Jump to content


Potential Big MLB Rule Changes


B1az3
 Share

Recommended Posts

[MEDIA=twitter]1092969842355945472[/MEDIA]

 

Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association engaged in a back-and-forth regarding potential rules changes to improve pace of play and discussed other measures, including a universal designated hitter and requiring pitchers to face at least three batters before being removed from a game.

 

Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reported the news, noting MLB made a proposal to the players' union Jan. 14 that included the three-batter minimum rule. The union responded Friday with a proposal that included a plan for the National League to adopt the designated hitter as soon as the 2019 season.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh I hate the DH

 

Me too but I've accepted it's coming for years. From the union perspective it's another job to be filled, from a team perspective it protects pitchers, from a casual fan perspective it creates more offense... the only negatives against it come from preferring tradition and since at the end of the day this is a business the other points will win out. There's no stopping it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too but I've accepted it's coming for years. From the union perspective it's another job to be filled, from a team perspective it protects pitchers, from a casual fan perspective it creates more offense... the only negatives against it come from preferring tradition and since at the end of the day this is a business the other points will win out. There's no stopping it. 

 

I hate that you're right, but you're right.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the insistence of the mlbpa to have the dh in both leagues. if the rosters are expanded to 26 they get an extra player on the 40 man roster. Why do they have a preference between a pitcher or a hitter?

 

DH would be a higher paid player usually than an extra reliever or bench guy. It is a real new job, rather than a likely min salary job.

 

Are they expanding rosters anyway? I missed that if so. I thought it'd just be 25 still with a DH rule in there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DH in the NL is inevitable but I'd imagine NL teams and especially GMs could really make a big stink about not doing it in 2019 because they just went through an entire offseason constructing their rosters without having a DH in mind. 

 

I agree, I like the NL strategy, but the DH is coming, and I think it's time to just do it.  There's NO way it happens for 2019 for why you say.  2020, sure.

 

DH would be a higher paid player usually than an extra reliever or bench guy. It is a real new job, rather than a likely min salary job.

 

Are they expanding rosters anyway? I missed that if so. I thought it'd just be 25 still with a DH rule in there.

 

They proposed it increase to 26, and September would go to 28, not 40.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Low-revenue teams that succeed -- whether by finishing above .500 or making the playoffs -- would be given greater draft positions or bonus pools under the union's proposal, according to sources. While the depth of the penalties were not clear, the union suggested teams that lose 90-plus games in consecutive years could be affected negatively in the draft.

 

Inteesting

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to recap from a few sources:

 

-3 batter minimum for pitchers

 

-universal DH for 2019

 

-DL from 10 to 15 days

 

-Reducing mound visits from current 6 to 4 in 2019, 3 in 2020

 

-Single trade deadline before the All-Star Break

 

-20-second pitch clock

 

-26 man roster, 12-pitcher minimum, 28 in September

 

-Study to lower the mound

 

-Rule allowing 2-sport athletes to be able to sign major league deals

 

-Losing 90+ games in 2 straight years drops the team 15 spots in draft, and loses $2M int'l money; losing 90+ in 3 straight drops the team 20 spots and $3M int'l money

 

-Revenue sharing more tied to W-L record

 

-Proposed tying service time to "awards" (MVP, ROY, etc).

 

Sources:

 

https://theathletic.com/802364/2019/02/05/rosenthal-three-batter-requirement-for-all-pitchers-universal-dh-part-of-proposals-that-could-bring-big-change-to-baseball/

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25935056/mlb-players-discussing-rule-changes-alter-game

 

[MEDIA=twitter]1093138650894925825[/MEDIA]

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Losing 90+ games in 2 straight years drops the team 15 spots in draft, and loses $2M int'l money; losing 90+ in 3 straight drops the team 20 spots and $3M int'l money

 

Obviously intended to prevent tanking and to increase free agent signings but this may have to be tweaked because it might penalize teams that are trying but screw up too harshly. Like is it that hard to lose 90 games twice? What if you're in a tough division with stacked teams at the top but you're really trying but your ace goes down with injury etc etc and suddenly you lose FIFTEEN spots in the draft??? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously intended to prevent tanking and to increase free agent signings but this may have to be tweaked because it might penalize teams that are trying but screw up too harshly. Like is it that hard to lose 90 games twice? What if you're in a tough division with stacked teams at the top but you're really trying but your ace goes down with injury etc etc and suddenly you lose FIFTEEN spots in the draft??? 

 

Yup, I'm with you.  Just reporting what was proposed, not that it's what will be implemented.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, having the DH will help out a lot of NL clubs not only in an immediate sense, but long term - think of the caliber of players that have gone to the American League on long term deals simply because they know once their abilities in the field have declined, they'll still get a full time lineup spot as a DH. The AL will no longer have that advantage once the NL has the DH. This helps out a team like Cincinnati who signed Joey Votto to a very long deal a few years back.

 

-Losing 90+ games in 2 straight years drops the team 15 spots in draft, and loses $2M int'l money; losing 90+ in 3 straight drops the team 20 spots and $3M int'l money

 

Not the biggest fan of this one for the same reasons SilverBullet mentioned. 15 also seems to be a bit too drastic - should maybe make it smaller drops, like 7 and 14 spots, perhaps. Another thing is, 90 games seems like it might be a bit low. I understand you want teams to avoid tanking but even when they weren't, how often did teams lose 90+ games and then improve enough the next year to get away from it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a team loses 90+ games then gets desperate and signs a big free agent who turns out to be a total flop and the team still loses 90+ games... they clearly weren't tanking, by signing the big free agent they sure as hell tried to improve their win total. Not trying to be funny but seriously think of Chen's signing here. That was a go for it move yet the team a basically got worse when he came aboard.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a team loses 90+ games then gets desperate and signs a big free agent who turns out to be a total flop and the team still loses 90+ games... they clearly weren't tanking, by signing the big free agent they sure as hell tried to improve their win total. Not trying to be funny but seriously think of Chen's signing here. That was a go for it move yet the team a basically got worse when he came aboard.

 

Exactly. There needs to be some caveats. Like if a team spent X amount of dollars in the off-season, they're excluded from that rule.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. There needs to be some caveats. Like if a team spent X amount of dollars in the off-season, they're excluded from that rule.

 

Yea something like that is a start but I'm sure there would be issues with that too. The problem is this tries to put a hard definition on who is tanking and who is going for it and it's not always so cut and dry.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DH in the NL is inevitable but I'd imagine NL teams and especially GMs could really make a big stink about not doing it in 2019 because they just went through an entire offseason constructing their rosters without having a DH in mind. 

 

There are still plenty of options on the market.

 

Half of the NL clubs already have guys that they could easily slide into the DH role and make their rosters easier to manage.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too but I've accepted it's coming for years. From the union perspective it's another job to be filled, from a team perspective it protects pitchers, from a casual fan perspective it creates more offense... the only negatives against it come from preferring tradition and since at the end of the day this is a business the other points will win out. There's no stopping it. 

 

The National League is the only league in all of baseball without a DH.

 

It coming has been inevitable for a while.  This has been discussed for a while, just now apparantly getting out in the public.  

 

Fans will get over it.  The romanticism with the pitching hitting is just that.  Any fan quitting baseball over this is not a great fan anyway honestly.  And if they are lost, good riddance and get off my lawn.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the insistence of the mlbpa to have the dh in both leagues. if the rosters are expanded to 26 they get an extra player on the 40 man roster. Why do they have a preference between a pitcher or a hitter?

 

Because veteran hitters are basically limited to only 15 out of 30 clubs.

 

Hitters looking for long term deals are limited to 15 out of 30 clubs because 15 clubs can slide said hitter to DH if their defensive abilities fall off.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a team loses 90+ games then gets desperate and signs a big free agent who turns out to be a total flop and the team still loses 90+ games... they clearly weren't tanking, by signing the big free agent they sure as hell tried to improve their win total. Not trying to be funny but seriously think of Chen's signing here. That was a go for it move yet the team a basically got worse when he came aboard.

 

I'd make it 95 games in successive years honestly.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many teams do you all think are going to use that 26th spot for a reliever? I predict about 90% of teams.

 

Well, that's why the proposal also said a 12 pitcher limit.

 

I'd make it 95 games in successive years honestly.  

 

Yeah, I think 95 would be a decent cutoff.  90 you can be trying and have everything go wrong/a pitcher go down etc. and "fall" into that range.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...