chpettit19

Yes! But now my Story dreams are dashed. I've seen multiple interviews where player dev guys and FO guys are still talking about Martin as a SS, but I don't think they actually plan to play him there. I don't think they ever did. I think it's more about giving it a shot in case he can shock the world. Team personnel have said they think he can play the OF already. Doesn't hurt to work on him in the IF and see what happens. I think the bigger question is Lewis. Do the still think he can play SS or is IKF a longer term plan than the 2 years they have him for at this point? Is he the bridge to Lewis or Miller?

Just some FYIs...Kevin Gausman signed a 5 year 110M deal with the Blue Jays before the lockout so I'm guessing you're thinking someone else. Kiner-Falefa is likely not on the trade block anymore after the Ranger's top 3B prospect (Josh Jung), who was supposed to fight for the opening day job at 3B had surgery on his shoulder a couple weeks ago so he's out until August and I'm guessing they'll want to hold onto Kiner-Falefa now.

I think Pineda is the most likely to be the first one signed, but I hope he isn't the biggest one they sign. Give me Trevor Story!

They're saying "let's not let this hurdle hold up the entire deal." Not sure how that's a bad thing. They are saying if they agree to the rest of the CBA they'll sign the deal now and give themselves a few more months to figure out the international draft. If they can't agree on it by July 15 they'll readdress it in the next CBA. Not sure how this is a bad thing. This is the most "fan friendly" move they've made in trying to get a deal done today instead of fighting over this 1 last thing.

Players voting on the current proposal. Let's all cross our fingers!

Yikes. That's an absolutely brutal run of 1st round picks (even if Buxton didn't have his injury problems and was winning MVPs). Stewart, Gordon, Jay is awful. Jay is by far the worst, though. You can't take a college reliever 6th overall. So bad.

Will be interesting to see what the rule on shifts becomes exactly and what that does to Kepler's BA.

And they apparently can't afford their homegrown superstar first baseman on "only" 104M in profit...

CBT for the top or bottom spenders based on arbitrary numbers (100M floor or 238M "cap") doesn't help the players in terms of their overall cut of the revenue pie. Why do people assume if you put a 100M floor out there that the teams at the bottom of the spending spectrum would go out and sign "middle class" players and wouldn't just be going after the big name guys and running out a team with 2 guys at 30M and a bunch of guys at the minimum (like the Rangers are about to do)? If I'm the owner of the Pirates and you're going to make me spend 100M I'm not going out and signing 3 Pineda's for 15M a piece, I'm signing a Max Scherzer for 45M. He'll sell more tickets and jerseys than the 3 Pineda's combined which puts more money in my pocket. So the goal of spreading the money around to all players still isn't met. FOs are too smart and understand the goal is to get the most wins for the least amount of dollars. The low revenue teams signing some of the big guys just means the teams at the top would be spending less. You can argue that's better for the game, but I don't buy the argument that that's what the players should be fighting for because it'd be better for all players. Eddie Rosario types wouldn't suddenly be worth 15M a year. The NFL and NBA (and I believe NHL) base their cap situations on league revenue and the negotiations during the CBA talks are over what cut goes to the players to set the floor and cap. It's true that the players don't want a cap because they want to be able to have players make as much as possible and that's easier to accomplish when you let the Cohen's of the world loose to spend like crazy. But the owners don't want one either. At least not in the NBA and NFL style where they have to open their books and share revenue numbers with the PA. Of course the owners want a 100M floor and 180M cap. The teams receiving revenue sharing are still subsidized by the big money teams, and those big money teams would make ludicrous amounts of money by not being allowed to spend more than the 180 cap.

I believe every major league stadium has a full dirt infield now. Rogers Centre used to have cutouts, but changed to full dirt when they replaced the astro turf.

Don't at all like that they're further restricting access to games. This doesn't feel like building and promoting the game as much as it feels like just another revenue stream. I have to hope that there's a larger plan here and they aren't going to continue to parse out games to different streaming services and limit which fans can see what. I'm never going to have Apple TV+ so I hope the plan isn't to have them take on more and more of the games. Good thing is the Twins aren't likely to be featured too often on this so I'll still be able to watch them through other methods. Wonder if the owners see this announcement as poorly timed as they continue to tell the world they can't afford to raise payrolls while they bring in yet another revenue stream.

What does the average team in baseball make every year outside of 2020?

Except both sides have agreed to expanded playoffs to increase league wide revenue, and revenue for teams who actually build good teams. The MLBPA agreed to allowing more advertising opportunities for the owners with helmet decals and/or jersey patches. I have no problem with you being "on the owners side," but you're misrepresenting a lot in this thread. Edited to add MLB just added another revenue stream with Apple TV+ and have thus restricted viewing access even more while pocketing what one could only assume is a massive amount of money. Those owners really out there losing tons of money in the name of bettering the game.

You're misrepresenting the situation here. They haven't agreed to all of those things at the same time. That combination of things has never, and will never, be part of 1 offer. You've picked and chosen different concessions they've made at different times, but aren't representing any singular offer the owners have made. For example they never agreed to raise the CBT 30% while also implementing a 100MM floor. I don't direct my negative feelings at only the owners, I have negative feelings for all involved. It's greed on all sides creating this problem. Both sides are to blame for this and neither of them truly have the best interests of baseball or the fans at heart. The pre-arb bonus pool the owners are willing to do right now is $1MM per team. Let's not act like that's some sort of massive concession on their part. And that 30% increase to the CBT still wouldn't get them even close to matching the increase in revenue they've seen. The CBT has gone from $117MM to $210MM from 2003 to 2021 while revenue has gone from 3.8 billion in 2003 to 10.37 in 2019. The players are certainly trying to play catchup after getting smashed in the last couple CBAs, but I can't blame them too much while I also can't give the owners too much credit for still not increasing the CBT anywhere close to in line with the rise in revenues.

Baseball won't be hurt until the TV contracts quit growing. When will that be? I don't know nearly enough to even guess, but I find it hard to believe their next one will keep up with inflation as they see their viewership continue to decline. Baseball has been so miserable at content creation and providing their fans with access to the game. They deserve this. Unfortunately the fans don't deserve this, but they're stuck with it anyways. Baseball (owners and players) should be embarrassed.

AA and AAA implemented pitch clocks in 2015. The proposed time of the major league pitch clock (14 and 19 seconds) was just implemented a year ago in Low-A, but AA and AAA have had 15 and 20 second pitch clocks since 2015. I would've thought that would have made more of a difference with pitchers being more used to it, but it doesn't seem to have. I have no doubt front offices around the league have a ton of data on what an extra inch on the base would've meant for their stolen base percentages for the last few years. I don't have any problem with that change, but I find it hard to believe teams are going to drastically change their approach. Doesn't hurt and even a few extra SBs would be a nice influx of action into the game. They need to actually enforce the rules about lefty throw overs. Or maybe adjust it to just being able to step straight at first or it's a balk. They've made a joke of the 45 degree rule. There's guys like Urias who are darn near stepping straight at home and throwing to first. There's some interesting things being discussed on limiting the number of throw overs that could be a fun little addition to the game and add some strategy.

The idea that your middle infield both matter again is a big reason why I'd like to see some rules in place. That and just the idea that the game should look relatively close to what we all had growing up. That's mostly just nostalgia for me, but it doesn't look right when the 2B is in RF. I think parts 1 and 2 are reasonable rules. I don't know that the OF rule would impact many players. And I kind of like when they get too aggressive on Arraez and he rips one into the right field corner.

I think a rule requiring at least 4 guys "on the dirt" would be reasonable. And it's the test rule that's shown the best results as far as there being more hits in the minors. I really dislike the rockets to short right that are caught by a 2B playing rover and the ones right back up the middle caught by the SS standing directly behind the pitcher. I don't want designated areas where infielders can stand so I don't think we can get rid of the balls up the middle being outs, but I'm good with making the 2B actually stay on the dirt. I was hoping the minor league pitch clocks would lead to a quicker major league game since the players were used to playing at that pace, but it doesn't seem to be happening that way (at least not quickly enough) so I'm good with a pitch clock. Make the hitters stay in the box and get the pitcher back on the rubber. I'm not so sure the size of the bases is going to make any meaningful difference so that's just kind of a nothing rule to me.

They need to be so much better at promoting the young, exciting, athletic talents of the game. Trout doesn't want to be that guy so don't worry about him. Part of the struggle to me feels like they're caught between keeping the older generation of fans that they perceive as not wanting the bat flips and fist pumps and emotional displays on the field (not saying every fan of a certain generation is like that, just saying that's the perception) and the younger generation that love their flare. I think they need to embrace the players like Tatis Jr, Acuna, Soto, Baez, etc. who wear their emotions on their sleeves. You watch games in other countries and there's bat flips everywhere, Tortuga dancing on the base after a hit, pitchers doing spin moves off the mound after a big K. Have some fun! Let the kids play was a good promotion and they need to get back to that kind of thing to get the younger generation involved. I think they need to do that in conjunction with being better at the regionalization of the game. The Brewers and Twins being in separate divisions is a travesty. Fans turn out to see stars and rivals. You can't just turn it back into a national sport overnight. Give yourself some help by putting teams in divisions that promote local rivalries and boost attendance. Why sell out 3 games a summer when the Brewers come to town when you could sell out 10? Marry that with promoting your young stars on national TV (not just the big city teams) and build your fan base back up before adjusting the plan again. I think the biggest hurdle, and hardest to clear, is the on field product. The nerds (I am one so don't yell at me for poking fun) have ruined the entertainment value of the game. Many of us on boards like this understand that every pitch is action, but the general fan only sees balls in play and player movement as action. Have to find a way to get back to that. I don't like rule changes to account for players refusing to adapt, but we may be at that point. Force 4 men to stay on the dirt. The league seems to have established that they way they're going to teach beating the shift is to try to hit over it. Maybe pitchers truly are just too good now. 4 guys on the dirt at least gives the power guys the chance to hit line drives over the infield and not have it caught by and "infielder" playing rover in right field. Get the game back to looking more like it does when the kids you're trying to corral as fans play it at their local parks.

Let me know what I'm misquoting. "I do believe the amount of power he wields is bad for the business." That's the quote I'm refuting. I don't believe he wields the power you think he does and I've provided the reasoning for that. Anytime you feel like giving any explanation beyond "he represents a number of the most talent players" let me know...

No, I'm not saying they should earn more than that. I'm arguing the opposite point in that I don't have a problem with the pre-arb pool going to the best pre-arb players and not being spread evenly. And I'm saying I don't think that's some Boras power play as you and MLR have been suggesting. You talked about the committee like they're just making stuff up as they go. They aren't. The union has been planning for these negotiations for literally years. The committee knows what the entire union wants and aren't going to bring offers that are short of their threshold to a vote as that'd be a waste of time. The suggestion that the committee is just doing whatever they want is crazy to me. That idea is saying that the committee rejected an offer the union would've passed if brought to a vote and thus knowingly got their teammates paychecks withheld despite knowing the rest of the union would've wanted that deal. Where our opinions differ is in that I'm coming at this from the idea that the CBA has been talked about in clubhouses and union meetings for years. The committee, and Boras/his clients, aren't changing the gameplan on the fly to fit their needs while ignoring the rest of the union's desires. I'm well aware that MiLB players don't vote and aren't part of the CBA. I've never suggested anything different. You really think 85% of players, and their agents, and their inner circle, and their hangers on, and everyone else around them are so unable to think for themselves that Boras and his 15% can manipulate them for literally years to get them to give up millions, be willing to sacrifice paychecks, and miss games? Because that's what you're suggesting. The rest of the players have owners who want their fees to be coming from bigger paychecks, too. You think those agents have so little pull with their clients that Boras can convince them all to go along with his plan because they just can't think for themselves? This isn't people watching mainstream news (although, I do agree with your sentiment there), this is people fighting for their chunk of billions of dollars with money managers and agents who want their chunk of millions. Those people are thinking for themselves.

I think the offer was fine. I think the players could've counted as a win if they'd accepted it. I don't have a problem with them rejecting it if it didn't meet their demands. I blame both the owners and the players for the loss of games. I have no problem discussing the merits of the offer. But, as I said, this is not a thread about the merits of the offer it is a thread about Boras' influence on the negotiations so we are sticking to our thoughts on Boras' influence. People have discussed that they believe he has influence because of the demands the players are making. But this is not a thread for discussion on the merits of the deal and whether the players should have accepted it or not. If you'd like to have that conversation you're welcome to create a new thread or go to previously created threads about that topic and discuss it there.

That isn't even close to how this works. Do you think Scott Boras only has major league clients? I literally just told you that Austin Martin is a Scott Boras client. He doesn't wait til someone makes the majors and then sign the 10 best prospects from that year. You're not even making an argument that reflects the reality of the baseball industry. You're literally making up your own rules and arguing for how things would work if those were the rules in real life and then calling my assumptions absurd because they don't work in your made up world with your made up rules. There's no such thing as 10 in and 10 out. That is a completely incorrect description of how things work. It's the weekend and I have plans so I don't have time to explain how things actually work. You can feel free to research on your own. But I promise you 10 in and 10 out is the only absurd assumption being made on this topic. Like you're describing scholarships for a college football team. It doesn't work that way. At all. Have a good weekend.

This isn't a thread about the merits of the proposal, it's a thread about Scott Boras and his influence over negotiations.

That isn't how it works. This isn't a college recruiting program. He doesn't have a set number of scholarships he hands out each year. He may have 0 players eligible next year and 45 the year after that. Agent X who you've never heard of so don't know if their client list is 5 times the size of Boras' or not may have 74 guys graduate this year and 3 next year. Jose Miranda is a minor league player with every chance in the world to graduate this year, and if things go well he may even be in the battle for RoY. Tell me again how this bonus pool doesn't affect him, please. Explain that to me. Austin Martin (Boras client) isn't on the 40 man, but has every chance to graduate this year and could be in the running for RoY. Tell me how this bonus pool doesn't affect him.