“Get all 30 teams to compete every season”

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I agree with you on that but I just don’t see how the owners are going to go back to how it was. The veteran players have to concede the reality. I’m sure they are looking out for themselves. Perhaps improved pension and benefits above now.  

You keep using the words “have to”. They are one of the most powerful unions in the world.

The players  are not going to be for a system that rewards the under 30 year olds and screws everyone else.  That isn’t happening at all.

In every sport, the first contracts they sign are always the “bargain contracts” (if the player develops of course)

I imagine that stays the same..it’s just a matter of how it’s tweaked.  That’s why I see something more of an age limit.  Drafted out of HS and you are a FA at age 25.  Out of college and it’s 27 or 28.  Something like that.  That pretty much eliminates any service time manipulation or anything like that and still gives players ample prime years in which to sign their next contract.

[Number5]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

I imagine that stays the same..it’s just a matter of how it’s tweaked.  That’s why I see something more of an age limit.  Drafted out of HS and you are a FA at age 25.  Out of college and it’s 27 or 28.  Something like that.  That pretty much eliminates any service time manipulation or anything like that and still gives players ample prime years in which to sign their next contract.

I'm not sure if doing it by age, rather than service time, would be legal.  Seems like it might be unconstitutional to do it that way.  I'm no lawyer, though.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I'm not sure if doing it by age, rather than service time, would be legal.  Seems like it might be unconstitutional to do it that way.  I'm no lawyer, though.

Well, you can say something like 6 years after being drafted or something like that.  Ends up the same thing.

[Number5]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, you can say something like 6 years after being drafted or something like that.  Ends up the same thing.

Yeah, massaging the time at which the service time clock begins, or the length of the service time clock are things that could be done.  I'm just not so sure that this is a big issue to the union., as I'm having trouble seeing their motivation to negotiate for players not yet in the union.  It seems to me that the present system benefits union players by keeping more jobs open to them.  Again, I'm no expert on the matter, so i could easily be missing something.

[Gentile4]

42 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, you can say something like 6 years after being drafted or something like that.  Ends up the same thing.

This is the kind of approach I'd like to see. Assuming you can't legally treat 18 yr olds differently than older players, teams might start shying away from HS kids.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Gentile4 said:

This is the kind of approach I'd like to see. Assuming you can't legally treat 18 yr olds differently than older players, teams might start shying away from HS kids.

Oh no, more kids might go to college?

That'd be a shame.

[eddie83]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

You keep using the words “have to”. They are one of the most powerful unions in the world.

The players  are not going to be for a system that rewards the under 30 year olds and screws everyone else.  That isn’t happening at all.

In every sport, the first contracts they sign are always the “bargain contracts” (if the player develops of course)

I imagine that stays the same..it’s just a matter of how it’s tweaked.  That’s why I see something more of an age limit.  Drafted out of HS and you are a FA at age 25.  Out of college and it’s 27 or 28.  Something like that.  That pretty much eliminates any service time manipulation or anything like that and still gives players ample prime years in which to sign their next contract.

So basically your plan doesn’t go to back to what it was.  That’s my point.  
 

The plus 30 year olds compared to years ago have been getting screwed for close to a decade. Your plan doesn’t change that.  

[Gentile4]

50 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Oh no, more kids might go to college?

That'd be a shame.

And then, like football, let the colleges pay for developing the players in their first two years.

[Pickles]

Why this insane idea that the entire system needs to be overturned because every few years some top prospect gets his ML debut delayed by a few months?

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Why this insane idea that the entire system needs to be overturned because every few years some top prospect gets his ML debut delayed by a few months?

What are you talking about?

No one, near as I can tell, is saying that.

I don't think anything you said there is accurate.

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What are you talking about?

No one, near as I can tell, is saying that.

I don't think anything you said there is accurate.

Well isn't much of the impetus for changing the rules of team control over drafted players to avoid issues like what is happening with Rutschman right now?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Pickles said:

Well isn't much of the impetus for changing the rules of team control over drafted players to avoid issues like what is happening with Rutschman right now?

I guess it depends on your definition of much?

I think it's a pretty minor part of the next CBA which is in turn only part of what the article is talking about.

 

 

While I don't think exploiting the current CBA to artificially lower a player's future earning via service time manipulation is as prevalent as some people do, Frobby did do some very nice work that indicates it's more frequent than one player every few years.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I guess it depends on your definition of much?

I think it's a pretty minor part of the next CBA which is in turn only part of what the article is talking about.

 

 

While I don't think exploiting the current CBA to artificially lower a player's future earning via service time manipulation is as prevalent as some people do, Frobby did do some very nice work that indicates it's more frequent than one player every few years.

I'll be honest, I didn't even read the article.  I'm just commenting on the conversation here.

I don't think it's that big of a deal.  It happens.  In rare situations.  Changing the structure of amateur control/hold/reserve clause of the entire system seems a dramatic overreaction to what is a relatively small isse.

[Sports Guy]

3 hours ago, Gentile4 said:

This is the kind of approach I'd like to see. Assuming you can't legally treat 18 yr olds differently than older players, teams might start shying away from HS kids.

No I think HS kids would been more like 7-8 years after being drafted. Probably hit FA at a younger age but they generally need more development time than a college player.

[Just Regular]

7 hours ago, eddie83 said:

It looks like more playoff teams next year are a given as well. I am not in favor of 7 teams where the #2 seed has to play the #7 seed. It’s not enough of a reward to the better team. 

I hope whatever they come up with, it gives all teams some carrot to try hard all 162 regardless of how certain their playoff berth is from opening day.   I feel like giving extra strikes (or even outs) for each Win better than playoff opponent you are is maybe something, now that we are putting ghost runners on second.

For example, if it is 16 playoff teams, and the Dodgers are 30 games better than their NL8 opponent, the first 30 plate appearances by NL8 begin 0-1, or they don't get to bat until the 4th inning because the first 10 guys ghost make outs.    Think how many commercials could be included while NL8's starting pitcher gets a 10-minute rest period!