Transmogrified Tiger

That's kinda how it has to work given the power dynamics, right? One favorable interpretation for the players is that they learned from the owners and started opening cracks in the system that can be expanded, the same way that the way the CBT operates now is far from what it was initially marketed. The bonus pool for pre-arb is a big thing there, and it'll be easier to continue to reform pre-FA comp with that mechanism to be added to/adjusted than it was in November. Service time levers are the other in that vein, though they are more modest in their current benefit. When you layer that on top of significant increases to minimum salary, the CBT, and closing some player unfriendly loopholes(option limits, draft/tanking reforms), I think they can be reasonably happy with the outcome, even if the net result isn't as much as our hopes and dreams given the last 2 CBAs.

Suddenly way more bummed about this than I was 48 hours ago.

If by ruled you mean sucked the joy out of extra innings games, then yes it did! i watched so many non-cubs extra inning games that i wouldn't have. it's instant action/strategy, and 17 inning slogs are overrated. Everyone should like what they like, having said that no you are wrong and should be ashamed. The runner on 2nd solved a problem that did not exist, and solved it in the worst way possible by incentivizing teams to play for 1 run.

I would think they need to officially ratify it before players can legally or at least comfortably sign on the dotted line. But I imagine the rumor mill lights up really quickly.

Also, are the people saying that the executive board is unanimous or votes as a monolith? They could be 5-3 and only need just over half the players?

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.

https://isp.illinois.gov/Sor/Details/X05A2911 How did anyone find out about this? Did someone here know him personally? Horrible. As far as I know we don’t have absolute confirmation that’s him, but there are multiple context clues from his nsbb profile that indicate it is. IIRC someone stumbled onto it by accident.

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?

The fact that I won a round even though my most known quality at that point was "posting about basically every Notre Dame sports game" retroactively seems impossible. Wish I could find those polls. I think I made it to the Sweet 16 and lost to Raw. I had (have) so much respect for him that I was telling people to vote for him lol. Either way, I couldn't believe I won a couple of rounds - I felt very cool Looks like they start here: http://www.northsidebaseball.com/archive/viewforum.php?f=8&start=650

But it's inconveniencing sub-hardcore fans just as much if not more. In the aggregate, the diehards will seek out every last game and pay to ensure they have it. In our hypothetical the new fan who is intrigued by watching an Apple TV game and wants more, can't get more from Apple TV and now has to navigate a labyrinth to actually be the steady viewer that you want them to be. The barrier's higher(they're less familiar definitionally) and the risk is higher(they care less definitionally). I do admit this isn't black and white, but one of my hobby horses with how sports are scheduled and broadcast is that leagues drastically undervalue predictability and consistency in building a product for the long term.

That's answering a different question though. Brands seeing better results on a different platform for the same sport isn't the same as the platform reaching new fans or fans that couldn't be reached elsewhere. I agree that MLB.tv dropping blackouts is the envisioned future, but exclusive fragmentation isn't the way to reach and create new fans. Baseball engagement is about the ritual and habit, you want folks tuning in 100+ days out of the year instead of < 20 like the NFL. You create uncertainty on where and how simply/cheaply you can maintain that habit, you're damaging your existing fanbase and making it harder to on ramp new fans to being steady viewers. That's not to say that you can't ever have new and different broadcasts, but MLB is in the fortunate position where they don't have to chase the marginal dollar with exclusivity in order to get that benefit, the difference in revenue is a marketing expense in the long term, especially when it comes to long term retention. But it's clear at this point that MLB is going to chase every short term revenue optimization they are presented without any coherent understanding or long term plan for making the game compelling and accessible.

It's annoying for fans like us, but this is a good business decision IMO. The unique reach afforded by Apple TV is really important at a time where MLB is getting more and more niche. Frankly they need to copy the NFL's playbook and start throwing some games on Nickelodeon too. Apple TV+ has unique reach? I'd say it's the opposite, there's no way any material number of Apple TV+ subscribers aren't paying for a number of other broadcast/streaming outlets. Exclusivity and fragmentation are really bad plays for MLB, which is trying to sell you a nightly entertainment product that is still popular enough that it doesn't have to resort to fragmentation to increase revenues. It's unfortunately not surprising though, because the league is run like the only thing that matters is the next quarterly report.

According to the surely very scientific myfootballfacts.com, Everton has the most years in the top flight of any English club, with 119. Villa are 2nd with 108, Liverpool has 107, Arsenal 105, etc. Everton hasn't been in the 2nd division since 1953-54.

He didn't make the 18 yesterday, so he's got 2 weeks to at least get on the field, since I imagine he's not gonna get called in if he hasn't hit that milestone. Not as immediately USMNT-relevant, but Allegri said McKennie is done for the season.

Why not? Where to start... -What happens on a foul ball? -More tosses to first to reset the clock to plan strategies -Umps now have to decide who's at fault for the pitch clock running out (lots of batters take their time too) -14 seconds seems incredibly short -other ways to speed the game up (eliminate warm-up pitches for incoming relievers comes to mind immediately, somehow speed up time between batters) For now, just get a new CBA. Quit horsefeathering around with meaningless horsefeathers that right now is just horsefeathering with the player's minds. ETA... I'm not totally opposed to some sort of pitch clock. But right now? No. First things first... let's get players back on the field. I don't think this is the way to do it. These are all fairly straight forward and have previously reported contingencies - the clock starts when the pitcher gets the ball - there's limits on throwing to bases(side benefit, stolen bases are more viable), stepping off, or stepping out of the box - see above, by enforcing the batter in the box the punishment is on the pitcher - it is not, amateur baseball does not have this problem and watching it doesn't feel like the game played too fast - there is no other lever to pull that will have the impact of the pitch clock, things like commercial breaks and warmup pitches pale in comparison The other important thing with the pitch clock is that it isn't creating a brand new pace of baseball. As mentioned above, watch any school age game(though college is getting some trickle down impacts with its professionalization) and it's played at this pace. And unless you're still college aged, games were played at this pace when you grew up with baseball. Grant Brisbee's comparison of a game between 1984 and 2014 remains the seminal example.

Gonna need a wellness check on imb

I've seen reporting that 12 teams gets MLB an extra 85 million, and 14 teams gets an additional 15 million on top of that. So owners are going through all of this when their big incentive is less than 4 million/team and the players have already agreed to ~3 million of that incremental revenue.

I could've held my nose at 12 teams but 14 is gonna be tough to take. Since they went to 10 teams, 5th place teams have averaged 90 wins, 6th place 86, and 7th place 84. Some of that might change even without a new format if you address tanking, and the specific 7 team format might help incentivize effort to avoid that 5th-7th area, but 162 games to put half the league into a series of coin flips is not good.

Also, sometimes I think about an alternate reality where we hire someone like Tata and we don't get all or even any of Musah, Dest, Dike, or Pepi, and it is a dark timeline.

I don't want to be greedy, I just want one of them to hit. Sargent, Pepi, Dike, now maybe Balogun, all of them are 22 or under, just one of them make the leap, please.

This 2020 article implies there are 35-40k MLB stadium workers: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/baseball-stadium-workers-crisis/ The overwhelming majority appear to be gameday staff and likely aren't salaried so if you think of it in the context of lost games(20 games lost = 300 lost stadium gamedays) it's a little better, but even when stacked with a similar amount from MLB it seems unlikely to change anyone's financial situation.

It's also self-defeating, because if you hold someone back for the first weeks/month of the season their odds of winning ROY go down. Just to skim recent years: 2021: the ROY and 2nd place in both leagues were rostered the full season 2019: Alvarez didn't come up til June, and Soroka debuted on April 18th 2018: Acuna debuted April 25th, Soto May 20th 2017: Bellinger debuted April 25th, DeJong May 28th 2016: Fulmer debuted April 29th, Turner June 3rd, and Sanchez August 3rd 2015: Bryant debuted April 17th, Lindor June 14th, Correa June 8th So of the last 24 players who would've gotten the extra service year, 12 of them got it anyway(10 of the last 16!), and 5 more debuted so late that service time wasn't the primary(or secondary) reason.

Drafting a reasonably certain BOR starter that has the foundation to develop beyond that at 21 is good value. I think we haven't caught up our mental models to account for the player development revolution, especially as it relates to pitching. Historically the markers of a BOR starter involved hard limits(e.g. velocity) that you couldn't coach your way out of, so drafting someone with that outcome was an intentional decision to lower the potential upside. In a world where it's not unusual to add several MPH and/or develop a plus breaking pitch where there was barely an average one before, the risk/reward is closer to the toolsy high schooler or low control flamethrower than it used to be. This goes doubly so when an organization starts showing an ability to do this with some consistency, so it's not some hypothetical exercise. Doesn't mean we can't prefer the person who already has the stuff, but we should calibrate our enthusiasm and also reconsider what statistical thresholds are particularly good or worrisome.

Correct, though the expectation is that the men won't have any for 2026 as the host.