MLB rules and CBA discussion thread

[Lipman 1]

Nightengale (consider the source) is reporting MLB intends to go back to nine inning DH's next season unless there is a strong push back from the MLBPA. No word yet on the bastardized extra-inning rule.

[voodoochile]

Nightengale (consider the source) is reporting MLB intends to go back to nine inning DH's next season unless there is a strong push back from the MLBPA. No word yet on the bastardized extra-inning rule.

Good and I for one don't hate the extra innings rule I just wish they'd hold off on it. Play 3 innings of regular baseball. If it's still tied, then use the current setup. Fans in the stands will appreciate it I'm sure.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Most of these opinions are unpopular, but…

Selig and now Manfred - and their advisors (including fellow owners) - have further grown MLB to be far more profitable than it ever was before. And despite howls of protest, the “lack of action” from fewer balls in play doesn’t seem to matter in terms of profitability, which is all that has ever mattered to the vast majority of owners.

The players deserve a bigger cut, especially since MLB increasingly has been pivoting to star-based marketing. But I think the MLBPA ought to insist that minor league players get better pay and benefits.

I want a single global draft, with both amateurs and even professionals from other leagues subject to the draft. I realize this would end the Sox’ Cuban pipeline, but it would also level the playing field for all clubs. No longer could West Coast teams monopolize talent from Asia; and no longer could the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers monopolize talent from Venezuela and the DR. More importantly, it would curtail the ongoing abusive practices of young teens in many countries. As such, there should also be a minimum age to be draft-eligible: either a high school graduate or 18 years old on the day of the draft.

I want complete revenue sharing, including local TV deals, just like the NFL. But I also want an NBA-style salary cap (can be exceeded in order to re-sign your own free agent) and a hard salary floor.

I like the 7-inning doubleheaders and the new extra inning rules.

I want a universal DH, but with the ability to handle it like a position, meaning someone could start the game at a position and then move to DH during the game, or the starting DH could swap to a position. To avoid endless changes between batters, the changes would only be permitted between half-innings.

I’m fine with defensive shifts. I’m fine with the three-batter rule for pitchers.

I want computers calling balls and strikes.

Keep the dimensions of the diamond the same, but make the bases lower and larger.

[Lipman 1]

Most of these opinions are unpopular, but…

Selig and now Manfred - and their advisors (including fellow owners) - have further grown MLB to be far more profitable than it ever was before. And despite howls of protest, the “lack of action” from fewer balls in play doesn’t seem to matter in terms of profitability, which is all that has ever mattered to the vast majority of owners.

The players deserve a bigger cut, especially since MLB increasingly has been pivoting to star-based marketing. But I think the MLBPA ought to insist that minor league players get better pay and benefits.

I want a single global draft, with both amateurs and even professionals from other leagues subject to the draft. I realize this would end the Sox’ Cuban pipeline, but it would also level the playing field for all clubs. No longer could West Coast teams monopolize talent from Asia; and no longer could the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers monopolize talent from Venezuela and the DR. More importantly, it would curtail the ongoing abusive practices of young teens in many countries. As such, there should also be a minimum age to be draft-eligible: either a high school graduate or 18 years old on the day of the draft.

I want complete revenue sharing, including local TV deals, just like the NFL. But I also want an NBA-style salary cap (can be exceeded in order to re-sign your own free agent) and a hard salary floor.

I like the 7-inning doubleheaders and the new extra inning rules.

I want a universal DH, but with the ability to handle it like a position, meaning someone could start the game at a position and then move to DH during the game, or the starting DH could swap to a position. To avoid endless changes between batters, the changes would only be permitted between half-innings.

I’m fine with defensive shifts. I’m fine with the three-batter rule for pitchers.

I want computers calling balls and strikes.

Keep the dimensions of the diamond the same, but make the bases lower and larger.

I like some of your ideas but the salary cap, you know it, I know it and the universe knows it will NEVER been approved by the MLBPA and I don't blame them. Guys should be entitled to get the most that they can just like any other American worker.

I've always believed that revenue sharing (and remember there is some right now which bad teams have taken advantage of) is an incentive for cheap, incompetent owners to maximize profits. If you can't play big time poker then don't sit at the table, sell the team, make your profit and get out.

I like the ideas for helping minor league players, a single draft and a universal DH along with technology for ball/strike calls.

Can't buy the others sorry.

[Lipman 1]

Good and I for one don't hate the extra innings rule I just wish they'd hold off on it. Play 3 innings of regular baseball. If it's still tied, then use the current setup. Fans in the stands will appreciate it I'm sure.

I'd prefer ties like in japan after a certain number of innings.

[voodoochile]

I'd prefer ties like in japan after a certain number of innings.

Yes that's my preference. I think play through 12 then go to the hurry up tweaks.

[HomeFish]

If there's one thing the MLBPA does not care about, it is minor league players. They will continue to be shafted by both sides in the CBA negotiations, that's the surest prediction I can make.

Overall, it seems like Manfred has a bunch of rules changes he wants, and the MLBPA seems to not really care about the rules either way and wants to use the need for the MLBPA to consent to rules changes as leverage to get what they really want, which is more money. So I predict we'll see limited to moderate rules changes coming out of the CBA negotiations. Even when the new Manfred proposed rule ostensibly makes things easier for most players, I suspect the MLBPA will try to block it to get $$$ concessions.

[LITTLE NELL]

Yes that's my preference. I think play through 12 then go to the hurry up tweaks.

That works for me. The 10 inning thing is too severe if that's the right word.

[Frater Perdurabo]

If there's one thing the MLBPA does not care about, it is minor league players. They will continue to be shafted by both sides in the CBA negotiations, that's the surest prediction I can make.

I completely agree with you but I also think this attitude prevents the union from being able to claim the ethical high ground.

For comparison purposes only… I’m a location rep for our college faculty association (we don’t have teachers unions in this state), and for years I have tried to make the case that we would be able to claim the ethical high ground if we also advocated for our adjunct (part time) instructors, as nationally adjunct faculty are woefully underpaid and have zero job security and few/no benefits. Of course, many of the “old guard” faculty association reps find my position to be reprehensible.

Likewise, minor league ballplayers are treated like garbage (although some organizations have improved things somewhat). This is scandalous. I understand the MLBPA’s job is to advocate for its members, but it doesn’t have broad public support. They would gain much broader public support - and thus leverage over owners in the court of public opinion - if they put the plight of minor leaguers (and minor league clubs employees) and even underpaid major league staff (like concessions and custodial workers) front and center. Show solidarity with hard working, underpaid labor, rather than try merely to extract higher decade-long contracts for superstars, and they’ll be much more successful at showing everyone the owners are the greedy ones.

[Frater Perdurabo]

I've always believed that revenue sharing (and remember there is some right now which bad teams have taken advantage of) is an incentive for cheap, incompetent owners to maximize profits. If you can't play big time poker then don't sit at the table, sell the team, make your profit and get out.

Lip, with all due respect I’m tired of the teams whose owners were wealthy enough to begin with, to have the wealth to buy the clubs in the biggest TV markets, continue to have a competitive advantage.

As a Bears fan, I despise the Green Bay Packers, but there’s no denying that the NFL’s business model allows a publicly-owned franchise in a modest town/small TV market to have a level playing field and - through shrewd drafting and player development (particularly at QB) and coaching - regularly field a winning team. It’s a good thing for the NFL broadly that market size does NOT confer an massive advantage, because TV revenues are shared equally.

Specifically because it is officially and legally regarded the national pastime, MLB has been granted an antitrust exemption, which allows it to operate as a cartel. At best it is clearly NOT in the public interest (and really is borderline criminal) for that cartel to be operated in a manner that privileges teams in large markets over those that aren’t in large markets.

[Lipman 1]

Lip, with all due respect I’m tired of the teams whose owners were wealthy enough to begin with, to have the wealth to buy the clubs in the biggest TV markets, continue to have a competitive advantage.

As a Bears fan, I despise the Green Bay Packers, but there’s no denying that the NFL’s business model allows a publicly-owned franchise in a modest town/small TV market to have a level playing field and - through shrewd drafting and player development (particularly at QB) and coaching - regularly field a winning team. It’s a good thing for the NFL broadly that market size does NOT confer an massive advantage, because TV revenues are shared equally.

Specifically because it is officially and legally regarded the national pastime, MLB has been granted an antitrust exemption, which allows it to operate as a cartel. At best it is clearly NOT in the public interest (and really is borderline criminal) for that cartel to be operated in a manner that privileges teams in large markets over those that aren’t in large markets.

Frater: You certainly make solid points all I can say in return is the number of small market teams that have had success over the years because they were well run, Tampa being the latest example.

The issue with revenue sharing as has been published is that you had some teams like the Marlins actually making a profit because of revenue sharing money but still putting out a bad team with a low payroll. In other words those owners (and there were other clubs too) took that money and showed it right into their wallets or took it to the bank.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Frater: You certainly make solid points all I can say in return is the number of small market teams that have had success over the years because they were well run, Tampa being the latest example.

The issue with revenue sharing as has been published is that you had some teams like the Marlins actually making a profit because of revenue sharing money but still putting out a bad team with a low payroll. In other words those owners (and there were other clubs too) took that money and showed it right into their wallets or took it to the bank.

I completely agree that what Miami is doing is unethical. A team salary floor would address that problem. Alternatively, those clubs could be penalized in other ways, like losing draft picks (particularly if there were a global talent draft). As a last resort, a truly bad owner could be expelled, and the club could be put up for auction to a new owner.

[Dumpjerry]

I don't see the Players Assoc wasting their negotiating capitol on issues which do not impact the players' salaries or the number of players at The Show or on 40 man rosters (like 7 or 9 inning DHs).

[Lipman 1]

I completely agree that what Miami is doing is unethical. A team salary floor would address that problem. Alternatively, those clubs could be penalized in other ways, like losing draft picks (particularly if there were a global talent draft). As a last resort, a truly bad owner could be expelled, and the club could be put up for auction to a new owner.

I've thought of your last point myself, if a team doesn't reach certain standards the league could take control of the club and put up for sale removing that ownership.

[Lipman 1]

I don't see the Players Assoc wasting their negotiating capitol on issues which do not impact the players' salaries or the number of players at The Show or on 40 man rosters (like 7 or 9 inning DHs).

I guess it all depends, a seven or nine inning DH could be used as a leverage issue for example in exchange for something else. The MLBPA being very good at what they do, will not leave any stone unturned.