Lockout over, PLAY BALL!

[Otto von Ballpark]

Schedule changes coming in 2023 too:

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 minute ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Schedule changes coming in 2023 too:

 

I’m not a fan of more inter-league but it’s also not a big deal. 

[tony&rodney]

3 hours ago, Musk21 said:

Doubleheaders will be nine innings and regular extra innings rules

Best news besides the agreement - no more Manfredball. Now, please no safety bases or circles for fielders to stand in before each pitch.

[Joey P]

[Richie the Rally Goat]

[Brock Beauchamp]

ROY gets $750,000 ROY
2nd place gets $500

[PseudoSABR]

Have there always been All-MLB teams? That's new right?

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Schedule changes coming in 2023 too:

 

I think this is a good thing. As I said in another thread, I think baseball has become too regionalized.

And with the universal DH, I have fewer opinions now of interleague play.

[Squirrel]

28 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

ROY gets $750,000 ROY
2nd place gets $500

Okay, that's weird ... do you suppose it's supposed to be 500,000?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Just now, Squirrel said:

Okay, that's weird ... do you suppose it's supposed to be 500,000?

God, I hope so.

[TheLeviathan]

Universal DH....I'll take it.  Happy baseball is back but most of this is a band-aide

[Otto von Ballpark]

More opening day and make-up details

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

4 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

 

 

(I’ll show myself out..)

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Good high level synopsis of the new cba

https://www.mlb.com/twins/news/mlb-2022-season-faq

[Squirrel]

7 hours ago, Sconnie said:

Good high level synopsis of the new cba

https://www.mlb.com/twins/news/mlb-2022-season-faq

This was good.

but I have a question for anyone who has read a more detailed report. This above said:

The change in options rules is significant, as it will limit teams’ ability to continually keep their rosters (particularly their bullpens) fresh with guys taxiing back and forth from the Minors.

Anyine know what those rules now are?

[Brock Beauchamp]

48 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

This was good.

but I have a question for anyone who has read a more detailed report. This above said:

The change in options rules is significant, as it will limit teams’ ability to continually keep their rosters (particularly their bullpens) fresh with guys taxiing back and forth from the Minors.

Anyine know what those rules now are?

Teams are only allowed to shuttle a player from the minors to the majors five times a season now. I still think that's too high but the owners were mildly resistant to the change and negotiated it down to five (I think players started at three).

[Squirrel]

33 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Teams are only allowed to shuttle a player from the minors to the majors five times a season now. I still think that's too high but the owners were mildly resistant to the change and negotiated it down to five (I think players started at three).

Well, it's a start, I guess. All of the rules of up and down and options were always confusing to me, anyway

[USAFChief]

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Teams are only allowed to shuttle a player from the minors to the majors five times a season now. I still think that's too high but the owners were mildly resistant to the change and negotiated it down to five (I think players started at three).

I wonder how significant this rule change actually is. I'm too lazy to investigate, but how many players were up/down from the minors 6 or more times in a season over the past decade?

Can't be more than a handful.

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I wonder how significant this rule change actually is. I'm too lazy to investigate, but how many players were up/down from the minors 6 or more times in a season over the past decade?

Can't be more than a handful.

Yep, which is why I believe the number should be lower, like three. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I wonder how significant this rule change actually is. I'm too lazy to investigate, but how many players were up/down from the minors 6 or more times in a season over the past decade?

Can't be more than a handful.

You may be right. Just eyeballing some recent Twins, it looks like Gordon was called up 5 times last year. In 2019, Littell and Smeltzer were both called up 5 times; depending on how they count things, Cave was on the opening day roster and then optioned and recalled 4 times after that. That’s as far as I have looked so far.

But, perhaps an official limit of 5 may cause teams to be a little more judicious with them? Not a huge effect, but even if it’s rare to need 6, teams may try to maximize flexibility by avoiding maxing out at 5 until it’s late enough or absolutely necessary. And knowing that they are being counted, teams may be a little less inclined to “waste” one of the call-ups on a short-term stay? We could see teams spread out their call-ups, especially the short-term ones, a little bit further down the depth chart — for example, 1 of Littell’s 2019 call-ups could have gone to a different pitcher.

[Otto von Ballpark]

5 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Yep, which is why I believe the number should be lower, like three. 

Too low and it could be a negative for a certain class of players. For some guys, their availability to be called up and sent down freely is a decent chunk of their value to the team. Take away that flexibility, and they are more likely to get DFA’d and/or lose out on service time/salary/benefits.

Of course, someone else will still take the roster spot, although they may not be a union member until that time, or they may not have the seniority of the cut player. Gets into the tricky question of whether the union has an interest in spreading out call-ups among more AAA guys, or maxing out the call-ups for the best ones.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Just now, Otto von Ballpark said:

Too low and it could be a negative for a certain class of players. For some guys, their availability to be called up and sent down freely is a decent chunk of their value to the team. Take away that flexibility, and they are more likely to get DFA’d and/or lose out on service time/salary/benefits.

Of course, someone else will still take the roster spot, although they may not be a union member until that time, or they may not have the seniority of the cut player. Gets into the tricky question of whether the union has an interest in spreading out call-ups among more AAA guys, or maxing out the call-ups for the best ones.

Yes to all of this, I was speaking more about this particular rule's implementation than it being my first choice.

To me, the easy way to "solve" this problem is to increase the number of days a player must be on the MLB roster when he is recalled. I'd aim for a 15-20 day minimum unless injury is involved.

What baseball needs to fix is calling up a starter or reliever for one day, then demoting him again. If someone is called up, they deserve a significant paycheck and the relative stability of being in one place for at least a couple of weeks.

[Otto von Ballpark]

4 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Yes to all of this, I was speaking more about this particular rule's implementation than it being my first choice.

To me, the easy way to "solve" this problem is to increase the number of days a player must be on the MLB roster when he is recalled. I'd aim for a 15-20 day minimum unless injury is involved.

What baseball needs to fix is calling up a starter or reliever for one day, then demoting him again. If someone is called up, they deserve a significant paycheck and the relative stability of being in one place for at least a couple of weeks.

Some of those 1-day call-ups only exist because of the doubleheader roster expansion rule. Does the union view that as a problem, or as a new MLB job they created?

What you could do is give players a minimum of X days salary/service time for each call-up. (Further increases in minimum salary would help here too.) 5 days might be a logical level, considering the standard starting rotation — SPs may be at a disadvantage as the most likely 1-day guys? That way, players could still only be on the roster for 1 day if that is all the MLB team needs, but they would get 5 times the compensation for it (~$18.8k instead of ~$3.7k at the new minimum salary). Maybe cheap teams would keep them up for the duration too, to get their money’s worth.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 minute ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Some of those 1-day call-ups only exist because of the doubleheader roster expansion rule. Does the union view that as a problem, or as a new MLB job they created?

What you could do is give players a minimum of X days salary/service time for each call-up. (Further increases in minimum salary would help here too.) 5 days might be a logical level, considering the standard starting rotation — SPs may be at a disadvantage as the most likely 1-day guys? That way, players could still only be on the roster for 1 day if that is all the MLB team needs, but they would get 5 times the compensation for it (~$18.8k instead of ~$3.7k at the new minimum salary). Maybe cheap teams would keep them up for the duration too, to get their money’s worth.

I wasn't including the doubleheader guys because they're not a service time and roster manipulation, they're a legitimate rule that's on the books for a reason.

But yeah, just paying them might be a reasonable option. I think it should be no less than ten days because part of the goal is to deter roster rotation. If a team is paying three people for one roster spot at the same time, it's likely they'll be slightly deterred from being so quick with the promotion/demotion trigger.

[Otto von Ballpark]

28 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

But yeah, just paying them might be a reasonable option. I think it should be no less than ten days because part of the goal is to deter roster rotation. If a team is paying three people for one roster spot at the same time, it's likely they'll be slightly deterred from being so quick with the promotion/demotion trigger.

Good point. 10 day minimum MLB roster stint after being recalled would be a nice complement to the 10 day minimum a player has to spend in the minors after they are optioned. And making it affect the actual roster, and not just money, would prevent free-spending teams from taking a big advantage over frugal teams in this area.

[USAFChief]

6 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Yep, which is why I believe the number should be lower, like three. 

Seems sort of like a solution in search of a problem, mostly.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Waiver claim rules are getting a tweak too:

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Waiver claim rules are getting a tweak too:

 

A small but badly-needed rule. The more we learn about this CBA, the more I'm happy with it. They fixed a lot of small issues that the game badly needed to fix.