General Baseball Chit-Chat Thread

[Backtobanks]

Theo must have had inside information which is why he said early in the offseason that Schwarber wasn't available.

[Banedon]

MLBPA asking for this is dumb. It’s not going to move the needle on budgets. Any extra money going toward a DH will come from some other player.

 

It may prolong some careers though.

[David]

Theo must have had inside information which is why he said early in the offseason that Schwarber wasn't available.

 

How soon we forget what a horsefeathering boss schwarber was at throwing runners out last year

[WrigleyField 22]

Theo must have had inside information which is why he said early in the offseason that Schwarber wasn't available.

Theo's insider information:

 

Schwarber is a good baseball player (and passable LF)

[jersey cubs fan]

MLBPA asking for this is dumb. It’s not going to move the needle on budgets. Any extra money going toward a DH will come from some other player.

 

It may prolong some careers though.

How many? 3.

 

It's a completely worthless thing for ownership to give up. MLBPA gains nothing with it. It's horrible negotiating to take something like this, since all the PR is going to be about how the owners gave up concessions in advance of talks, making it that much more difficult to "justify" a strike and make some real gains.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

MLBPA asking for this is dumb. It’s not going to move the needle on budgets. Any extra money going toward a DH will come from some other player.

 

It may prolong some careers though.

How many? 3.

 

It's a completely worthless thing for ownership to give up. MLBPA gains nothing with it. It's horrible negotiating to take something like this, since all the PR is going to be about how the owners gave up concessions in advance of talks, making it that much more difficult to "justify" a strike and make some real gains.

 

It's a January rule change that Manfred himself mentioned was gaining ownership support last summer. It's a net positive for the game, probably a mild improvement to players by making a few FA more palatable and capturing a few arbitration dollars with the extra PA, not doing it just because you're worried about how it impacts the optics of a strike when the bad faith from owners is so visible and obvious would be silly. It's not like they can overhaul service time or the luxury tax with these pre-season rule tweaks.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

It may prolong some careers though.

How many? 3.

 

It's a completely worthless thing for ownership to give up. MLBPA gains nothing with it. It's horrible negotiating to take something like this, since all the PR is going to be about how the owners gave up concessions in advance of talks, making it that much more difficult to "justify" a strike and make some real gains.

 

It's a January rule change that Manfred himself mentioned was gaining ownership support last summer. It's a net positive for the game, probably a mild improvement to players by making a few FA more palatable and capturing a few arbitration dollars with the extra PA, not doing it just because you're worried about how it impacts the optics of a strike when the bad faith from owners is so visible and obvious would be silly. It's not like they can overhaul service time or the luxury tax with these pre-season rule tweaks.

It has been framed in a way that this is an ownership concession to players. And that's bad. I didn't say they shouldn't agree to it happening. I said asking for it is dumb.

[Sammy Sofa]

Also: it makes the Cubs not signing Harper even more inexcusable.

[WrigleyField 22]

How many? 3.

 

It's a completely worthless thing for ownership to give up. MLBPA gains nothing with it. It's horrible negotiating to take something like this, since all the PR is going to be about how the owners gave up concessions in advance of talks, making it that much more difficult to "justify" a strike and make some real gains.

 

It's a January rule change that Manfred himself mentioned was gaining ownership support last summer. It's a net positive for the game, probably a mild improvement to players by making a few FA more palatable and capturing a few arbitration dollars with the extra PA, not doing it just because you're worried about how it impacts the optics of a strike when the bad faith from owners is so visible and obvious would be silly. It's not like they can overhaul service time or the luxury tax with these pre-season rule tweaks.

It has been framed in a way that this is an ownership concession to players. And that's bad. I didn't say they shouldn't agree to it happening. I said asking for it is dumb.

Intuatively it doesn't make sense for players to limit their demands, so is your stance that they are focusing on that demand in lieu of more impactful demands?

[jersey cubs fan]

 

It's a January rule change that Manfred himself mentioned was gaining ownership support last summer. It's a net positive for the game, probably a mild improvement to players by making a few FA more palatable and capturing a few arbitration dollars with the extra PA, not doing it just because you're worried about how it impacts the optics of a strike when the bad faith from owners is so visible and obvious would be silly. It's not like they can overhaul service time or the luxury tax with these pre-season rule tweaks.

It has been framed in a way that this is an ownership concession to players. And that's bad. I didn't say they shouldn't agree to it happening. I said asking for it is dumb.

Intuatively it doesn't make sense for players to limit their demands, so is your stance that they are focusing on that demand in lieu of more impactful demands?

I'm saying it's a stupid ask for the MLBPA. It does nothing good for the MLBPA. It will help a handful of players play more often, but it will not be a net positive for the entirety of the players association. Owners framing it as a concession is good PR for owners.

[Tim]

Players would be far better off asking for something like a 26 man roster instead of "asking" for the dh.

 

They'd be best off asking for more fundamental changes that have been discussed here before (years of control, early salary process, etc.).

[David]

this would make me much more excited for the season

[Brian]

in a scenario where pitchers must face at least 3 batters I see cramping becoming an epidemic, especially in left handed pitchers.

[jersey cubs fan]

in a scenario where pitchers must face at least 3 batters I see cramping becoming an epidemic, especially in left handed pitchers.

yeah, I hate the 3 batter idea.

 

Forcing pitchers to keep pitching is never a good idea.

[WrigleyField 22]

It has been framed in a way that this is an ownership concession to players. And that's bad. I didn't say they shouldn't agree to it happening. I said asking for it is dumb.

Intuatively it doesn't make sense for players to limit their demands, so is your stance that they are focusing on that demand in lieu of more impactful demands?

I'm saying it's a stupid ask for the MLBPA. It does nothing good for the MLBPA. It will help a handful of players play more often, but it will not be a net positive for the entirety of the players association. Owners framing it as a concession is good PR for owners.

So you do think the players should limit certain demands?

 

I don't see the harm in throwing the whole book of demands out there. If the argument is they left out bigger ones, by all means that's dumb to negotiate against yourself, but asking for more isn't bad.

[jersey cubs fan]

So you do think the players should limit certain demands?

 

No, I'm saying its' a stupid ask.

[imb]

being able to get happ and zobrist ABs (without having him in the field) seems like it would be good

[Andy]

in a scenario where pitchers must face at least 3 batters I see cramping becoming an epidemic, especially in left handed pitchers.

I think that rule is a completely terrible idea

[WrigleyField 22]

So you do think the players should limit certain demands?

 

No, I'm saying its' a stupid ask.

Why-wouldn't it be a good thing for the players?

[jersey cubs fan]

So you do think the players should limit certain demands?

 

No, I'm saying its' a stupid ask.

Why-wouldn't it be a good thing for the players?

it's a good thing for very few players. It doesn't add jobs. It just shuffles money around.

 

Players need to do away with amateur signing restrictions, lower arb and free agency eligibility, and do away with penalties for teams signing free agents. Those are things that helps the Players. The DH does not help the Players.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

being able to get happ and zobrist ABs (without having him in the field) seems like it would be good

Our pitchers are also extremely poor hitters compared to the league average, so double bonus. Of all pitchers with at least 10 ABs, only two Cubs were in the top 60 in wOBA last year: Chatwood ranked 32nd and Lester ranked 58th.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's not like there are suddenly going to be a dozen Mo Vaughns brought into the league. There were only 9 guys who qualified as DH last year in the AL. You bring up a list of DH with a lower PA qualification and it gets very thin very quickly.

 

Scoring will become marginally easier, while pitching will be slightly more difficult.

 

Duel league DH is not a big win for MLBPA, especially not in the middle of a multi-season trend of blow after blow against them.

[Sammy Sofa]

Plus it's a lock this will inevitably help the Brewers and the Cardinals more than the Cubs.

[Derwood]

Adding the DH bumps the average salaries up a smidge. The average DH made around $7.5 million AAV last year....what does the average middle reliever make?

[jersey cubs fan]

Adding the DH bumps the average salaries up a smidge. The average DH made around $7.5 million AAV last year....what does the average middle reliever make?

No, no no no no no no

 

No.

 

Owners aren't going to raise their budgets just because one of the players on the roster is now technically a DH. There aren't going to be 15 new full time DHs averaging 7.5m. There aren't even 15 now despite there being 15 AL teams.

 

Money is fungible. The budget is the budget. The owners will spend what they are going to spend.