Rob Manfred

MLB Owners Approve Extension For Rob Manfred

By Steve Adams | November 15, 2018 at 10:35am CDT

10:35am: Manfred has been unanimously approved for an extension through the 2024 season, tweets Nightengale.

Nov. 15, 7:34am: The vote is expected to take place today, tweets Fancred’s Jon Heyman.

Nov. 9: Major League Baseball owners are expected to meet next week to vote on a five-year extension for commissioner Rob Manfred, reports USA Today’s Bob Nightengale. He’d need the approval of ownership representatives from 16 of the 30 teams, though Nightengale reports that Manfred is expected to receive unanimous approval. It’s been four years since Manfred officially succeeded Bud Selig as the league’s commissioner, and the new agreement would effectively ensure that he’d spend at least a decade in his current role.

Nightengale adds that various rule changes will also be discussed, as is typical in the offseason, with a heavy focus on pace of play — which has come to be one of Manfred’s more focal issues during his tenure. The idea of a pitch clock will once again be discussed, as will limitations on pitching changes, defensive shifts and “openers,” per the report. Manfred has already implemented numerous pace of play initiatives, most recently including a limited number of mound visits per game.

MLB.com’s Jon Morosi has previously tweeted that Major League Baseball is also weighing various avenues to curb teams’ abilities to steal signs using technology; one popular idea, he adds, would be to limit real-time access to the center-field camera views in teams’ video rooms. Yahoo’s Jeff Passan hears similarly (Twitter links). Deputy commissioner and chief legal officer Dan Halem spoke with Nightengale about the subject, indicating that it was a frequently raised topic at this week’s GM Meetings and that he will bring several “good suggestions” to Manfred as the league looks to address the issue at next week’s owners’ meetings.

Halem also noted that roster expansion has been a frequent topic raised by general managers, although that issue is likely to be tabled until the next wave of collective bargaining begins. The current CBA spans the 2017-21 seasons, so any hope of additional bodies being added to the roster doesn’t seem likely for another few years, at the very least.

Angels Ownership Responds To Manfred’s Comments About Mike Trout; Trout Adds Own Statement

By Kyle Downing | July 18, 2018 at 10:04pm CDT

10:04pm: Trout himself has added a statement regarding the commissioner’s comments. Here’s the full text of his response.

“I have received lots of questions about Commissioner Manfred’s recent statement. I am not a petty guy and would really encourage everyone to just move forward. Everything is cool between the commissioner and myself. End of story. I am ready to just play some baseball!”

While most of the statement seems lighthearded and passive, perhaps the most interesting part is the inclusion of the phrase “End of story”, which rhetorically serves to completely shut down any invitation of further questions on the subject. It’s of course a crystal clear sign that Trout wants to stay as far away from any controversy as possible, and certainly doesn’t wish to perpetuate any conflict between Manfred and the Angels.

8:59pm: The Angels issued a statement today regarding outfielder Mike Trout. Out of context, the statement offers praise for the two-time AL MVP (both for his on-field accomplishments and his off-field character), while simultaneously congratulating him for another excellent performance in the All-Star game. While you can read the statement in its entirety at the above link, the excerpt below helps to capture its essence succinctly.

“Mike Trout is an exceptional ambassador for the game. Combined with his talent, his solid character creates a perfect role model for young people everywhere. Each year, Mike devotes a tremendous amount of his time and effort contributing to our Organization, and marketing Major League Baseball… In addition, Mike spends quality time as a husband, son, brother, uncle and friend. We applaud him for prioritizing his personal values over commercial self-promotion. That is rare in today’s society and stands out as much as his extraordinary talent.”

There is, however, important additional context to consider in this situation. As Ronald Blum laid out in a piece for AP News, commissioner Rob Manfred recently criticized Trout for lack of engagement in actively marketing himself. Manfred at one point went so far as to comment on how Trout spends his free time. Below are some of Manfred’s most interesting words on the subject.

“Player marketing requires one thing for sure — the player. You cannot market a player passively. You can’t market anything passively. You need people to engage with those to whom you are trying to market in order to have effective marketing. We are very interested in having our players more engaged and having higher profile players and helping our players develop their individual brand. But that involves the player being actively engaged.

Mike’s a great, great player and a really nice person, but he’s made certain decisions about what he wants to do and what he doesn’t want to do, and how he wants to spend his free time and how he doesn’t want to spend his free time. That’s up to him. If he wants to engage and be more active in that area, I think we could help him make his brand really, really big. But he has to make a decision that he’s prepared to engage in that area. It takes time and effort.”

While the comments seem mostly harmless, it’s hard to recall a time in recent memory when the commissioner offered such a direct criticism of a player’s effort to build his brand. The fact that Trout’s shown such exceptional talent while never accruing so much as a blemish on his reputation makes this criticism all the more peculiar. That Trout’s not a bigger name outside of baseball circles probably speaks as much to the league’s efforts to market their players (and overall popularity) as it does to Trout’s own individual endeavors.

Although the subject of marketing Trout has never taken this much spotlight before, this is far from the first time it’s been broached- Fangraphs’ Effectively Wild podcast is just one outlet to have examined it in detail. It’s often been suggested that while Trout’s baseball talent is extraordinary, his personality doesn’t particularly invite the same fascination. The Angels outfielder’s most widely-known hobbies include fishing, crabbing, with an interest in meteorology perhaps being his most unusual one. Some reporters have actually tried to exploit that latter item; Ken Rosenthal in particular put a weather map in front of Trout at one point during the All-Star Game and asked him to tell his audience whether they might see any rain during the course of the exhibition. Nonetheless, there’s been little success in eliciting the same kind of extroverted passion seen in players like Francisco Lindor, humor shown by players like Brandon McCarthy, or any of the bizarre and noteworthy comments given by players like Bryce Harper.

That said, it’s not as though Trout has stayed entirely out of the spotlight. As Angels ownership noted in the aforementioned statement, he’s been involved in plenty of community outreach. The seven-time All-Star has visited schools, hospitals and plenty of other charities, signing autographs for children and other fans while exhibiting class and humility. That Trout’s been a great husband, brother and friend to many while accomplishing such unimaginable feats in the game of baseball does plenty to establish a brand in its own right.

One could argue that Trout’s somewhat simple personality has allowed for plenty of humor by of contrast. Comedy is created by opposition, after all, and Trout delivering lines somewhat dryly with a monochromatic expression has created some brilliant humor in commercials for products like BodyArmor Sports Drink, Subway, and even MLB itself. While successful deadpan humor amidst heightened situations is far from the only ingredient in the recipe for a strong brand, it certainly isn’t nothing, and it’s proof in and of itself of how knowing the personality you’re working with is a key component of a successful marketing campaign.

Then again, it’s important to examine whether it’s any sort of obligation for Trout to actively market himself if he doesn’t want to. Certainly the league would benefit greatly if its consensus best player were as prominent of a celebrity as LeBron James or Tom Brady, but it would be hard to argue that Trout “owes” the league anything additional in that regard. After all, he’s fulfilled all his contractual obligations with the Angels since the moment he set foot in The Show, and his level of play certainly suggests he puts 110% effort into his game. Manfred’s comments seem to imply that it’s Trout’s responsibility as a top MLB talent to put more free into building his brand, when in reality the very use of the phrase “free time” illustrates that such a suggestion is at most up for debate. Trout certainly has significant obligations to his family, and there’s of course significant drawbacks to being more recognizable in public.

All that said, there’s no denying that it would benefit Trout’s legacy if he were to devote more time and resources to promoting himself and building his brand. Even considering only his accomplishments to date, Trout is a surefire bet to land in the Hall of Fame, and he’s not even to the age that most would consider to be a player’s “prime”. If he stays healthy and ages at least gracefully, he stands a reasonable chance to break Babe Ruth’s records for fWAR and bWAR and go down as the greatest baseball player of all time. A bigger brand could mean more public notoriety, a greater estate for his descendants, and a greater impact on the community he devotes so much time to helping.

Though it’s fair to assume that Manfred’s comments were made largely in his own self-interest, noteworthy is the fact that the Angels themselves would be among the most lavish beneficiaries of a greater Trout presence, considering they directly benefit from the increased sales they’d likely draw from ticket sales and player merchandise (though one would hope the products would be better than this shirt). That Angels ownership stood in such obvious opposition to Manfred’s comments perhaps speaks to their relationship with Trout, and perhaps even a contrasting assessment to that of the commissioner. For their part, many players, including former teammate Huston Street, certainly seem to believe that Trout is exactly what a player ought to be.

It will be interesting to see how Trout and his agent, Craig Landis, respond to this drama, or indeed whether they choose to at all. Furthermore, it’s easy to wonder if this will lead to a further exchange between the commissioner’s office and Angels ownership. And of course it’s also possible that Tony Clark of the MLBPA could even get involved. Speculation aside, though, one thing is certain… the subject is unlikely to simply disappear over the long remainder of Trout’s career. Perhaps the most intriguing concern is whether this controversy will reach a point at which it causes unnecessary tension between the league and its best player… for the sake of the game, I hope that seemingly far fetched outcome doesn’t come to fruition.

Poll: Should The NL Adopt The Designated Hitter?

By Steve Adams | June 15, 2018 at 1:45pm CDT

There are few topics more polarizing among baseball fans than whether Major League Baseball should adopt a universal designated hitter. Proponents of the DH argue that there’s little excitement derived from watching pitchers hit, while detractors lament the loss of strategy that would come from removing the frequent double-switches, determining when to pinch-hit for a pitcher and the general small-ball aspects of the game that are inherently tied to pitchers hitting.

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred touched on the subject briefly following the quarterly owners’ meetings this week, as Scott Boeck of USA Today writes. While Manfred didn’t delve into specifics, he did hint that the adoption of National League designated hitters could be on the horizon.

“I think that is a continuing source of conversation among the ownership group and I think that the dialogue actually probably moved a little bit,” Manfred said of the ongoing discussion regarding the DH being utilized by National League clubs. That certainly doesn’t indicate when a potential change of the rules would be put into place, but it does make it sound likelier that said change will be implemented at some point in the future.

It’s true that employing a designated hitter in both leagues would eliminate some more conventional means of strategy. Double-switches force managers to get creative with their lineups and use their bench pieces in selective fashion. Pitchers hitting leads to more sacrifice bunting and creates some degree of gamesmanship when it comes to facing the eighth-place (or, in some instances, seventh-place) hitter ahead of the pitcher. Many hitters have seen an artificial boost to their OBP by virtue of being pitched around or intentionally walked in order to face the pitcher (or in order to force the opposing manager to pinch-hit and thus remove a starter from the game). Those elements, of course, would be no more. Fans who’ve spent decades primarily watching the game played in a certain fashion may understandably bristle at the notion.

Does the advent of a DH in the National League necessarily “eliminate” strategy, though? At a time when defensive shifting is at an all-time high and becoming all the more advanced, it’d be easy to argue that the increased prevalence of data (and its manifestation in the on-field product) simply creates new types of strategy.

It’s commonplace now to not only see fielders shifting at the beginning of a player’s plate appearance but to even begin re-positioning themselves during said plate appearance based on the count. We’ve seen some teams, the Cubs most recently, shift pitchers to the outfield for one batter as a means of keeping them in the game to set up multiple left-on-left and right-on-right matchups that would otherwise be broken up by an opposite-handed batter. (Just this week, Chicago moved Steve Cishek to left field to get a lefty-lefty matchup against the Brewers before bringing Cishek back to the mound to face Lorenzo Cain — a move which Cain amusingly said “kind of broke my heart.”) The Rays have been using relief pitchers to open games in hopes of more effectively neutralizing an opponent’s best hitters early. If anything, strategy seems to be evolving rather than evaporating.

Still, many traditionalists simply enjoy the novelty that comes with pitchers taking turns at bat. I doubt I’m alone in acknowledging that I’ve watched Bartolo Colon’s home run against James Shields a borderline-unhealthy number of times in my life. Plenty of fans would like to see Madison Bumgarner participate in the Home Run Derby at some point in his career. The arrival of Shohei Ohtani in the United States has only further created some intrigue around pitchers hitting. Allowing pitchers to hit does create some unexpected moments of excitement, as any Diamondbacks fan who watched Archie Bradley’s seventh-inning, two-run triple during last year’s NL Wild Card game can attest.

At the same time, with the notable exception of Ohtani, there’s little denying that even the best-hitting pitchers simply aren’t good hitters. Bumgarner is considered the game’s best in that regard (again, excepting Ohtani), and the best four-year stretch of his career saw him bat .224/.272/.433 (from 2014-17). That’s a slightly worse level of output than Tommy Joseph turned in for the Phillies last season before being designated for assignment, claimed by the Rangers and, eventually, being sent outright to Double-A.

Pitchers are batting a collective .111/.144/.140 this season and striking out at a 42.8 percent pace. Conversely, the league-average non-pitcher is hitting .249/.321/.413 with a 21.8 percent strikeout rate. As the league explores ways in which to increase the frequency of the ball being put into play, giving the National League a regular designated hitter would be one way to go about doing so. Pitchers batted 5277 times last season and struck out in 2028 of those plate appearances (38.4 percent). Nearly halving that number would’ve resulted in (roughly) 1,000 fewer strikeouts, and the discrepancy between hitter and pitcher strikeouts has only increased from 2017 to 2018.

While many fans would argue that the American League should simply drop the DH, there’s no way that the MLBPA would agree to that during collective bargaining agreement talks, as it’d remove as many as 15 jobs for offensive-minded position players, so for the purposes of this poll, I’ll withhold that option from being an answer. That said, the topic generally makes for a rather spirited debate, so we’ll open this up for all of our readers to weigh in (link to poll for Trade Rumors app users).

U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Federal Ban On Sports Betting

By Steve Adams | May 14, 2018 at 10:54am CDT

The United States Supreme Court on Monday voted 7-2 in favor of reversing the federal ban on sports betting (link via Robert Barnes of the Washington Post). States legislatures will now be free to set their own laws as pertaining to betting on professional and college sporting events. Full details of the ruling are available at the Supreme Court’s web site. From the ruling, as set forth by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.:

The legalization of sports gambling is a controversial subject. Supporters argue that legalization will produce revenue for the States and critically weaken illegal sports betting operations, which are often run by organized crime. Opponents contend that legalizing sports gambling will hook the young on gambling, encourage people of modest means to squander their savings and earnings, and corrupt professional and college sports.

The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make. Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. [The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act] is not. PASPA “regulate[s] state governments’ regulation” of their citizens, New York, 505 U. S., at 166. The Constitution gives Congress no such power.

Major League Baseball has issued the following statement on the matter:

“Today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court will have profound effects on Major League Baseball. As each state considers whether to allow sports betting, we will continue to seek the proper protections for our sport, in partnership with other professional sports. Our most important priority is protecting the integrity of our games. We will continue to support legislation that creates airtight coordination and partnerships between the state, the casino operators and the governing bodies in sports toward that goal.”

MLBPA executive director Tony Clark has also weighed in on the subject:

“The court’s decision is monumental, with far-reaching implications for baseball players and the game we love. From complex intellectual property questions to the most basic issues of player safety, the realities of widespread sports betting must be addressed urgently and thoughtfully to avoid putting our sport’s integrity at risk as states proceed with legalization.”

Of course, sports betting already exists in prominent fashion throughout the United States. Barnes’ piece above cites an estimated $150 billion annual valuation of the underground sports betting market in the U.S., which doesn’t include already legalized betting at sportsbooks in Nevada casinos. Certainly, though, widespread legalization of the matter creates many potential causes for concern and also for revenue; NBA commissioner Adam Silver, for instance, has openly expressed a desire to be compensated for the compensated for his league’s “additional costs involving integrity,” (via Michael Scotto of The Athletic). ESPN’s Brian Windhorst reported earlier this year that the NBA could seek one percent of every bet legally placed on its outcomes.

The state of New Jersey had the support of 18 other states, per Barnes, in seeking to legalize betting in their state. Justine McDaniel of the Philadelphia Inquirer tweets that the state of Pennsylvania, for instance, legalized sports betting last year in anticipation of federal legalization.

MLB Announces 2018 Pace Of Play Initiatives

By Steve Adams | February 19, 2018 at 11:33am CDT

Major League Baseball announced on Monday that beginning in the 2018 season, teams will be limited to six non-pitching-change mound visits per nine-inning game. In extra-inning games, teams will receive one additional non-pitching-change mound visit per inning.

Major League Baseball will also reduce between-innings down time to 2:05 during locally televised regular season games, 2:25 during nationally televised regular season games and 2:55 during tiebreaker and postseason contests. There will be no pitch clock implemented for the 2018 season.

Under the new rules, mound visits are defined as: “a manager or coach trip to the mound to meet with the pitcher” and “a player leaving his position to confer with the pitcher, including a pitcher leaving the mound to confer with another player … regardless of where the visit occurs or the length of the visit.”

In addition to visits that result in a pitching change, there are notable exceptions to the mound visit rules as well. Communication between players and pitchers which “occur between batters in the normal course of play and do not require either the position player(s) or the pitcher to relocate” are still permitted, as are visits from position players to clean their spikes in rainy conditions, injury-related visits and visits following the announcement of an offensive substitution.

Once all six visits have been used, catchers may appeal to the umpires to make an additional mound visit in the instance of a cross-up between signs. Cross-up visits prior to the limit being reached will still count against the six-visit limit.

Punishment for violation of these rules will be subject to commissioner discretion: “Players who consistently or flagrantly violate the time limits will be subject to progressive discipline for just cause by the Office of the Commissioner pursuant to Article XI(C) of the Basic Agreement.”

The instant replay system is also changing in 2018. Teams’ video review rooms will now receive “direct slow motion camera angles” for the 2018 season, and phone lines “connecting the video review rooms and the dugout” will be installed and monitored so that they are not used for the purposes of sign stealing.

“I am pleased that we were able to reach an understanding with the Players Association to take concrete steps to address pace of play with the cooperation of players,” said Rob Manfred in announcing the changes. “My strong preference is to continue to have ongoing dialogue with players on this topic to find mutually acceptable solutions.”

Boras, Halem Continue Quarrel Over Free Agent Activity

By Steve Adams | February 6, 2018 at 10:57pm CDT

Agent Scott Boras jabbed back at Major League Baseball’s comments to ESPN’s Crasnick this evening, writes FanRag’s Jon Heyman. Specifically, Boras questioned how the league could reconcile the notion of commenting on any offers made to unsigned players — a reference to Manfred telling Crasnick that some players had received “nine figure” offers.

“I find it interesting that free agents have nine-figure offers since the CBA mandates that teams not share that sort of information,” said Boras. “I am also curious how a public statement communicated to all teams about offers on the table and players demanding too much money from a central league office … is any different from the infamous ’information bank’ in the 1980s.”

MLB chief legal officer Dan Halem responded to Boras’ comments (also per Heyman):

“If Mr. Boras spent as much time working on getting his players signed as he does issuing inflammatory and unsubstantiated statements to the press, perhaps the events of this off-season would be different.”

Boras, without missing a beat, replied by pointing out that Halem made no denial that the league’s comments on the nature of offers some players have received contained the type of information that should not be made public and should not be known about by league officials. He also invoked statements from former union chief Donald Fehr made more than three decades ago:

“I’d be embarrassed,” Fehr said of MLB owners back in 1987. “But they aren’t. And the reason they aren’t is that they have decided that winning a battle with the players over salaries is more important than winning on the field. Winning on the field is secondary these days. The owners apparently feel they will come out no matter what.”

To Boras’ credit, it does seem curious that the league’s statement would openly acknowledge the size of offers that some players have received. In addition to running counter to the CBA, the comments hardly paint players in a favorable light at a time in which commissioner Rob Manfred is spearheading efforts to broadly expand the game’s appeal to a younger audience. If anything, today’s statement only furthers the popular “greedy player” narrative — one which often ignores that the alternative is for the even wealthier owners to simply pocket money not spent on player contracts.

While those numbers weren’t exactly a secret after being leaked to the media by various sources, likely from both the agent and team side of the equation in various cases, it was nonetheless surprising to see the league stating those numbers in a factual manner (even if it was merely in reference to media reports; it’s not clear which was the case in this instance).

Of course, it’s also worth noting that Boras is making a reach by likening the current economic state of free agency to one in which owners were proven to have colluded, resulting in mass one-year deals throughout the league and, eventually, an “information bank” in which owners readily shared intel on the types of offers that were being made to free agents.

Boras’ usage of Fehr’s comments, though, was more likely in reference to the spirit of competition (or lack thereof) and the number of “tanking” teams that aren’t endeavoring to put forth a winning club in 2018. Viewed through that lens, there’s some merit to the reference, but teams today certainly have greater incentive to tank than the more financial motives of those late-80s clubs. Furthermore, the five-year deal for Lorenzo Cain as well as reported seven-year offers for Eric Hosmer and five-year offers for J.D. Martinez and Yu Darvish underscore the fact that it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.

That point seems particularly worth highlighting; while many critics of the labor side of this dispute express difficulty in sympathizing with millionaire players that aren’t finding often outlandish contractual demands met, the larger issue isn’t so much that players like Hosmer, Martinez and Yu Darvish aren’t receiving offers in excess of $150MM. Rather, one of the main gripes — certainly the one voiced by Boras and MLBPA chief Tony Clark today — is simply that not enough teams are making any sort of effort, and their refraining from free agency entirely has eliminated the game’s general spirit of yearly competition (both on the field and on the open market). In addition to limiting the market for the top-tier talents, the absence of 10 or more teams on the free-agent market dramatically erodes the market for mid-range free agents who, in prior winters, would’ve happily taken two- and three-year deals from teams that may not be clear division-championship-level contenders. Obviously, there’s time yet for offers from some such teams to materialize.

Of course, as has been pointed out on many occasions — the players themselves bear no shortage of responsibility in the matter. The current structure of amateur talent acquisition in Major League Baseball disproportionately rewards noncompetitive clubs in both the draft and the amateur international market, thereby encouraging teams to strive for high draft picks rather than taking an against-the-odds shot at a Wild Card berth. Those measures, as well as the luxury tax that many of the game’s heaviest spenders are treating as a soft salary cap, were agreed upon by the union in the most recent wave of collective bargaining a bit more than one year ago.

Latest On MLB’s Pace-Of-Play Initiatives

By Mark Polishuk | February 1, 2018 at 9:30pm CDT

Commissioner Rob Manfred spoke with reporters (including USA Today’s Bob Nightengale) today about the latest proposal he has presented to the players’ union in regards to reducing the average time of games. After the last plan was officially rejected by the MLBPA, Manfred’s latest offer removes the 20-second pitch clock — that previous proposal’s most controversial feature — from the equation as long as players adhere to other time-streamlining regulations and game-times fall as a result.

The on-field procedures would include hitters remaining in the batter’s box at all time, and both hitters and pitchers would have to be immediately ready once the commercial break in between innings comes to an end. (The commercial breaks themselves would also be shortened.) As well, each team would be limited to six total mound visits per game, whether it was a manager, pitching coach, catcher or another player making the trip. Should these changes result in an average game-time of two hours and 55 minutes in the coming season, Manfred said a pitch clock wouldn’t be implemented for the 2019 season. The pitch clock also wouldn’t be used in 2020 should game times in 2019 fall to two hours and 50 minutes.

Some of the rules in the new proposal are holdovers from Manfred’s previous proposal, though it was the pitch clock that particularly drew the ire of players, or rather the idea that the game itself would be influenced (via balls or strikes accessed to pitchers or hitters who took too long) by a strict countdown.

The players’ union has until roughly the opening of Spring Training camps to respond to this latest proposal, as though Manfred said that he didn’t have “a drop-dead day, firm” in regards to when a deal on rule changes could be finalized, “we need to make an agreement between now and when the players report.”

After Manfred’s statements today, MLBPA executive director Tony Clark’s response included a pointed comment about the slow-moving offseason transaction market:

“As we sit here today, the first week of February, our focus is on the 100-plus free agents still available. Players and the players association remain committed to the competitive integrity of the game on all fronts, including on-field rules.”

It should be noted that the collective bargaining agreement gives Manfred the power to unilaterally implement his plan, so he doesn’t officially require the MLBPA’s assent about the pitch clock or any other pace-of-play initiatives. The commissioner would naturally want all parties to agree to a plan, of course, since as Nightengale notes, “it could be a public relations nightmare if [rule changes are] implemented without the players’ cooperation.”

Pitch Clock Likely For 2018 Despite Ongoing Disagreement Between MLB, MLBPA

By Steve Adams | January 18, 2018 at 5:17pm CDT

Pace of play has been one of the chief initiatives for MLB commissioner Rob Manfred since he succeeded Bud Selig, with a pitch clock among the potential rules changes most frequently discussed in recent months. Today, both Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription required/recommended) and Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com are reporting that the Major League Baseball Players Association is expected to reject Manfred’s latest pace-of-play proposal, but that Manfred will likely exercise his power to unilaterally implement the new measure despite a failure to reach agreement with the union.

In a follow-up (Twitter links), Rosenthal says the union has in fact “formally rejected” the league’s proposal, but that Manfred will meet with MLBPA chief Tony Clark next week to negotiate further. Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports has obtained the memorandum on the subject issued by the commissioner’s office. He details the league’s intentions — including timing rules for pitchers and hitters along with limitations on mound visits — as well as the compromise provisions that had been floated (and could, perhaps, still be discussed).

The reports indicate that a variety of pacing measures will go into effect in 2018, with a 20-second pitch clock perhaps the most visible and notable among them. Pitch clocks aren’t exactly new, as MLB has been experimenting with their use in the minor leagues by way of a 22-second pitch clock. If it does go into effect as the reports suggest, the rule would charge pitchers with a ball if they take more than 20 seconds between pitches (after one warning per game). Hitters, meanwhile, would be required to adhere to a 30-second timer between batters; after a warning (one per game), they would presumably be charged with a strike. Another set of rules would provide that a second mound visit to a given pitcher in the same inning must result in his removal from the game. In addition, future efforts would control the amount of time between innings and the number and length of pitching warm-ups, though that does not appear to be on the docket for the upcoming season.

Understandably, players aren’t particularly excited by the notion of feeling rushed or of rules impacting the count and, perhaps, the outcome of a given plate appearance. Indeed, one player involved in the negotiations tells Rosenthal that he’s never seen players so unified against an issue. Both Rosenthal and Crasnick suggest that the players feel pace of play can be enhanced by making improvements to the instant replay system and more closely monitoring down time between innings — neither of which would require a clock that would limit them on the field. The sentiment appears to be the exact opposite among MLB owners, as Rosenthal reports that they’re “strongly in favor” of the pace-of-play initiatives that the commissioner’s office is pursuing.

Disagreement over pace-of-play efforts won’t do any favors for labor relations. Though the league and union only recently struck a new, five-year collective bargaining agreement, there already appears to be a growing sense of unrest as players and agents alike look for explanations for an unfathomably slow free-agent market (at least for players other than relievers).

Of course, just what has led to the plodding (a perhaps generous choice of adjective) pace of the free-agent market isn’t entirely clear. Theories abound, ranging from the extent of penalization under the luxury tax, to a plethora of Scott Boras clients holding up the market, to a more general sense of groupthink among like-minded general managers that all value players in similar fashion. Some have speculated about the possibility of collusion, though the league has, to no surprise, steadfastly denied and dismissed the very notion — even going so far as to obliquely, and somewhat bizarrely, place the blame on Boras in a statement to Yahoo’s Jeff Passan. (We discussed the situation at length here.)

The proposed pace-of-play changes would hardly be the first significant alterations to the fabric of the game in recent years. The implementation of instant replay itself was and still is a rather polarizing topic, while MLB has also instituted rules to protect middle infielders from injury when turning double plays and to protect catchers at home plate in situations that would previously have resulted in violent collisions. More recently, MLB has eliminated the process of lobbing four pitches outside the strike zone on intentional walks, instead allowing managers to grant a free pass by making a signal to the umpires, and mandated that batters remain in the batter’s box between pitches.

Changes to the game are often met with resistance from fans and players alike. Rosenthal, however, notes that Manfred cites focus groups and surveys in emphasizing that younger fans are “alienated” by the game’s slow pace. That notion may well be true, though there are some counterpoints to his argument. It’s fair to wonder whether trimming a few seconds off the time between pitches and/or a few minutes off the average game would really impact interest levels enough to matter. Moreover, the implementation of additional change creates the risk of turning away dedicated fans who worry that alterations may unduly alter the nature of the game.

Clearly, Manfred and his charges feel that the possibility of converting younger patrons is worth the effort despite backlash from current fans and MLB players. As Rosenthal notes, however, the players’ decision to reject the proposal would grant them absolution in the event that the new rules flop or are received even more poorly among fans than expected — which could put them in a stronger position when negotiating rule changes in future offseasons.

Rob Manfred On Marlins’ Fire Sale, Long-Term Direction

By Steve Adams | December 21, 2017 at 12:16am CDT

In a heated interview on the Dan Le Batard show, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred refuted the notion that he had any advance knowledge that the incoming Marlins ownership group, led by Derek Jeter and Bruce Sherman, had plans for a reduction in payroll (Facebook link with full audio/video of the interview).

Barry Jackson of the Miami Herald, however, cites multiple sources that agree with Le Batard’s assessment, suggesting that the Commissioner’s Office was fully aware of what would unfold after Jeter and Sherman took the reins in south Florida. Per Jackson, two sources that were “directly involved” in the sale said that the new ownership group was required to inform other owners of their intentions with payroll, and they let it be known that there’d be a reduction to the $85-90MM range.

Jackson also writes that someone “directly involved” in the sales process said that Manfred’s comments were “absolutely not true,” adding that the Commissioner’s Office requests an operations plan from all prospective bidders. The Jeter/Sherman group’s operational plan, titled “Project Wolverine,” according to Jackson, was “widely circulated” and known about prior to the league’s approval of the sale. Manfred paints the bidding process in a considerably different light.

“Just like in every other ownership transfer, we examined the financial wherewithal of the group,” says Manfred of the approval process. “We made sure that the governance structure of the partnership was consistent with our rules. And we had interviews with the people who were going to be running the club to get a general understanding of their approach to running the club. Everyone that was involved in that process, including me, was convinced that this group is committed to winning baseball in South Florida over the long haul.”

Manfred repeatedly denies any knowledge of the Marlins’ plans for tearing down payroll and stresses that he is a firm believer in the fact that the Jeter/Sherman group has a long-term plan and a commitment to bring winning baseball to south Florida. Pressed on whether there was an indication that the Marlins planned to trade Giancarlo Stanton and others, Manfred emphasizes that specific baseball operations decisions aren’t a part of the approval process when soliciting bids from prospective owners.

“We don’t approve, dictate or necessarily ask clubs what they’re going to do with respect to their individual operations,” Manfred explains. “Those are local decisions that really are not part of the approval process. .. We don’t get into, ’Are you going to trade Player X or Player Y at a particular point in time?’ Nor do we ask them to make a commitment as to what they’re going to do with payroll before they’ve even got in and made an evaluation of their talent level, their ability to win with the people that they have there. That’s just not how the ownership process works.”

Manfred goes on to argue that Major League Baseball has long been a cyclical game, adding that recent World Series victories from the Astros and Cubs underscore the fact that aggressive payroll cutting and rebuilding tactics can indeed produce winning clubs. Conversely, the 2012 World Series participants (San Francisco and Detroit) have the first two picks in next year’s draft.

To be sure, there’s logic behind those claims, though not all rebuilds are created equally. As Le Batard contends, south Florida — more than perhaps any other market — has long harbored feelings of betrayal at the hands of Major League Baseball and former Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria. The distrust that many baseball fans in Miami have toward the Marlins organization is palpable, and the support (or lack thereof) that the Marlins figure to receive throughout this process is not synonymous with the loyal fan base that a team such as the Cubs enjoyed during its own rebuild.

That said, the organization is ultimately a business, and it never seemed especially plausible to expect a new ownership group to enter and hemorrhage money by throwing millions more at a roster that lacks the depth of a sound farm system and has ranked last in the National League in attendance in each of the past five seasons.

If anything, the true point of contention for Miami fans isn’t necessarily (or shouldn’t be) the decision to tear down the roster but rather to do so in a manner that looks to have generated more financial savings than top-tier talent in the process. Many pundits have suggested that the returns the Marlins have received thus far are all on the light side. One can argue that cost savings should have taken a back seat to talent acquisition and prompted new ownership to include additional funds in the trades in order to bolster the respective returns.

Whether the league had any inkling that another fire sale was forthcoming for the Marlins, the reality facing the team now is that they’re presented with an even greater uphill battle in terms of generating attendance as they field a team that is without, at minimum, star-caliber players like Stanton, Marcell Ozuna and Dee Gordon. Additional trades involving J.T. Realmuto, Christian Yelich and others, of course, may yet come to fruition; both Realmuto and Yelich are reportedly unhappy with the Marlins’ direction — so much so that Realmuto’s reps at CAA are said to have let the Marlins know that their client would prefer to be traded.

The entire interview between Le Batard and Manfred is more than 17 minutes long but is well worth a full listen both for fans in Florida and those of teams in other markets.

Quick Hits: Manfred, Rockies, Padres, A-Rod

By Connor Byrne | February 21, 2017 at 10:29pm CDT

Rob Manfred “doesn’t realize the fight he is picking,” a player told FOX Sports’ Ken Rosenthal in light of the commissioner’s plan to implement rule changes against the union’s wishes in 2018. The player also suggested Manfred’s actions could lead to serious labor strife when it’s time to negotiate the next collective bargaining agreement in 2021. “Four years from now, he will see absolute wrath if he makes the moves himself,” the player said, also adding that “the union is listening to the players, and the players don’t want the changes.” Unlike Manfred, MLBPA chief Tony Clark doesn’t believe the league has pace-of-play issues. However, Rosenthal points out that the average time of game went up by 4 minutes, 28 seconds last year. At the same time, balls in play hit an all-time low and relief pitcher usage reached an all-time high. Thus, despite the union’s objections, changes are on their way, writes Rosenthal, who opines that they’re “necessary.”

Headlines

Rob Manfred

Navigation

MLBTR INFO

Connect