Olerud363

There are probably a lot of edge cases that would end up screwy. Like bottom of the 9th, less than 2 out, runner on 3rd. Sometimes they want 5 infielders. Is that still allowed? Is it exactly 3 outfielders? Or just not more than 3 ? How do you enforce this? Umpires judgement or are there lines on the field? Of course an infielder is allowed to cross the line once a ball is in play but then is there some kind of infield 'balk' or something? Like an infielder starts moving passed the shift line before the pitch is thrown you call an 'infield balk' ?.

Yup. Shifts have been around forever. Interestingly Marcus Semien pull hitter with high k rate has a higher wOBA then Michael Brantley last year. Cavan Biggio with a .230 average can beat Adam Frazier with a .280. Seems the shifts really just reflect the strategy the hitters are using, as much as shifts themselves. I've heard they shifted on Ted Williams, and I think I remember them shifting on Rob Deer or Harold Baines or someone, but until the last 10 or 15 years they never thought of shifting on everyone. However is that because they just thought of it 15 years ago? Or because everyone decided to become a lower average swing for the fences type (which means more pulled ground balls) ? This may have have happened because of sabermetrics, when they found out .250 with power is better than .280 without. Banning the shift may return to the video game numbers of the late 90s... Then they may have to deaden the ball to get it to some kind of normal historical level.

I don't think so. My understanding is they vote on the total package and need 23 to vote for it. Last time 26 voted for it and from what I heard they would not have had 23 votes if they increased the luxury threshold any more. It is still going to be hard to get 23 to agree on a package the players will agree on. And it will get worse as the missed games add up because players will want service time and pay, and the owners don't want to give them that.

I'm not sure what the D-backs current payroll is, but I think they have had a higher payroll a few years ago. Didn't they sign Greinke to a ridiculous deal? I think the D-backs are the example of the team that doesn't want a floor and wants a lower luxury tax threshold. They seem happy to cut payroll for a few years, then gear up. They don't want to be constrained with a floor in their build years, and they don't want the Dodgers to be able to spend 100 million more than they can in their go-for-it years.

I think it is more that Tigers, D-Backs, and Angels are all mid-market who expect to have payrolls just around 200 million. Same as Blue Jays will likely have in a couple of years. These teams don't want the Yankess/Dodgers/Mets to have payrolls 50 to 100 million higher then they do. This is going to be tough to work out. Not just players vs owners, but owners vs. owners and not just big market vs small. The second level 'big markets' (Toronto, LA Angels, Tigers, etc) have no reason to let the Yankees/Dodgers have a payroll way higher then theirs.

Yeah - say the floor system forces team to be 40% of max team? Is that fair if it does not really allow the team to contend anyway? Need a system that forces team to be 75% of max team (with both floor and ceiling) but also makes sure levels are set so players are receiving more of the total pool. That's basically what the other sports do, isn't it?

That's a good question but I'm not knowledgeable enough about other sports to answer it. The concern I have is that the space between floor and ceiling will be too much. It looks like in the NBA the salary looks to be about 120 million at the low end and 180 at the high end. In MLB I can see it being something like 120 at low end and 300 at high end (no hard cap). If you started talking about a hard cap (or at least harsher) and some loop holes that would allow teams a better chance at keeping home grown players than I'd be more on board with the floor. I am totally for more money in the hands of the players. I'd be for a floor if it is done in a system that also reduces that deviation between payrolls. Need a system that gets more money in hands of players with less variation of payrolls.

They waited way too late to trade Donaldson. For the Toronto market this was totally justifiable. As they had 3 million fans in 2017, were coming off of only 1 bad year, and it made sense to try again. However forcing a team to 'win' would be insane for a lower market team, or perhaps a team that was at the end of a 5 year run. What right does any governing body have to tell that team to implement a strategy that is counter-productive? And say a team has a guy like Stroman they are trading anyway, how do you force them not to take on dead salary to get more prospect? I can tell you that is what savvy teams will do in down cycles. You force them to have a 100 million dollar payroll, they will still trade players (but pay some of their salaries) and then take on bad contracts + prospects... so they will still lose (or tank) for a while and collect prospects anyway. I think someone made the joke that if the floor is implemented Randal Grichuk would be a hot commodity because he will help the team make floor, and lose, so they will take on Randal if you give them prospects.

They aren't trying to lose on purpose. They are trying to win 95 games in three or four years. Forcing them to win 70 games now is counter productive and useless. Jays teams of 2017 and 2018 are a great example. Did casual fans really enjoy those teams? Attendance tanked in 2018 because the 2017 team was miserable. Doubt it would have been worse if the 2017 team was gutted and a rebuild started early. "Trying" to win 75 games will be counter productive to the long term health of many franchise. I totally understand if there was a team that just was losing 60 a year for decades and gobbling up competitive balance payments. However I don't believe any team, even the Marlins are doing that. Imagine the Marlins were forced to keep Stanton or Jose Reyes because of payroll floors? Would that of helped them at all?

2013 Jays are another example of what I would see the floor rule producing. Jose Reyes, Bonifacio, the Milk Man. Soul crushing teams and players just to make the artificial floor, with no advantage to short term or long term fan enjoyment.

Sorry for the ranting after being quiet for a few months. Just really down on the situation. And I hate the f***ing floor idea as it seems useless for fans. As a fan, if I can't have a contender, I'd much rather have a 55 win team full of lottery tickets, get some high draft picks. I hate 'floor' teams. Reminds me of the 1996/97 Jays with Joe Carter, Benito Santiago, Otis Nixon, Orlando Merced, Garcia... Gord Ash wasn't trying to build a 'floor' but somehow did. Most depressing thing I have ever seen. Floor teams would kill the small markets. This entire floor concept seems to just be a way to get the Randal Grickuk's of the world paid.

Toronto 2025, Catch the spirit. The great young core is in LA, Boston and NY. but because of the floor you can catch Freddie Galvis, Randall Grichuk, Kevin Pillar, Tanner Roark, Hyun Jin Ryu and Liam Hendricks (old closers are helpful to make floor). These guys will really try to win 70, and if they don't and only win 55 you might get the 7th pick after the lottery.

Players - hello Toronto. We offer a great system where NY gets a 300 million payroll and gets Vladdy (10 years 450 million) after you guys lost almost 2 seasons of him because of Covid and Lockout. Anyway hope you guys love the new floor rule. Sign Grichuk to a 3 year extension to make floor while your favourite players leave for Yankees and LA. We love you. Please support the MLB!

The thing that will get fans back is the thing that will make the lock-out last a f***ing year. Parity like they have in NFL, NBA, NHL. If any team can win fans will be interested. If teams can keep homegrown players fans will love it. However Union wants NY/LA/Bos to have 300 million payroll and Vladdy to get 450 million 10 year contract. If you constrained that and gave small market teams opportunity to win every year, and keep their homegrown players fans would support it...

But the problem is there is now another issue that will be hard to resolve. Players will demand full pay for 162 game season even though only 140, owners will say no, so this go on quite some time.

Was Tercet the guy that basically dissed every minor league player except Vlad, and gave them nick names like 'Gurriel BABIP' and 'Teoscar the mirage' ?? Can't remember but that take looks really bad now that the second level prospects have developed into a good support crew for the stars.

Burnette was 5 60 I believe and Halladay got a similar contract after 2005. So no. Josh Towers did not get a 100 million offer. OK. I just looked it up. Burnette was 5/55. Halladay signed a 4/40 after 2003, then a 3/40 extension onto that in March 2006. There is zero chance Towers got offered more than like 2 / 10 million. OK Maybe an outside chance they offerred him 3/21 or something but even that seems extreme if AJ was only worth 11 a year, and Roy like 12

Is this true though? Doesn't Rogers benefit long term if the Yankees and Red Sox are constrained by an aggressive salary tax? Jays always seem to be in the top 10 or so of spenders, but below the tax level, and quite a bit below Yankees/Red Sox/Dodger level. So wouldn't they want constraints so Jays paryroll is closer to Yanks/Sox ?

They are completely different players. Conforto has a lifetime on base percentage 60 points higher.

Crazy. Andruw Jones and Carlos Beltran have almost the exact same career fWAR Beltran is an awesome baserunner, better hitter, but rated way, way worse defensively. Is that real? Impression from watching 1 game a year with those guys was Beltran was an awesome centerfielder too. Weird that one is an awesome baserunner but mediocre defender and the other is an awesome defender but mediocre baserunner. https://www.fangraphs.com/players/andruw-jones/96/stats?position=OF https://www.fangraphs.com/players/carlos-beltran/589/stats?position=OF

One thing that doesn't make sense is Jones baserunning. It's below average while other dynamic centerfielders (prime Devon White, Buxton, Kiermaier) are all very good baserunners. The skills to be a good center fielder, speed, good jump, ability to anticipate usually correlate to baserunning. Could be the defensive system is over-rating Jones, or the writers are under-rating him because his skill-set doesn't scream "awesome defensive center-fielder" the way Devon White's does. I honestly can't remember what Jones was like. Was he really fast? Maybe he was fast but just an idiot on the base paths.

More info. Rangers kept Fielder on the 40 man for 2017 so they could collect the insurance money, but then reached a settlement with the company and released him... https://www.mlbdailydish.com/2017/10/4/16426358/rangers-prince-fielder

Thanks, this is interesting. Looks like a) by releasing the player you get out of the 40 man obligation it's not that simple because the insurance company may require you keep the player on the 40 man (to avoid teams faking an injury to get out of it) "One term that is apparently pretty standard in these agreements, however, is a requirement that the team must place the injured player on the disabled list — rather than simply release him outright — in order to collect the insurance proceeds. It’s not entirely clear why insurance companies typically insist on such a provision, although it’s possible they view it as protection against teams fabricating injuries for aging players with whom they have simply decided to cut their ties for performance-related reasons. This means that, in order for Texas to collect its $9 million in annual insurance proceeds, the Rangers will likely be required to keep Fielder on the 60-day disabled list for each of the next four years. While this will have little competitive impact on the club during the playing season, it’s not without its cost to the team, as it means that Fielder will have to remain on Texas’s 40-man roster throughout each of the next four offseasons."

I think teams can get out of the 40 man obligation by releasing the player, still have to pay the contract but don't have to use a spot. If team doesn't release a player, I assume they are obligated to work with the training staff and try to rehab. Can't imagine a situation where a guy would be on the 40 man, but be able to sit at home eating Doritoes. Either gets released or has to legitimately try to rehab. Fielders case he must have got released, but on amiable terms, team and Fielder agreed he couldn't do the rehab so released him to get the 40 man spot back.

I don't really understand it myself. I am sure if a player just gets sick of it and retires he doesn't get paid. I believe Ben Zobrist famously did this and his ex-wife sued him and accused him of retiring so she'd get less money. However there is another "type" of retirement where the player is injured like Fielder, "retires" so the team has the roster spot, but still gets paid. Are there two types of "retirement"? Did Fielder really retire? Or get released and not want to play anymore so he then retired? Maybe that is all there is to it. Injured players get released first, so they are owed the money, then retire.