glory

If I were the players, I'd take the L on the league minimum just to get arbitration after year 2. Getting arbitration for year 3 is more important than a marginal increase in years 1 and 2. That's why the owners are going to fight like hell not to do it, but the players have to figure out a way to get it done. If they miss on that as well, then the owners would have gotten another TKO in CBA negotiations.

It feels like the only real "win" the PA can get is if the owners agree to arb after year 2. They have already given up on earlier free agency, so beyond that there really isn't any other realistic way for players to get paid more earlier other than an extra year of arbitration. The owners appear to be dead set against it, but I feel like that's something they might eventually bend on if the PA concedes other things (14 playoff teams, leaving the luxury tax around where it is, etc). Both sides seem fine with raising the minimum, they can probably meet somewhere in the middle on that one.

It will either be Ortiz or no one. It's a joke.

The fact that their next meeting is tomorrow and not 10+ days from now is probably the first glimmer of hope since December 1.

Agreed. Maybe when the pandemic is way in the rear view, it might become a possibility again, but I tend to agree we have seen the end of major sports teams in Canada other than what already exists for the foreseeable future. MLB in particular, look at what the Jays have gone through in 2020-21, and what they still figure to go through in 2022. At least the Jays are owned by Rogers and can swallow that type of revenue hit, but I don't think anyone in MLB wants to add another Canadian team and have to go through the same issues any time soon.

Happy to see JM's growth. They genuinely love baseball, created the type of video content that appeals to all ages, took over a market that was bordering on non existent (national baseball media), and turned it into a big time company. Good for them.

Yeah, the "draft pick for not manipulating service time" thing is ridiculous. Not only will teams still find a way to abuse it (as already mentioned), but most teams would likely prefer the extra year of control rather than a draft pick, so it's really not much of an incentive. There's also the ridiculousness of rewarding teams for not doing something in bad faith while there's no punishment for teams who do. The only way I can think of where teams might stop manipulating service time is if a player's service clock started when they are put on the 40 man roster. So for example, 2021 would have been Moreno's 1st year of service. If he spent all of it in the minors, then the team loses a year, but if that system were in place, then maybe the team calls Moreno up some time in 2021. It also helps players reach free agency earlier without having to take away the 6 years of control that owners want to keep. Not sure owners would agree to the 40 man roster thing, but I don't see another way to avoid the manipulation.

Kinda wish we just had this lockout after 2016 when the Jays window was over. Vlad and Bo's years of control so far have been a 60 game 2020 season, a 2021 season where they couldn't play at home for most of the year, and now likely a shortened 2022 where I'm sure they'll be playing in an empty stadium for at least part of the season. But I'm sure there will be CBA peace in 2026.

The entire local cable/RSN model is going to change in the next few years, and that's going to be a big hit for MLB teams who got fat off local TV deals for a long time. That might be why owners are so eager to get a win in this CBA because once the RSN money dries up, it's going to be impossible to recoup that type of money with a DTC model. Of course, Manfred is ready to go waist deep into gambling, so that should help compensate.

A month ago I thought there was no chance the league would actually lose games over this. Now I'm wondering just how many games will be lost. They better come to a deal by Feb 1 and start Spring Training on time.

That was my first thought. Jomboy Media got Chris Rose after he was gone from MLB Network. Not sure if Rosenthal is within their budget but the company appears to be growing and Ken is still getting FOX money either way.

He'll either be 2021 Yates or the off season bargain. The lack of QO makes me think Yates is more likely, but who knows. My guess is the Jays get Kikuchi.

Yeah, if the Mets are looking for pitching, then I don't think the Jays are a good fit with them in a trade. I wouldn't be against acquiring McNeil (he makes a lot of sense as a LH bat who can play 2B/3B), but he's had some clubhouse issues with the Mets apparently, and the Jays tend to avoid those types. I don't see a match there.

You can tell he’s a coward by writing his name as Michael. He damn well knows he’s Mike Hunt but he’s too gutless to embrace it. No wonder his ballot is blank.

The Jays have a legit chance to win the division in 2022. I don't think they risk experimenting with Gurriel at 3B for that reason, especially given how bad he looked as a 2B/SS before they moved him to the OF. Maybe give him some reps in ST to see how he looks there, but by then they probably would have already acquired a 3B. I don't think that proposed Ramirez trade would interest CLE much. They would likely have no interest in Biggio, and most of their top prospects are infielders so I'm not sure if Groshans moves the needle for them. They definitely seem to love Kirk based on recent rumors over the years, and Gurriel fills a need for them, so that part seems fine. I'd be fine with that move as proposed, but whether CLE would value that over keeping Ramirez and trying to compete in a weak division + what should be an expanded playoff format is another story. Maybe that same offer, replacing Gurriel with a prospect, would interest the D-Backs for Marte, but I don't know enough about their org needs.

If the Jays are not going to make another big FA splash (Correa/Bryant/Story), and either don't want to give up the prospects or can't find a deal for Ramirez/Marte/Chapman, then Harrison might be the next best infield option available. It depends on how you view him versus Seager, but I think I'd prefer Harrison due to his versatility. If Harrison's market is as hot as it was stated in that tweet, then I don't think he signs here to be a backup, but I agree he would be a nice utility IF for contending teams.

According to that guy's Excel sheet, Bonds and Clemens are both at 76.9% with over 13% of the ballots known. I don't like their chances of being at 75% when all votes are tabulated, but I hope they are. A HOF class of Ortiz and Rolen would still be solid though, if not completely hypocritical for Ortiz, but nothing we weren't expecting.

The NBA seems to add incremental changes every so often. They added the play-in tournament. They changed the AS game format a number of times, from having the top vote getters get to draft their team and recently to implementing the Elam Ending for the actual game. They have also made some incremental changes with defenses, hand checking, flopping, etc, every so often. The game today is much different than it was 10-20 years ago. A lot of that is due to Curry and analytics, but it wasn't just front offices changing the game, the league had a hand in it as well. Yet the only real complaints about the NBA are from older fans who grew up on Jordan era. The younger demographic loves it. I'm not the biggest Adam Silver fan, but he's not afraid of making changes, whether big or small, and I think a large part of that is owed to a younger fanbase that isn't going to complain about something "ruining the sport". The play-in tournament is absolutely ridiculous, but I didn't see anywhere near as much hatred for it as I thought I would. I can't speak on the NFL or NHL, as I don't follow either sport, but I think if Manfred takes a page out of Silver's book and starts experimenting with certain things, he won't get the type of leeway from baseball fans that Silver gets from basketball fans. The NBA has an old versus young problem. The "old heads" miss the game the way it was, while the younger kids love it. Baseball is in a weird spot where old and young don't particuarly care for the way the game is played now. At some point the league is going to have to make significant change, and if they are smart, they'll focus on trying to appease the younger fans rather than trying to appease the older ones that are probably going to stick around regardless.

Yeah the deals being brought up here are mostly FA deals. A 10-12 year deal for Vlad would take him through age 32-34. There is still obviously risk with any deal for that length of time, but it's not the same type of risk as signing him to 10-12 years at age 26.

Agreed. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there even is one, but baseball fans are definitely last to accept change. Maybe it's because the fanbase tends to lean on the older side as a whole, but it's remarkable that a league like the NBA practically makes changes to their league every year (on and off court) and it's never seen as a big deal, but MLB wants to implement putting up 4 fingers to signify an intentional walk to speed the game up a tiny bit and fans lose their minds. I agree, for baseball to truly improve, they can't worry about offending the diehard fan. Most of this board hated the runner on 2nd rule, but it didn't stop them from watching. That's going to be the case for all existing fans. If you're a diehard, then you'll either grow to like or grow to accept any change made. I would be fine with 7 innings being the new norm (those doubleheaders tended to fly by and less time for games would make a huge difference), but I'd like to see them exhaust all options for improving the pace of a 9 inning game. Maybe that's not possible, but implementing a pitch clock and limiting P's on the roster could shave enough dead time to a more manageable level where people aren't complaining about how long the games are. Most of the time I don't think it's the game length that bothers people but rather the pace of it. Since baseball doesn't have a clock, games could last 4 hours even if it had a lightning pace to it, but those 4 hours might breeze by in that scenario, at least compared to what we see now.

Yeah, the owners have already offered a floor ($100m) that had a $180m luxury tax (with stricter penalties for going over), which is basically a salary cap without calling it one, and the MLBPA does not want a salary cap. The current luxury tax threshold acts as a soft cap now anyway and I'm sure the players are fighting to either eliminate that (unlikely) or increase it (more likely but without a floor). I wish they'd just agree to a salary cap, split the revenue, have a floor/cap, and be done with it. The NFL and NBA are printing money with that model. The free market that the MLBPA desires so much benefits probably 2% of the players in the league. But as long as they are against a salary cap, I think what they end up agreeing to is a just a more player friendly version of the current system. Increased league minimum, arb after year 2, and incentives/bonuses for pre-arb players who have great seasons. Anything more complicated than that, and I would be surprised.

Expanded playoffs and universal DH are probably the only two things that are guaranteed to come out of this. Everything else is just who bargains better (and judging by history, I'll bet on the side that doesn't have Tony Clark on it to get the better deal).

Ortiz and Cruz both kind of had some help in the aging process, but of course no one knows the answer to "when will Vlad decline". I was just taking a player who he's been compared to as a hitter and used that as a quick example. Vlad could decline at 34, 28, 39, or any number of ages. Who the heck knows. I think somewhere between 32-35 is a safe bet, though.

Tatis got 14/340. My guess is that's what Vlad's reps will use as a starting point on a deal, and they have no reason to settle for less since he has 4 non-cheap years of arbitration remaining. So even if he goes year to year, he's going to be making pretty decent money over the next 4 years and then can line himself up for a massive 10+ year deal at age 26. A 14 year deal would take Vlad through age 36. If you want to use Miguel Cabrera as a comparison, his last great season was at age 33, and he began to fall of a cliff at age 34. So if you assume Vlad's decline begins around the same time, then there would be a few dead money years at the end, but having him for his entire prime would likely more than make up for it.

The MLB proposal was apparently universal free agency at age 29.5. Service time was not factored in. If it was factored in, then I'm guessing the MLBPA would have actually liked it.