New CBA negotiations

[Cubswin11]

Guy who should be in jail for securities fraud is a petty little horsefeathers and only self interested, shocking.

 

[UMFan83]

In a world where the spending restrictions are already in place(meaning it theoretically doesn't cost them money or any difference is marginal), what is the primary reason that international players would view it as a non-starter? Easy for me to say but it seems silly that something like picking the best developmental system is something 1) that is a visible differentiator between orgs and 2) possible for a 16 year old from Latin America to gauge. So if the money is similar and the freedom of choice is already a bit of an illusion, is there another hangup I'm missing?

 

I do not follow international signings very closely so this reply might be ignorant but aren't individual franchises running developmental academies in Latin America with hopes of gaining favor with those prospects when the signing period opens? Obviously, the spending restrictions don't allow you to horde up on players in your academy and sign them all but I would think an international draft gives teams less incentive to invest in these academies, thus is worse for developing players in these countries.

[Bertz]

 

i'm not gonna be upset if the PA keeps fighting

 

It's tough, I want the players to do well but IMO they're going to lose money if they keep fighting.

 

The owners and the players are currently $30M apart on the new bonus pool. Split the difference and that's another $15M per year. Times 5 years that's $75M.

 

Do the same with the luxury tax. Not gonna bore everyone with the math, but let's split the player/owner differences for the LT by year, and assume 5 teams per year will increase their spending by exactly that amount.

Basically the teams that either exceed the cap or come in just under it. That's $178M over the life of the CBA.

 

So this is certainly a bit reductive, but ~$250M is the financial gap between the two deals right now. That's a lot of money! However, players are estimated to lose $20M per collective game lost. That's only 12-13 games.

 

So if you're the players, and you break things off here, you better be damn sure at least one of these three things is true:

 

- While a deal is not acceptable, you think an acceptable deal is coming before a dozen games are lost

- You can not get the owners to move to not just just splitting the difference, but further

- You can get back pay included in any future deal

 

They've got much more info than us obviously, but man I'd be pessimistic on any of those possibilities. Or maybe the non-financial stuff is really that bad, though we've yet to hear anything to that effect.

 

Edit:. Number above were for the previous player offer. They've now largely moves to the midpoints on the financial stuff already

 

[UMFan83]

[17 Seconds]

i think this is where people turn on the players

[UMFan83]

i think this is where people turn on the players

 

From my perception, it seems like the owners made a big leap forward this round. But when you really look at it, they gave almost 0 ground in previous negotiations so these proposals were really the first time they've given any real ground in the discussions and they are still not close to the midpoint between the player's proposal and owners. But people will only see the owners making strides and think the players are being greedy for continuing to hold out.

[Gilby]

I'm just catching up this afternoon and holy horsefeathers. They aren't even far apart. What are we doing here. That was a nitpicky counter by the PA when MLB gave them an option of no International draft. And how does MLB see that not strong counteroffer and not even respond to them early in the night before canceling more games? Jesus H. I'm willing to both-sides my frustration tonight

[Ding Dong Johnson]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Andy]

i think this is where people turn on the players

I'm backing the players regardless of what they want to fight about, but I do think an international draft is a weird hill to die on when the practical difference between that and the already-existing tight restrictions on spending in that area is not much.

 

I think a lot of this is still on the owners for constantly being untrustworthy and now we have a situation where the players basically just want to say no and have things on their terms as a result, even though the two sides are moving closer on most issues.

 

Now I'm just getting more sad than anything else.

[CubinNY]

i think this is where people turn on the players

I'm backing the players regardless of what they want to fight about, but I do think an international draft is a weird hill to die on when the practical difference between that and the already-existing tight restrictions on spending in that area is not much.

 

I think a lot of this is still on the owners for constantly being untrustworthy and now we have a situation where the players basically just want to say no and have things on their terms as a result, even though the two sides are moving closer on most issues.

 

Now I'm just getting more sad than anything else.

I am with the players, too. Unfortunately, MLB is using the GOP playbook of drawing the compromise line, not at the 50-yard line, but the 10-yard line hoping to get agreement at the 12-yard line, and when the players make it the 30-yard line they look bad.

[Bertz]

 

lol horsefeathering christ

[cl smooth]

 

lol horsefeathering christ

 

[UMFan83]

[Bote McBoteface]

Am I correct in assuming that I’m in a deep minority on this board when I say that I really hope banning the shift happens?

 

If we get a pitch clock, universal DH, banned or limited defensive shift, keep the 3 batter minimum for a reliever and do away with the 7 inning DHs and the extra inning runner on 2nd….thats really, really perfect imo. Then we can keep screaming “robot umps”/“fix the replay system” and maybe one day we’ll get that too.

[jersey cubs fan]

there's an international draft agreement, which is that they have until July 25 to come to an agreement on a draft that will begin in 2024.

[jersey cubs fan]

Am I correct in assuming that I’m in a deep minority on this board when I say that I really hope banning the shift happens?

 

If we get a pitch clock, universal DH, banned or limited defensive shift, keep the 3 batter minimum for a reliever and do away with the 7 inning DHs and the extra inning runner on 2nd….thats really, really perfect imo. Then we can keep screaming “robot umps”/“fix the replay system” and maybe one day we’ll get that too.

defensive restrictions are dumb

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Am I correct in assuming that I’m in a deep minority on this board when I say that I really hope banning the shift happens?

 

If we get a pitch clock, universal DH, banned or limited defensive shift, keep the 3 batter minimum for a reliever and do away with the 7 inning DHs and the extra inning runner on 2nd….thats really, really perfect imo. Then we can keep screaming “robot umps”/“fix the replay system” and maybe one day we’ll get that too.

I hate shift bans, but I think the board is pretty well split 50/50.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Am I correct in assuming that I’m in a deep minority on this board when I say that I really hope banning the shift happens?

 

If we get a pitch clock, universal DH, banned or limited defensive shift, keep the 3 batter minimum for a reliever and do away with the 7 inning DHs and the extra inning runner on 2nd….thats really, really perfect imo. Then we can keep screaming “robot umps”/“fix the replay system” and maybe one day we’ll get that too.

 

I'm not a single issue voter on banning the shift, and I'm wary of what the unintended consequences might be, but I have a slightly favorable view on doing it. I am a single issue voter on the pitch clock, it has to happen.

[Bertz]

Am I correct in assuming that I’m in a deep minority on this board when I say that I really hope banning the shift happens?

 

If we get a pitch clock, universal DH, banned or limited defensive shift, keep the 3 batter minimum for a reliever and do away with the 7 inning DHs and the extra inning runner on 2nd….thats really, really perfect imo. Then we can keep screaming “robot umps”/“fix the replay system” and maybe one day we’ll get that too.

 

I'm on board with banning the shift, but it needs to be something clean/natural. If every player has "zones" or some horsefeathers I'm going to hate it. But 4 men on the dirt and/or two men on each side of second I think is a good sensible solution.

[jersey cubs fan]

Am I correct in assuming that I’m in a deep minority on this board when I say that I really hope banning the shift happens?

 

If we get a pitch clock, universal DH, banned or limited defensive shift, keep the 3 batter minimum for a reliever and do away with the 7 inning DHs and the extra inning runner on 2nd….thats really, really perfect imo. Then we can keep screaming “robot umps”/“fix the replay system” and maybe one day we’ll get that too.

 

I'm on board with banning the shift, but it needs to be something clean/natural. If every player has "zones" or some horsefeathers I'm going to hate it. But 4 men on the dirt and/or two men on each side of second I think is a good sensible solution.

Why does it have to be "men"?

 

There used to be nothing in the rule book that says a dog can't play, but now there is, there's your unintended consequences.

[Andy]

Am I correct in assuming that I’m in a deep minority on this board when I say that I really hope banning the shift happens?

 

If we get a pitch clock, universal DH, banned or limited defensive shift, keep the 3 batter minimum for a reliever and do away with the 7 inning DHs and the extra inning runner on 2nd….thats really, really perfect imo. Then we can keep screaming “robot umps”/“fix the replay system” and maybe one day we’ll get that too.

I hate shift bans, but I think the board is pretty well split 50/50.

Yeah, I feel like if anything there's a slightly favorable view toward some sort of shift limitations, but as someone who's on your side of hating it I might just be mentally cataloging all the positive views as a defense mechanism.

[Irrelevant Dude]

Am I correct in assuming that I’m in a deep minority on this board when I say that I really hope banning the shift happens?

 

If we get a pitch clock, universal DH, banned or limited defensive shift, keep the 3 batter minimum for a reliever and do away with the 7 inning DHs and the extra inning runner on 2nd….thats really, really perfect imo. Then we can keep screaming “robot umps”/“fix the replay system” and maybe one day we’ll get that too.

I don't particularly love the ideas of restricting defensive alignments and inserting a clock into baseball, but both of those changes likely result in a more watchable product, so I see them as net positives. For me they fall into the category of, "I wish we didn't have to enforce this, BUT doing so will improve the game." More important to me are getting rid of the 7 inning doubleheaders and extra innings runner, but I'm still not convinced that those are actually going away.

[Soul]

Am I correct in assuming that I’m in a deep minority on this board when I say that I really hope banning the shift happens?

 

If we get a pitch clock, universal DH, banned or limited defensive shift, keep the 3 batter minimum for a reliever and do away with the 7 inning DHs and the extra inning runner on 2nd….thats really, really perfect imo. Then we can keep screaming “robot umps”/“fix the replay system” and maybe one day we’ll get that too.

I hate shift bans, but I think the board is pretty well split 50/50.

Yeah, I feel like if anything there's a slightly favorable view toward some sort of shift limitations, but as someone who's on your side of hating it I might just be mentally cataloging all the positive views as a defense mechanism.

 

I don't like the shift but to me, the hitters themselves could make it a less frequent occurrence by sacrificing a little off the power numbers and bunt down the 3rd base line, or if they can simply adjust their swing and slap the ball through the infield against the shift. I'd rather have it taken care of on its own rather than establishing rules.

 

I'm probably way out there on this one, but that's my thought on it anyway. It's not like I'm going to flip out if they do a rule change.

[CubinNY]

Banning shifting is a solution in need of a problem.

[Bull]

I hate shift bans, but I think the board is pretty well split 50/50.

Yeah, I feel like if anything there's a slightly favorable view toward some sort of shift limitations, but as someone who's on your side of hating it I might just be mentally cataloging all the positive views as a defense mechanism.

 

I don't like the shift but to me, the hitters themselves could make it a less frequent occurrence by sacrificing a little off the power numbers and bunt down the 3rd base line, or if they can simply adjust their swing and slap the ball through the infield against the shift. I'd rather have it taken care of on its own rather than establishing rules.

 

I'm probably way out there on this one, but that's my thought on it anyway. It's not like I'm going to flip out if they do a rule change.

I feel the same, but a little stronger. The shift works only because hitters pull everything for power. If you can take a few bases away from them as payment by shifting, do it.