LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[Tiger337]

52 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

I was being sarcastic, but really, Sanders gets to toss that term around about baseball owners but we can't apply it to him, huh?

Sanders is arguably the figurehead leader of a powerful and ascendant political movement whose principle aim is to vastly expand the power of government beyond it's already massive scope, and he is one of a small/elite class of 50 US Senators -- in his case, he will have that Senate seat as long as he wants it.  He is also chair of the Budget Committee now, with significant influence over direct US government outlays equal to 1/4th to 1/3rd of the largest economy in the world.  That is enormous power wielded by a member of an uber-elite class.  

No amount of ill-fitting clothing, funky mittens, or bad hair can change that 😃

A struggle between Sanders and MLB owners would be a struggle between uber-wealthy and uber-powerful people (yes, yes, he's a lot less wealthy, but a lot more powerful)....you want to cast it as class warfare, an extension of the class warfare that you have consistently imposed regarding the division of billions between the MLB owners and the players.

 

He's not more powerful than them at all.  Always remember the golden rule.  The billionaires tell congress what to do.  Congress doesn't tell them what to do.  

[Tigeraholic1]

Hate to see it, this kid is special.....

 

 

 

[1776]

Maybe he can hot dog it in front of the mirror until he gets back.

Go SF!

Edited March 14, 2022 by 1776

[sabretooth]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

He's not more powerful than them at all.  Always remember the golden rule.  The billionaires tell congress what to do.  Congress doesn't tell them what to do.  

If Sanders and Congress are willing and able to undo the MLB antitrust exemption, then by definition that would mean that they have more power than 30+ billionaires.  

I don't know if they have the will and capacity to do that, but the fact that it's an open question in my mind is what I'm talking about.   You may feel that the above is impossible.

My guess is that Chaz feels that it is definitely possible.

Edited March 14, 2022 by sabretooth

[RedRamage]

Interesting things I found in the CBA (or at least the summary on this page).

Quote

Seven inning double headers and ghost runners in extra innings are gone- for now.

YES!  I'm happy with both of those things.

Quote

[Rule] Changes may take place within 45 days after approval.

Not a fan of this very much... I mean I don't anticipate major changes to the game play during a season, but in theory this could happen.  I would hope that discretion on this would be used, but I'd hate to see a team build their roster a certain way and have success, then suddenly the other owners don't like that they succeeding and change the rules half way through the season.

Quote

Coming in 2023:

* Larger bases, First, second and third base will go from from 15 inches squared to 18 inches.
* A 14 second pitch clock, maybe 19 seconds with a runner on base
* A ban on defensive shifts. Teams must have two infielders on each side of second base

Meh on the base size... I could take it or leave it.  I like the pitch clock though we'll have to see how it's implemented.  Hate the rule against shifts... though it theory I dunno how much of a real change it'll be.  If the SS in a shift normally plays five feet from second base, now he just plays right on the other side, then scoots over a few steps as the pitcher throws.
 

Quote

Teams that promote a player to the opening day roster and keep him up for a full season will be eligible to receive up to three draft picks if the player finishes in the Top 3 in the Rookie of the Year voting or Top 5 in MVP/Cy Young voting before he is eligible for arbitration.

I don't see this as being very effective.  I guess depending on where those picks are it might make a difference but I can't see any team saying: "I can either manipulate service time and keep this player longer at a lower cost... or I can promote him and maybe he'll do good enough to earn me some picks that maybe will turn into something like 5 years from now... maybe."
 

Quote

The first six selections in the Amateur player draft will be awarded via a lottery. All teams that did not make the playoffs in the prior season are eligible. The three teams with the worst records will each have a 16.5% chance at the first selection (total 49.5%) and others a lesser chance based on winning percentage. 11 teams have less than 5% chance at the first pick.

Not a fan of the lottery personally. I just don't think there is enough incentive to NOT tank because I might not get the 1st draft pick.  I don't see the draft as being as important in MLB as in the other leagues.  Maybe I'm wrong... maybe this will be a driving force but I don't see if right now.  Maybe if draft position also applied to the international that is, the same lottery results for amateur hit for international... heck maybe in Rule 5 draft as well.

[Tiger337]

20 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

If Sanders and Congress are willing and able to undo the MLB antitrust exemption, then by definition that would mean that they have more power than 30+ billionaires.  

I don't know if they have the will and capacity to do that, but the fact that it's an open question in my mind is what I'm talking about.   You may feel that the above is impossible.

My guess is that Chaz feels that it is definitely possible.

In theory, it's possible.  It's been my observation that the super wealthy run the country and don't have to follow the same rules the rest of us do.  

[buddha]

who cares about the anti-trust exemption?  im not sure the people who seem most concerned about it - minor league players - would really like the results.  if major league teams cant control their minor leagur affiliates or have to pay minor league players appreciably more money, they will drastically cut back on the system.  even more than they just did.

might see a boom in college baseball as a minor league feeder like in football...

[RedRamage]

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

who cares about the anti-trust exemption?  im not sure the people who seem most concerned about it - minor league players - would really like the results.  if major league teams cant control their minor leagur affiliates or have to pay minor league players appreciably more money, they will drastically cut back on the system.  even more than they just did.

might see a boom in college baseball as a minor league feeder like in football...

I get the feeling that the anti-trust exemption is more of a figurative trophy than a real-life treasure.  That's not to say that things might not change if MLB is stripped of it, but I don't think it will radically change the majors nor will it radically change the bottom line for the MLB teams.

The other major leagues (NFL, NBA, NHL) have obviously shown that a major sports league can be successful without the anti-trust exemption. It feels more to me like something that congress and threaten MLB with if they want MLB to do something, and then the MLB (appears) to do the thing to make congress happy.  It's just a show... congress gets to appear like they're doing something, MLB pretends to be majorly worried about it so congress can feel like they have all the power still.  The fans just sit back and roll their eyes.

 

[gehringer_2]

19 minutes ago, buddha said:

who cares about the anti-trust exemption?  im not sure the people who seem most concerned about it - minor league players - would really like the results.  if major league teams cant control their minor leagur affiliates or have to pay minor league players appreciably more money, they will drastically cut back on the system.  even more than they just did.

might see a boom in college baseball as a minor league feeder like in football...

maybe....hard to see how college baseball could fill the role that college football does given that it doesn't generate very much revenue, and even if you somehow generated the fans, it would take years to build out the college baseball stadium infrastructure to support a larger fan base.

[Tiger337]

21 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

maybe....hard to see how college baseball could fill the role that college football does given that it doesn't generate very much revenue, and even if you somehow generated the fans, it would take years to build out the college baseball stadium infrastructure to support a larger fan base.

I think there would be more independent minor leagues who could occasionally sell players to the major league systems.  There wouldn't be a lot of valuable players, but if MLB scales down further, then there might be a few more who sneak through than in the past.  

[RandyMarsh]

3 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Hate to see it, this kid is special.....

 

 

 

Apparently the doctor's that looked at it are suggesting it's not a new injury, he got in a motorcycle accident sometime in the offseason which prompted somebody to ask him today this question. This was his response.

 

[Tiger337]

Just now, RandyMarsh said:

Apparently the doctor's that looked at it are suggesting it's not a new injury, he got in a motorcycle accident sometime in the offseason which prompted somebody to ask him today this question. This was his response.

 

I heard he was racing bikes with Joel Zumaya.  

[sabretooth]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

You waited all this time to come back and quote this so you can hammer me for "eat the rich" or whatever? In a baseball thread no less?

I will honor Biff's request to drop the subject, but to answer your question, no, I didn't "wait"...I simply didn't see your post until this morning.

[RandyMarsh]

I know alot of sports contracts have provisions against things like riding motorcycles but even if Tatis' did the Padres couldn't do anything about it anyway even if they wanted to since it was during the lockout, correct? 

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Hate to see it, this kid is special.....

 

 

 

I hope for his sake his injury history doesn't go the way of ...

 

... wait for it ...

 

... Carlos Correa. 🤡

Edited March 14, 2022 by chasfh

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, sabretooth said:

If Sanders and Congress are willing and able to undo the MLB antitrust exemption, then by definition that would mean that they have more power than 30+ billionaires.  

I don't know if they have the will and capacity to do that, but the fact that it's an open question in my mind is what I'm talking about.   You may feel that the above is impossible.

My guess is that Chaz feels that it is definitely possible.

Why are you telling people that I feel it is definitely possible when I said nothing even close to that? Where are you getting this? All I said is that it was interesting.

Edited March 14, 2022 by chasfh

[RandyMarsh]

Reds continue to tear apart their team, just traded Winker and Suarez to the Mariners. 

If I were the Tigers Id be calling them about Luis Castillo, if he could be had for a reasonable price Id be all over him. Still has 2 years of control left.

[sabretooth]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Why are you telling people that I feel it is definitely possible when I said nothing even close to that? Where are you getting this? All I said is that it was interesting.

Simple, because that post with your lede: "Hey, now this could be interesting" in the context of the disucssion reasonably means "this is possible".  I don't know why you are aggravated by my *"guess"* that you feel this is possible.  I didn't mean anything personal by it I assure you.

My original response to your Bernie post was laughing at Bernie for calling other people oligarchs.  You asked me to clarify and I did.  I'm going to honor Biff's request on this by stopping public discussion in this thread on the topic of Bernie. 

As I said, I really don't have any personal stake or interest in the anti-trust matter, that wasn't what piqued my interest....so while that topic is certainly appropriate for this thread, it's not interesting enough for me to go further about it.

Cheers

Edited March 14, 2022 by sabretooth

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

Simple, because that post with your lede: "Hey, now this could be interesting" in the context of the disucssion reasonably means "this is possible".  I don't know why you are aggravated by my *"guess"* that you feel this is possible.  I didn't mean anything personal by it I assure you.

My original response to your Bernie post was laughing at Bernie for calling other people oligarchs.  You asked me to clarify and I did.  I'm going to honor Biff's request on this by stopping public discussion in this thread on the topic of Bernie. 

As I said, I really don't have any personal stake or interest in the anti-trust matter, that wasn't what piqued my interest....so while that topic is certainly appropriate for this thread, it's not interesting enough for me to go further about it.

Cheers

You have leapt to an invalid conclusion. I said only that it was interesting. "Interesting" is not necessarily equal to "possible", let alone "definitely possible".

Perhaps next time you could ask me whether I think something is possible, rather than declaring to everyone I think it's definitely that.

I'm glad you don't mean anything personal by it. I appreciate that.

FWIW, I think the possibility of Baseball losing its Sherman Antitrust over this lockout is ~1% at best, which I'm sure you will agree falls far short of "definitely".

[sabretooth]

[Sports_Freak]

2 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

Reds continue to tear apart their team, just traded Winker and Suarez to the Mariners. 

If I were the Tigers Id be calling them about Luis Castillo, if he could be had for a reasonable price Id be all over him. Still has 2 years of control left.

I've never watched Castillo pitch but looking at his stats, they aren't really impressive. 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/castilu02.shtml

[RandyMarsh]

5 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I've never watched Castillo pitch but looking at his stats, they aren't really impressive. 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/castilu02.shtml

3 straight years of a sub 4 ERA including a 2.65 in 2020 and FIPs all sub 4 are pretty good to me.  He's not an ace but he has gone on stretches of ace like pitching. I think he'd be a great get that shouldnt break the bank prospect wise. If it does then obviously you don't do it. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by RandyMarsh

[casimir]

3 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I've never watched Castillo pitch but looking at his stats, they aren't really impressive. 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/castilu02.shtml

I think the BAbip sticks out a bit to me.  Above league average the past two seasons.  So, I would be willing to chance that being around league average (depending upon what would need to be traded away).  Plus, let's see what Chris Fetter can do with him.

[Sports_Freak]

2 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

3 straight years of a sub 4 ERA including a 2.65 in 2020 and FIPs all sub 4 are pretty good to me.  He's not an ace but he has gone on stretches of ace like pitching. I think he'd be a great get that shouldnt break the bank prospect wise. If it does then obviously you don't do it. 

Yeah and he would eat innings. But I just wouldn't give up too much for him.

[Sports_Freak]

Maybe going back to starting a runner on 2nd base of extra inning games. I don't like it...