Any major changes coming in the new CBA? [CBA agreed upon: post 59]

[Patrick425]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18178051/new-cba-ending-all-star-link-world-series

 

All-Star Game home field gimmick is finally over

 

[sarcasm]Oh no! But what if that opens the door for more All-Star games ending in a tie?! How horrible that would be!![/sarcasm]

[MrTPlush]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18178051/new-cba-ending-all-star-link-world-series

 

All-Star Game home field gimmick is finally over

 

[sarcasm]Oh no! But what if that opens the door for more All-Star games ending in a tie?! How horrible that would be!![/sarcasm]

 

Laugh all you want, but the home field advantage thing was a really good idea at the time. Might have worked out better if teams actually tried, but they didn't really play 100% so it turned into a bit of a joke.

[MKE81]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18178051/new-cba-ending-all-star-link-world-series

 

All-Star Game home field gimmick is finally over

 

[sarcasm]Oh no! But what if that opens the door for more All-Star games ending in a tie?! How horrible that would be!![/sarcasm]

 

Laugh all you want, but the home field advantage thing was a really good idea at the time. Might have worked out better if teams actually tried, but they didn't really play 100% so it turned into a bit of a joke.

Completely disagree. Allowing players, a good amount of them who won't even sniff the playoffs, to determine who has home field advantage was absurd at the time. Teams play 162 games busting their tails to earn home field and it doesn't even matter because a bunch of dudes not on their team, combined with coaches not on their staff making decisions that don't affect their team, win a meaningless game.

[djoctagone]

i like the move to 10-day disabled list. makes it easier to put a starting pitcher on the dl and perhaps miss only one start if there's an off day somewhere in that span.

[MillerParkSouth]

The all-star game determining home field advantage for the WS was a bigger joke than the game itself. It's fantastic that they finally did away with that farce.

[Patrick425]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18178051/new-cba-ending-all-star-link-world-series

 

All-Star Game home field gimmick is finally over

 

[sarcasm]Oh no! But what if that opens the door for more All-Star games ending in a tie?! How horrible that would be!![/sarcasm]

 

Laugh all you want, but the home field advantage thing was a really good idea at the time. Might have worked out better if teams actually tried, but they didn't really play 100% so it turned into a bit of a joke.

 

What some argue is the most popular sport in the world, soccer, ends in ties all the time. Hockey games are allowed to end in ties and often do. NFL games can end in ties. Yet, one meaningless baseball game ends in a tie and people get upset and rules are unnecessarily changed? It's an exhibition game featuring baseball stars. The outcome and score of the game should be secondary and meaningless. My guess is if I picked 5 random years and asked you to tell me who won the all-star game in that year, you would not know. Why wouldn't you know?...because it's not important and it shouldn't be important. Whether the players tried or not, tying the game to WS home field advantage was never a good idea.

[stoutdude04]

Just to add, often times the most deserving players didn't even get a nod to play in the game. That alone made me think tying it to the WS was a poor choice.

[adambr2]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18178051/new-cba-ending-all-star-link-world-series

 

All-Star Game home field gimmick is finally over

DL reduced to 10 days

Seems to be some details to open the door for more international/special event games

 

I'm glad they are going to give HFA to the best record team instead of the old way of just alternating it year to year, which was even more of a ridiculous way of doing it than using the AS game.

[MrTPlush]

Completely disagree. Allowing players, a good amount of them who won't even sniff the playoffs, to determine who has home field advantage was absurd at the time. Teams play 162 games busting their tails to earn home field and it doesn't even matter because a bunch of dudes not on their team, combined with coaches not on their staff making decisions that don't affect their team, win a meaningless game.

 

It is about ratings and $$$. Ratings for the All Star game were already plummetting before the tie. Giving homefield advantage to the winner was a nice attempt to right the ship. Unfortunately it just didn't gain much steam though it did keep ratings steady for a little while. The players didn't put in the effort Bud Selig was hoping for and the managers didn't really manage to win.

 

It was a good idea, but it didn't work.

[MadScientist]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18178051/new-cba-ending-all-star-link-world-series

 

All-Star Game home field gimmick is finally over

DL reduced to 10 days

Seems to be some details to open the door for more international/special event games

 

I'm glad they are going to give HFA to the best record team instead of the old way of just alternating it year to year, which was even more of a ridiculous way of doing it than using the AS game.

 

Since the leagues didn't play each other, alternating years was a fair compromise. Honestly it is now likely to go to the team in the least competitive division, unless a WC team gets in.

 

Might be more fair if HFA was determined by the league with the better interleague record.

[owbc]

 

Laugh all you want, but the home field advantage thing was a really good idea at the time. Might have worked out better if teams actually tried, but they didn't really play 100% so it turned into a bit of a joke.

 

Yep, agreed that it looks stupid now but most people wanted the change when it happened. Interleague play and the dissolution of the league presidents were still relatively new events and some people were miffed about Cal Ripken Jr's home run in 2001. Now most people accept that the ASG is an exhibition game so it's fitting to retire the rule.

[MrTPlush]

Might be more fair if HFA was determined by the league with the better interleague record.

 

How is that any more fair. What if I am playing the AL East and you get to play the AL Central?

[cjsportsfanatic100]

Because it measures AL vs NL. Duh. Its not perfect. But what suggestion is?

[Patrick425]

 

Laugh all you want, but the home field advantage thing was a really good idea at the time. Might have worked out better if teams actually tried, but they didn't really play 100% so it turned into a bit of a joke.

 

Yep, agreed that it looks stupid now but most people wanted the change when it happened.

 

Just because "most" people want something doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Also, any evidence that most people wanted that change at that time? I just feel like the angry people were louder than the people who didn't care about the ASG ending in a tie. I was at the game and I remember thinking it was an odd end to the game, but I wasn't one of the people booing the decision. It really wasn't until I got in my car and was listening to post game sports talk shows until I realized how upset some people were about it. Didn't make sense to me and I'm fairly sure that there were several people on this board that did not get the anger over the tie game at the time and more that were not in favor of the rule change when it happened.

[Thurston Fluff]

 

Yep, agreed that it looks stupid now but most people wanted the change when it happened.

 

Just because "most" people want something doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Also, any evidence that most people wanted that change at that time? I just feel like the angry people were louder than the people who didn't care about the ASG ending in a tie. I was at the game and I remember thinking it was an odd end to the game, but I wasn't one of the people booing the decision. It really wasn't until I got in my car and was listening to post game sports talk shows until I realized how upset some people were about it. Didn't make sense to me and I'm fairly sure that there were several people on this board that did not get the anger over the tie game at the time and more that were not in favor of the rule change when it happened.

 

Count me as one of those people. It always struck me a odd that people got upset because an exhibition game meant to showcase all the best players ended in a tie because they showcased all the players.

 

On different note does anyone know why the union is so against an international draft? The people effected by it are not even union members. Seems to me that would be a good bargaining chip to get something else union members would actually benefit from. Like a DH in both leagues, an extra player on the roster, a minimum wage boost or any number of other things they could actually profit from. Seems to be the ones who benefit from no international draft is player agents not players.

[adambr2]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18178051/new-cba-ending-all-star-link-world-series

 

All-Star Game home field gimmick is finally over

DL reduced to 10 days

Seems to be some details to open the door for more international/special event games

 

I'm glad they are going to give HFA to the best record team instead of the old way of just alternating it year to year, which was even more of a ridiculous way of doing it than using the AS game.

 

Since the leagues didn't play each other, alternating years was a fair compromise. Honestly it is now likely to go to the team in the least competitive division, unless a WC team gets in.

 

Might be more fair if HFA was determined by the league with the better interleague record.

 

A fair compromise? The big advantage that gives you a much better chance of winning the World Series should be determined by random oscillation? Whether you happened to make it in an odd or even number year?

 

Doing it by best record without interleague play wouldn't have been perfect, but it's a lot better than just having it determined by luck. Has that been in place in 1982 we might be talking about the Brewer team that won the World Series, not just made it.

[Thurston Fluff]

Doing it by best record without interleague play wouldn't have been perfect, but it's a lot better than just having it determined by luck. Has that been in place in 1982 we might be talking about the Brewer team that won the World Series, not just made it.

 

With an unbalanced schedule you have some teams with harder schedules that others. It would essentially reward the team who played in the weakest division of the weakest league not the best overall team. I am fine with alternating years because there is no way to truly know which team is the best and deserves home field advantage.

[brewerfan82]

Doing it by best record without interleague play wouldn't have been perfect, but it's a lot better than just having it determined by luck. Has that been in place in 1982 we might be talking about the Brewer team that won the World Series, not just made it.

 

With an unbalanced schedule you have some teams with harder schedules that others. It would essentially reward the team who played in the weakest division of the weakest league not the best overall team. I am fine with alternating years because there is no way to truly know which team is the best and deserves home field advantage.

Has there been a study that shows how much a weaker schedule actually inflates a team's win total over a season? I understand it would affect it, but I would guess that, in general, the better team has a better record regardless of strength of schedule most of the time.

[brewcrewdue80]

Might be more fair if HFA was determined by the league with the better interleague record.

 

How is that any more fair. What if I am playing the AL East and you get to play the AL Central?

 

Well, If you're playing for an AL team it's awesome system. They'd have had homefield advantage via end of year standings since 2004. And only 2002 and 2003 did the NL beat out the AL in interleague records in this century to date.

 

 

On to the DL, Does that eliminate the 7day concussion usage?

 

Don't fully understand the Internation Pool details. If there's a hard cap of either 5 or 6million depending on market, but at same time there's the ability to trade all of your International pool and gain 75% more, are we surpassing the 5/6million line then?

 

QO system interesting. And confusing. So complicated overall, but for Milwaukee it's simple. 3rd choice forfeit, end of 1st rd compensation.

 

I gotta say for most part it reads really like MLB and MLBPA are doing their best to make all 30teams competitive. With one or two exceptions. Which teams are #16/17 in Revenue? Which Teams are 15/14 in revenue?

 

Quickly checking on Google

 

1.NYY:508 516

2.LAD:403 438

3.SFG:387 409

4.RDSX:370 398

5.LAA:304 312

6.CHC:302 340

7.STL:294 300

8.WSH:287 293

9.ATL:267 266-15

10.TEX:266 275

11.PHI:265 263-16

12.NYM:263 313

13.DET:254 268-14

14.SEA:250 271-12

15.BAL:245 239-22

16.KCR:231 273-11

17.PIT:229 244-18

18.TOR:227 241-19

19.Cin:227 237-23

20.CHW:227 240-21

21.Milw:226 234-24

22.SD:224 244-17

23.MN:223 240-20

23+Hou: 270-13

 

I'm sure majority won't understand this but simply:

2014 Houston wasn't top 15 in revenue. 2015 they were 13th.

2014 Kansas City wasn't top 15 in revenue. 2015 they were 11th

2014 Phillies were in top 15 at 11. 2015 they weren't at 16th.

2014 Baltimore were in top 15 at 15. 2015 they weren't at 22nd.

 

2014 15 and 16 were 14million apart.

2015 15 and 16 were 3million apart.

 

Oddly Toronto and Chicago White Sox were both below 15 both seasons.

Toronto had 10th highest payroll in 2015 White Sox 15th.

Toronto had 10th highest payroll in 2014 White Sox 20th.

 

Detroit at 13/14 in revenue those 2 seasons had the 4th and 5th highest payrolls.

The Reds had 12 and 14th highest payrolls while being bottom 15 in revenue.

The Mets had 22nd and 21st highest Payrolls while being in top 15 in revenue.

 

What happens within the flip flops? And not only that, but when do team's revenues get computed? If you're near #15 you don't know where you stand this time of year so do you sign a QO? Offer one? You go from end of 1st to end of 2nd competitive balance in the compensation. And of course the 2/5 combo loss or just the 3rd choice lost?

Forbes didn't come out with its Team Valuations until March 23rd of this year for 2015.

 

This will come in to play watch. When a team signs or offers a QO and then their thoughts on what it was going to cost them being below 15 in revenue and turns out they are in top 15.

[yfinn6]

 

Yep, agreed that it looks stupid now but most people wanted the change when it happened.

 

Just because "most" people want something doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Also, any evidence that most people wanted that change at that time? I just feel like the angry people were louder than the people who didn't care about the ASG ending in a tie. I was at the game and I remember thinking it was an odd end to the game, but I wasn't one of the people booing the decision. It really wasn't until I got in my car and was listening to post game sports talk shows until I realized how upset some people were about it. Didn't make sense to me and I'm fairly sure that there were several people on this board that did not get the anger over the tie game at the time and more that were not in favor of the rule change when it happened.

 

Count me as one of those people. It always struck me a odd that people got upset because an exhibition game meant to showcase all the best players ended in a tie because they showcased all the players.

 

 

Same here. I also never liked the All-Star game determining home-field advantage. I would be curious to see if there are any real numbers about the effect of 'All-Star game determines home field' had on ratings, merchandise, etc, that cannot be attributed to normal spike (or drops) in those categories over the years due to general interest in the game.

[And That]

Don't fully understand the Internation Pool details. If there's a hard cap of either 5 or 6million depending on market, but at same time there's the ability to trade all of your International pool and gain 75% more, are we surpassing the 5/6million line then?

As I understand it, yes. So if the Brewers had a $6 million cap because of their market, they could either trade all of it away, or trade for additional cap space of up to $4.5 million, which would give them maximum available funds to spend of $10.5 million.

 

Which means that signings like Moncada and Puig won't happen anymore. Players like that, and currently Shohei Otani, will have to wait until they have enough service time in foreign leagues to qualify as a major league free agent. That's a pretty awful system.

[brewcrewdue80]

Don't fully understand the Internation Pool details. If there's a hard cap of either 5 or 6million depending on market, but at same time there's the ability to trade all of your International pool and gain 75% more, are we surpassing the 5/6million line then?

As I understand it, yes. So if the Brewers had a $6 million cap because of their market, they could either trade all of it away, or trade for additional cap space of up to $4.5 million, which would give them maximum available funds to spend of $10.5 million.

 

Which means that signings like Moncada and Puig won't happen anymore. Players like that, and currently Shohei Otani, will have to wait until they have enough service time in foreign leagues to qualify as a major league free agent. That's a pretty awful system.

 

So the team's that went haywire in spending in 2015/16 no longer have penalties? If so, I just knew something like this was going to happen, where the teams would overspend and aside from the taxes get away no penalties.

 

I should have inquired, Do we have a reverse order of finish pool allotment like before? Say 5million down to 2.5million worst to 1st? Or is it just plain, the signing period happens and Teams A have 5million to spend. Teams B have 6million to spend?

If all can spend to their hardcap would put 165million in spending possible.

But if there's an allotment, from my suggestion 5mil to 2.5mil equally down is about $83,333 per slot and with 15teams allowed to 6mil would then put the spending possible to 147.5 million.

 

How does those amounts compare to what was spent previously these last 3 years? Curious in regards to what the International side sees this as.

[jerichoholicninja]

I've seen the 10 day DL touched a couple times in this thread. This is just changing the concussion DL from 7 to 10 days, right?

[And That]

No, 15 day DL is now 10 day DL.

[MrTPlush]

If all can spend to their hardcap would put 165million in spending possible.

But if there's an allotment, from my suggestion 5mil to 2.5mil equally down is about $83,333 per slot and with 15teams allowed to 6mil would then put the spending possible to 147.5 million.

 

How does those amounts compare to what was spent previously these last 3 years? Curious in regards to what the International side sees this as.

 

There is a very small difference in each teams cap. I believe small markets get just a touch more.

 

I am guessing the international side of things isn't very happy, but it could have been a lot worse. The only thing it really effects is the players who were getting mega bonuses. I saw somewhere that the new system could cut $100mil out of the pockets of international signees, but that seems a touch steep.