John_Havok

I agree, i dont think banning the shift was necessary, but it will help offense at least a bit I guess. So that's a good thing imo

But i thought games were cancelled Manfred? What happened to the deadlines??? ...

The fact they are getting players to vote and not just the player reps means this is a deal that is within the parameters of acceptance they would have set prior to negotiations starting so... yeah, I think that's gonna be the deal. And just so happens that all of these number are practically the exact halfway point to each sides original offers. The MLB netwrok radio guys called almost these exact numbers 6 weeks ago as what a deal would likely look like.

I thought they agreed on eliminating draft pick compensation already like... 3 weeks ago? Why is that suddenly back on the table?

Very true, but 95% of it is exported already, so a shortage overseas probably doesn';t change what Canada does with it's own supply. I doubt our production can be increased very much in the short term

Exactly. It's getting to the point where all providers are rushing to be the exclusive carriers of "insert specific type of entertainment here." Netflix started the streaming craze and now there's... more than 20 streaming services out there, all with their own exclusive stuff, plus recycled old stuff. TV networks now have their own streaming services so you cant get their stuff anywhere else, largely as a response to dwindling cable TV/satellite subscriptions. Video games in the near future are all going to exclusive to one platform or another be it PC, Xbox or Playstatation. It would not shock me in the least that sports in general is going to get to the point where each team in every major sport has it's own streaming platform, and anyone who wants to watch anything will have to subscribe to that team's service, or the general league streaming service where blackouts would be overwhleming and only useful for out of market customers.

I'm really a fan of people who use arguments that basically boil down to "but this Hall of Fame player did that, so ... can't everyone?" I don't think the shift should be banned either, but using this kind of argument is just ... sooooo... stupid. The same assinine s*** gets tossed around for people talking about pitching "why do they need to throw 95 mph? Greg Maddux .... blah blah blah"... like if every pitcher suddenly realized that if they'd only throw just a little softer they too could have absolutely pinpoint command, enjoy a strike zone 6 -8 inches wider on each side of the plate and be a Hall of Famer. If only...

I don't think so. There's already a "you have to be able to hit X good" for defensive only and I dont see how that would change to any large degree with banning the shift. They'll still suck too much at the plate to be anything other than a bench guy. Ozzie Smith was the best SS of all time and if he hit 1 or 2 tiers lower than what he did, nobody would ever have known his name.

I think from the Union POV it's more about how changing to RObo umps would affect the player's valuations, specifically catchers. If framing #'s no longer matter to defensive value, then a catcher's valuations go down. I guess maybe the same for pitchers if robo umps call alot more balls.

They arent rejecting it outright, just for until at least the end of 2023 season. The MLB wants to change the unilateral process from a 1 year notification time to 45 days... which is basically them saying as soon as the World Series ends, they want the ability to say "next season, here's the changes" So the PA is saying that's okay for cerrtain things, but they want more time to look at the robo ump thing

There's tons of places that do writeups on prospects, but trying to pick the rising stars out of the bunch though is still extremely difficult. PLayers sometimes just take leaps out of nowhere. Others, theyre highly touted, but can't seem to put up the results that their talents suggest they should be. Then they make one small tweak (like adding a leg kick) and that's the magic bullet. Trying to predict breakout players is an exercise in futility for the most part.

The odds on favorite seems to be Ricky Tiedemann in the Jays system. Not sure about others though.

Gross. Hope he never sees the field in the bigs unless literally everyone else on the 40 man roster is injured or dead.

you're probably right.

Kind of a genius move by the PA, as long as they are doing it because it's the right thing to do, not just to throw shade at the owners and score some PR points.

I dont disagree with anything you said really, though there's some nuance to the TV viewership thing. Yeah it's down, but im sure youd see that streaming is up, because it's increasing in every major sport, and MLB still gets it's cut on streaming. Yes, local TV deals will likely not be the cash cow that it is today, but that revenue can, and will be made up by streaming royalties, ads on player patches, and dozens of other avenues the owners will be able to cook up. I agree 100% that it is the small market owners that are holding this up. The big market guys are losing out on way more money than the smaller markets with games being cancelled in April. The big market guys dont give two shits if the CBT goes up to 225 or 230. Even the Padres went over the threshold last year. Other teams that have come close and gone over sometime like the Cubs, Phillies, Giants... they could go over easily if they felt they have a good window of competition for a title. The CBT is a nice headline story but it's not the whole story. If the owners actually put some teeth into the revenue sharing process to "force" teams that get massive amounts of revenue sharing to use some portion of it on players, im sure some smaller market teams would get into longer competitive windows. I truly think that most small market owners want to spend more money and win, but have been boxed into these corners where it doesnt really matter if they win or not... they're revenues are going to be what they are, so why bother spending it on players if it doesnt translate to higher revenues for the team (see Tampa). They're gonna get their chunk of revenue sharing and be done with it. Yeah they might scout well, develop well and pick up a few star players along the way, but there's no way they can afford to keep them all long term (see Cleveland/Tampa/Oakland). Some are just greedy ****s (see Florida) or completely inept (see Pittsburgh). I dont think a salary floor even fixes these problems necessarily, but if the owners want a real hard cap like they always say they want, they will never get it without a hard floor. Honestly, I think the NHL system is the best way of the 4 big sports as all revenues are split 50/50 and the floor/cap moves as revenues increase. If something unforseen like COVID happens, both sides got together and quickly hammered out a compromise that acknowledges reality and didnt try to f*** the other side in the ass.

Billionaires dont get to where they are in life without being some combination of smart, intelligent and ruthless, and the lawyers they hire... ditto. It's not the same kind of smarts and intelligence that us peasants would typically think of because there any many different types of intelligence, but they are not, in any way, stupid. They go to where they are precisely because they are the sharpest knives in the drawer. They also generally don't give two flying f***s about anything other than money and power.

I dont WANT to sell high on Teo just because, I think it might be a necessity to try and keep Bo and Vlad in the fold beside all the other big dollar deals on the books already. Can't keep them all unfortunately.

If you think the people negotiating a CBA worth billions of dollars aren't smart as hell, you're a f***ing idiot.

I don't think there's any teams actively trying to lose, but they sure aren't doing everything they can to try and win.

Maybe, but with revenue sharing the way it is, is it really unreasonable to expect that the Pittsburghs and Tampas of the league who get 10s of millions of dollars in revenue sharing to actually spend a pretty big chunk of it on players? That was the majority intent of revenue sharing to begin with. The poor teams were constantly reminding everyone how they never had enough money to compete for free agents. Enter revenue sharing where they get money for nothing over and above where they were before. Same teams are saying the same things now. Can't afford free agents.

I'm sure Manfred has already contacted Rawlings to get those balls juiced up a notch or two.

It's all relative. If the players are providing a product that is being sold at higher and higher dollar vallues every year, they have every right to collectively bargain for a relatively increased piece of the pie. In the long run, a cap and floor is inevitable imo. Whether it's hard caps/minimums or soft... remains to be seen.

Yeah that was me that posted that stuff about the percentages. i wish i could find the article that I got it from as it was really interesting. I think in all reality both the Owners and union know that baseball needs a cap/floor situation, but being the last of the major sports to not have something like that they're going to fight it tooth and nail ... but, eventually the work stoppage that precedes a cap/floor in MLB will be really long.

I think getting the CBT raised is just part of the bigger picture of revenue sharing. When the top teams can spend big money while the low end end teams just pocket it and dont spend it on players like they "should" be then may as well let the big boys throw cash around. Both New York clubs, Boston, the Dodgers.... all of them could spend 250-300 million on salary every year and still make shitloads of profit.