• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2018-2019 MLB Hot Stove Thread

CBA isn't expiring for 3 years - assuming it will be super contentious. But we got awhile, so enjoy the next two FA periods.
 
Manfred is smart; he knows a labor stoppage would cause long-term negative damage to the game (and the value of the MLB franchises which is the most significant element for the owners).

He has to be working with the owners to get creative about how to restructure baseball's financial system in a way that keeps overall player payroll in line with the traditional percentages of MLB revenues (51%) and then starts engaging the MLBPA early to discuss fundamental changes in the system to ensure that players continue to get a reasonable share of revenues.

If the players strike under the assumption that they are going to force the owners to go back to an era when teams spent irresponsibly on long term contracts for free agents in the back-half of their careers that just is never going to happen again. MLB teams have figured out that such an investment is an economic disaster.
 
It would be stupid to sign Harper (or anyone really) for that money that long. He's an up and down, injury prone, average fielder, crybaby who was on some loaded Nats teams that never got it done post-season.

Very good - not great - player. I would say he's a below average outfielder. Dunno about crybaby but certainly erratic on hustle and attitude. Agree about the money and contract length. Seems to me if I was an owner, I could sign 2-3 good players with that money rather than invest in 1 guy. That said, if some club caves, can anyone possibly fathom what Mike Trout would get/be worth ???
 
He is a top 5 hitter in the game right now - can we stop with these silly comments. Not much to dispute that, unless you want to extrapolate and say that 2018 is the real Bryce Harper and the previous 3 years were a fluke. He will also be 26 through the end of this baseball season. Could he have peaked at 23? Possible, but highly unlikely. These comments about him not being a great player are dumb.
 
He is a top 5 hitter in the game right now - can we stop with these silly comments. Not much to dispute that, unless you want to extrapolate and say that 2018 is the real Bryce Harper and the previous 3 years were a fluke. He will also be 26 through the end of this baseball season. Could he have peaked at 23? Possible, but highly unlikely. These comments about him not being a great player are dumb.

100% correct. The guy is a great player coming into the years where he should be even better. Additionally, people downplay his marketability and say it's not something a club should factor, but as a Phil's fan I know he would put more butts in the seats than any other player outside of Trout (who is a local hero), and making Citizens Bank Park a home field advantage again (and no longer a mausoleum) would certainly be worth some wins. I'd definitely be ok with what most would consider an overpay. For the Phils, I think he's definitely worth it. And one other thing - I live in the DC area and all that negative stuff about his personality (crybaby etc) is ridiculously overblown. He's a good guy. Even if he re-signs with the Nats where I will again be forced to root against him, I won't change my opinion that he's a good guy because he actually is.
 
Very good - not great - player. I would say he's a below average outfielder. Dunno about crybaby but certainly erratic on hustle and attitude. Agree about the money and contract length. Seems to me if I was an owner, I could sign 2-3 good players with that money rather than invest in 1 guy. That said, if some club caves, can anyone possibly fathom what Mike Trout would get/be worth ???

Erratic on hustle and attitude is a better way of saying it. I don't mind an entertaining personality. I am entertained watching Puig play, can't say the same about Harper for whatever reason. Plus Harper isn't gunning anyone down at third like Puig. Harper tried to beef up and be a slugger but he's kind of stuck in between. He seemed a better all around player before. He's very good and worth a pretty big 4-5 year contract for the right team probably, but I'm just not sure whoever signs him on that big contract is going to get their money's worth.

Agree about Trout.
 
Strike is happening get ready. They are going to have to drastically change the young player compensation/control system. If the players union is smart they'll also fight the bonus pools too, but I'm guessing they will give that up for benefits for current players.

In early 1981 Hank Aaron spoke at Wait Chapel. I asked him about the prospects for the looming strike by the MLB players. His response was to the effect that it wouldn't be a long one, "there's too much money at stake." Given how both salaries and profits have grown since then, I think his logic still applies.
 
Hey bros, did you see Manny Machado step on those dudes feet at first base? He's so overrated because he steps on feet and I think thats dirty. Also, based on my keen eyesight, I think his diet is off and he is gonna get fat.
 
Pham and Correa both win their Arb cases. Lots of wins the last couple of years.
 
Manfred is smart; he knows a labor stoppage would cause long-term negative damage to the game (and the value of the MLB franchises which is the most significant element for the owners).

He has to be working with the owners to get creative about how to restructure baseball's financial system in a way that keeps overall player payroll in line with the traditional percentages of MLB revenues (51%) and then starts engaging the MLBPA early to discuss fundamental changes in the system to ensure that players continue to get a reasonable share of revenues.

If the players strike under the assumption that they are going to force the owners to go back to an era when teams spent irresponsibly on long term contracts for free agents in the back-half of their careers that just is never going to happen again. MLB teams have figured out that such an investment is an economic disaster.

On the flip side, if the players hold firm on blowing up the current arbitration structure and the MLB version of the rookie scale, you're definitely going to see a protracted stoppage.
 
Also, MLB and MLBPA are discussing a bunch of changes to baseball for this year:

1) An incoming pitcher must face at least 3 batters
2) A universal DH for 2019
3) 20 second pitch clock
4) 26 man roster
5) Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams

And some other stuff. Assuming little of this gets passed, but that would be some pretty major changes, at least for a big portion of the baseball purists. The 3 batter minimum thing seems silly, though.
 
Would support 3, 4 and 5 (depending on the advantages; tanking is bad for the game).
 
Tanking is not bad for the game. There are always good to be bad teams. They might as well get rewarded for sucking.

Rediculous that you have a problem with tanking but are okay with watching pitchers flail away at pitches and have games delayed by all the switches it causes.

Might as well get rid of all drafts and any caps if you are going to reward teams that are already good with even more advantages.
 
Last edited:
Tanking is not bad for the game. There are always good to be bad teams. They might as well get rewarded for sucking.

Rediculous that you have a problem with tanking but are okay with watching pitchers flail away at pitches and have games delayed by all the switches it causes.

Might as well get rid of all drafts and any caps if you are going to reward teams that are already good with even more advantages.

Huh? You can like the game with the DH or not, there are reasons for both, but liking the game with the DH has nothing to do with the other things you were talking about. I don't see the logic in that at all.

And I can't see how tanking is good for the entertainment aspect of the game. There's been discussion of incentives to "win the second half" for instance that could reward teams for improving over the season rather than giving up after the first month. I don't know what can be done about it but having half the league obviously not trying to win for a season or two sucks for fans.

I'd be on board with rules that cut down on the parade of pitchers in every game but I'm not in favor of requiring pitchers to face three batters.
 
The biggest challenge with tanking is teams like the Marlins and Orioles this year - they know they aren't going to compete, so they have no reason to drop big money (or even little money) on FAs - it shrinks the pool. They could do that with a payroll floor or something.
 
Tanking in baseball is still a crapshoot. Look at Kyle Sleeth or Mark Prior. They were can't miss as were many Top 10 picks.
 
He is a top 5 hitter in the game right now - can we stop with these silly comments. Not much to dispute that, unless you want to extrapolate and say that 2018 is the real Bryce Harper and the previous 3 years were a fluke. He will also be 26 through the end of this baseball season. Could he have peaked at 23? Possible, but highly unlikely. These comments about him not being a great player are dumb.

Ehhh I’ll take quite a few more than 5 guys over Harper at the plate.
 
Ehhh I’ll take quite a few more than 5 guys over Harper at the plate.

If you're looking at a scope of time bigger than just last year, which you certainly should do in baseball, I'd be hard-pressed to come up with more than 5 guys over Harper. Trout, Betts, JD Martinez are all obvious. From there you could argue Yelich, Votto, Freeman, Machado, Lindor, Altuve, Judge, Goldschmidt, and maybe one or two more I'm blanking on, but to say he's definitely behind all those guys is silly. Especially considering he is younger than almost all those guys, has a longer track record than several, and provides more positional/defensive value than several of them, considering he plays a corner outfield spot (personally I think he's an adequate defender whose defensive numbers look bad from the Nats being forced to periodically play him in center.)

As a lifelong Braves fan, I've certainly spent plenty of time rooting against the guy. But to scoff at a 26 year old free agent who from 2015-2018 has a wRC+ of 149 (7th in MLB), 129 HR (9th), a BB% of 17.4 (2nd behind Votto the BB God), and a SLG of 0.543 (9th) isn't an objective analysis of the player.

Every team in the MLB should be willing to give him a 5-6 year deal with an AAV of 30 million, and from there it would be risk tolerance and the window to compete of the rest of the team for additional years and money. Obviously that may be the case, but it doesn't seem like it is based on it being February 6 and him being a free agent still. Personally, I think this is a huge display of MLB teams realizing they can exploit underpaid young talent in lieu of paying talented free agents who may only be worth the deal they get in the first half of their contract, and it's gonna result in a strike in 2 years.
 
deacon14, here's the problem. Harper wouldn't sign a six year deal at $30,000,000.00 a year. He turned down $30 million/year for ten years. Harper said no, not the teams or owners. He gets to sit until he and Boros come to the realization he isn't worth what they think he should be worth.
 
Back
Top