John_Havok

True. But the Veterans Committee (Today's game section) that meets in December is considering players from 1988 - 2016, so ... they actually could get in next year if the committee doesn't have it's head up it's own ass.

Cobb was suspended for charging the stands and assaulting a fan who was trash talking him during the game. Suspended for 10 games. There's absolutely tons of evidence that Cobb was a despicable human being both on and off the field.

There are many who think Delgado should already be there. Dude was a monster

Best commanded pitch of the last century. Better than Maddux could ever do.

I understand the character clause being there. It's been there since the 10th year of Hall of Fame eligibility. Technically, people can use that to argue as to why Ty Cobb got in, because there was no specific "character clause" for his vote. However, with precedent set by the BBWAA of the past since that clause was added to the consideration for the Hall, anything short of committing murder while on the field of play is not sufficient to invoke that clause. In fact, most baseball historians seem to think that the character clause was meant to help get people IN to the Hall, not keep them out. Kind of a "he's such a great human and was great for baseball, but didn't quite have the numbers" clause.

Rose is really the only one I understand not being there, but only because he willingly accepted a lifetime ban from baseball. I would still put him there without hesitation but that he willingly took the settlement that included the ban, I accept that. Nobody on the current ballot was banned. The ones with the requisite numbers should be in.

And it's official, the Hall of Fame for MLB in 2022 welcomes.... David Ortiz. That's it. Complete joke of an institution.

Just watching the start of the HOF announcemnet show... i didnt think i could be more impressed with Bonds, then they said " From age 34-42, his stats are better than many current Hall of Famer's entire careers." Just... put the guy in already. He's the best there has ever been. Stop being whiney ****s and get him in.

Should have it's own display in the Hall under glass with the simple designation of "savior"

I like the idea, I'm just wondering as to the mechanism of payout. Some years there could be pretty big variance between the top guy with under 3 years of service time and the 30th best. There could also be years where the best guy has 7 WAR, other years the best might only have 4. Would they get a hard slot bonus for being on top or some sort of sliding scale like... dollars per WAR?

If that's the case then it should be a lot smaller than it is now. Ty Cobb was one of the most despicable human beings to ever play the game, and he got more HOF votes than Ruth. There's a laundry list of players in the Hall Of Fame who were complete douchebag humans and cheaters in the game but they're all still there. That's probably what pisses me off the most. The precedent is already set that you don't have to be a saint to get in, as long as you excelled on the field, but now the writers are pretending like it's their holy purpose in life to protect the sanctity of a Hall of Fame that's already riddled with scumbags. And yes, i got the sarcasm. Just wanted to rant a bit.

Yeah I guess, seems weird to give individual player bonuses out that way, but I guess the intent of revenue sharing is so that the smaller market teams spend more on players, so maybe not that weird. But that would have to be over and above the other revenue sharing already in place or it really would be just taking from one hand to give to another Next question... would it apply only to those players that aren't already signed to guaranteed extensions? IE, would Wander Franco qualify for a piece of that pool next season? Or would it only apply to those going year to year like the vast majority do?

Was listening to MLB network radio on my way back to work today and Nitkowski and Spillborgs were talking about steroids. I don't recall which one said which, but one of them said he had teammates that used, were all open about it, they were great friends at the time and remain to this day, and he would gladly play on their team and go out to compete to win every day, but he would never vote for them to get into the hall of fame. I couldn't think of a more hypocritical thing to say. They're good enough to be teammates, tight and close friends, but... nope, wouldn't vote for them if they were eligible to be in the hall. Also said he knows players used ampethemines and other things in earlier eras and said they should only be non HOFers if they were caught. There wasn't even testing back then for virtually anything, so... how would they get caught? Just, nonsensical garbage.

Good question, especially for pitchers.

"MLB agreed to accept parameters of a pre-arbitration bonus pool for top 30 WAR. MLBPA seeking $105M. League offered $10M." Where does this bonus pool come from?

Ah there it is, found my post from earlier on in this thread: "Among all players to step on the field in 2019, 63.2% had less than three years of service time. They accounted for 53.6% of days of service time accumulated, but they combined for only 9.8% of player pay." 63.2% of players in games last season had less than 3 years of service time. less than 10% of the leagues payroll. Those are the players the PA is fighting for this time around. I totally get that it's never going to be significant, like 40% of the league payroll of course, but even moving that needle to 15% or even 20% would basically amount to the same thing as a salary floor.

True, but the average MLB career lasts 2.7 years. Getting guaranteed money in years 1, 2 and 3 would realistically have the greatest impact on players salaries. I agree that arbitration for year 3 would be a win for the players, but if that's their only win, it's not much of one. There's a ridiculous amount of PAs being taken by players in years 1, 2 and 3 of service time that accounts for nearly nothing of overall payroll. I know that they need to make less money than stars and established players, but adding 200K to the minimum salary in year 1 and more for years 2 and 3 would actually be quite significant across the entire league

Yep, forgot Rolen. 2 of the aforementioned 4 guys plus Rolen. If there's wasn't a 10 players limit I'd have all his guys picked plus Rolen, A-rod, Manny, Helton and Jones.

Yeah, I think raising the minimum and early career money is the goal for the PA this go around. If I were them, I'd be shooting for a minimum of 750K with annual escalators that increase based on the greater or some % of total revenues, or a flat # like 50,000. I would then hold as firm as possible on getting to arbitration for year 3. Anyone know where we can view what the average Super 2 salary was in the past 5 years? Just thinking that as a fallback if they can't hold out for arbitration starting in year 3, they could just use a simpler system of Year 1, 750,000, year 2 players 1,000,000 and year 3 could be something that is less, but somewhere close to the average super 2 contract over the past 5 years.

Pretty defensible ballot. I would have added 2 of Jones, Helton, Arod and Manny but the rest is solid.

From Bob Nightengale: The two sides argued Monday, and the meeting was contentious at times, but there was at least a scent of optimism Monday that the Major League Baseball season, perhaps even spring training, will start on time. The Major League Baseball Players Association and MLB officials declined public comment, but there finally was movement. In their last face-to-face negotiations on Dec. 1 in Irving, Texas, their meeting lasted seven minutes. The meeting Monday at the Major League Baseball Players Association office lasted two hours. And after only two negotiating sessions in the last 54 days, they now have another meeting scheduled Tuesday in New York with MLB making a counterproposal. The union, according to an official with direct knowledge of the negotiations, presented a broad-based proposal that included two major concessions. The union for the first time withdrew its request to reduce free agency from the current six years with an age-based free agent system. The players originally proposed a system for players to reach free agency at five years if they were at least 29 ½ years of age. The union also agreed to scale back its proposal to reduce revenue sharing among teams from $100 million to about $30 million. The official spoke to USA TODAY Sports on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the negotiations. Still, before anyone starts celebrating, or team officials can actually speak to their own players, significant obstacles remain to reach a new collective bargaining agreement in time for the start of spring training, scheduled for Feb. 16 in Arizona and Florida. The union rejected MLB’s last proposal to pay players on a formula consisting of statistical evaluations such as WAR, and eliminating the Super 2 class where there are huge salary disparities based simply on whether a player ranks among the top 22% in service time. The union still is asking arbitration rights for players to be reduced from three years to two years of major league service. The union wants to expand the pool of salary arbitration-eligible players, believing they should have the right to advocate for a higher salary through independent arbitrators. The union also rejected MLB’s proposal that teams who have a top 100 prospect will be rewarded a first-round draft pick if the prospect wins the Rookie of the Year award the first year, or a second-round pick if he finishes among the top three in voting. Teams would also receive a first-round pick if the player finishes in the top three in the MVP or Cy Young races or a second-round pick for finishing in the top five in his first three years. This, at least, theoretically, MLB said, would help stop teams from manipulating service time to keep their top prospects in the minors at the start of their rookie season to gain an extra year of control considering the tremendous value of first-round picks. There are 51 players on Baseball America’s top 100 prospect list who were first-round draft picks, and another nine drafted in the second round. The union believes that a better system would be to increase service time based on a performance and award package, which would have permitted a player such as Kris Bryant to reach free agency a year earlier if he wasn’t kept in the minors for two weeks to open the 2015 season. MLB offered an NBA-style draft lottery on Jan. 13, involving the first three picks each year to help curb the tanking issue among teams. The union wants the lottery to instead consist of the top eight picks. The NBA has a draft lottery that includes the 14 non-playoff teams, with the league’s worst team guaranteed to pick no lower than fifth. The two sides still have not budged from their last proposals involving the luxury tax and minimum salaries. Major League Baseball offered to increase the luxury tax from $210 million to $214 million, escalating to $220 million at the end of the five-year CBA with increased penalties (50% tax and surrendering a third-round pick) for crossing the threshold. The union is seeking an increase starting at $245 million with decreased penalties. The union wants the league minimum salary of $570,500 to be increased to $775,000. MLB offered to raise the minimum salary from $570,500 to $600,000, $650,000 for players with at least one year of service and $700,000 for at least two years of service. The two sides have already all but officially agreed to a universal DH with the elimination of draft pick compensation that penalizes teams for signing premier free-agent players. The union also is willing to expand the postseason from 10 teams to 12, but MLB is seeking a 14-team format. Now, it may be a matter of who blinks first. They have about two weeks to reach an agreement to avoid the delay of spring training, and a deadline of about March 1 to avoid delaying or shortening the 162-game season. The union still believes that MLB has not come close to addressing its biggest concerns of increasing the pay to younger players, teams’ willingness to compete instead of tank, and increasing spending by clubs without the luxury tax acting more like a salary cap. MLB argues that it is offering significant concessions. It’s unknown what happens next when the two sides meet for the second time in 24 hours, but finally, and mercifully, they are at the bargaining table, actually talking face to face.

That's the conjecture at this point yeah. Based on historical trends from the publicly announced ballots to the private ones... they anticipate if anyone gets in this year it will be Ortiz only. Which, of course, would be beyond stupid and make the Hall an even bigger joke than it is now, but that seems to be how the Hall likes it.

What would be an incredible move by the owners if they want to win the court of public opinion... end the lockout and then make it a players decision to either strike... or play without a CBA.

So who else is ready for further evidence that the BBWAA sucks balls?

I take it as such. It was heated, and they're talking again tomorrow. Seems like that's better than being heated and having no more talks scheduled. Baby steps I guess.