The Lockout and New CBA's Potential Impact on the Marlins

[Party]

I don't remember a time where baseball was at such a crossroads. The new CBA has the potential to reset the sport in a way that has not happened in over 40+ years. I don't think the economic system will change in any dramatic way to impact the Marlins. But there seems to be some agreement by both sides that the actual game of baseball needs tweaking.

• The NL adopting the DH seems to be a foregone conclusion even if the owners are still trying to use it as a bargaining chip. (Boooooo but it makes sense at this point.)
• Will we see a rule to limit defensive alignments? (I hope so.)
• Is pitch clock coming? Will this have an impact on the three true outcomes like some believe. (I hope so.)
• Will the rules on pick-off attempts and larger bases to encourage stolen bases that have been tremendously successful be implemented? (I hope so.)
• Will the LOOGY rise from the dead? (I hope not.)
• What, if anything, will be done to encourage starters going into games? (I personally love Jayson Stark's idea for this which involves the team pulling their starter losing their DH for the rest of the game.)

One thing that no one has gone into great detail about is the players' proposal on the playoff format. The players proposed realignment into two divisions in each league with a total of 12 playoff spots. If you think about it, that format only works for TV if you completely nuke the AL/NL and realign based on geography/time zones. This has been discussed in the past, and some have said to expect this during the next round of expansion, but it may be closer than we realize.

[lou]

DH - yes. I am an anti-DH guy, but the majority wants it so I'l go with it.

Defensive alignments - NO. Let teams do whatever they want to do. If we are looking to change this to help hitters, tweak the mound height/distance, foul ball size, etc. Forcing people to play 3B against a pull lefty is stupid. How about teach those guys how to drag bunt to 3B in the minors so teams are forced not to shift.

Pitch clock (and other measures to expedite games) - for the love of god YES. Speed up pitchers, no batting glove adjustments every pitch, put ads on jerseys, overlay ads during games, don't go for a commercial break for half innings. Do all of it. Robot umpires? Sure. Speed it all up. This is far and away the most important thing to me.

I'd have to hear more on pickoffs/stolen bases. I am not aware of those. But conceptually, I don't think I'm in favor as 5 throws to 1B is slowing the game down and that's obstacle # 1. There has to be another way. This is probably a punt to next CBA for me, or who cares as SB are like NFL kickoffs and becoming a thing of the past.

LOOGYs/reliever uses - I am fine with teams using guys how they like, so I am fine with them rising from the dead. I'd want to see all other game expedited measures come into play to speed things up first, before requiring a minimum batter total for a pitcher. For instance, these pitching changes don't need to take so long. That eliminates the problem with relievers. I don't understand why a guy can't be warmed up in the tunnel (or start constructing fields with pens closer to dugout and not in right center field) so these changes can't be faster. I would move to something like a team has to designate 5 pitchers a game (and in extra innings they get two more eligibility) and use them how you choose. That'll give teams their starter, bridge arm/long man, and 3 relievers per normal games. MLB average is 4.5 pitchers per game, so this doesn't change the aggregate of baseball and gets rid of the Rays using 7+ guys a game and shuffling their pen every 5 days with a call up or two. Something like that will make teams think about specialist relievers, but still preserve the opportunity to have them.

The above also encourages starters. I think you need to keep the DH consistent. Pitchers can't get hurt flailing at pitches. Jack Flaherty situations should never happen.

I'm with any divisional realignment/playoff adjustment, as long as max playoff teams are 12. But I think a better idea is expanding to 32 teams, doing 8 divisions, those 8 winners make the playoffs, there are two automatic wild cards, and then wild card 3 (or 7 seed for AL/NL) is a 1 game playoff just for fun of next best wild card teams 3 and 4. Then overall conference winner gets a bye week (making best record a big deal), and its NFL style 2-7, 3-6, and 4-5 with the division winners getting a FULL 3 game homestand, and then three 7 game series for semi-finals, conference, and WS. Plenty of TV money for everyone there.

Practically, this is adding a DH, speeding shit up 4-5 different ways, probably a minor tweak to reliever usage, and start aiming for a team in likely Charlotte/Nashville/Raliegh region, and probably looking at Portland/Las Vegas for the other to balance out the league.

[Party]

Here is a write-up from May on the preliminary results. The Athletic did a more detailed breakdown if you can find it. It’s more an effort to encourage stolen bases than to speed up the game. I’m all for bringing back this element of the game.

• At the Low-A level, where step-offs and pick-off throws are limited, stolen bases per game are up from 0.83 in 2019 (recall that the minor leagues did not play in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic) all the way to 1.42 so far in 2021.
• In High-A, where pitchers must step off the rubber before throwing to a base, stolen bases per game are up from 0.80 in 2019 to 1.41 in the early going this season.
• In Triple-A , where the bases are slightly larger -- 18 square inches, up from 15 square inches -- steals have seen a slight bump from 0.63 in 2019 to 0.83 this season.
• In Double-A, where defensive shifts were limited but nothing that would affect stolen base rates was implemented, basically nothing has changed. In 2019, baserunners stole 0.76 bags per game, and in 2021 that figure is 0.79.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/f...allpark-deals/

Regarding the defensive shifts, they’ve become a detriment to the entertainment value of the game. There is no incentive for teams to have their best hitters drag bunting. I’d rather see those guys hit to their full potential and let the athletes on defense take the hit away.

The owners want 14 playoff teams and the players have said they will settle at 12. I don’t want to see an average 83 win team anywhere near the playoffs.

[rmc523]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/...-thursday.html

Here's the latest on CBA talks:

Bob Nightengale of USA Today sheds some light on the upcoming proposal. The league is not expected to address the service time structure during this session. MLB is expected to put forth an increase in the league minimum salary to $600K, with further hikes to a height of $700K by the end of a potential CBA term, as well as alterations to draft pick compensation/forfeiture for signing free agents tagged with a qualifying offer.

[rmc523]

I don't remember a time where baseball was at such a crossroads. The new CBA has the potential to reset the sport in a way that has not happened in over 40+ years. I don't think the economic system will change in any dramatic way to impact the Marlins. But there seems to be some agreement by both sides that the actual game of baseball needs tweaking.

• The NL adopting the DH seems to be a foregone conclusion even if the owners are still trying to use it as a bargaining chip. (Boooooo but it makes sense at this point.)
• Will we see a rule to limit defensive alignments? (I hope so.)
• Is pitch clock coming? Will this have an impact on the three true outcomes like some believe. (I hope so.)
• Will the rules on pick-off attempts and larger bases to encourage stolen bases that have been tremendously successful be implemented? (I hope so.)
• Will the LOOGY rise from the dead? (I hope not.)
• What, if anything, will be done to encourage starters going into games? (I personally love Jayson Stark's idea for this which involves the team pulling their starter losing their DH for the rest of the game.)

One thing that no one has gone into great detail about is the players' proposal on the playoff format. The players proposed realignment into two divisions in each league with a total of 12 playoff spots. If you think about it, that format only works for TV if you completely nuke the AL/NL and realign based on geography/time zones. This has been discussed in the past, and some have said to expect this during the next round of expansion, but it may be closer than we realize.

-Yes on the DH - it's time. Though I've grown up with NL style play, it's time to move to universal. It'll protect pitching investments by not having them bat, it adds more offense rather than an automatic out in the lineup (and we've had several auto outs in the lineups aside from the pitcher recently). It'll also allow longer/more expensive contracts to be "better" at the end for NL clubs, allowing said players to slide into the DH as needed.

-I'm not a big fan of limiting a team's ability to play the field as they deem fit, but if there was a sort of alignment limitation put in place, I'd say no more limited than a generic 2 guys on each side of 2nd or something (nothing like you can only put players within x feet of this base that base, etc).

-I'm not convinced the pitch clock - or honestly any "pace of play" rules - really helps that much. Shaving off 5 minutes of a 3 hour game is not going to do much for younger "have it now" fans. I feel like most pitchers are within a good time range, but there are some that are painfully slow.

-I'm a fan of stolen bases, but still err to the side of not loving tying hands on preventing another team from scoring.

-We already have the 3 batter minimum, so how would the LOOGY rise from the dead?

-I don't see either the PA or league ever going for a team losing their DH when the starter is pulled - defeats the purpose of bringing universal DH around if you're going to remove it for half of the game every night? And teams won't want to pay a DH to play half the game too. A starter gets lit up one night through 2 innings, so now your team loses your DH for 7 innings because you have to pull the starter to stop the bleeding? While the other team gets to keep their DH for another x innings? BIG no from me. More contracts should include innings incentives - that'd encourage starters to do better/go further into games.

[fish16]

-Yes on the DH - it's time. Though I've grown up with NL style play, it's time to move to universal. It'll protect pitching investments by not having them bat, it adds more offense rather than an automatic out in the lineup (and we've had several auto outs in the lineups aside from the pitcher recently). It'll also allow longer/more expensive contracts to be "better" at the end for NL clubs, allowing said players to slide into the DH as needed.

-I'm not a big fan of limiting a team's ability to play the field as they deem fit, but if there was a sort of alignment limitation put in place, I'd say no more limited than a generic 2 guys on each side of 2nd or something (nothing like you can only put players within x feet of this base that base, etc).

-I'm not convinced the pitch clock - or honestly any "pace of play" rules - really helps that much. Shaving off 5 minutes of a 3 hour game is not going to do much for younger "have it now" fans. I feel like most pitchers are within a good time range, but there are some that are painfully slow.

-I'm a fan of stolen bases, but still err to the side of not loving tying hands on preventing another team from scoring.

-We already have the 3 batter minimum, so how would the LOOGY rise from the dead?

-I don't see either the PA or league ever going for a team losing their DH when the starter is pulled - defeats the purpose of bringing universal DH around if you're going to remove it for half of the game every night? And teams won't want to pay a DH to play half the game too. A starter gets lit up one night through 2 innings, so now your team loses your DH for 7 innings because you have to pull the starter to stop the bleeding? While the other team gets to keep their DH for another x innings? BIG no from me. More contracts should include innings incentives - that'd encourage starters to do better/go further into games.

Agreed on the DH, having a pitcher in the lineup just takes away so much from the action for no reason. And it amplifies holes in your lineup if you have 2 awful spots in the order plus the pitcher.

As far as pace of play, the biggest thing to me that would improve it is an automated strike zone which I think will have 2 major impacts- 1 it gets rid of complaining about calls. That can take some time. The other is that you won't see games being swung by pitches everyone at home can tell have been missed calls. Plus it gives hitters a concrete strike zone that they know stays the same on a night to night basis, which would improve strike zone awareness and might lead to more balls being put in play over time. Plus there is just no reason not to have an automated strike zone at this point with the available technology. The argument is always that the human error is good for the game but to me it's awful, especially since umps don't appear to have any real consequences for being awful consistently. Why would you possibly leave it up to human error potentially when you can very easily get every single ball strike call right. The missed calls individually are minor, but they can make major impacts. All of a sudden a 3-1 hitters count is 2-2 and a potential rally is thwarted. It makes no sense to me why that wouldn't be in any deal both sides reach.

I see both sides of the shifting argument. I wouldn't ban it, but I would put parameters such as 2 infielders need to be on each side of 2nd base at all times. You can still shift, but it limits the drasticness. But again, I understand why people would be for or against it either way. I'll be interested to see how they handle that. From the standpoint of wanting more action in the game, I could see that being the reason why they limit or ban shifting.

The biggest impact on the marlins though will be the changes to service time and how they decide to handle that and service time manipulation. That lingers over our organization until they come to a deal. Could rally fuck us potentially.

[fish16]

I dont understand why the service time manipulation is so hard to come to an agreement on or at least come up with ideas that can incentivize actually bringing up prospects when they are ready and not have any other considerations to think of. It makes the game better.

If a guy spends more than a very small amount of time on the ML roster at any point in the regular season, just make it count as a year of service time. It might then incentivize teams to just wait till the following year, but at least teams will come out of spring training with the best 25 guys mostly likely and we can stop the charade of teams arguing in bad faith that their top prospect just really needs those extra 3 weeks in AAA before they are ready.

[lou]

I dont understand why the service time manipulation is so hard to come to an agreement on or at least come up with ideas that can incentivize actually bringing up prospects when they are ready and not have any other considerations to think of. It makes the game better.

If a guy spends more than a very small amount of time on the ML roster at any point in the regular season, just make it count as a year of service time. It might then incentivize teams to just wait till the following year, but at least teams will come out of spring training with the best 25 guys mostly likely and we can stop the charade of teams arguing in bad faith that their top prospect just really needs those extra 3 weeks in AAA before they are ready.

Because for top guys, teams spend $10m and 5 years in the minors developing them, and after such a risky investment in an 18 year old, to lose them for 1-2 years quicker can be painful. Imagine situations where a guy is also up/down in AAA for 2 years after 5 years in the minors, and finally, in year 8 of an organization at 26 years old, you become a starter. Teams need some years there for sticking with their guy for literally a decade after another year or two.

I agree something needs to change, but I can appreciate the team perspective. I think it should be something like 6 years MLB or 29 years old, whatever is sooner. Counting years should become easier, maybe everything over 30 days is considered a year so it incentivizes september call ups. I think you could also weave in restricted free agency so say after your first arbitration year, any team can offer you a 4 year deal. Match or lose them. This gives teams a reason to do Sandy type deals, etc. A lot of solutions here, but it's hard and a lot of moving parts. A good place to start is what constitutes a year though

[lou]

Here is a write-up from May on the preliminary results. The Athletic did a more detailed breakdown if you can find it. It’s more an effort to encourage stolen bases than to speed up the game. I’m all for bringing back this element of the game.



https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/f...allpark-deals/

Regarding the defensive shifts, they’ve become a detriment to the entertainment value of the game. There is no incentive for teams to have their best hitters drag bunting. I’d rather see those guys hit to their full potential and let the athletes on defense take the hit away.

The owners want 14 playoff teams and the players have said they will settle at 12. I don’t want to see an average 83 win team anywhere near the playoffs.

I don't view it as a detriment, I love seeing random ass defensive shifts personally and guys catching screaming line drives in the middle of nowhere. Nothing is as fun as Joey Gallo bunting a double to 3B. I am fine watching pitching/defense though and I understand I am in the minority here and chicks dig the longball.

I like the larger base idea to help with SB. That's interesting. I just want faster games ultimately. I think it's less TV commercials, in-lay advertising (including jerseys), and speed up in between pitch shenanigans. They can shave a half hour off games IMO with smarter advertising and moving the game along.

[lou]

The biggest impact on the marlins though will be the changes to service time and how they decide to handle that and service time manipulation. That lingers over our organization until they come to a deal. Could rally fuck us potentially.

I don't think it matters much. Meyer and Bleday callups are probably the only ones it could impact (and thats assuming they are studs), and maybe Cabrera/Sixto/Lewin if they don't establish themselves this year. They aren't in a nebulous super 2 land with really anyone right now. Jazz, Sanchez, and Rogers are all on a linear service time track. It'll matter, but I think it is minimal with where they are at today.

[rmc523]

Agreed on the DH, having a pitcher in the lineup just takes away so much from the action for no reason. And it amplifies holes in your lineup if you have 2 awful spots in the order plus the pitcher.

As far as pace of play, the biggest thing to me that would improve it is an automated strike zone which I think will have 2 major impacts- 1 it gets rid of complaining about calls. That can take some time. The other is that you won't see games being swung by pitches everyone at home can tell have been missed calls. Plus it gives hitters a concrete strike zone that they know stays the same on a night to night basis, which would improve strike zone awareness and might lead to more balls being put in play over time. Plus there is just no reason not to have an automated strike zone at this point with the available technology. The argument is always that the human error is good for the game but to me it's awful, especially since umps don't appear to have any real consequences for being awful consistently. Why would you possibly leave it up to human error potentially when you can very easily get every single ball strike call right. The missed calls individually are minor, but they can make major impacts. All of a sudden a 3-1 hitters count is 2-2 and a potential rally is thwarted. It makes no sense to me why that wouldn't be in any deal both sides reach.

I see both sides of the shifting argument. I wouldn't ban it, but I would put parameters such as 2 infielders need to be on each side of 2nd base at all times. You can still shift, but it limits the drasticness. But again, I understand why people would be for or against it either way. I'll be interested to see how they handle that. From the standpoint of wanting more action in the game, I could see that being the reason why they limit or ban shifting.

The biggest impact on the marlins though will be the changes to service time and how they decide to handle that and service time manipulation. That lingers over our organization until they come to a deal. Could rally fuck us potentially.

I'd be good with the automated strike zone now that the technology is there too. Agreed that that would eliminate some of the arguing.

I also agree with the comment on limiting the batting glove adjustment every pitch whether the guy swung or not.

[rmc523]

I don't view it as a detriment, I love seeing random ass defensive shifts personally and guys catching screaming line drives in the middle of nowhere. Nothing is as fun as Joey Gallo bunting a double to 3B. I am fine watching pitching/defense though and I understand I am in the minority here and chicks dig the longball.

I like the larger base idea to help with SB. That's interesting. I just want faster games ultimately. I think it's less TV commercials, in-lay advertising (including jerseys), and speed up in between pitch shenanigans. They can shave a half hour off games IMO with smarter advertising and moving the game along.

I agree radical shifts would eventually disappear if enough guys would drop a bunt down the other way enough times.

They could go to a split view of ads while players are switching between innings, but is there that much time to be cut out between innings? i.e. I've not really seen guys standing around waiting for the commercial break to end.
I also see jersey ads as a straight up addition to revenues - they are NOT going to replace some other form of advertisements like you're suggesting.

If you're somehow able to cut out a half hour, then you're getting somewhere. But as I've said before, all these other efforts being done that wind up cutting 3-4 minutes off don't accomplish much, IMO.

[lou]

I agree radical shifts would eventually disappear if enough guys would drop a bunt down the other way enough times.

They could go to a split view of ads while players are switching between innings, but is there that much time to be cut out between innings? i.e. I've not really seen guys standing around waiting for the commercial break to end.
I also see jersey ads as a straight up addition to revenues - they are NOT going to replace some other form of advertisements like you're suggesting.

If you're somehow able to cut out a half hour, then you're getting somewhere. But as I've said before, all these other efforts being done that wind up cutting 3-4 minutes off don't accomplish much, IMO.

That's the thing, you cut 30 minutes off the game. You run on and off the field and the pitcher better be warmed up real fast. I'm talking a radical change of eliminating one-two 2-4 minute commercials per inning (this is combined with getting rid of batting glove tightening nonsense, etc.)

[fish16]

I don't think it matters much. Meyer and Bleday callups are probably the only ones it could impact (and thats assuming they are studs), and maybe Cabrera/Sixto/Lewin if they don't establish themselves this year. They aren't in a nebulous super 2 land with really anyone right now. Jazz, Sanchez, and Rogers are all on a linear service time track. It'll matter, but I think it is minimal with where they are at today.

my thinking was more in terms of they change 6 years of team control to either something less or a different way to calculate when free agency hits. If its all of a sudden 5 years that really hurts smaller market teams who need the surplus value.

[lou]

my thinking was more in terms of they change 6 years of team control to either something less or a different way to calculate when free agency hits. If its all of a sudden 5 years that really hurts smaller market teams who need the surplus value.

Those teams should do two things (1) sign their players in year 3 - like Sandy, and (2) not spend egregiously low amounts of money compared to other franchises - like the Marlins.