Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Potential changes to the MLB

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#81 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,727 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 01:45 PM

 

If there's a clear #1 pick, why wouldn't they sink it all into him? Also, how can they prevent situations like Kevin Durant where they intentionally take less money so the Yankees have cap space to sign others?

 

Why should we prevent that?

 

Also, do we think 18 year olds are going to pass up a million or two dollars before they've made money, to maybe make the Yankees in 4 years or more, as opposed to taking more money with the Twins or KC?

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. Oh, and I have at least one blog post now......The table on my first blog post is now fixed. Sigh.


#82 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,779 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 01:56 PM

 

If there's a clear #1 pick, why wouldn't they sink it all into him? Also, how can they prevent situations like Kevin Durant where they intentionally take less money so the Yankees have cap space to sign others?

Teams absolutely could sink it all into one guy -- but then they'd be able to sign virtually no one else. It could be an iffy strategy. Plus, you could weight the bonus pools even more than they are now -- if small market / losing teams get $20 mil to spend, versus $5 mil for the top big-market clubs, they won't even be able to do that strategy with a clear #1 pick.

 

As for players taking less money, Durant was a pro who already banked quite a few million, no? He didn't take D-league money when he was drafted.


#83 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    What's His OPS?

  • Members
  • 12,204 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 10 July 2019 - 02:06 PM

Teams absolutely could sink it all into one guy -- but then they'd be able to sign virtually no one else. It could be an iffy strategy. Plus, you could weight the bonus pools even more than they are now -- if small market / losing teams get $20 mil to spend, versus $5 mil for the top big-market clubs, they won't even be able to do that strategy with a clear #1 pick.

As for players taking less money, Durant was a pro who already banked quite a few million, no? He didn't take D-league money when he was drafted.


I would absolutely do a stars and scrubs strategy with this proposal. Sink it all on a clear #1 prospect and fill the rest with international signings. All they need is one or two to pan out, or trade their stud for impact MLB players. Wash, rinse, repeat.

If the gap is that large for an auction pool that's quite the incentive to tank...

#84 Thegrin

Thegrin

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,000 posts
  • LocationRipon, CA

Posted 10 July 2019 - 02:14 PM

Changing the pitching distance for any reason can't be a serious proposal.It must be part of a conspiracy to doop us into accepting electronic balls and strikes. Its a conspiracy, I tell you.:)


#85 MMMordabito

MMMordabito

    Formerly nasu1970

  • Members
  • 756 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 05:44 PM

 

even at the cost to the players that play the game? 

 

The players have a job in the entertainment industry.I pay money to be entertained by them.I'm not going to be as entertained if even more of the good ones end up in the big market locations and even less end up in the small/mid-market locations that I follow.I'm not going to be in favor of any plan that allows the big markets have more opportunity for advantage.

 

Stop virtue signaling how much we're supposed to care about where the players wish to live and work.The don't have to play pro baseball.

 

I'm all for the players getting a bigger chunk of the profits, but it should start in the minor leagues. Of course, that won't happen, since the union doesn't represent them or their interests very well.


#86 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 29,727 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 05:50 PM

 

The players have a job in the entertainment industry.I pay money to be entertained by them.I'm not going to be as entertained if even more of the good ones end up in the big market locations and even less end up in the small/mid-market locations that I follow.I'm not going to be in favor of any plan that allows the big markets have more opportunity for advantage.

 

Stop virtue signaling how much we're supposed to care about where the players wish to live and work.The don't have to play pro baseball.

 

I'm all for the players getting a bigger chunk of the profits, but it should start in the minor leagues. Of course, that won't happen, since the union doesn't represent them or their interests very well.

 

It's certainly your choice not to care, but I won't stop bringing it up when we discuss the state of the player contract and what not.....

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. Oh, and I have at least one blog post now......The table on my first blog post is now fixed. Sigh.


#87 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,323 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 06:28 PM

If you join the FBI, you don't get to choose what city your assigned to.
If you join the military, you go where they send you.

The freedom is to choose another profession. I see zero lack of freedom here whatsoever.

#88 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 5,522 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 03:09 PM

I agree 100% one #1.

For #2 I'd rather see them decrease the height of the mound, which should decrease some of the pitchers advantage vs increasing the distance from the plate.


How do you figure pitchers have an advantage in a season in which 20 plus teams are going to set HR records and many will set scoring records?

#89 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 5,522 posts

Posted 15 July 2019 - 10:54 AM

I’m a little ambivalent about the “stealing” first base idea. However, the way it is being implemented seems all wrong.

As I understand it, the batter reaches on a “fielders choice”. Huh? What choice is involved? The only play is at first. And why is the batter charged with a time at bat when he reaches base safely? IMO, there should be no at bat unless the batter is thrown out. If he reaches, list it as a wild pitch or passed ball as appropriate. Batters already reach safely without an at bat on catcher’s interference. This should be no different.

#90 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,704 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 04:27 PM

 

I’m a little ambivalent about the “stealing” first base idea. However, the way it is being implemented seems all wrong.

As I understand it, the batter reaches on a “fielders choice”. Huh? What choice is involved? The only play is at first. And why is the batter charged with a time at bat when he reaches base safely? IMO, there should be no at bat unless the batter is thrown out. If he reaches, list it as a wild pitch or passed ball as appropriate. Batters already reach safely without an at bat on catcher’s interference. This should be no different.

 

I don't like this rule at all. It's no longer at baseball at that point.