• 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!

2022 MLB Season Thread

DeacsPop said:
Nothing pisses me off more when two sides are both making $$ hand over fist and can’t come to an agreement.
Baseball is a dying sport. And instead of fixing it, they are just making it die faster.
Kids don’t watch it; most adults rarely have the 3 1/2 average hours it takes to sit down and watch as well.
I love baseball but am sick over this latest impasse.
Click to expand...

While I get the feels, the owners really screwed the players on the last deal.
 
Pilchard said:
Pessimistic. Will only get harder to come to an agreement as this continues. If a 2nd week of the season is cancelled, several players including Ohtani lose a year of service time before reaching free agency. It will only get harder to negotiate a resolution as making up for the lost salaries and service time are simply more issues that the MLBPA won't cave on. Both sides f'd up. The players wanted a war because they felt they lost the negotiation in 2016, and the owners were more than happy to give to them a war and play hardball as many owners don't mind giving up the early part of the season if it means that they don't have to meet payroll. If there is no settlement within two weeks, there may not be MLB baseball for a long time, as in another BS 60 game season like in 2020. Kind of a weird side note is that the lockout only impacts MLB players on 40 man rosters. So, all the MLB facilities are open, and minor leaguers and non-rostered former MLB players like Dee Gordon, have been in Spring Training. The minor league season will go on as planned.
Click to expand...

I'm still amazed by Pilchard's ability to know accurate info about so many sports things at seemingly a moment's notice. True posrep. Part of why these boards are great.

And this still makes the Alondes thing so much funnier.
 
deacfan78 said:
I'm not following the lockout but seriously? Manfred is trying to ban defensive shifts? That is dumb as fuck. That is a defensive strategy, if a batter doesn't like it, learn to hit it to opposite field.
Click to expand...

No one wants to see shifts really. It takes away offense. Players don't like it because it takes away their bats.

That said, I really would have like to have seen a concerted effort by players to just bunt slap singles to the open hole. It seemed like no one ever even attempted it.
 
Pilchard said:
Pessimistic. Will only get harder to come to an agreement as this continues. If a 2nd week of the season is cancelled, several players including Ohtani lose a year of service time before reaching free agency. It will only get harder to negotiate a resolution as making up for the lost salaries and service time are simply more issues that the MLBPA won't cave on. Both sides f'd up. The players wanted a war because they felt they lost the negotiation in 2016, and the owners were more than happy to give to them a war and play hardball as many owners don't mind giving up the early part of the season if it means that they don't have to meet payroll. If there is no settlement within two weeks, there may not be MLB baseball for a long time, as in another BS 60 game season like in 2020. Kind of a weird side note is that the lockout only impacts MLB players on 40 man rosters. So, all the MLB facilities are open, and minor leaguers and non-rostered former MLB players like Dee Gordon, have been in Spring Training. The minor league season will go on as planned.
Click to expand...

It's a little fucked up that the lockout itself, an owners decision, is also an effective way to manipulate service time (which the owners were trying to negotiate against). I think I read the threshold was 25 missed games, so they could play a 136 game season and the Angels get to keep Ohtani for another year.
 
deactherunner said:
It's a little fucked up that the lockout itself, an owners decision, is also an effective way to manipulate service time (which the owners were trying to negotiate against). I think I read the threshold was 25 missed games, so they could play a 136 game season and the Angels get to keep Ohtani for another year.
Click to expand...

100%. This is not a strike. This is a lockout. Players would report tomorrow if the lockout was lifted. The concern on the owners side is that if the game went forward without a CBA, the players would strike in August (like in 1994), when the players would hold the leverage as post-season (where the owners make the most money) would be jeopardized. It's a mess that is only going to get messier. Starting doubt if we will have games before Memorial Day.
 
deactherunner said:
It's a little fucked up that the lockout itself, an owners decision, is also an effective way to manipulate service time (which the owners were trying to negotiate against). I think I read the threshold was 25 missed games, so they could play a 136 game season and the Angels get to keep Ohtani for another year.
Click to expand...

My daughter just started getting into baseball this last year (I was a huge fan but haven't watched in 10+ years), so instead of talking about players and how the teams chances are for the playoffs, I get to spend a lot of time talking about the collective bargaining agreement, service time, and how pitchers are using substances to increase spin rate.

I think the players got the wrong end of the deal from the last agreement (average player's salaries have gone down the last few years), and the owners seem to hold all of the cards and are not showing any signs of budging.

I think the owners will cancel the season just to spite the players.

I think the biggest change that needs to be made is that the commissioner does not need to be elected by the owners. I know this is common across all professional leagues, but baseball could really use a neutral commisioner.
 
DeacOnCapeCod said:
My daughter just started getting into baseball this last year (I was a huge fan but haven't watched in 10+ years), so instead of talking about players and how the teams chances are for the playoffs, I get to spend a lot of time talking about the collective bargaining agreement, service time, and how pitchers are using substances to increase spin rate.

I think the players got the wrong end of the deal from the last agreement (average player's salaries have gone down the last few years), and the owners seem to hold all of the cards and are not showing any signs of budging.

I think the owners will cancel the season just to spite the players.

I think the biggest change that needs to be made is that the commissioner does not need to be elected by the owners. I know this is common across all professional leagues, but baseball could really use a neutral commisioner.
Click to expand...

Player salaries decreased in large part bc analytics showed you were better off letting younger players play than over paying for many of the FA's on the market.

Seems to me like both sides want to have their cake and eat it too.

1 - The players want no salary cap and higher salaries and quicker FA for younger players.

2 - The owners no doubt would want a cap and are probably freaked out about how much they have to invest to produce a servicable MLB player (years in the minors, more random outcomes than other sports) which makes them less inclined to let players go to FA more quickly.

3 - Fans want more competitive balance and less tanking. I think the players have this all wrong when they want less revenue sharing. It probably needs to be increased but also require some significant portion of it to be spent on player salaries.

No one in MLB or the MLBPA is proposing a real overhaul of the system. So when this does get settled we're going to get a band aid on a cut that needs stitches. If it were up to me I'd -

A - Increase revenue sharing and require a % of it go back to paying players

B - Impose a total de facto spending floor by requiring X% of league wide revenue to go back to players

C - Enroll minor league players in the union (which the MLBPA is loathe to do for obvious reasons) to broaden the interest pool the union must think about and put the owners in a position where they can't so easily give those players the last scrap of wood on the stick.

D - Base FA on how many years a player has been in professional baseball. The younger you are when you enter, the longer the team maintains control. So a guy drafted out of college who should in theory hit the bigs sooner reaches FA more quickly than the 16 year old kid signed out of the Dominican. Owners have to know they will get rewarded for all the investment they make on player development (which are significant and should be even more significant - give these players better general wages)

E - Implement a salary cap as this prevents the Dodgers from paying more out in payroll than the Marlins generate in total revenues and helps drive more balance (as does the de facto floor).

I do think baseball is slowly fading. It is less popular per Gallop as the second viewing option among team sports than soccer and basketball now among people less than 50 years old. This doesn't help it's cause.
 
Pilchard said:
100%. This is not a strike. This is a lockout. Players would report tomorrow if the lockout was lifted. The concern on the owners side is that if the game went forward without a CBA, the players would strike in August (like in 1994), when the players would hold the leverage as post-season (where the owners make the most money) would be jeopardized. It's a mess that is only going to get messier. Starting doubt if we will have games before Memorial Day.
Click to expand...

I don't want this to be construed as pro-owner, but the players absolutely would not report if the lockout ended. They would strike until a new CBA was in place. Under no circumstances would either side be willing to play this season in the absence of a new CBA.
 
DeacMan, isn’t D basing FA on age not time in the pros?
 
Andruw Jones' kid, Druw, is currently projected as the #1 pick in the 2022 MLB draft. He's a HS player in GA. This week while opposing fans were chanting "overrated", Druw shut them up:


 
PhDeac said:
DeacMan, isn’t D basing FA on age not time in the pros?
Click to expand...

It's close to it, but not how I'd actually do it. To be more clear my version would still have some actual MLB service time component to it. My point is a guy like, say, Jordan Wicks who played in college was drafted in part bc he was more advanced and in theory has a shorter path to the pros. That differs from a guy like Cristian Hernandez who signed when he was 16 and likely will take years of development to get to the pros. Both are "top" prospects within the Cubs system. But in theory the Cubs will invest significantly less to develop Wicks than Hernandez. This is just an example (not a hard view on my part) but I'd say for Wicks the Cubs get the greater of 6 years of total MLB and MiLB service or 4 years of MLB service. For Hernandez I'd make it more like 10 years or 6. You'd have to look at average times spent in the minors to come up with a better formula for each class of player. And there might be up to four classes -

1 - Teenage international signing
2 - US HS draftee
3 - US some college draftee
4 - US 4+ years of college draftee

And you'd still have to layer in all the MiLB free agency rules on this as well.
 
FWIW, as it stands now: "Players drafted and signed (or signed as an international player) at age 18 or younger need to be added to their club's 40-Man roster within five seasons or they become eligible for the Rule 5 Draft. Players who signed at age 19 or older need to be protected by being place on an MLB roster within four seasons". Essentially, this means that if you are drafted out of college (including JUCO) MLB teams have one less year to put you on the MLB roster than HS players (or players signed out of the DR or Venezuela). Once you are placed on an MLB roster, the service time clock starts for arbitration eligibility (3 seasons on an MLB roster; unless the player is a Super 2) or for free agency (6 seasons on an MLB roster.
 
DeacMan said:
Player salaries decreased in large part bc analytics showed you were better off letting younger players play than over paying for many of the FA's on the market.

Seems to me like both sides want to have their cake and eat it too.

1 - The players want no salary cap and higher salaries and quicker FA for younger players.

2 - The owners no doubt would want a cap and are probably freaked out about how much they have to invest to produce a servicable MLB player (years in the minors, more random outcomes than other sports) which makes them less inclined to let players go to FA more quickly.

3 - Fans want more competitive balance and less tanking. I think the players have this all wrong when they want less revenue sharing. It probably needs to be increased but also require some significant portion of it to be spent on player salaries.

No one in MLB or the MLBPA is proposing a real overhaul of the system. So when this does get settled we're going to get a band aid on a cut that needs stitches. If it were up to me I'd -

A - Increase revenue sharing and require a % of it go back to paying players

B - Impose a total de facto spending floor by requiring X% of league wide revenue to go back to players

C - Enroll minor league players in the union (which the MLBPA is loathe to do for obvious reasons) to broaden the interest pool the union must think about and put the owners in a position where they can't so easily give those players the last scrap of wood on the stick.

D - Base FA on how many years a player has been in professional baseball. The younger you are when you enter, the longer the team maintains control. So a guy drafted out of college who should in theory hit the bigs sooner reaches FA more quickly than the 16 year old kid signed out of the Dominican. Owners have to know they will get rewarded for all the investment they make on player development (which are significant and should be even more significant - give these players better general wages)

E - Implement a salary cap as this prevents the Dodgers from paying more out in payroll than the Marlins generate in total revenues and helps drive more balance (as does the de facto floor).

I do think baseball is slowly fading. It is less popular per Gallop as the second viewing option among team sports than soccer and basketball now among people less than 50 years old. This doesn't help it's cause.
Click to expand...

1 - not necessarily no salary cap, just a higher cap. mlb proposed keeping the cap at $220 for the next three seasons. MLBPA wants higher minimum salaries, yes, but the MLB proposed salaries didn't even keep up with inflation. MLBPA also generally dropped the faster to FA thing pretty quickly and instead were fighting for faster to arbitration and/or super two status.

2 - yeah because being protected by congress allows them to pay minor leaguers significantly less than minimum wage and many of them have to figure out how to scrape by in the offseason. outside of the top couple of rounds of the draft, signing bonuses and contracts are peanuts.
 
DeacMan said:
It's close to it, but not how I'd actually do it. To be more clear my version would still have some actual MLB service time component to it. My point is a guy like, say, Jordan Wicks who played in college was drafted in part bc he was more advanced and in theory has a shorter path to the pros. That differs from a guy like Cristian Hernandez who signed when he was 16 and likely will take years of development to get to the pros. Both are "top" prospects within the Cubs system. But in theory the Cubs will invest significantly less to develop Wicks than Hernandez. This is just an example (not a hard view on my part) but I'd say for Wicks the Cubs get the greater of 6 years of total MLB and MiLB service or 4 years of MLB service. For Hernandez I'd make it more like 10 years or 6. You'd have to look at average times spent in the minors to come up with a better formula for each class of player. And there might be up to four classes -

1 - Teenage international signing
2 - US HS draftee
3 - US some college draftee
4 - US 4+ years of college draftee

And you'd still have to layer in all the MiLB free agency rules on this as well.
Click to expand...

Are you saying international signees should have 10 years of mlb service before they are allowed to reach FA? or 6 years of milb service? essentially 16 years total? they'd be like 32+ at that point. teams already have 10+ years total control over the teenagers as they can get 7 years of mlb service + 3 or more years of minor league service.
 
YoungBuck95 said:
1 - not necessarily no salary cap, just a higher cap. mlb proposed keeping the cap at $220 for the next three seasons. MLBPA wants higher minimum salaries, yes, but the MLB proposed salaries didn't even keep up with inflation. MLBPA also generally dropped the faster to FA thing pretty quickly and instead were fighting for faster to arbitration and/or super two status.

2 - yeah because being protected by congress allows them to pay minor leaguers significantly less than minimum wage and many of them have to figure out how to scrape by in the offseason. outside of the top couple of rounds of the draft, signing bonuses and contracts are peanuts.
Click to expand...

The players for 30 years have opposed anything that resembles a cap. It's their no. 1 issue.

No doubt on MiLB players. It's one thing if you sign on with a significant bonus. That's definitely the exception vs. the rule though. I get the whole chasing a dream thing and they know the score. But some of these guys are forced to live out of their cars. It's ridiculous. I really wish the MLBPA would just become the PBPA.
 
YoungBuck95 said:
Are you saying international signees should have 10 years of mlb service before they are allowed to reach FA? or 6 years of milb service? essentially 16 years total? they'd be like 32+ at that point. teams already have 10+ years total control over the teenagers as they can get 7 years of mlb service + 3 or more years of minor league service.
Click to expand...

I think you misread it. And I also made clear it was an example. But the idea is the club only gets so many years of control that can run out based upon MLB service or total service. And I know that all has to fold into MiLB free agent rules. My point is it could be possible you make the bigs but the club loses control and you become a FA sooner than the current six years based upon when you entered the minors. For instance Frank Schwindel is about to turn 31 I think and the Cubs have him locked up for 5 or 6 more years based on service time. They should get something for giving him his first legit shot. But 6 years starting at 30?
 
Schwindel is an interesting example. He has about 3 months of playing time in the majors and is under control for about five more years with at least two years before arbitration. He was acquired off waivers so the Cubs have no investment costs. Let's assume he performs at the same level he has demonstrated while in the majors (.311/.354/.560/.914). Those are all star numbers, yet he will never be compensated for that level of performance. He is under team control. In large measure, free agency has declined because younger players have provided similar performance in sufficient numbers for a team to become competitive.
 
BlackjackMc said:
Schwindel is an interesting example. He has about 3 months of playing time in the majors and is under control for about five more years with at least two years before arbitration. He was acquired off waivers so the Cubs have no investment costs. Let's assume he performs at the same level he has demonstrated while in the majors (.311/.354/.560/.914). Those are all star numbers, yet he will never be compensated for that level of performance. He is under team control. In large measure, free agency has declined because younger players have provided similar performance in sufficient numbers for a team to become competitive.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If he performs at those numbers he will be bought out of these early years based on recent history. Look at Acuna (not sure how to do a tilde on my computer), Tatis, Soto, etc.
 
The problem here is the Players are asking for too big a change. Are their asks unreasonable in a vacuum? No. But the difference between where the status quo is and where they want to be is huge, and they had to know the owners were never going to come close to the major jumps they were asking. The last owners proposal was a good step in the right direction - honestly not sure what the players are expecting, they can't get everything in 1 negotiation. Not saying this is the players fault or the owners don't suck, just that in contract negotiations, they were never going to come close to what they wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top