Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
B1az3

Potential Big MLB Rule Changes

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

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

That works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

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??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SilverBullet said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

-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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SilverBullet said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Michael said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  


×