Official CBA Negotiation Thread
- Thread starter bravesfanforlife88
- Start date
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
I used to be one of those who liked NL baseball but the 2020 season changed my mind quick. I loved having the DH. You can still take a pitcher out with the DH, i dont see how having the DH can change whether to pull a pitcher or not. I'm good on not seeing pitchers hit anymore.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
The worst hitting catchers will post an OPS is the .600s. Outside of a few outlier seasons, that .600+ OPS is a superb year for a pitcher. So I don’t really think they’re comparable.
Henry Blanco, who you cite as a prime example of a crap-hitting catcher, carried a .649 career OPS. Madison Bumgarner, commonly regarded as one of the better hitting pitchers today, is at .524. Zack Greinke is at .598. The great Carlos Zambrano only mustered .636.
People think DH rule is gonna stop Snit from sac bunting with Swanson or Albies. Or D'Arnaud.
I didn't say it was particularly riveting. But it's strategy nonetheless. And it's been a part of baseball since the beginning and I enjoy the strategy. You obviously don't. That's ok. You do you. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm just saying I will miss how baseball was meant to be played.
The DH has had a beer league vibe to me.
Last edited:
The point is that many of them are still essentially automatic outs, even if pitchers overall are still considerably worse. Were we on the edge of our seat when Betancourt was at the plate? Not really. We all rightfully assumed he was an automatic.
And Bethancourt is no longer in the league.
There is plenty of strategy to enjoy in the modern DH game, even if Snit is oblivious to most of it.
Lineup construction as it relates to getting your best players in the most impactful situations the most often.
Platoon matchups meshed with resting guys such that their effectiveness is maximized.
Pitching changes taking into account the 3 batter minimum and identifying high leverage spots….and when a pitcher is tiring and/or should not be allowed to face batters a 3rd time.
Defensive shifts taking into account hitter tendencies and game situation.
There’s plenty of strategy in the modern game, and that strategy actually makes a difference…unlike the old dinosaur strategy that more often than not actually put the team at a disadvantage because they didn’t know better.
There is plenty of strategy to enjoy in the modern DH game, even if Snit is oblivious to most of it.
Lineup construction as it relates to getting your best players in the most impactful situations the most often.
Platoon matchups meshed with resting guys such that their effectiveness is maximized.
Pitching changes taking into account the 3 batter minimum and identifying high leverage spots….and when a pitcher is tiring and/or should not be allowed to face batters a 3rd time.
Defensive shifts taking into account hitter tendencies and game situation.
There’s plenty of strategy in the modern game, and that strategy actually makes a difference…unlike the old dinosaur strategy that more often than not actually put the team at a disadvantage because they didn’t know better.
Last edited:
The point we tend to miss is that sometimes that strategy leads to a run that might otherwise not have scored... and sometimes it gives up an out that may have been valuable. I am sure somewhere there are numbers that tell us how often each strategy is successful, and under what circumstances it should or should not be used. It also depends on things like lineup construction.
It is a strategy because it can change the outcome of a game for either good or bad. Like most strategies, some like it, others don't, and it can be used properly or misused.
It is a strategy because it can change the outcome of a game for either good or bad. Like most strategies, some like it, others don't, and it can be used properly or misused.
A sac bunt is almost only a positive play when the batter is awful…like a pitcher. So this amazing strategy of bunting is only a thing because pitchers are useless hitters, not because it is an effective strategy. Same thing with pinch hitting…mostly useful because pitchers are awful at the plate.
This idea that a strategy invented to mitigate the uselessness of pitchers hitting is somehow a positive part of the game is just silliness.
This idea that a strategy invented to mitigate the uselessness of pitchers hitting is somehow a positive part of the game is just silliness.
DirkPiggler
Well-known member
The biggest strategic factor with pitchers batting is the question of whether or not to pinch hit for a pitcher who is doing well in a close game his team is losing. Considering that you rarely see a starter in the game beyond the sixth inning, that question is pretty much moot at this point.
I am very fed up with the players at this point.
About at the level of F ‘em all for life. Just lock em out and start the whole thing over with kids who would eat their left foot off for a chance to play in the show for what is already life changing generational wealth. In the long run it would be better for the sport. In the short run, it would look like a beer league. Grab a beer and a hotdog
and enjoy.
About at the level of F ‘em all for life. Just lock em out and start the whole thing over with kids who would eat their left foot off for a chance to play in the show for what is already life changing generational wealth. In the long run it would be better for the sport. In the short run, it would look like a beer league. Grab a beer and a hotdog
and enjoy.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Maybe the billionaires who add almost nothing to the game should try offering a good-faith, non-garbage proposal, instead of asking for concessions from the actual laboring talent / entertainment product, while offering next to no concession themselves.
CrimsonCowboy
Moderator
No way spring training won’t be delayed. Looking bleak for the regular season to start on time as well
I was optimistic that the negotiation dials were defined, and all that was left was to turn the dials to numbers somewhere in the middle. After seeing how slowly each side is willing to move on meeting in the middle on these numbers, it’s getting harder to stay optimistic.
Take the pre-arb bonus pool as an example. Players stated at $105M, owners countered at $10M…both laughable numbers. Then the players came back with $100M, and the owners responded with $15M…both meaningless compromises. And that took a week. I lay blame equally at the feet of both sides.
So now we have roughly 2.5 weeks for this to get done if they are to have a compressed ST and get a full 162 games in.
Take the pre-arb bonus pool as an example. Players stated at $105M, owners countered at $10M…both laughable numbers. Then the players came back with $100M, and the owners responded with $15M…both meaningless compromises. And that took a week. I lay blame equally at the feet of both sides.
So now we have roughly 2.5 weeks for this to get done if they are to have a compressed ST and get a full 162 games in.
That will likely happen the minute the players decide to share operational costs. You know airplane charters, concession and ticket vendor salaries, power bills, insurance, uniforms and equipment, clubhouse attendants' salaries, stadium leases, etc..
Again, I don't "side" with the owners, but there is a cost to operate these franchises and to give the laboring talent a place to play - until they decide they're willing to share in some of those costs, it has to be taken off the top. Look at it this way - I can't afford to hire an "assistant" and pay them a salary PLUS benefits if I don't keep enough initial income to pay the rent and internet/phone/power bills plus insure the place we work.
You want to share 50% of the profits? Fine. Pay 50% of the expenses and we'll be closer to that happening.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
The fact of the matter is, owning a baseball team is quite profitable; notwithstanding Manfred's recent comments—which have been multiply refuted as barely true in letter, and extremely misleading in spirit—for most teams ownership thereof provides a better return than the stock market, especially over the length that most MLB owners (who tend to be far longer tenured than their counterparts in other leagues) tend to own their teams. So this "community stewards" canard is more nonsense today than it's ever been, but I suspect it's part of the reason ownership gets a bizarre level of sympathy in CBA discussions.
Beyond that, the fact is, most MLB players are minimum-salary workers relative to their league. I read numbers yesterday detailing this: around 55-60% of MLB players, these days, are playing at their minimum salary, versus ~25% in the NHL, and ~9% in the NBA. This is why the players are digging in—as they should. Honestly, I find most of their asks absurdly reasonable, and my only gripe—as it always is—is MLBPA's relative disregard for the lives and earnings of potential future members (ie minor-league players).
To the downright silly bulk of your post: labor itself an operational cost, just like all those others you mention. To use your turn-of-phrase, look at it this way: if the electricity bill goes up, you don't refuse to pay the utility company the increased charges unless/until the utility starts sharing in your other operational costs. Likewise, if the cost of labor rises—whether through market forces (not applicable due to MLB's antitrust exemption) or collective bargaining (MLBPA's only real recourse)—you pay for the labor, or you don't get the labor. And if your business cannot weather those additional costs, then you don't have a functional business model.
The players aren't asking for 50% of the profits, because profits are what's left over after expenses; and the players are an expense, just like all the other expenses you bizarrely think they should take a share in paying. At this juncture, the players are simply asserting they're more expensive than they have been—and, actually, they haven't even truly asserted that yet, since it's the owners who locked them out, not vice versa. It might simply be a negotiating position, with a late-season strike a fait accompli, but every indication thus far has suggested the players would have started the 2022 under the terms of the old CBA; it's the owners who, in point of real fact, are delaying the beginning of this season.
But if you really want to see a profit-sharing model, which would necessarily mean the players are likewise sharing in the operational costs (this is econ 101 stuff, dude ...), then I'm sure there's a form of that MLBPA would consider—particularly if it included an equity stake for players (as it should). Alas, the owners would never go for that model, because owning a major-league baseball team is hella more profitable than they're ever willing to acknowledge.
Last edited:
Tapate50
Well-known member
Yes if anyone thinks owners are gonna soak in any additional expense they are likely very wrong.
The additional operating expense will be soaked in by the fans