Around Baseball 2019

[Spanky99]

lol... Mets! f*** U Diaz!

[Slade]

I haven't looked at the standings in a while, no idea that Detroit is actually worst than both Baltimore and Miami.

[Spanky99]

Check out the action on this ball...

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/paul-dejong-hits-trick-shot-single

 

Also, lol @ Laz Diaz faceplant.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Spanky99

[Barkerfan23]

Dont know if anyone else feels this way or where the interest metrics are

 

But this has to be on of the most boring seasons in mlb history

[Abomination]

Dont know if anyone else feels this way or where the interest metrics are

 

But this has to be on of the most boring seasons in mlb history

 

Apparently attendance is down a bit (don't know about TV viewership), and revenue is up a bit.

[Sorrow]

One time Jays farm hand Ryan McBroom made his MLB debut yesterday.

[Spanky99]

One time Jays farm hand Ryan McBroom made his MLB debut yesterday.

 

Yeah, last I saw he was 1-3.

[glory]

Dont know if anyone else feels this way or where the interest metrics are

 

But this has to be on of the most boring seasons in mlb history

 

In the AL alone, there are 8 teams under .500. Six of them at least 24 games under .500, and five of them at least 30 games under .500. Add another six NL teams that are under .500, and half the league is bad. The only division race still up for grabs is the NL Central (3 games back). The Phillies are 2.5 games back of the 2nd WC, and no other team really looks like they have a shot at it. Hell, the D Backs are 3.5 games back of WC2 and they don't even want it.

 

Combine that with teams knowing they can make money without being competitive, thereby not having incentive to actually try, and it has lead to this mess. Even the off season has been boring the past couple of years because teams don't want to spend on free agents or trade prospects, so the hot stove is non existent.

 

MLB needs a lot of help, and none of it involves pace of play. Manfred has a tough job, but he's not tackling any of the important issues with fixing the game. I am 100% for some kind of rule that forces teams to try to compete. If you are under .500 for more than 3 years straight, or lose 100 games in consecutive years, you lose a first round pick, or something crazy like that. I hate watching highlights of other games and seeing half empty stadiums. Every team should be trying to contend, or at least put a decent product on the field. / end of rant

Edited September 4, 2019 by glory

[Boxcar]

The Dodgers will play one of Houston or NY in the WS. That's almost a certainty. Parity hasn't been a big issue previously so I'm not sure what's going on. I think a draft lottery would help.

 

I gotta hand it to teams like the Mets and Padres. They aren't good teams and should be looking to shed salary to tank, but they just keep trying to win. That mentality needs to be more widespread.

[BTS]

In the AL alone, there are 8 teams under .500. Six of them at least 24 games under .500, and five of them at least 30 games under .500. Add another six NL teams that are under .500, and half the league is bad. The only division race still up for grabs is the NL Central (3 games back). The Phillies are 2.5 games back of the 2nd WC, and no other team really looks like they have a shot at it. Hell, the D Backs are 3.5 games back of WC2 and they don't even want it.

 

Combine that with teams knowing they can make money without being competitive, thereby not having incentive to actually try, and it has lead to this mess. Even the off season has been boring the past couple of years because teams don't want to spend on free agents or trade prospects, so the hot stove is non existent.

 

MLB needs a lot of help, and none of it involves pace of play. Manfred has a tough job, but he's not tackling any of the important issues with fixing the game. I am 100% for some kind of rule that forces teams to try to compete. If you are under .500 for more than 3 years straight, or lose 100 games in consecutive years, you lose a first round pick, or something crazy like that. I hate watching highlights of other games and seeing half empty stadiums. Every team should be trying to contend, or at least put a decent product on the field. / end of rant

 

The last few years have been gross. A handful of teams that actually try to make themselves better and pursue free agents, and a bunch of teams completely punting the season. In an environment with two wild cards, almost every team should be taking a crack at 0.500 and hoping things break right and they make the playoffs.

 

There used to be a certain level of shame in fielding an unwatchable 100-loss mess, but that's not really the case anymore. Four teams are projected to lose 100+ games, and two more are projected to lose 95+. There apparently needs to be incentive for teams like Toronto to not view it as a waste to pay decent players in a season where they're probably not going to win.

[Barkerfan23]

I think we all know what's coming

 

And that's an nhl nba playoff style bracket

[glory]

A big issue is that players in MLB have little to no impact on revenue for teams. If the Jays signed Mike Trout, other than a momentary increase in interest/hype, there would be little impact on revenue unless the team was winning. If a s***** NBA team signed LeBron James, not only would the team's revenue increase, but the economy of that specific city/state would improve. The importance of players is night and day in different sports. The NFL is closer to MLB in that regard, but that sport is so popular that it doesn't matter who is on the field as long as the franchises are the same and fantasy football/betting still exists.

 

When Bill James made that quote about the players not being that important to the league, the sad reality is he was right. Replace all the current MLB'ers with minor leaguers and within a year or two no one would notice the difference. Teams can make money putting embarrassing products on the field on low payrolls, so no incentive to pay free agents. Something has to change otherwise teams who don't have a legit shot at a WS will just decide that the WC isn't worth it and pocket the money.

[Krylian]

I think we all know what's coming

 

And that's an nhl nba playoff style bracket

 

I don't think it will. But for arguments sake, let's say they do go to a 16 team playoff. How do they fit it all in from a timing standpoint? Do they shorten the season? Do they start the season sooner...go later...shorten spring training (they really don't need 25-30 games)?

[Brownie19]

Baseball's always had an issue with teams being "out of it". Think back to when only 4 teams made the playoffs, then 6 (then 8, now 10). What's changed? Is it the amount of money involved? Fewer stupid owners/GM's?

 

If you want more parity - add a salary cap with min and max's Is that what we want? Lots of parity? I know short term that seems great and it gives incentives to win now because you're always in it, but long term, for the history of the game, aren't powerhouse dynasties really good for the sport? (sorry if I sound like Bobcat)

 

Don't we all recall the dominance of the Braves in the 90's and 00's? Does it really matter what fans "remember" for 20 years ago?

[Bobthe4th]

I don't think it will. But for arguments sake, let's say they do go to a 16 team playoff. How do they fit it all in from a timing standpoint? Do they shorten the season? Do they start the season sooner...go later...shorten spring training (they really don't need 25-30 games)?

 

They would have to shorten the season. I know there are a lot of people that wouldn’t like it, but for me it’d be a good thing. 162 games is far too many.

[Krylian]

Baseball's always had an issue with teams being "out of it". Think back to when only 4 teams made the playoffs, then 6 (then 8, now 10). What's changed? Is it the amount of money involved? Fewer stupid owners/GM's?

 

If you want more parity - add a salary cap with min and max's Is that what we want? Lots of parity? I know short term that seems great and it gives incentives to win now because you're always in it, but long term, for the history of the game, aren't powerhouse dynasties really good for the sport? (sorry if I sound like Bobcat)

 

Don't we all recall the dominance of the Braves in the 90's and 00's? Does it really matter what fans "remember" for 20 years ago?

 

I love dynasties. I hate salary caps. Dynasties are what you remember from decades ago. Not one off teams. Plus...I don't like the idea of being penalized for being good at drafting and developing well, by not being able to afford to re-sign your own players.

[Todd Van Anus]

Did you guys see the hit Springer took last night banging into the wall? Sure hope he is okay.

[Bobthe4th]

I love dynasties. I hate salary caps. Dynasties are what you remember from decades ago. Not one off teams. Plus...I don't like the idea of being penalized for being good at drafting and developing well, by not being able to afford to re-sign your own players.

 

Salary caps don’t prevent dynasties, most of the best players will still want to play for the Yankees etc, even if they’re not being paid more. We’d probably also see more stars taking lower than maximum contracts to help their teams.

 

Re not being able to retain own players, have an NBA Bird rights style clause where you can break the cap for your own players.

[Krylian]

Salary caps don’t prevent dynasties, most of the best players will still want to play for the Yankees etc, even if they’re not being paid more. We’d probably also see more stars taking lower than maximum contracts to help their teams.

 

It's not working that way in the NHL right now.

 

Re not being able to retain own players, have an NBA Bird rights style clause where you can break the cap for your own players.

 

Yes. You would need some sort of creative clauses to allow for this. But basically, a hard cap, I really don't like.

[Bobthe4th]

It's not working that way in the NHL right now.

 

Interesting. I know nothing about the NHL, has it always had a cap?

[BTS]

Interesting. I know nothing about the NHL, has it always had a cap?

 

No. The cap/floor system has made the NHL almost unwatchable. Every year there a couple of teams everyone knows will be elite, a couple teams that everyone knows will suck, and like 25 mostly interchangeable teams that finish where they do based on how lucky they got. The media then makes up narratives to explain why a given team was/wasn't successful. The 2019 Cup Champions were literally dead last in the NHL in January.

 

And it's pretty much impossible to avoid the competitive/non-competitive cycle in the NHL now. In baseball it's always possible to be competitive every year if you make good choices and have financial flexibility. In the NHL perpetual success over the long term isn't really feasible.

[Krylian]

Interesting. I know nothing about the NHL, has it always had a cap?

 

About 15 years now.

 

Every season teams are forced to shed salary, trading away good players, in order to fit under the salary cap. Chicago is the most noteworthy example, where they had to move several players after winning a Cup because they could no longer afford them.

 

The Toronto Maple Leafs are struggling right now to sign their young players and fit them under the cap. They traded a player just this summer, and had to throw in a first round pick (as a deal sweetener), and basically got nothing in return aside from Carolina taking on the $6.25M salary. So much of the sport is about accounting now. I can't remember the last time there was a trade that was really just talent for talent. That rarely happens anymore...and it's unfortunate.

[Krylian]

No. The cap/floor system has made the NHL almost unwatchable. Every year there a couple of teams everyone knows will be elite, a couple teams that everyone knows will suck, and like 25 mostly interchangeable teams that finish where they do based on how lucky they got. The media then makes up narratives to explain why a given team was/wasn't successful. The 2019 Cup Champions were literally dead last in the NHL in January.

 

And it's pretty much impossible to avoid the competitive/non-competitive cycle in the NHL now. In baseball it's always possible to be competitive every year if you make good choices and have financial flexibility. In the NHL perpetual success over the long term isn't really feasible.

 

Yup. You get penalized for drafting and developing well.

 

What's happening to the Leafs right now, with the salary squeeze, people love...but they love it because they hate the Leafs, not because they love the system. The system is brutal.

[Laika]

Cap leagues f***ing suck

 

Having a rich teams to hate on is actually good for the sport

[Krylian]

Cap leagues f***ing suck

 

Having a rich teams to hate on is actually good for the sport

 

Slaying Goliath is always fun. David vs. David is boring.

[Bobthe4th]

Sounds like the NHL cap simply isn’t high enough if everyone has to get rid of decent players all the time. But then how do those few elite teams do it - good drafting?

 

A cap should be structured to allow teams to build, but low enough to prevent the biggest teams always signing all the best free agents. TBF the MLB soft cap with revenue sharing is pretty good at that. A cap floor would probably have a bigger effect (the ‘push’ to the extra playoff places’ ‘pull’ to increase competitiveness).

[Bobthe4th]

Slaying Goliath is always fun. David vs. David is boring.

 

Yup, watching elite teams is always better as a neutral. One issue with MLB is that if your team isn’t one of those, you’re not in a good position. Playing so many games means unless you’re super interested, you’re only going to closely follow your own team. If your team is one of the many that sucks, you’re going to lose interest - which for kids getting into the game can kill their interest before it’s even started.

[glory]

I don't think a salary cap is necessary. A payroll minimum is probably a good idea, if only so the small market teams who get revenue sharing are not putting it in their pockets, but I think teams should be allowed to spend as much as they want, especially when the draft has a slotting system.

 

The issue is incentivizing teams to try to compete every year. I don't know how you do that other than creating punishments for long term failure rather than reward. No team in baseball should ever want to do a scorched earth rebuild. It defies logic. Baseball is the one sport you can have a great MLB team and strong system at the same time. Like I said, finish below .500 for three years, and start putting in draft penalties. 100 losses in consecutive years? Your draft pick moves to the end of the 1st round. Three straight under .500 finishes? You lose a pick every sub .500 finish after that. Stuff like that. In that scenario, the Jays would be on year 3 of finishing below .500 this year, so fans would know Shatkins will bust their ass to put a contender on the field in 2020 with the potential penalty involved.

 

There is no perfect answer. I think MLB needs it all. Dynasties, teams bidding to sign free agents, the winter meetings being must see TV, etc. None of that is there now.

[Bobthe4th]

I don't think a salary cap is necessary. A payroll minimum is probably a good idea, if only so the small market teams who get revenue sharing are not putting it in their pockets, but I think teams should be allowed to spend as much as they want, especially when the draft has a slotting system.

 

The issue is incentivizing teams to try to compete every year. I don't know how you do that other than creating punishments for long term failure rather than reward. No team in baseball should ever want to do a scorched earth rebuild. It defies logic. Baseball is the one sport you can have a great MLB team and strong system at the same time. Like I said, finish below .500 for three years, and start putting in draft penalties. 100 losses in consecutive years? Your draft pick moves to the end of the 1st round. Three straight under .500 finishes? You lose a pick every sub .500 finish after that. Stuff like that. In that scenario, the Jays would be on year 3 of finishing below .500 this year, so fans would know Shatkins will bust their ass to put a contender on the field in 2020 with the potential penalty involved.

 

There is no perfect answer. I think MLB needs it all. Dynasties, teams bidding to sign free agents, the winter meetings being must see TV, etc. None of that is there now.

 

One potential problem is that if you get an owner who is only looking to make money, you’re killing a franchise by taking away draft picks. It’d prob make more sense to say you can’t have revenue sharing more than 3 losing seasons in a row.

[Brownie19]

No. The cap/floor system has made the NHL almost unwatchable. Every year there a couple of teams everyone knows will be elite, a couple teams that everyone knows will suck, and like 25 mostly interchangeable teams that finish where they do based on how lucky they got. The media then makes up narratives to explain why a given team was/wasn't successful. The 2019 Cup Champions were literally dead last in the NHL in January.

 

And it's pretty much impossible to avoid the competitive/non-competitive cycle in the NHL now. In baseball it's always possible to be competitive every year if you make good choices and have financial flexibility. In the NHL perpetual success over the long term isn't really feasible.

 

While your observation is correct - I suspect you'd find a ton of fans who love that almost every team is 'in the race' all season long and there are all kinds of battles of playoff spots. Very few teams in the NHL truly rebuild and most are 'going for it' every year as all you have to do is 'get in' and you have a shot at winning the title (unlike the NBA, where 6th thru 8th seeds are easily eliminated in the first round).

 

That system has given teams incentive to try and win every year. The cap floor forces teams to spend money and get better, while the ceiling really is preventing dynasties. I mean in a vacuum, I probably prefer seeing different teams win every year (personally, I'm a bit tired of seeing GS or Lebron in the NBA, Brady/Pats in the NFL, Crosby/Penguins in NHL, Dodgers/Astros/Yanks/Red Sox in MLB) and in a vacuum, playoff races are much more interesting than following an MLB team that's 'out of it' by June (or were never in it at all like the 2019 Jays). Over the long run, are dynasties better for the sport? I don't know. Sure I'll remember the dominant Brady lead Pat teams for the rest of my life and I won't remember the year the Blues won the Stanley Cup...but honestly, who cares? Does that type of history have a tangible impact on the sport? I don't know the answer to that, but my guts says no.

 

Those complaining that MLB is boring because there's no playoff races, lots of teams tanking, no incentive to winning should be careful what they wish for.