Collective Bargaining Agreementâ?¦ Latest: agreement announced (reply #109)

[Patrick425]

I don't mind the extra wild card as much as mind the one game playoff. Really? A one game playoff in baseball? Yuck!

[endaround]

One game playoffs are stupid.

 

As to competitive balance, remind me the last time in MLB you had one team at 90-0 and another at 0-90

[Patrick425]

endaround[/b]]One game playoffs are stupid.

 

As to competitive balance, remind me the last time in MLB you had one team at 90-0 and another at 0-90

Well, if people are going to say you can't compare football's system to baseball's system (apparently all you need in football is a QB), then I don't think you can state that 9 games is the equivelent of 90 games. My argument is basically centered around what players are available to what teams. I'm also more concerned about competitive balance over the course of 10 or 15 years than I am with over 9 or 90 games.

[endaround]

What happens is people look at competitive balance as playoff appearances. But that is almost entirely due to how many teams make the playoffs.

[kramnoj]

Did you ever hear of something called "small sample sizes" and how they generally don't tell the entire story

 

You actually have to prove that it is a small sample size, not just believe it.

 

Everything that I have read states that the Brewers can not go to much over $90million. Adding Fielder at $20/mil per year or whatever it ends up being would pretty much mean they would have to trade someone like Hart, Weeks, or Gallardo.

 

It doesn't mean that at all. It means going cheaper at a few more positions than normal. For the right player, it's a decent risk.

He can do that because of teams like the Yankees and Red Sox or any other team that seems to have endless streams of money to spend that dictate the market and what every player will be paid. This is basically what I have a problem with.

 

Fielder isn't currently linked to the Red Sox or the Yankees. What teams do you believe have endless streams of money?

Oh well, I'm sure Gamel will give us the same production that Fielder did.

 

Beating up on strawmen is a pretty clear sign that you don't have an actual argument to make.

[NievesNoNO]

Call me crazy, but I kind of like the one game playoff. The season goes late enough as is. To add another play-off series without decreasing the regular season schedule would be crazier than the one game playoff. I don't really like the idea of hard draft slotting and penalties for teams who spend more than a certain threshold. There are alot of uncertainties in the MLB draft that I really don't like. International free agents, signing international talent at age 16, and players being drafted and then opting out of the draft to go to college instead. If they really want to fix some of these issues, imo, they'd make EVERYONE submit their name to the draft so everyone knows who's available. I get that when teams sign the young international guys that more often than not they've invested time and money with development and what not through their own training academy. It makes absolutely no sense that because you play in the States that you must be drafted but if you live in the Dominican a team can pay a minimal amount of money to bring you in to their system.

 

The biggest difference with the NFL and with MLB is that the NFL runs the entire league as ONE business, where as each MLB team is pretty much their own business.

[paul253]

tThat's not a rule at all. The Brewers have the flexibility to afford

Fielder for his production. He is seeking a contract that exceeds his

production. The Brewers not keeping Fielder is a good decision, not

something that should be lamented.

Come on. You think they are letting Fielder go because it's not a "good decision" to re-sign him? Well why is that? Are the Brewers a better team with Mat Gamel at first? Of course not. The reason it is not a good move is because of the financial impact of it and the fact that 1) If the Brewers do resign him they are basically unable to afford Greinke or Marcum extensions and 2) They can't afford to take a risk on such a long term deal because if he gets hurt or starts to play poorly at the end of the contract they probably won't be able to replace him. Do the Yankees have either of these problems? Have they ever had to choose between keeping Derek Jeter or A-Rod? Have they ever been stuck with a crap rotation because they can't afford better pitchers?

 

Did you ever hear of something called "small sample sizes" and how they

generally don't tell the entire story? This is a widely accepted idea.

This is exactly it.

The Yankees and Red Sox are successful when they make good choices.

That's the biggest thing that separates them from the Mets and other

teams that spend without success.

 

The major difference is that the Yankees and Red Sox can afford to make up for bad decisions a lot easier than the Brewers can. If the Brewers or Royals signed Carl Pavano or A.J. Burnett to the same contract the Yankees did do you think they could have just afforded to say "oops" and then signed someone else to make up for it? How long did Jeff Suppan's contract prevent us from making other moves?

 

Also, making "good decisions" is a lot easier with money. Was it a "good decision" to extend Sabathia, or Jeter, or, or Rivera? Or to sign Texiera? Will it be a good decision to extend Cano? Of course. But again, it's a lot easier to make these decisions when you can afford to and not have to decide who to keep and who to let go. Here we are in Milwaukee debating trading guys like Hart or Marcum or Wolf to save money even though it may hurt in the short term. It'd be a lot easier if we could keep all of them and still offer long term contracts to Reyes and Ramirez and not think twice about it. And yes the Cubs are a shining example of what can go wrong if you don't spend money right, but I don't think anyone is arguing spending more money always equals more success. I just think there is a built in advantage when certain teams can afford all of the "stars" and other teams can't. Just like there is a built in advantage in the draft when you can take a chance on a certain player that most teams passed up on because they can't afford the risk.

[kramnoj]

Come on.

 

In my experience, anyone who starts off a post like this is isn't interested in a real discussion.

You think they are letting Fielder go because it's not a "good decision" to re-sign him?

 

Absolutely.

 

Well why is that?

 

If you have to ask this question, then you aren't following the discussion. Which nicely ties into my previous observation.

The reason it is not a good move is because of the financial impact of it

 

This makes no sense. The Brewers will have a payroll that is larger than the combined salaries of Braun and Fielder. They could afford to sign Fielder to whatever contract he will sign. The reason not to sign him is that the money he is asking for can be spent in better ways.

 

They can't afford to take a risk on such a long term deal because if he gets hurt or starts to play poorly at the end of the contract they probably won't be able to replace him.

 

So, wait, you are saying the risk of a long contract is bad? But that understanding that risk and not offering a better contract to Fielder isn't a good decision?

 

Do the Yankees have either of these problems?

 

To my knowledge, they have had it once, when they chose Randy Johnson and late career Bernie Williams over Carlos Beltran. I would say they are having that issue now, when they aren't in on the best position player free agents.

Have they ever been stuck with a crap rotation because they can't afford better pitchers?

 

That easily could have been the case in 2011, but they got incredible performances out of Colon and Garcia, pitchers any team could have afforded. It may happen in 2012.

Was it a "good decision" to extend Sabathia, or Jeter, or, or Rivera? Or to sign Texiera? Will it be a good decision to extend Cano?

 

Yes, No, Yes. I thought so at the time, not looking good now. Depends on the money and years.

 

but I don't think anyone is arguing spending more money always equals more success.

 

Plenty of people keep bringing up money and saying there is a competitive balance problem, without actually showing that teams that spend money and make good decisions have a problem competing.

[1992casey]

If they are going to set a cap I'd hope it is a cap where most teams don't live at the cap and have to constantly fight with it. The cap would really be there just to curb the top 5 or 6 teams, that I could live with in baseball.

Constantly fighting with the cap is a problem with the NFL model. Teams have to rid themselves of useful players every year. Complicating things is the fact that multi-year baseball contracts are guaranteed. That really limits who can be cut.

 

Sharing TV revenue equally, with teams keeping all or most revenue generated by their stadiums would satisfy me.

[Patrick425]

You actually have to prove that it is a small sample size, not just believe it.

 

I'm not sure how I prove that 4 years is a small sample size. I think you have a different definition of small compared to most people. Baseball has been around for 100+ years. I would say 4 is small relative to that. Even if you just look at the last 20 years of Free Agency, 4 years is relatively small.

 

It doesn't mean that at all. It means going cheaper at a few more positions than normal. For the right player, it's a decent risk.

 

So, you think that the Brewers could add Fielder next year without dropping anyone on their current roster and still maintain a payroll of around $90million? I think the math has already been done on that and it has been shown that this is not possible. Even if they are able to do this, my point is that if they had an extra $30 or $40 million to spend like some other teams, they could add Fielder and not have to worry as much about "going cheaper at a few more positions than normal".

 

Fielder isn't currently linked to the Red Sox or the Yankees. What teams do you believe have endless streams of money?

 

I didn't say that he was linked to the Red Sox or Yankees. I said that they dictate what he will be paid. They set the bar by signings they have made in the past. If the Yankees have overpaid for a guy like Texeria in the past, then Fielder and Boras look at that as the benchmark and anyone who wants his services needs to fork over that kind of money to get it.

 

Beating up on strawmen is a pretty clear sign that you don't have an actual argument to make.

Ah, the strawman card. People love to accuse others of this in order to shoot down their entire argument (To me that's just as bad as actually making a suposed strawman argument). Just because I make a sarcastic remark does not mean that I'm beating up on a strawman or that I don't have an argument to make. You stated that Fielder's contract will exceed his production. Maybe Gamel is a better "value", but I still would rather have Fielder. Barmes is probably a better "value" than Reyes, but I would still rather have Reyes at SS next year. A Honda is probably a better value than a BMW, but I would still rather drive a BMW. Just because you have a team full of "value" players does not mean you have a good team. It just means they did the only thing they could do with the limited amount of money they had to spend.

[kramnoj]

Even if you just look at the last 20 years of Free Agency, 4 years is relatively small.

 

The previous 16 years aren't all that comparable to the last 4, with the different CBAs and the immense amount of money coming in from MLBAM.

 

So, you think that the Brewers could add Fielder next year without dropping anyone on their current roster and still maintain a payroll of around $90million? I think the math has already been done on that and it has been shown that this is not possible.

 

I've advocated in the past that the Brewers can structure a contract to anticipate future conditions. So maybe Fielder gets paid $15M in 2012, but it goes up to a higher figure when we will have 2/3 of the OF be cheap for years and the rotation includes a couple of young cheap arms from the farm.

 

If the Yankees have overpaid for a guy like Texeria in the past, then Fielder and Boras look at that as the benchmark and anyone who wants his services needs to fork over that kind of money to get it.

 

It doesn't matter what the bar is, if there aren't teams that feel it is reasonable and wish to spend the money. If there aren't enough teams with money that think Fielder is worth past contracts, he won't get it.

Just because I make a sarcastic remark does not mean that I'm beating up on a strawman

 

Then what was the specific purpose of the remark?

 

Just because you have a team full of "value" players does not mean you have a good team. It just means they did the only thing they could do with the limited amount of money they had to spend.

 

You are absolutely correct. But having a decent team that is providing good value may leave money available to make mid season acquisitions that can propel a team into the playoffs, as the Brewers have done twice in the last 4 years.

[Ennder]

Seems like it would have to be a pretty low cap for the Brewers to "be able to go 'over' the cap". Right now their payroll is at around $90 million and I get the feeling that they can't go much higher than that. If there ever was a cap in MLB I would think it would be around $150 (at this point anyways). I don't know enough about why caps do or don't work in other sports to make an educated argument for or agains them. Seems like there are caps in place in other sports, but there are ways around them. To me a cap should be a cap, no loopholes.

 

I will never accept the argument that "the large market teams are always going to have an advantage, no matter what". It seems like this is the general sentiment of today's baseball fans. They have just grown to accept this current state of things.

 

That isn't how most sports cap work though, most sports almost every team lives at the cap. That would be setting the baseball cap at like $75M or something right now.

 

As for large market teams always having advantage it is simply how it has panned out in every sport. Players will play for less because of the other benefits that come with playing for the larger market or more popular teams. You can try to minimize the advantage but it is always there.

[paul253]

The reason not to sign him is that the money he is asking for can be spent in better ways.

 

This is exactly the point. The Brewers have limited resources and have to determine where to spend the limited money they have. While Boston and New York don't technically have unlimited funds, they can certainly afford to pay most anyone they want to without having to sacrifice other positions like the Brewers do. Could the Brewers technically afford to sign Fielder? Sure. But that pretty much eliminates the possibility of resigning Marcum and/or Greinke. So for the Brewers it's either Fielder or Greinke and/or Marcum. The whole either/or is not usually a problem New York has. If the Brewers had NYY money, they could afford to re-sign Fielder if they wanted to and still be able to afford to re-sign Greinke and Marcum.

 

The Brewers will have a payroll that is larger than the combined salaries of Braun and Fielder.

 

They also have 23 other guys they have to pay. Stop being so technical about this. Yes, technically, the Brewers can afford him. But it would have a major impact on the rest of the roster and would mean a lot of other players not being here once their contracts run out.

 

I've advocated in the past that the Brewers can structure a contract to

anticipate future conditions. So maybe Fielder gets paid $15M in 2012,

but it goes up to a higher figure when we will have 2/3 of the OF be

cheap for years and the rotation includes a couple of young cheap arms

from the farm.

This is assuming Fielder agrees to that. He made $15.5 million this past year, so he'd have to take a small pay cut this year if he signed that contract. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. And then you say we'll just have a rotation that includes a couple of young cheap arms from the farm, like it's a given that this can happen. I'm as hopeful as the next guy about our prospects, but let's not jump the gun. This is the organization that has developed all of two successful starting pitchers in the past decade. Jungmann and Bradley haven't even pitched in the minors yet and will likely take at least three season before you can count on them to be in the rotation. Peralta and Thornburg look good, but most people project them to be a #3 or #4 pitcher. You'd have to have a lot go right for this scenario to happen.

Plenty of people keep bringing up money and saying there is a competitive balance problem

 

I'm not going to try to argue about what other people said, but what I will say is that there is a competitive advantage issue. What I mean by that is that teams with the ability to have massive payrolls have a built in advantage over the teams that don't. Now just because they have an advantage doesn't mean they will win, but it certainly makes it easier. What I would like to see if that advantage be taken away so that teams like the Pirates and Royals have as much of a chance to sign the Pujols and Fielders of the world as the Yankees and Red Sox's do.

[kramnoj]

The Brewers have limited resources and have to determine where to spend the limited money they have. While Boston and New York don't technically have unlimited funds, they can certainly afford to pay most anyone they want to without having to sacrifice other positions like the Brewers do.

 

Every team has limited resources and has to make decisions on where to spend them. As a Brewer fan, I don't worry much about what Boston and New York do. If at some point they meet in the World Series, I can worry then.

 

Stop being so technical about this

 

Logic gets in the way of irrational arguments.

 

This is assuming Fielder agrees to that.

 

As long the value of the contract equals what Fielder wanted, it wouldn't be a major obstacle.

And then you say we'll just have a rotation that includes a couple of young cheap arms from the farm, like it's a given that this can happen.

 

In order for the Brewers to be competitive in the near future, it will be highly important for this to happen. And that is true regardless of whether the Brewers signed Fielder.

What I mean by that is that teams with the ability to have massive payrolls have a built in advantage over the teams that don't.

 

If it's true, its easy to show. Define what massive payroll means, then show how the built in advantage actually equates to more playoff appearances compared to teams who make smart decisions.

[paul253]

Year	AL Playoff Teams	League Payroll Rank	Team with lowest payroll	NL Playoff Team	League Payroll Rank	Team with lowest payroll
1998	NYY Texas Cleveland Boston	2 3 4 5	Detroit last in AL central	Atlanta Chicago San Diego Houston	2 5 4 7	Montreal 4th in NL east
1999	NYY Texas Boston Cleveland	1 2 5 3	Minnesota Last in AL Central	Atlanta Houston NYM Arizona	1 7 2 4	Florida Last in NL east
2000	Seattle Chicago NYY Oakland	7 11 1 12	Minnesota Last in AL Central	St Louis Chicago NYM SF	5 7 4 9	Florida 3rd NL east
2001	NYY Oakland Seattle Cleveland	1 13 6 3	Minnesota 2nd AL Central	Atlanta Houston St Louis Arizona	3 9 5 4	Montreal Last NL East
2002	Minnesota Oakland NYY Anaheim	12 13 1 7	TB Last AL East	St Louis Arizona Atlanta SF	7 1 4 5	Montreal 2nd NL East
2003	NYY Minnesota Oakland Boston	1 8 11 3	Kansas City 3rd AL Central	Chicago Florida Atlanta SF	6 15 2 4	San Diego Last AL West
2004	NYY Boston Anaheim Minnesota	1 2 3 8	TB 4th AL East	St Louis Atlanta Houston LAD	7 4 8 3	Milwaukee Last NL Central
2005	Chicago Boston LAA NYY	5 2 3 1	KC 5th AL Central	St. Louis Atlanta San Diego Houston	4 7 11 9	Pittsburgh Last NL Central
2006	Detroit NYY Oakland Minnesota	5 1 10 9	TB Last AL East	NYM LAD St. Louis SD	1 2 7 9	Florida 4th NL East
2007	Boston NYY LAA Cleveland	2 1 3 13	TB Last AL East	Colorado Philly Chicago Arizona	12 6 3 13	Florida Last NL Central
2008	Boston Chicago TB LAA	3 4 14 5	TB 1st AL East	LA Chicago Philly Milwaukee	2 3 6 8	Florida 3rd NL East
2009	NYY LAA Boston Minnesota	1 4 2 12	Oakland Last AL West	LA St Louis Philly Colorado	5 7 3 10	Florida 2nd NL East
2010	TB NYY Texas Minnesota	10 1 13 7	Oakland 2nd AL West	Philly Atlanta Cincinnati SF	2 8 11 4	Pittsburgh Last NL Central
2011	TB Texas NYY Detroit	13 7 1 6	KC 4th AL Central	Milwaukee St. Louis Philly Arizona	9 5 1 14	SD Last NL Central

 

 

 

 

 

[paul253]

Sorry for the long box, but some observations I made regarding the playoff history:

 

American League since 1998

The team with the highest payroll made the playoffs 85% of the time over the last 14 years

About 60% of the AL playoff teams had a top 5 payroll

About 23% of the AL playoff teams had a bottom 5 payroll

The team with the lowest payroll made the playoffs once (TB) and finished last in their division 57% of the time

 

National League since 1998:

The team with the highest payroll only made the playoffs 28% of the time, but if you include the top 2 payrolls, it jumps to 57% of the time (we can thank the Cubs and Mets for this)

About 53% of the NL playoff teams had a top five payroll

Only 7% of the NL playoff teams had a bottom five payroll

The team with the lowest payroll never made the playoffs and also finished last in their division 57% of the time

 

What this shows me is that teams with a top 5 payroll are much more likely (almost three times more likely in the AL and almost 8 times more likely in the NL) to make the playoffs than teams with bottom five payrolls. Teams with a top two payroll make the playoffs about 75% of the time total. Teams with the lowest payroll very rarely make the playoffs.

 

Note: I started in 1998 because the link I found to total payrolls started that year.

[paul253]

Logic gets in the way of irrational arguments.

 

The irrational argument that the Brewers can sign Fielder to a $25 million a year contract for 7 or 8 years and still have enough money to be competitive?

As long the value of the contract equals what Fielder wanted, it wouldn't be a major obstacle.

 

I don't think you can speak for Fielder regarding that.

 

In order for the Brewers to be competitive in the near future, it will

be highly important for this to happen. And that is true regardless of

whether the Brewers signed Fielder.

 

It is true, but it's also true that if they don't sign Fielder they'll have more money available to sign starting pitchers should their prospects not pan out like recent history suggest they may not.

[kramnoj]

The irrational argument that the Brewers can sign Fielder to a $25 million a year contract for 7 or 8 years and still have enough money to be competitive?

 

Do you see someone making that argument? Or is that another strawman?

 

What this shows me is that teams with a top 5 payroll are much more likely (almost three times more likely in the AL and almost 8 times more likely in the NL) to make the playoffs than teams with bottom five payrolls. Teams with a top two payroll make the playoffs about 75% of the time total. Teams with the lowest payroll very rarely make the playoffs.

 

Why should we expect teams with the lowest payroll to make the playoffs more than rarely? Most times, if a team isn't spending money, it isn't trying to compete.

[paul253]

Most times, if a team isn't spending money, it isn't trying to compete.

 

So first you say there is no evidence to suggest that payroll has any affect on the competitive balance of the league. Then when evidence is presented that the majority of the playoff teams have a top 5 league payroll you just dismiss it by saying lower spending teams aren't trying? Since when does the amount of money spent on payroll directly correlate with how hard a team is "trying"?

 

Do you see someone making that argument? Or is that another strawman?

 

What exactly are you arguing then? Because it sure reads to me that you think Milwaukee could sign Fielder if they wanted to and can still stay competitive for the next couple of years. I acknowledge Milwaukee could technically sign him. But it's not realistic to expect Milwaukee to have a quarter of it's payroll tied up in one player. They don't have enough quality pitching prospects to replace the 3 starters that they surely won't be able to afford to re-sign.

 

The whole point of this debate is that certain teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies) could probably afford to do that and most other teams can't. And because of that certain teams have a built in advantage towards making the playoffs. You said there's no evidence of that but there it is a couple of posts down. Teams with higher payrolls are more likely to make the playoffs.

 

Tying this in a little more to the topic, I don't think a salary cap is really the answer. Beside the fact that it will never happen, I think making changes to the draft, increasing revenue sharing (with the requirement that a certain percentage of the money received by a team in revenue be directly invested in team personnel) and increasing the luxury tax would be more affective.

[Ennder]

Since when does the amount of money spent on payroll directly correlate with how hard a team is "trying"?

 

It won't change your argument much but this is most certainly the case in baseball. Teams that think they need to rebuild sell off all of their good players and go into low price mode and put the money into their draft and minor league teams. A large percentage of the lowest payroll teams aren't really interested in winning (not all of them though). I'd also be a bit dubious about using stats back to 1998 considering how many changes aimed at fixing competitive balance have happened since then.

 

More certainly can be done to make baseball more balanced, a cap is just one way to go about it, not the only way. An NFL style cap would ruin the game imo.

[kramnoj]

Then when evidence is presented that the majority of the playoff teams have a top 5 league payroll you just dismiss it by saying lower spending teams aren't trying?

 

I don't think data from 1998 is all that relevant to today. MLBAM wasn't pouring money into team revenue as much back then. You also first brought up massive payrolls, then switched to top 5. Those aren't the same thing, as just listing top 5 doesn't tell you anything about the difference between the top 5 and other teams. As far as dismissing lower teams spending, I addressed it because you brought it up.

 

Since when does the amount of money spent on payroll directly correlate with how hard a team is "trying"?

 

I would say for decades. It's possible to build a team cheaply, but most teams that are trying to win are going to be in the middle of the pack or higher when it comes to payroll. If you believe that teams that have the lowest payroll often are trying to win, provide evidence to support it.

What exactly are you arguing then?

 

I've argued that the Brewers could keep Fielder at his level of production. The numbers that you cited don't equal Fielder's projection.

[paul253]

It won't change your argument much but this is most certainly the case

in baseball. Teams that think they need to rebuild sell off all of

their good players and go into low price mode and put the money into

their draft and minor league teams. A large percentage of the lowest

payroll teams aren't really interested in winning (not all of them

though).

 

It's not that they aren't interested in winning or that they aren't trying to win. If that were the case, they wouldn't bother trading off their good players to try to get prospects in return. They'd just let them walk away in free agency and then replace them with anyone who is cheaper. But why is it that the bad teams are always trading away their good players? It's usually because the player is a pending free agent and the team either doesn't want to re-sign him because they don't think he's part of the future (they have a replacement) or they don't think they can re-sign him. It's not usually possible for a team, especially a small market team, to rebuild entirely with free agents. They have to build around the younger guys. That's why they trade for them. They trade for them because they realize that that is their best chance of building a winner. It's the exact opposite of not trying to win. They are trying to win. They just realize their chances of winning now are small and so they have to look to the future.

 

I'd also be a bit dubious about using stats back to 1998

considering how many changes aimed at fixing competitive balance have

happened since then.

 

The numbers are right there, you can do anything you'd like with them. Let's look at the last 7 years then, since 2005:

American League:

The percentage of playoff teams with a bottom 5 payroll is 25%. They make up close to 38% of the league.

The percentage of playoff teams with a top 5 payroll is almost 61%. They also make up 38% of the league.

The team with the lowest payroll made the playoffs once and finished last in the division 4 of the 7 years

 

National League:

The percentage of playoff teams with a bottom 5 payroll is about 11%. They make up 31% of the league.

The percentage of playoff teams with a top 5 payroll is about 43%. They also make up 31% of the league.

The team with the lowest payroll never made the playoffs and finished last 4 of the 7 years.

 

Here's another statistic:

In 1998 the smallest payroll was about 11.5% of the highest.

In 2011 the smaller payroll was about 18% of the highest.

 

Things seems to be getting better but it's not there yet. Teams with higher payrolls are disproportionately represented in the playoffs and teams with lower payrolls are disproportionately underrepresented in the playoffs. Baseball is set up in a way that a team with a small payroll can compete IF they draft well and have a lot of good young players. But once those players move into the arbitration years and get expensive, it is harder for the small payroll team to continue to compete because the expensive players start to leave. In order to stay successful, they have to maintain the good young players throughout which is difficult. That's why you will see teams like Oakland and Minnesota and maybe TB go through a period of three years where they make the playoffs but then, after losing the core of their team, begin to struggle again.

 

[brewmann04]

Looks like the new deal will be announced Tuesday according to the mlb web site.

[lcbj68c]

Is anybody even slightly pissed off about the new wild card proposal? I'm all for adding an additional Wild Card (5th playoff team). However, I think that having the 4-seed play the 5-seed in a one game, winner take all playoff game, just absolutely ridiculous. I think it's pretty well established that 1 game does not decide much in baseball. I was all for the proposal to do a 3-game series in this case, with a home doubleheader as games 2 and 3, to avoid stretching out the postseason too much.

 

However, wouldn't the following situation be a travesty......???

 

For example, going into game #162

NL East Philly 97 wins, Atlanta 87 wins, New York 82 wins, blah blah

NL Central St. Louis 95 wins, Milwaukee 94 wins, Chicago 83 wins blah blah

NL West Arizona 90 wins, LAD 82 wins, blah blah

 

So basically, Philly and Arizona have already clinched divisions. Milwaukee and Atlanta have already clinched playoff spots, but Milwaukee is fighting for a division. Atlanta has clinched a playoff spot for a week and rests it's starters. Milwaukee, in an effort to win the division and avoid the wild card round, starts Zach Greinke in game #162 on 3-days rest. Atlanta has it's #1 starter rested for 5 days, have clinched with no shot at winning their division. Brewers start Greinke in game #162 and lose 1-0. Now in a 1-game, winner take all, playoff vs Atlanta, despite being 7 games better over the season, they throw against the Braves #1 starter with whoever has the most rest at that point, #3 starter, whatever. I have a tough time swallowing that.

[mothershipconnection]

I think the 1-game playoff is stupid. After 162 games, to have it decided by a single game (unless you're tied) is just not enough. I'm much more excited by a tight wild card race that goes down to the wire than the race being over far sooner while waiting for a 1-game playoff round.