Official CBA Negotiation Thread

tululush said:
Shift the entire outfield to one side and have the lf or rf play deep in the hole behind the infield dirt. If teams were ok with leaving first/third base wide open in the infield, I'm sure they'll be fine leaving the lf/rf line wide open now at the expense of plugging the hole between 3rd and ss or 2nd and 1st.

*edit* I guess this depends on what the league defines as a shift. Are they calling this a ban on infield shifts or a ban on all shifts?
Click to expand...

The problem with that is, at least to my naked eye, it seems like when the teams shift the infield drastically they shift the outfield a bit in the opposite direction. I don't know if that was just to mitigate the effects of the weak ground ball in the vacated hole, if it's to accommodate the infielder playing short RF, or if players tend to hit weak fly balls to the pull side when trying to beat the shift.

Rest assured the smart teams will find a way to optimize positioning within the limits of the new rule.
 
DirkPiggler said:
The problem with that is, at least to my naked eye, it seems like when the teams shift the infield drastically they shift the outfield a bit in the opposite direction. I don't know if that was just to mitigate the effects of the weak ground ball in the vacated hole, if it's to accommodate the infielder playing short RF, or if players tend to hit weak fly balls to the pull side when trying to beat the shift.

Rest assured the smart teams will find a way to optimize positioning within the limits of the new rule.
Click to expand...

Players trying to lift the ball (pretty much every impact hitter) have a slight uppercut swing. As such, when they are early on a pitch they tend to pull it on the ground, and when they are late on a pitch they tend to hit it the opposite way in the air. So most shifts are to pull on the ground, and go the other way in the air.

If a player hits one on the screws it probably isn't going to be caught (LD out of a defender's reach, or a FB HR), so they don't position the defense to defend those as much as they do the balls that aren't missiles.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
The thing is, the difference in ESPN revenue between 12 and 14 team playoffs is literally $15M, or $500k per team.

There's simply no way that money matters to the owners, so the only benefit they are getting is less incentive to spend on players.
Click to expand...

I heard it was 100 Million for expanded playoffs. That was 3 million per team and I still thought that was too low to **** up the sport. Playoff expansion overall that is, not the difference between 12 vs 14. Maybe it is only 15 million for those two teams.

But the owners are horrible. So I won't put it past them.

They seem ok on the 12 team expansion, they already go expansion. Seems like the hold out now is on the CBT.
 
It's $85M for 12 teams, and $100M for 14 teams.

And I agree, when I saw that $100M figure I was like....what's the big deal?
 
MLB's latest offer is $228 million CBT going up to $238 million by end of deal.

162 games. 12 teams make the playoffs.

Feels like progress, but they'll probably need to raise the back end of the deal a little bit. The players want $263 million.
 
Only like 5 teams will even sniff the CBT. If the owners really want to play why not move close to the players at 250 million or so and win on pool for young players?
 
SJ24 said:
MLB's latest offer is $228 million CBT going up to $238 million by end of deal.

162 games. 12 teams make the playoffs.

Feels like progress, but they'll probably need to raise the back end of the deal a little bit. The players want $263 million.
Click to expand...

The players were asking for $238M in 2022, but this is the first time the owners have increased their offer by a notable amount. So that's a good sign at least.
 
Enscheff said:
The players were asking for $238M in 2022, but this is the first time the owners have increased their offer by a notable amount. So that's a good sign at least.
Click to expand...

$228 million CBT, $700,000 minimum, 12 team playoff, and the establishment of a prearb bonus pool.

I would take this deal or something close to it.

But I'm just a fan. We'll see what happens.
 
Russ2dollas said:
Only like 5 teams will even sniff the CBT. If the owners really want to play why not move close to the players at 250 million or so and win on pool for young players?
Click to expand...

4 owners didn't even approve it being raised to 220 million in their offer last week. Teams like the Mets and Yankees want it go up for obvious reasons. Seems like an internal fight among the owners on smaller market teams not wanting the larger market teams to have extra cap space so to speak.
 
Russ2dollas said:
Only like 5 teams will even sniff the CBT. If the owners really want to play why not move close to the players at 250 million or so and win on pool for young players?
Click to expand...

The luxury tax get distributed down to the small market clubs correct? I imagine there 10-15 teams owners who make a decent chunk of change off this system. Also, raising the ceiling essentially raised the floor as well, so more money they'll have to shell out in general.
 
Owners are finally making some concessions, but it's only marginally. Players have moved quite a bit. Of course the caveat there is the players also started really high so there was a lot of room to move. A good compromise would seem for the owners to raise the CBT for 2022 and the players moving down from the 263 figure by the end of the deal. Maybe something like 232 million in 2022 and 245 million by the end of the deal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top