go somewhere.
Either the players pockets or the owners.
Complaining about the players making the money is a joke.
What you will see is fewer kids and family days at the park and more expensive television mlb packages. More blackouts for home games, bigger cable contracts, etc. The big market teams blow up the market with these huge guaranteed contracts. Baseball needs a firm team salary cap and let contracts be loaded with insane incentives. This eliminates all the, “Well, so and so got 25 million a year and I’m better than he is, so I’m worth more.” No, you’re not because your team has never played in the post season with you on it.
I don’t go to games to root for the owners. I would rather the players get overpaid than the owners pocket everything.
You do understand that if the owners don’t make good money then the player funds would be less thus less to the players? Or what you mean is that the owners shouldn’t make too much money so that’ll kill any motivation to improve their team? Who’s to say what is too much anyway? All relative.
At the end of the day harper got 25 million. The owners made that back in 48 hours with ticket sales and record jersey sales… WTF are you talking about. I agree with most things you said but the harper statement no matter what his stats was a huge beneficial marketing move.
This might be a hot take but I like the idea of 40 man rosters. Rosters change considerably over the course of the season to where more than 28 are used. I don’t like the idea of someone who was on the roster at some point not being on the roster when the games are most important.
Saw this in a long series of posts on Twitter today and it makes sense. I will try to summarize it.
The reason the owners are stating for not signing veterans over 30 is that players with 6 or less years of service time (NOT years in the majors) are producing nearly 2/3 of WAR. So they need to pay the players with less than 6 years of service time more money.
Today those players make major league minimum for 3 years of service time. We are hearing all about service time manipulation. Then they start arbitration for 3 more years. They become free agents when they have 6 years of service time.
Here are the changes he proposed:
1 day in the majors = 1 year of service time, N0 more manipulation.
$2 million major league minimum
Arbitration after 2 years.
Arbitration for 2 years. (instead of 3)
Free agency after 4 years.
70% revenue sharing of local TV and ticket revenue (basically doubled)
Increase international free agent pools
$140 million payroll floor
Same CBT luxury tax as they have today
I think his proposals make sense.
not a fan of 28 in September. couldn’t do 30?
I’d do at least 30. One extra catcher, a prospect closer, prospect starting pitcher, prospect CF or SS.
Year round… I’d go with 21-22 players active for a particular game, submitting today’s bench and bullpen along with the lineup card. Up to the whole 40-man available. A third catcher can come in and another pitcher can be activated in the event of injury or if the game hits extras.
They already effectively have a 21 to 22 player active list anyway when you take out the other starting pitchers.
Yes 28 seems too low if 26 is the regular amount. This is what I’d like to see.
Instead of super two, have a super one. Two years to arbitration. Allow the possibility of a decrease higher than the levels for arbitration more than the rule today.
5 years to free agency.
First September callup does not count toward service time.
All-star game moved two weeks later – the players need to play close to 60% of the season before being voted upon.
Trading deadline moved to Aug. 7 – this allows more time for teams to determine if they are going to be sellers or not.
2 scheduled double headers in the first half, one at home, one away- in the first half in case there is a rain out that needs to be made up later in the year.
Allow teams only have to pay players that are on the DL over 60 days on the season only 80% of their salary of the time spent on the DL over 60 days.
Some incentive for teams to sign FA for 8 years or less for position players, and 6 years or less for pitchers, perhaps with mlb paying half of an insurance policy for players signed for those terms.
I’m so thankful for the limit of pitchers. Tired of seeing such a depleted bench because teams want to keep arms fresh so they can go to their pen early.
I don’t know, I think I like it. Maybe I’d rather have a 12 pitcher limit and an August 15th deadline, but having 2 trade deadlines and a 40 man roster in September didn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Man, just when I think that there’s no way the people here could find a way to complain about something, you manage to surprise me again.
This is what needs to be done for the draft to make it fair. Use their luxury tax threshold each year. Find the happy medium to add to each team for the draft. Now go to a auction for the top 150 players. This will allow the smaller market teams with a cap coming into the draft of say 80 million vs a team of 175 million to compete with their farm systems. This will stop the larger market teams always signing multiple large contracts, if they do with no farm system in sight, it will catch up quick to them. After the first 150 players, revert back to 1st to 30th order. I’m saying the best team goes first because more than likely they been outbid for top players in the auction draft
Seems shortsighted and backwards looking. The hot trend at the moment is two-way players. While full time two-way players like Ohtani will probably remain rarity, defensive specialists or pinch hitters who can also pitch an inning or two in relief make good sense both tactically and in terms of roster building strategy–provided that you don’t need to specify them as hitters or pitchers. The 13-pitcher maximum makes this problematic. So if a pitcher can also pinch hit and play OF, or if a reserve infielder is brought in to pitch in a blow out, is he a pitcher or a position player? If the former, will it be forbidden for a “position player” to pitch, even when a team has run out of pitchers? If the latter, who’s to keep a team from carrying only, say, 10 pitchers, but also 5 “position players” who can also pitch?
Does that mean double-headers will have 27 players?
Seems like the players conceded a lot. Without much to bargain with for the next CBA, international draft is all but a sure thing now
27 sounds reasonable. A double header won’t happen often. I’d probably add an extra catcher in case of injury.
Players Association is now called the Owners Association. They complain about service time then agree to shrink roster sizes in September. That just legitimizes the “give them time to hone their skills excuse” September was always exciting to see Future talent play a few games
But hey at least the Blue Jays and White Sox wouldn’t be publicly criticized for continuing to hold back incredible talent.
Yet again the players shoot themselves in the foot and then complain they’re mal-treated.
These moves have disaster written all over them for teams, fans, prospects, older players, younger players, injured players, rehabbing players, Rule 5’s, spring training invites on minor league deals.
It’s going to get ugly when real life runs into these new rules. and more and more players find themselves out of work, or teams stuck with players they don’t want but don’t want to give away for nothing, or will have to release, or go home to make way for others such as those coming off Injured List. .
Ok, trade deadline passes and the home team is out of contention. Can’t call up the kids. Why bother going to the park to watch overpaid, underachieving, aging players phone in the last two months? Why turn on a game? The allure (for the fan) of the 40 man roster is that it gives you a reason to watch. Look at the spark that Nimmo and Conforto
…(oops) and Rosario provided when the Mets were our of it. It gives the fans a reason to watch, hope and something to talk about. Plus, it gives the kids a chance to impress the coaching staff every day at the top level.
Very good point. The expanded roster is all that kept Kauffman Stadium from looking like a ghost town last September.
What was the point of changing roster sizes if there is a max on the number of pitchers a team can carry? Some teams like to carry 13 arms on a 25 man as is. No reason to have a cap on the number of pitchers on a 26 or 28 man roster.
As for September, this hurts the player that made the opening day roster but struggled in April to the point of demotion by May. That play may not be one of the two a team calls up for the September run. We will see some teams employ brand new strategies to counter this new rule.
analytics are why the middle class is disappearing.
teams are paying for production and the extra cost and limited upside of the middle class isn’t worth tens millions more than a prospect.
you just can’t make a statistical case for paying these guys much money.
The 26 man roster size is a positive step and creates 30 new MLB jobs.
I like the 28 man limit. Did little for the game, to use the games as spring training and positioning among the clubs who are out of it.
Hard deadline on trades should make it interesting. Be very hard on clubs that could be in or out, but will force GM’s to make a stand by July 31. Decent clubs that are 5 – 6 games out will be most affected of whether to sell or to try and augment.
Best example could be Cleveland or the Twins in the AL Central or any of the clubs in the NL Central.. Better farm systems could have quite and edge here.
Why would the Union give up 12 September call-up slots? This tells you they are still focussed on the wrong thing. It’s not how much Harper makes, and, it’s not how much the aging Wieters doesn’t make. Those are the wrong places to focus. The main body is the under-compensated, controlled, service-time manipulated group. They are driving everything else. Raise the MLB minimum, with greater raises between seasons. Limit the years of control–there’s no excuse that any player should have to wait until he’s in his 30’s to get what increasing appears to be but one chance at Free Agency.
The 12 spots means vets aren’t playing in September, meaning they are less valuable.
What’s a joke is not seeing the market forces that very obviously pushed teams away from ridiculous long-term deals
They’ve long missed the point. There’s a lot of ways to fix the bottom end of the system that wouldn’t really be all that pricey as a whole, and would give both players and teams better options than they have now.
Give teams the ability to “franchise tag” your home grown superstar to buy another year or two at a premium cost.
MiLB and pre-arb scales should be fixed and based on a set criteria, total pro time, time on 40-man roster, MLB service time, and escalators based on games/IP/PA or what have you that would set the base rate for an experienced MLBer in the MiLB within reasonable range of the MLB minimum. And move away from the model where you’re either great and go through several rounds of outmoded arbitration or you end up in non-tender/DFA/MiLB contract hell the rest of your career. If you’re not going to pay and use a guy at a certain point, other teams can offer them contracts RFA style and he can hunt down his opportunities elsewhere on his own terms rather than wait to get too expensive to be worth putting thru arbitration. It would still let teams keep guys they’re willing to pay. Anyway, there’s lots of fantasy commissioner ideas that could work.
But, for the union, it’s pretty much all about trying to recreate the Wild West years of handing out big long term deals that never were rational to start with.
A few things.
1- eliminate the draft entirely. Have players enter the league based on location of birth. The initial deal would be 4 years and then free to sign anywhere. Trades would be allowed.
1b- change minor league teams to be tied to the same region as their parent club. For regions with multiple teams split geographically, no “election district” nonsense. For example oil and A’s would be North/east of bay, giants would be south/silicon valley.
2- eliminate the DH. The offense gained from bad defense will offset the offense lost from pitchers hitting. Plus, the DH is so juvenile, its embarrassing.
3- expand the league.you don’t need billion dollar teams to play good baseball. Add a bunch of teams. You don’t need state of the art 50k seat stadiums to watch baseball and make money. More teams means more spots for veteran players.
4- reverse new rules regarding basepaths and home plate.
5- put Barry bonds in the hall of fame, or stop calling it the hall of fame.
1) Then every player goes to the “highest bidder” no way. Half the league wouldn’t bother to compete.
1b) Don’t follow your logic here at all?
2) If anything, the DH HAS become the tradition…every league has it except for the National League. Why risk the health of pitchers you want to pay to see pitch, by having them bat?
3) Two NEW teams to balance the schedule….and if a team goes 5 years in the bottom of MLB in attendance, they should be forced to move to a new location.
4) These new rules have little to no impact on the game everyday. When these are violated those get the media focus, that’s why it seems as though its having an impact.
5) Its the Hall Of Fame……NOT the Hall Of Shame!
If ANYONE should be allowed into the HOF, its Pete Rose.
He was BANNED for life due to gambling…….
NOW MLB supports/endorses multi sports betting. This is contradiction.
MLB needs to allow Pete NOW!
Once Pete is in, we can have a serious debate regarding Clemens, Bonds and the rest.
1. The draft is… is…. *sigh*
I’m just going to keep scrolling
I don’t understand the September roster change at all
Because teams load up on prospects, especially pitching and you get too many pitching changes which slows the game down.
I’d like to see a “floating” active roster much like the NHL.
Maybe a roster of 30 and you can only suit 26…this way your 4 starters not pitching can be “healthy scratches”. If a game goes extra innings you should have enough relievers to cope without jeopardizing the next-day starter.
THAT would make a lot of sense roster-wise. Now, teams that don’t use the “opener” have 4 dead spots on their daily roster (previous days’ pitchers). And nobody wants to risk using your backup catcher, for fear of injury.
So the 25-man really is only a 20-man. Some type of regular roster with daily de-activations makes sense.
Yep. I’ve always liked this idea.
MLB should borrow a number of ideas from the NHL.
The NBA and NFL salary caps don’t apply well to baseball, as basketball has 12 man rosters and football has 53 man rosters. The NHL has 23 man rosters.
The NHL’s cap and floor system based on a defined revenue split is the model that baseball should look towards.
Their draft lottery is also well designed and should be used, as well.
A system that allows “healthy scratches” as you allude to would be a better compromise between normal rosters and allowing teams to bring up young players for experience. 28-30 man rosters with 25 active would work well.
I like it, but if you are a fan of a non-contending team, there will be zero reason to ever go to the ballpark in September now.
It used to be neat to catch a glimpse of your top prospects when your team was out of the race.
My goodness, the economic illiteracy and utter lack of critical thinking in this thread astounds me. But then, it makes perfect sense when we see who our elected leaders are.
Forcing anyone to do anything is never a good thing. Prohibiting is another thing, but actively forcing a franchise to spend, draft, and run their team a certain is just such a bad idea and will always lead to unintended consequences. That applies to all walks of life as well.
In the sandbox of a sports league there have always been rules steering the behavior of teams one way or another. It’s a limited enough setting that you can play with the variables to produce a desired result.
But usually we just see a league and/or union trifling with variables they don’t understand and making a mess out of things in the process.
It’s OK to call us stupid… but to be critical of our political leaders (and back-hand slapping us in the process) compels me to challenge you to a duel, smart Sir.
1. MLB isn’t capitalism, it’s cooperative competition; there’s a difference. Ted Turner: “Only business in the world where I have to be as dumb as my nearest competitor”.
2. True “critical thinkers” realize there are NEVER “unintended consequences”; finding the intention is the task of the theorist. Bill Veck: “There’s somebody making some money somewhere”.
“Forcing anyone to do anything is never a good thing.”
Talk about a lack of critical thinking and over-generalizing….So forcing a depressed, pre-diabetic to eat healthier and exercise is never a good thing?
I mean come on this statement has less depth than a puddle in Arizona.
Would have preferred maybe August 15 for a trade deadline, if they were going to go with one, but get the idea behind an earlier date. But not sure it will get teams to be more aggressive in the off season. It will only force teams that are marginally in the pennant race to make up their mind sooner about being in or out. Buying and selling teams are for the most part already trying to cut deals prior to July 31. The lack of a waiver wire will add a little, and only a little, urgency to the July 31 deadline.
As for the September roster, I do agree that things can get out of hand if a team calls up too many players. but 28 may be too few. Should be able to call up more. Since starting pitchers really don’t play every day, they could still limit teams to 25 players for a game and have extra players available for September games without having too many available. And really, the issue is not the number of players available in September, but the number of pitchers some managers use in September. Limiting the number of pitchers available for a game seems to make more sense than limiting call ups.
I’ve actually thought an August 15 deadline is perfect too. I support eliminating the waiver deadline, but it’s also a perfect compromise between the original deadline and the waiver deadline.
So does this include when a pitcher throws 15+ pitches to a batter?
So players like Bryce Harper who are making truckloads of money are going to be enticed to participate in the HR Derby because of $1 million?
$1 million won’t attract any stars. It might attract the lesser known players who are on bad contracts or it might minor leaguers, especially the top-tier.
What about a HR Derby for the top prospects who participate in the Futures Game? Vlad Jr, Tatis, Eloy, etc. in a HR Derby would be pretty cool.
Let’s get a pitch machine that can deliver 103mph fastballs and 78mph curves to the plate for the homer derby. I don’t want a dude’s dad lobbing meat over the plate.
40-28 in September? I’m kind of shocked at this one from the union side. That’s a lot of young players NOT getting their ‘clock’ started or using up their options which lead to being granted free agency. Not to mention how it weakens bullpens even further late in the season. Young players won’t get an early taste of mlb life, rewards coaching and the benefit of just traveling with the big club once the milb season is over. I’ve always felt those ‘cups of coffee’ were incredible opportunities for experience and motivation.
I love the new hard deadline and the 26 man roster, wish the September thing was 32 instead of 28 and hate the upcoming rule forcing a pitcher to face three hitters. I know pitching changes are tiresome but that’s just messing with the basic game too much, IMO.
I dont understand the pitcher limit on the roster. and an easy way around that is to have a player listed as a position player and then bring him into pitch…
also, and this totally my opinion, I feel like trade deadline should be early, like june 1st or something. get your team and play. injuries? call up from your depth. i just think its ridiculous for teams to enter the final months plus playoffs with completely dif teams than what they have been using all season
It’s designed to keep managers from making tons of pitching changes and slowing the game down.
“The number of position players pitching could see a significant decrease as well. Under the agreement, players will be designated as position players or pitchers — with the exception of those who throw 20-plus innings and start 20 games in the field or at DH, who will be two-way players. Position players will be allowed to pitch only in extra innings or when their team is ahead or behind by more than seven runs.”
espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26259301/sources-mlb-deal-…
Really hate the BS 3 batter minimum. Way too big a change to the game and could potentially alter the outcome of games. September roster contraction is troublesome for talent evaluation but not a huge issue. The pitch clock is annoying but hopefully won’t lead to any dramatic game altering rulings on the field like a threat ending strikeout called no pitch with the next pitch ending up a game winning home run. I hate the tinkering with the game, If they dont like baseball this bs wont make em. Look at Nascar MLB, and stop the nonsense rule changes, it wont end pretty….
I know more people who are against the three batter minimum than are against the DH or pitch clock.
tanking- should lead to fines and a lifetime ban for the owners. Pete rose got banned for gambling… cheating is cheating so ban them and force the sale of the teams at market value.
Either eliminate the DH or require both leagues to have them.
Not going to be the popular opinion but eliminate the trade deadline. love to see playoff teams stacked with great competition. be like the all star games over and over
Follow the NHL- with lottery picks and draft. and etc
keep roster size at 30-35 come sept.
also for profits that the MLB teams make, should have to be invested back into the team, stadiums, and ETC.. (braves just made record $442 million in profits and invested into office buildings, also had a team budget of $132 million last year and dropped to $123 million after a record year.)
YES!!!! We should also throw their pets into a wood chipper and burn their families at the stake!
The Braves made $336M of total revenue in 2017. Profits were estimated at $46M after paying for the front office administration staff, stadium and facility costs, the coaches, managers, minor league players, scouts, draft bonuses, international signing bonuses, marketing, travel expenses, other operational expenses and player salaries.
I’m so tired of seeing comments like this one. Armed with pItchforks and torches, but absolutely no clue about the subject they claim is motive for the call to arms. These extremist positions just give owners / front offices an opportunity to point out how ridiculous the anti-tanking movement is. They use posts like yours as an example.
Owners are fleecing players and fans right now, but the arguments have to be better than the one you just presented to convince anybody who’s actually debating.
braves went from 275 million in revenue in 2016, to 336 million in 2017, to $442 million in 2018. braves cleared their books from bad contracts in 2018, leaving them with a clean slate for 2019. profits was $46 million in 2017, braves walked away with $105 million in cash 2018 after expenses. And now just approved 2nd phaze of the battery which is office buildings, that brought in a whopping 10 million in rental last year… No one here is with pitchforks and torches. all i said was invest back in the stadium and team which includes everything you just mentioned. this is a baseball site leave your girl drama at the door with the pets in the woodchipper bc your being overdramatic so let your skirt down. bc i back my comments with facts
bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2019/02/28/braves-rev…
i never once said the braves are tanking??? but there is alot of teams that is so called rebuilding that is tanking for sure.
Now how much of that was one-time revenue? You heard of the bam-tech sale right? It isn’t revenue duplicated year to year, it was a one time payment of 50-some odd million per club.
You don’t want tell braves investing in the real estate developments around the new stadium, but you DO want to count the approx 35-40 million per year of revenue it brings into the “income” the team should spend?
You can’t have it both ways. Look at the bottom line – without that one time never to be repeated bam tech sale there’s 50mm less in revenue.
Likewise, stop investing in development and your revenue drops. It’s THE reason revenue increased after leaving Turner field.
i do see your point. But the battery or new stadium in general brought in the revenue simply bc of the demographics. Cobb county – filthy rich people vs fulton county – poor, slums of Atlanta. im all for investing back into the stadium hence i wouldn’t have a problem with them paying off that debt thats owed for building the stadium. Like any business owner, you can only have so much debt to income ratio. you cant keep spending. If you keep taking away product from the field which draws the fans to the stadium. then Whats going to happen when the fans say they are tired of supporting this team? does that 10 million last year, or 50 million guaranteed in rental help pay for 350 million dollar in actual cost after paying for the front office administration staff, stadium and facility costs, the coaches, managers, minor league players, scouts, draft bonuses, international signing bonuses, marketing, travel expenses, other operational expenses and player salaries. It does help but at the end of the day, what brought in the money? fans to see the ballgame.
The revenue vs location vs demographics is a tired played out arguement since the move was announced.
Facts are, before the move the overwhelming majority of attendance drew from the more affluent suburbs. That hasn’t changed since the stadium opened.
Had a development like the battery been built around the Ted, (and as had been promised by Fulton a decade earlier with zero action) it would be making just as much money – just look at all the brand new pricey mixed use development doing on over just past Oakland cemetery. Those developments could’ve been near the ted.
I’m in the camp that says last year’s braves benefitted from an exceptionally underperforming division last year, and, weren’t actually as good as their record made it look. I expect their true “level” was about 5-7 wins less than they posted. As such, I also don’t think their true competitive window has opened yet, and they need a year or two of calling guys up and seeing who sticks – something harder to do the more high priced vets you clog the roster with.
It’s easy to accumulate piles of talented prospects, but it’s hard to create the roster openings to see who really fits when you field a team full of long contract vets.
i can fully agree with that. i see 78-81 wins this year depending on injury. we had a very weak division and im counting on maybe 3-4th finish this year.
I just hate the three-batter rule. It fundamentally changes the way the game has always been played. It will leave less room for game-level second-guessing. Baseball will be less interesting, not more, as a result.
And they are going 180 degrees in the wrong direction with rosters. *Smaller* rosters, not larger, would incentivize managers to stretch pitchers out and make fewer changes. Velocity would come down organically as a consequence, which would help offence.
Exactly. The 3 batter rule on it’s own decreases the value of carrying situational only pitchers (LOOGY). I’m surprised the MLBPA agreed to this. Guess the MLBPA is pretty hollow when it comes to leadership.
It will cost a few LOOGY’s their jobs, but will give jobs to a bunch of not-quite-starter level guys who can go multiple innings. Definitely positive from my point of view. Hate watching pitching changes.
Well, there’s currently a rule on the books that says a pitcher has to face at least 1 batter (barring injury). So it’s not so much a new rule as a modification to an existing one. I like it, myself, so long as they include the stipulation that the end of an inning in which he didn’t face three batters can also mark the end of a pitcher’s stint for that day.
WrongVerb……
“I like it, myself, so long as they include the stipulation that the end of an inning in which he didn’t face three batters can also mark the end of a pitcher’s stint for that day.”
That is in there…3 batters or end of an inning.
I agree, I am tired of, and have been for years, a pitcher coming in for one batter.
I’ll let you pause for a minute and think of the MANY problems a 3 batter minimum will cause. No one thinks anymore. Manfred will go down as worse than Selig.
jmc70
The only continual problem it will create is for LOOGY’s.
There will be situations where a pitcher gets shelled but that happens anyways. I haven’t seen anything yet that says “official at bats” so unless that is stipulated then the whole “what if he walks the first 3 batters?” is mote.
agn1……….
“It fundamentally changes the way the game has always been played.”
That’s a bit hyperbolic isn’t it? What it changes for the most part is LOOGY’s. No more guys who appear in 65 games and have 28 IP. Wide-spread use of Uber-specialization of LOOGY’s is only a few decades old. If anything, that changed the way the game is played.
I agree that the current trend of multiple LOOGY/ROOGY/situational guys bogs down the game. A constant parade of one-out guys is boring.
But the fundamental change here is that a rule takes the option out of the manager’s hands. Back when teams carried five or six relievers, they might keep one or two situational guys. But managers thought damn hard about when to use them, because the other team had a bench full of reserves.. There was an end-of-game chess match involving relievers and pinch hitters. It was interesting.
Now, teams have eight relievers maxing out velocity, versus a very small bench centred around one super-utility guy. So there is no chess match, just a parade of specialists.
Mandating a smaller active roster, or specifying a max number of pitchers carried, have the effect of cutting down the specialists and the emphasis on velocity – without without taking away the manager’s discretion and the potential for a chess match. The rule will be intrusive and inflexible.
On top of all this, of course, are all the situations OTHER than LOOGY/ROOGY where a manager might choose to remove a pitcher who clearly does not have it. In the ninth, you cling to a one-run lead and need three outs. Your closer comes in and promptly gives up a home run and a hard double. Every person in the ballpark is thinking, he doesn’t have it today, should we go back to the pen? But under the new rule, there is no discretion, no suspense, no decision to be made. The struggling pitcher has to stay out there.
Games will be won and lost and tired pitchers will be injured because of this rule, because it takes decisions away from the manager. That’s the fundamental change. I predict it will be run out of town on a rail within a year and remembered as a really bad idea.
If any pitcher is tired and gets injured from pitching to 3 batters instead of 1 or 2 he was already injured or needs to retire anyways.
If any pitcher is tired and gets injured from pitching to 4 batters instead of 3 he was already injured or needs to retire anyways.
If any pitcher is tired and gets injured from pitching to 5 batters instead of 4 he was already injured or needs to retire anyways.
If any pitcher is tired and gets injured from pitching to 6 batters instead of 5 he was already injured or needs to retire anyways.
If any pitcher is tired and gets injured from pitching to 7 batters instead of 4 he was already injured or needs to retire anyways.
Who should make the call about which one of those statements is true: You? A rule? Or the player’s manager?
Basic logic? Science? Anyone with a pair? So many answers. I guess any pitcher at any time could have a freak injury but worrying about that miniscule chance doesnt make much sense, any real pitcher should be able to pitch to at minimum 4-5 batters without breaking much of a sweat.
Hate the September call up rule give people in the minors a chance to play. What does it harm to fulfill people’s dreams. This will make it even harder for kids to come up.
i like the idea of expanding to a 26 man roster, but if they have a limit on pitchers there is no reason to limit September roster sizes in general.
The only thing that I don’t think is an issue, but I will still miss is the long time minor league veterans given their MLB send off by the team in September. Guys who have been organizational depth and are probably AAAA and have served for years in the minors often get a curtain call to the big show in September. They might not see a lot of action, but it’s a reward for all their work and it’s got to be a great thing for those players.
I don’t have a problem with them setting one hard trade deadline, but July 31 is too soon for it. Too many teams will still be on the bubble as buyers or sellers at that time. I think they should set it in the middle of the previous 2 trade deadlines and make it August 15.
I’m all for the hard deadline. GM’s were getting lazy. All they had to do was put together a team that stayed in the hunt then fix their problems in July and August or sell off and try again next year.
Solutions and ideas:
Free agency: Implement a restricted free agency where a player can declare free agency and can seek 1-year contracts from other teams; the original team has the right to match any offer, or sign the player to a multi-year deal.
Player service time manipulation: Players can declare restricted free agency after their 5th full season in MLB affiliated professional baseball (majors and minors) after the season in the year in which they turn 21, or after 3 full seasons in the major leagues, whichever comes earlier.
Rosters: Have a 26 man roster, but only declare 20-21 players available for any given game (NFL does something similar). In September have the 40 man rosters but only 23 declared available for any game.
ASG: Move the game back one week, and make the single trade deadline be 4pm PT on the day that’s exactly 7 weeks prior to the final day of the season.
Tanking: Use a formula to get draft position. Group teams based on whether or not they made the playoffs in the past 3 seasons. Those that didn’t make the playoffs are ordered in draft position from high to low, and the entire group selects before the playoffs group. That group of teams that made the playoffs in any of the 3 previous seasons are ordered in draft position based on their record from low to high over the past 3 years. This should be for the first round only, and subsequent rounds should be based only on prior year’s record.
Salary cap: End the QO system. Implement a hard salary cap but allow teams to trade slices of that cap for players, draft picks, or other considerations. No trading straight up for cash, though.
International players: MLB should operate facilities in various spots around the world that aren’t subject to the first year player draft. MLB should identify and develop talent in these regions (including nutrition and schooling), and that talent should then be subject to a separate international draft.
Pitchers facing batters: I like the 3 batters or end of an inning thing.
Anyway, if I was in charge of negotiations, this is what I’d want a final contract to look like. I wish both parties luck in getting where they want to be with that.
So if September rosters are not 40 and minor leaguers won’t get called up as much during that month, does that mean that we will NEVER see Tim Tebow playing at Citi Field?
Sorry, but I still don’t care about the home run derby or the all-star game.
i think the all-star game rules changes at least make sense given what’s happened with tjr ballot boxes being stuffed in recent years. care or not, id say the change doesnt hurt in any way.
Requiring a pitcher to pitch for three batters is an absolute horrible idea!! And I thought Selig set the bar for idiocy! It’s like they don’t even think through this stuff. Just brainstorming I can think of multiple times that will backfire and have horrible consequences.
I hate the 3 batter minimum
I love all of these changes except for the three batter minimum. Guys like Randy Choate (who have made a long career out of being specialists) won’t have a place in the game anymore, and it eliminates some of the strategy involved in platoon situations.
I love everything else, but I hate that change.
80 games played and 38.2 IP is the reason for the rule. Constant pitching changes are mind-numbing and time consuming.
I agree. I don’t like when 3 batters have faced 3 diff pitchers either. But A 3 hitter minimum is a huge advantage for the offense. Wish it were only 2. What if a guy gets wild and throws 8 balls in a row? U take him out!
Simple, you fake an injury.
I thought the same thing, but then you’d have to be put in the injured list and miss about two weeks just to get out of facing another batter. I’m sure someone will figure out a way around it, but I’m just not a fan of that rule.
Not every injury requires a DL stint
Make a pitcher injury like a concussion injury.
“Simple, you fake an injury.”
How often do you think a team can get away with that before the league starts looking at medicals?
MLB went to 10 IL instead of the 15 but because teams manipulated it the upcoming rule change will require pitchers to stay 15 days (maybe)
“The minimum length of stay for pitchers who are optioned to the minors or placed on the injured list will increase from 10 days to 15 days. This change is still “subject to input” from the newly formed Joint Committee.”
Fine with all of this. Just don’t move the mound. The Universal DH will happen though. It’s inevitable. Which I’m also fine with.
Those September games matter so why have those guys playing! You want your best out there!
I love the 3 batter rule. Seeing a “lefty-specialist” come in and throw two pitches is awful to watch.
I really don’t like the pitcher must face 3 batters minimum rule. How you can dictate how a manager strategizes a late inning close game? Because of time? So stupid.
Agreed. By limiting September roster size that will help limit pitching changes which get out of control with the expanded rosters
Does anyone know how this rule will effect Ohtani? He is technically not eligible, or is he considered a pitcher who hits, instead of a hitter who pitches?
“Position players are only eligible to pitch in extra innings or when a team is leading or trailing by seven or more runs. Certain position players may be designated as “two-way players,” but to be eligible, they’ll need to have accrued at least 20 innings pitched and started 20 games as a position player/designated hitter in their last active season (including at least three trips to the plate in each of those lineup appearances”
Evan…..
Your copy/paste answered your question. He met the qualification as a two-way player for this year.
The question will be can he meet the 20 IP in 2019 to qualify as a two-way in 2020
Well, Ohtani does qualify for 2019 based on his use in 2018. So he would be a 2-way player. If his injury does not let him pitch in 2019 then the Angles would have to designate him as a position player or pitcher for 2020. Would make sense to have him as a pitcher, as there are no restrictions on pitchers hitting, just position players pitching. That is assuming the joint committee does not come up with an overly restrictive limit on the number of pitchers on a roster.
I guess since there are no rules on pitchers hitting, he could begin 2020 designated as a pitcher and then would become a two-way player after DHing in 20 games. That wouldn’t really change anything though, so I don’t know why the need for a two-way player designation.
Sounds to me like they are trying to ruin the only sport left that is fit for watching. Some things need to be left alone. Not all change is progress.
I think the biggest shocker to me (and there are a few surprises) is the decrease in allotted commercial time. Isn’t it “all about the benjamins?” How did that get agreed upon? And that act will do more to decrease game time over any other (by far), although those 2020 changes to the pitchers may also lead to significant game time reductions. We will certainly see. Just as long as they don’t replace umps with robots. I will be done with the sport as soon as they do that.
My guess is the first 15 seconds out of commercial break per half inning will have an exclusive sponsor, and since they will have returned from commercial break they can sell that 15 seconds at a higher rate than a stopset of TV commercials. The sell is every fan focuses on the screen when they return to the game. So they can sneak in an ad with the pitcher warming up in the shot or a viz of another player either throwing a ball or taking swings.
Wait, so there are no more August Waiver Trades, but yet players can still be put on waivers and claimed?? And then traded?? Isnt that the exact same thing??
No, not traded, only claimed. Previously, if you placed a player on revocable waivers, if someone claimed him then you could just let him go, work out a trade, or retract your waiver on him. If he passed through waivers, then you could trade him until August 31. Can’t do that any more. Now if you put a player on waivers, he can be claimed and the claiming team gets him, or if he clears he is released or DFA’d (if that has not happened previously). That is it.
Terrible.
Rob Manfred = Gary Bettman
Fans often glorify the “good old days” when pitchers would throw complete games and games were 2 hours long. Now Manfred institutes a step in the right direction of the 3-batter rule and guys on here are complaining that situational pitching is being sacrificed?? Good Lord.
Bravo, Manfred, keep the game moving and let’s see some action the way the game was meant to be played.
Fans who enjoyed the days (good old or otherwise) when complete games were the norm instead of the exception probably aren’t the same fans who are defending the degree of situational pitching we see today. The change was probably inevitable. The debate over the fix, assuming one is needed, is also inevitable.
I agree with what you’re saying. Manfred is not concerned about the guys on here, the existing fans, he’s concerned about the sports fans who say that baseball is too slow and the games are too long.
And that being said, I’m a huge baseball fan and even I can’t stand all of the pitching changes.
While these changes aren’t cures, they are certainly remedies toward getting the game moving forward…
Agreed 100%
It’s the 21st century way of thinking. Most of this country could win the lottery and complain about the taxes.
this isnt a step in the right direction because the game will never be played that way again, rules or not. Pitchers cant throw well beyond 100 pitches anymore, and its hard to see that changing any time soon.
“Pitchers cant throw well beyond 100 pitches anymore” … but they can certainly throw to 3 batters. I have yet to see a legitimate argument “for” situational pitching. Accordingly to Baseball Reference, the average number of batters per game in 2018 averaged 10.4, which is an avg that has remained consistent for 60+ years. But the average number of pitchers per game rose to an all time high of 4.36 (which is the largest 5-year spike in history). Constant pitching changes are thwarting offense and thus, thwarting the action.
They can also throw more than 100 pitches, the teams simply don’t want them to throw as many as they once did.
Why cant todays pitchers with better training pitch well past 100 pitches? The only reason is the pitch count idea has trained them to 100 pitches only.
I agree. This is an entirely different topic of discussion, but the pitch count problem lies WELL before the players reach MLB. If 15 year old pitchers weren’t playing year-round baseball, pitch counts in MLB wouldn’t be nearly the issue it is today.
woah woah woah. cant just slip that 2020 stuff in there as well and expect us to be fine with it. All the changes for this year are fine with me, but the roster rules are the only addition that is fine in my mind. There isnt really as much of a need for limits on pichers if you already have the number on the roster limited and/or lengthening their option time.
Oh goody.. A second chance for fans to stuff the ballot box. I’m not really sure how a second shot to stuff the ballot will accomplish much.
Nice, sounds like they were able to get the three batter minimum pushed through without having to give up no DH in NL.
Under the new rules, when Ohotani is able to pitch again in 2020, he will not be able to bat until he’s started as many as five games (depending on how many innings he’s able to throw). If he’s not quite ready to pitch at the beginning of the season, he won’t be able to play at all because if he starts even one game as a hitter, he won’t be allowed to pitch until 2021. This is stupid.
I get the desire to limit the number of pitchers, but two-way players are fun and rare enough that it doesn’t really interfere it. The new rules make it very difficult to become a two-way player.
noahrnoahr…..
After reading it again the rule really won’t affect Ohtani or a pitcher with circumstances like his….
“Certain position players may be designated as “two-way players,” but to be eligible, they’ll need to have accrued at least 20 innings pitched and started 20 games as a position player/designated hitter in the current season or the preceding season (including at least three trips to the plate in each of those lineup appearances).”
Notice it states “Certain position players” plus the DH rule does not state that a pitcher cannot be a DH
But it’s the word “and” that is troubling w/r/t Ohtani, right? He’s not going to pitch at all in 2019, so in 2020 he won’t to start the season, be allowed to be designated as a “two-way player” because he hasn’t fulfilled the requirement of 20 games as DH and 20 IP in the previous season. Unless teams are allowed to change designations mid-season (or at any other point in the season), this rule would seem to rule out Ohtani being able to pitch at all.
It seems like the argument is that the Angels could designate him as a pitcher and then just use him as the DH in the games he’s pitching, but it seems that he would almost never get to the three PAs requirement to be a “two-way player” and it would take him, like ten starts to get there. Ten starts is like a quarter of the season in which Ohtani couldn’t DH. That feels like a significant disadvantage for the Angels in 2021.
Nothing about the DH in the NL. Now we get to see Harper bring his clown skills to the outfield for a while longer.
Hope they agree to two more changes in time for 2020 during CBA negotiations. 1. Rules on shifting, must keep two infielders on either side of second base. 2. Universal DH. Maybe 3. Cancel all- star game forever.
PhilliesBob1980
1) Yes
2) No
3) Return the voting to those on the field and in the dugout and it would be a true All-Star game again instead of a popularity contest. Since that will never happen I’ll just ignore it as I have for years.
Sadly, the first strike against the All-Star game for me came when the fans voted Mike Schmidt in as the starting 3B after he retired. I’ve been a Phillies fan well over 5 decades and that just wasn’t right. I understand the gesture but…..
I started losing interest then and stopped watching completely about 15 years ago. in between I watched a few innings here and there.
I’m cool with all of these rules except the 3 batter minimum.
Too much gray area as far as what constitutes an injury. Managers could fake injuries to get the pitching change they want. Or would that pitcher have to go on the injured list after?
Or conversely, I’m afraid that someone will get hurt because they have to stay in there an extra batter or two, not wanting to admit that their arm feels sore.
And not to mention it totally kills the LOOGY. I mean, Tony Sipp just signed, but come 2020 I’m not sure he would have been able to find a major league deal.
You beat me to it. The only problems I saw with pitching changes was in September when a team could comfortably throw a different pitcher out there to match up against every batter after the 5th inning. Knocking down the roster to 28 helps fix this somewhat.
Yes, let’s lament the 3-batter rule because a guy like Tony Sipp might not have an MLB job. LOL. Somewhere, Captain Loogy, Darren Oliver, is smiling.
To me, there is a simpler way to read the new rule:
Absent an injury, any pitcher entering the game from the bullpen must finish the inning in which he made his appearance.
Thats it. A LOOGY can still face as little as 1 batter, if it’s the last batter of the inning.
Actually, that’s correct. I think a lot of us (myself included) are reading the “three batters” as “three outs”. But that’s not the case. The LOOGY lives!
I wonder what the ruling is on suspected injuries in regards to the pitcher facing a minimum of three batters rule. You see guys pulled after a couple pitches quite often if they don’t look/feel right. You can’t be expected to leave him in to face anyone if there is injury concern. I would assume there will be an amendment forcing a pitcher to move to the 15 day DL if he’s taken out early? That seems like a bit much. I guess we’ll know more in time.
Instead of forcing a pitcher that is potentially completely off his game to face three batters and risk blowing the entire well-fought ballgame in the 7th to save a couple minutes, address the 10 minute instant replay break on a close play at 1B in the 9th when the team at bat is already up by 8 runs.
Terrible call on the 3-batter minimum rule. Managers need to run the game the way they see fit.
If a pitcher is off, all it takes is one batter (one run) to make it a close game in many instances. Three batters can be the clear difference between a win and a loss. Too much responsibility on one player IMO.
Well, then I guess that puts some pressure on the bullpen coach to let managers know whether or not the pitcher is off before they are brought into the game.
“Managers need to run the game the way they see fit.” I think that was the problem. Managers were using the 10-day DL and the Minors options as a way to stockpile their pitching rosters and play the match game after the 5th inning. ZZzzzzzzzzzz.
But managers do not get to run the game as they see fit. They are required to run the game based on the rules. Now they will just have to adjust to this one as well.
Reducing the roster size to 28 in September is a huge mistake. Hundreds of minor league baseball players now will never get “the cup of coffee” in the big leagues had they would have had if the rosters were even set at 32 players. Just playing in one major league game is a HUGE incentive for many fringe “lifer” minor leaguers that help keep the game alive at the minor league level Now without that incentive there will be fewer players who play past 7 years in the minor leagues. Which may not seem like a big deal to the casual baseball fan but it puts a big wrinkle in a 150 year history of minor league baseball in my opinion.
Many of these new rules are fine in my opinion but taking better care of the minor league baseball players is a disgraceful lapse regarding pay etc.. and now disincentivizing the minor leaguers entire goal of playing is a massive, massive lapse.
Crash Davis says the 28-man limit is Communist.
As a fan of the minor leagues, I appreciate your perspective, but I disagree with it. When I’ve lived in minor league towns, the most frustrating this is when I’ve followed a team all season long, they reach the playoffs, and then, all of a sudden it’s Sept. and I’m watching a group of strangers play for this alleged “championship.” Meanwhile, my guys aren’t even getting real at bats and innings, just sitting on a bench someplace where the games aren’t broadcast to my locality.
Manfred missed a huge opportunity to drum up interest in the MLB
From July 31st to end of September you have what 60 something games? Maybe 50 typically. Your team goes on a run in august to push themselves into wild card or division contention or your team has a massive injury imagine being able to trade until the regular season ends.
A lot can happen from July 31st till end of the season.
I do question how the clubhouses keep track of 20abs and 20IP.
What happens when they enter a guy that only had 19ABs and the umpires do not confirm and then the game is continued and concluded.
What happens then?
Who confirms eligibility through the two-way player rule? MLB? And is this list provided to the umpires during the game to confirm this availability?
Sorry, this was meant as a stand-alone, not a response.
My guess is that it’s up to the opposing manager to challenge eligibility, just like when someone does something funky with the lineup card or compromises the dh.
Due to all the stat compilers out there I really don’t think that will be a problem at all.
3 batter minimum, but allow for one 2 batter minimum per game. If any pitcher leaves for injury, then that uses the 2 batter minimum for that game. The setup and closers strategy will be limited if there is a 3 batter minimum.
I applaud these changes.
As long as the NL doesn’t have the DH, I’m okay with practically anything else.
That’s coming, but looks like you’ve got a couple more years to enjoy the complexities of the double switch. In the meantime, the NL will continue to play at a disadvantage against AL opponents. I don’t love the DH, either, but as an NL guy, I’m tired of being at a disadvantage.
If anything, I’d say the NL has the ADVANTAGE in the current system.
Think about it – the dh is a glorified PH who gets lots of ABs.
In an AL game the NL team can take their best PH and insert them as DH. (it’s the NL team’s fault if their best PH isn’t as good as what the AL team signs.)
In an NL game, the AL team needs to bat a pitcher who hasn’t been taking ABs in every appearance they made all year and is out of practice. In theory, the NL team has an advantage of their pitcher having -theoretically- better timing and more practice both hitting and running bases.
Well, no PH is ever going to be as good as a DH, because DH is a position that’s going to get 500+ PAs and a pinch-hitter might get 100. PHs don’t get paid anything ;like DHs for a reason.
And NL pitchers are no good at hitting, even with all that extra practice. And bunting and double-switching aren’t really so exciting. I’ve never gone to a game hoping to see a double-switch.
Totally disagree. In the NL, everyone has to be able to use the glove with some degree of success, whereas a DH can be a totally one-dimensional player. The DH also has the advantage of hitting all the time, whereas a PH does not. Finally, the DH is normally a power guy. You seem to just be playing devil’s advocate on this one.
That’s more or less correct
Position players pitching limits and the three batter minimum rule for pitchers are just stupid.
I believe the ‘joint committee’ has already had too many joints. None of these changes are good for the game, but I guess when you have the munchies, you’ll agree to anything!
I’m scratching my head with those that have a problem with the 3-batter rule. I’d love to have a CONSTRUCTIVE discussion with why you think it’s bad for the game. Keep in mind that “the half-inning in which he is pitching ends before three batters have come to the plate” means that a pitcher can come in to close out the inning.
For example, a RH relief pitcher starts the 7th and gets 2 immediate outs and then faces a 3rd batter and gives up a hit. Lefty comes up. A LH relief pitcher comes in and gets the 3rd out. This is allowed in the new structure.
How is this a bad rule for the game?
RH relief pitcher comes in with the bases loaded and promptly throws four straight pitches nowhere near the plate and then gives up a homerun. He is then forced to pitch to the third batter. That is bad.
I’m ok with the three batter rule AS LONG AS the pitcher can be removed as soon as a run is scored as well. Then I don’t mind it.
In that scenario, I’m okay with the pitcher facing the third batter (now with bases empty). But your earned run provision is intriguing, that would be a good way of balancing out the concern of “having a bad day”.
In that scenario he has already given up 5 runs. Do you think that 3rd batter will really change the outcome of the game? If a relief pitcher comes in and throws nothing but balls and then gives up a home run, perhaps the team should monitor the pitcher in the bullpen while he is warming up. Or perhaps that RH relief pitcher doesn’t belong in a major league bullpen to begin with. It’s not rocket science, if you see a problem with control in the bullpen, then maybe get someone else up. That’s why you have a bullpen coach.
stan lee the manly
“RH relief pitcher comes in with the bases loaded and promptly throws four straight pitches nowhere near the plate and then gives up a homerun. He is then forced to pitch to the third batter. That is bad.”
I’m curious as to how many times you have seen that happen?
Two relievers having a bad day in the same inning. The game can go from a lead to an almost certain loss.
I would argue that 2 relievers having a bad day in the same inning would be detrimental to the team regardless of what rule was in place. Even so, Stan Lee’s earned run provision (same thread) would answer that concern.
The bummer is that, according to these rules, as I understand them, Ohtani won’t be able to pitch in 2020, correct? Or will he not be able to pitch until he has played 20 games at DH? I’m a little confused about this, as he won’t pitch at all in 2019 (which therefore removes the “previous season” provision) , and it seems that the only way he can be designated as a two-way player is until he has done both. I guess I’d have to look at the rule to clarify its meaning.
Also, this rule and the three-batter minimum remove the Waxahatchee Swap, which , while pretty rare, has always been a really fun part of baseball to see when it does happen. And has been a part of baseball since the very early days. Talk about eliminating managerial strategy….
Otahni is a pitcher that hits, not a position player that pitches. I would think that he will be on the roster as a pitcher in 2020 and therefore have no need to accumulate 20 innings.
Oh, and so then would his 20+ Abs in 2019 would allow him to qualify? This is the part of the rule that seems to imply differently:
“Certain position players may be designated as “two-way players,” but to be eligible, they’ll need to have accrued at least 20 innings pitched and started 20 games as a position player/designated hitter in the current season or the preceding season (including at least three trips to the plate in each of those lineup appearances).”
The rule doesn’t prevent pitchers from hitting. It is designed to limit position players coming in to pitch. Ohtani would qualify as a two-way player after 20 at-bats, which may allow the Angels to add another pitcher to their roster, however.
The MLBPA opted against it as well.. so scratching your head at those that disagree with the rule is a bit ridiculous.
If a manager calls on a pitcher and two pitches in it’s clear as day the pitcher needs to come out because he’s missing his spots by 2 feet showing mechanical problems he should be allowed to pull him. He shouldn’t have to risk conceding a ballgame because a pitcher is having an off day or may be injured.
Think about injuries. How often are players pulled because of injury concerns? Do they have to face the quota or do they get a free pass? What’s stopping teams from taking advantage of this pass to maximize pitching changes? You can’t suspend these players for a couple days. That’s wrong. The only thing that would be fair would be to force organizations to place players on the 15 day DL if they are removed prematurely. But then missing more than two weeks because a manager is being cautious with a players health is not fair at all.
If the pitcher is missing his spots by 2 feet and has mechanical problems, that would be apparent in the bullpen. And therefore he has no business being in the game.
Implying the bullpen is the same atmosphere as the mound.
If you’ve watched baseball, you’ve seen pitchers pulled after a couple pitches because they don’t look right. It doesn’t happen every day, but it happens.
Requiring a player to face “X” amount of batters is ridiculous. I don’t see how this is even a discussion. If a manager uses up a pitcher, he’s gone. Can’t pitch anymore. May not pitch the next night because of it.
This is a terrible rule that changes the way bullpens are managed so MLB can chop a couple minutes out of every game that requires the use of multiple relievers. Ridiculous.
It has been reported that the MLBPA was against the three batter minimum rule. The commissioners office pressed override.
Dumb rule as it completely changes bullpen management and a lot of righty-lefty specialists are now going to be a liability. Remove strategy for the sake of saving a few minutes. With this change taking place, the umpire’s union needs be held accountable for taking 10 minutes to call someone safe/out when everybody and their mother has the right call within 20 seconds. Of course, they’d probably just bring back those anti-bullying safety bracelets to protest.
Sorry if this was answered above: with only a July 31 trade deadline now, what’s the cutoff for post-season eligibility for acquired players (i.e., claimed off of waivers after July 31)? Is July 31 it? Is it still August 31? Is there no cutoff and a team can claim a player on the last day of the season and have him eligible for the post-season? That wasn’t made clear in the release.
Also, is it just pitchers who have a 15-day IL starting in 2020 or is that for all players, with the pitchers having a minimum 15 day option period?
The union and MLB must have already agreed on a new Contract, as expanding the roster is a union benefit.
Yeah, asking a pitcher to face 3 whole batters is ridiculous. I mean, who wouldn’t much rather see 5 pitching changes in an inning than to have to see a poor young man forced to face 3 batters? The horror!!
I absolutely hate the artificial rule of a reliever having to face three batters. If a manger wants to burn a pitcher on one batter, so be it.
I also hate the new rule on position-player pitching restrictions. I’d really like to see more two-way players and the 20 innings is a lot to have to accumulate to become designated. I would think two way players can become really valuable to their teams. Imagine the RF coming in to strikeout a tough righty and then going back out to the field. Like Little League!! Lol
MLB has lost its mind….I like the 26 players per team…also teams should be allowed to bring up some kids..in september .28 is a joke make it at least 30-32….It gives crap teams something to look forward to in september….checking out some prospects….I bet in 5 years The length of the games go up or stay about the same…How about pitchers throw strikes…and batters hit the ball….to many pitches in general thrown in each game…Manfred is a clown…lets just go to softball rules and call it a day….
Well I predicted years ago that loogy’s would be extinct but not like this. The multiple pitching changes never bothered me one bit. Also what was wrong with that 40 man rosters ? It was only for a month and it allowed kids to get a taste of the majors without effecting the ML rosters itself
Never liked the 40 man rule in September. You had teams fighting for playoff positions playing spring training teams in the final month. In a series where wearing down a teams bullpen in game one matters for the series, it no longer does with expanded rosters. Why change the game in the final month towards the playoffs?
So Ohtani can’t pitch in 2020 because to be designated as a 2 way player you need at least 20 innings in the preceding season? rule on 2 way players doesn’t make sense.
showman……..read it again…………..
“Certain position players may be designated as “two-way players,”
Ohtani is designated as a pitcher and there is nothing in the DH rule that says a pitcher cannot be a DH when he isn’t pitching.
“A player qualifies as a “Two-Way Player” only if he accrues at least 20 Major League innings pitched and at least 20 Major League games started as a position player or designated hitter (with at least three plate appearances in each of those games) in either the current championship season or the prior championship season;”
So… how do any new players qualify as 2-way players? If you have to be designated a 2 way player in order to pitch, but can only pitch if designated as a 2 way player it sounds like it is impossible for new players to qualify
Go down below the next post. Thought I was replying to this but it posted as new comment, not reply.
Short answer is you may need to count him as a pitcher the first year.
“Commercial breaks between innings are reduced to two minutes in length for all games.”
The obvious question that arises with this is how long are commercial breaks right now? If you’re going to answer what the current rule is for other changes, why didn’t you for this one?
I think it’s 2:20
A better article on mlb.com addressed this:
“Furthermore, the number of pitchers a club can carry on the active roster will be capped at a certain number, to be decided by the aforementioned joint committee. To adhere to that rule, clubs will have to designate each of their players as either a pitcher or a position player prior to each player’s first day on the active roster for a given season. That designation cannot change for the remainder of the season. Position players will not be allowed to pitch except in the following scenarios:
• They are designated as a “Two-Way Player.” A player can only qualify for this designation if he accrues at least 20 Major League innings pitched and at least 20 Major League games started as a position player or designated hitter (with at least three plate appearances in each of those games) in either the current or the prior season.”
Full read:
mlb.com/redsox/news/mlb-rules-changes
So to me, it sounds like 2018 and 2019 are the initial benchmark seasons. As an aside, correct me if I’m wrong but I am not aware of any rule prohibiting a RP from lining up in the field. I seem to recall some manager, probably maddon, putting someone out in the OF to bring in a LOOGY but wanted to go back to the RHP after the one ab…
Ugh. Dont mind changes for this year (though no one cares about how much HR derby winner gets…except the players) but those for next year are unnecessary. There is always an individual or group who believes he/they are bigger than the game. 25 man rosters have been fine for quite a while, and the league should not have control over strategy. One can only imagine what comes next.
I see they are still working at getting away from the traditional baseball & it’s just shameful. at least they didn’t go with that IDIOTIC robot balls & strike BS..
I am also glad to see they didn’t add the position of the Dumb Hitter (DH) to the National League & hope they remove the Dumb Hitter (DH) from the American League.
I don’t see why the idiots want to destroy the traditional game of baseball & at the same time ignore Baseball fans who prefer the traditional game I guess the powers to be in MLB & the Players union DON”T CARE about the fans who prefer the traditional game.
The only thing they are about is money.
Right now, sponsors/advertisers/tv execs, and towards that end pace-of-play garbage to supposedly grow audience and thus value of said contracts, is what equals money for the league – so that’s who they want to appease.
Reality is, 20-40k fans attend a given game, but millions may watch on tv.
What is traditional baseball.
It’s completely different today than it was in the 60s, 70s 80s and 90s and even ten years ago.
The Traditional game has been taken over by people who don’t care about all fans. The people involved in the game would like people to forget about the stars who made baseball America’s game
If you limit the DL and how many pitchers can be placed on a roster, the 3 man rule does seem like it’s overkill. But also it seems people are making way too big of a deal out of this.
Look at playoff games in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Maybe even the 90s. Were pitchers going less than three batters? Anyone think the playoff games of the 70s didn’t have strategy?
I think it’s kid of overkill, but it’s also not that big of a deal. Maybe I don’t have to see Gary Lucas facing Rich Gedman. That alone would make the rule worth while.
Change it to three outs, end of inning or a run scores. How’s that? But even so, it won’t kill the game.
So what happens if a coach makes two mound visits before a player faces three batters? We would have one rule stating the pitcher must be removed and another stating that he can’t be removed. The game would literally be stuck.
if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
what a joke baseball is becoming
Absolutely right. We’ve got a bad commissioner who’s an idealist. He thinks, only he himself can save baseball. He must be from California!
I like 3 batter rule, but it should NOT apply to the post-season. We want shorter regular season games, but longer post-season games are Ok with me!
What issue is this two-way player designation supposed to be solving?
Not a fan of the 3 batter minimum, as it takes away jobs and could deal a serious blow to left handed relief pitchers. They could become relatively obsolete, as many struggle to get righty bats out. Righty batters have a huge platoon advantage against them on the whole, and most batters are righty or better from the right if switch. If forced to face 3 in a row, at least one is likely to be righty. This could ultimately have a tremendous impact on LHP’s in general, as you’d have to make it as a starter or not have a MLB career unless you were one of the best who wasn’t quite good enough to start… that could be very discouraging to a lot of young LHP’s with MLB aspirations. I would have proposed instead: no mound visits, pitching changes are ordered to the home plate umpire via some electronic device, ump calls out the change, pitcher sets the ball down and exits, no warm up pitches for new pitcher (warm up only in pen). It would take about 30-40 seconds.
Regarding Ohtani and what his designation will be in 2020 (pitcher, position player or two-way player).
Unless they change the wording of Rule 5.11 (the DH Rule) there is no need to list him as anything other than a pitcher.
The new rule per the official announcement states…..
“No player on the active roster other than those designated as pitchers by the Club may appear in a championship season or Postseason game as a pitcher except in the following scenarios:
Players designated as a “Two-Way Player.” A player qualifies as a “Two-Way Player” only if he accrues at least 20 Major League innings pitched and at least 20 Major League games started as a position player or designated hitter (with at least three plate appearances in each of those games) in either the current championship season or the prior championship season;
Following the ninth inning of an extra-inning game; or
In any game in which his team is losing or winning by more than six runs when the player enters as a pitcher.”
This new rule is designed for position players who will also be used as relievers
If you look at the DH Rule it states……
Any League may elect to use Rule 5.11(a), which shall be called the Designated Hitter Rule.
(a) The Designated Hitter Rule provides as follows:
(1) A hitter may be designated to bat for the starting pitcher and all subsequent pitchers in any game without other-wise affecting the status of the pitcher(s) in the game. A Designated Hitter for the pitcher, if any, must be selected prior to the game and must be included in the lineup cards presented to the Umpire-in-Chief.
Notice that is does not specify that a position player must be the DH. It only says “hitter”. That means Ohtani or any other pitcher that follows him that is capable to DH can DH without being deemed a “two-way player”
But how does Ohtani acquire the “two-way player” designation if he doesn’t pitch in 2019? The rule seems to equate the DH as a position. Are teams going to be allowed to change a player’s designation during the season? It seems that, as the rule is written, he would only be able to DH in games he pitches, unless the team can change his designation during the season. And even if they can change his designation, it would require 3 PAs in each game he pitches, which is unlikely because if he is removed as the pitcher he also has to be removed from the game as a DH. It almost feels like this rule was designed to target Ohtani, and if so, that’s a real shame because baseball needs more Ohtanis.
mlb.com/news/two-way-player-rule-explanation
read….learn…as usual rule failed to comprehend by ignoring a key party of the rule “in either the current championship season or the prior championship season” …..good-bye
What have they done to the game I used to love? They are telling managers when they are allowed to use certain players to fill other positions? “Two-way players”? How about they just let the manager manage? What a joke!
No trades after July 31st is dumb
Expanded rosters only to 28 is dumb too. It should start with 28 man rosters and then still be up to 40 September 1st. Most teams only go to maybe 32 or 35 anyway. Most teams also have a 7 man bullpen.
5 starters
8 everyday position players
5 middle relievers
1 swingman
2 set up men
1 closer
4 bench players
If they make the everyday rosters from game 1 to 28 you can have at least 6 players off the bench
We know theyll be at least a handful of games that go at least 14 innings. Those 2 extta bench players can go along way.
Going back to 15 from 10 days on the DL is a good thing.
To add to my comment. Fix the way replays are done. They should and need the on field umpires to actually look at the play and not rely on someone 3 hours away in New York. 9pm. In LA is gonna be midnight in New York. Do they really think they will be alert enough to make the right call. They need a 5th umpire in the booth making the call not Joe west from new York.