Jump to content

CBA Questions


connja

Recommended Posts

Thought it would be useful to have place to ask Orioles related quuestions about the new CBA.  Feel free to move or redirect me as necessary.

I'll start:

I understand that there are restrictions on how often teams can pick in the draft lottery.  I assume that the lottery will begin with the 2023 draft.  With the Orioles drafting first this year, do we know if there will be any restrictions on how high the Orioles will be able to pick in 2023?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, connja said:

Thought it would be useful to have place to ask Orioles related quuestions about the new CBA.  Feel free to move or redirect me as necessary.

I'll start:

I understand that there are restrictions on how often teams can pick in the draft lottery.  I assume that the lottery will begin with the 2023 draft.  With the Orioles drafting first this year, do we know if there will be any restrictions on how high the Orioles will be able to pick in 2023?  

 

Great resource: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/guide-to-the-new-cba-draft-lottery-expanded-playoffs-and-more/

 

Os can’t pick in top 6 more than 2 years in a row it states. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not answering the original question but some more info on the details of the new CBA, this seemed to be the best place:

IL will return to 15 days for all players (the last couple years it was reduced to 10 for pitchers).

 

26 man roster remains, with expansion to 28 on Sept 1.  Max 13 pitchers on the 26, max 14 on the Sept roster.

They are still negotiating a potential early season MLB roster bump due to the short spring training.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, NelsonCruuuuuz said:

Great resource: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/guide-to-the-new-cba-draft-lottery-expanded-playoffs-and-more/

 

Os can’t pick in top 6 more than 2 years in a row it states. 

Right, but I'm wondering if 2022 will count as part of that.  Since 2022 will not be a lottery year, I'm hopeful it won't since there is a good chance our record will be bottom 6 this year and put us in the 2023 lottery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, NelsonCruuuuuz said:

Great resource: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/guide-to-the-new-cba-draft-lottery-expanded-playoffs-and-more/

 

Os can’t pick in top 6 more than 2 years in a row it states. 

The question is, when does this kick in?   Let’s assume the O’s finish near the bottom this year.   In 2023, the first year of the lottery, are the O’s considered ineligible for the lottery because they’ve already had a top 6 pick four years in a row?   Or is 2023 considered the first time they’ve had a top 6 pick because it’s a new system?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Of course they do.  7-hour, 19-inning games haven't been fun for players since they banned greenies.

They aren't fun for me either.  I happed to like the rule, though 12 year old me would disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, connja said:

They aren't fun for me either.  I happed to like the rule, though 12 year old me would disagree.

3-on-3 backyard whiffle ball games always had ghost runners.  That was back when you could throw the ball at a runner as he ran between bases to get an out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SteveA said:

And now MLB & MLBPA are negotiating possibly bringing back the ghost runner in extra innings.   Apparently the players like it.

They may start the ghost runner in the 11th or 12th inning rather than the 10th. It's still being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s a couple of changes reported by Maury Brown that I hadn’t heard about before: 

1.  “No More Tiebreaker Games: In the past, teams that had identical records at the end of 162 games in a division would play game 163 — a tiebreaker. Now, that system is gone. Instead, MLB will now follow a system more closely aligned with the NFL for determining ties. This is largely due to increased playoff games and lack of slack in the regular season scheduled.”

2.  “Salary Arbitration Salaries Guaranteed:Salary arbitration eligible players who settle with their club on a salary for the subsequent season without going to an arbitration hearing will be eligible to receive full season termination pay, even if released prior to the start of the regular season.“

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2022/03/10/with-mlb-lockout-over-here-are-all-the-details-of-new-2022-26-labor-deal/?sh=160a692d23e2

One interesting aspect of no. 2 is it apparently only applies if the sides settle.   A player who actually goes to a hearing can still get the rug pulled out from under him.   So, there’s some incentive for the player to settle to lock in his salary.  That could lead to cheaper settlements.   

 

  • Thanks 1
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.



  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...