Rosters to expand to 26 in 2020

[markedman5]

Also September call up restrictions and other things being discussed

 

https://apnews.com/65f119ae2a264b5b8210e25e82ae4508?utm_medium=AP_Sports&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

[Eye Black]

For those who may have missed it in the title, this change would be for next season, 2020.

[owbc]

Disappointed to see the pitch clock and other pace of play measures put on hold. Seemed like a no-brainer, especially with how smoothly it has been working in spring training. Although at least this will improve the speed of September games.

[Eye Black]

This seems like the part that would be a disadvantage for the Brewers...

 

“As part of the deal, the active limit from Sept. 1 to the end of the season would be lowered from 40 to 28 beginning next year, people familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press.”

 

The Brewers did a masterful job last season of utilizing a 40-man roster deep with MLB ready talent that could help win games in September.

[Paul77]

This seems like the part that would be a disadvantage for the Brewers...

 

“As part of the deal, the active limit from Sept. 1 to the end of the season would be lowered from 40 to 28 beginning next year, people familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press.”

 

The Brewers did a masterful job last season of utilizing a 40-man roster deep with MLB ready talent that could help win games in September.

 

I read this as "active limit" means you can expand your roster to 40, but only 28 can be active for a particular game. I could be 100% wrong, but that was my first impression. That would keep the union happy (more jobs) and address the issue of 37 pitching changes per game. In theory.

[bork]

This seems like the part that would be a disadvantage for the Brewers...

 

“As part of the deal, the active limit from Sept. 1 to the end of the season would be lowered from 40 to 28 beginning next year, people familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press.”

 

The Brewers did a masterful job last season of utilizing a 40-man roster deep with MLB ready talent that could help win games in September.

 

I read this as "active limit" means you can expand your roster to 40, but only 28 can be active for a particular game. I could be 100% wrong, but that was my first impression. That would keep the union happy (more jobs) and address the issue of 37 pitching changes per game. In theory.

 

If that's the case, then you could make all but 1 starter inactive and still have a 13 man bullpen, given the 14 pitcher limit after Sept 1.

[pitchleague]

This seems like the part that would be a disadvantage for the Brewers...

 

“As part of the deal, the active limit from Sept. 1 to the end of the season would be lowered from 40 to 28 beginning next year, people familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press.”

 

The Brewers did a masterful job last season of utilizing a 40-man roster deep with MLB ready talent that could help win games in September.

 

 

As did just about every team AGAINST the Brewers back in the days when we were terrible and Doug Melvin was pushing for this very thing to even things out for the teams that didn't have the desire to call up all their guys on the 40-man so they could save money.

 

Personally, I am all for this proposal. There is no need for some teams to have 40 guys while other teams save some bucks and go with only 29 guys. At the very least, they should allow 40 guys to be up, but every day there is an "active" 28 guys and the rest are inactive for that game. There would also be a limit on how many of those "active" players could be pitchers. I see that they are already thinking of implementing something like that.

 

In short, I see it from both sides. When you're a contender, the 40-man roster is great for the reasons you gave (i.e. help winning games in September.) When you're not, it depends on if your owner is a penny-pincher or not to determine how great it is.

[jerichoholicninja]

Thank god the union rejected the 3 batter minimum.

[Fear The Chorizo]

This seems like the part that would be a disadvantage for the Brewers...

 

“As part of the deal, the active limit from Sept. 1 to the end of the season would be lowered from 40 to 28 beginning next year, people familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press.”

 

The Brewers did a masterful job last season of utilizing a 40-man roster deep with MLB ready talent that could help win games in September.

 

I read this as "active limit" means you can expand your roster to 40, but only 28 can be active for a particular game. I could be 100% wrong, but that was my first impression. That would keep the union happy (more jobs) and address the issue of 37 pitching changes per game. In theory.

 

If that's the case, then you could make all but 1 starter inactive and still have a 13 man bullpen, given the 14 pitcher limit after Sept 1.

 

I'm totally fine with that - that would result in having a pretty thin position player bench relatively speaking in September, particularly if a game were to go into extras. If that 'active limit' is something that can be adjusted from game to game, I think the Brewers can still take advantage of their roster depth from spots 26-40. Getting that limit down to a game by game total that sets both teams on equal footing makes sense. I always thought it was silly for one team in September to be playing a game with ~28 guys on their lineup card when the opposite dugout had 35.

[FVBrewerFan]

I dont think the 28 man September roster is that big of a deal. Add a bench bat maybe, otherwise 3 more pitchers- thats plenty.

 

Bigger impact is injured list for pitchers/ recall raised from 10 to 15 days. Thats significant over the entire season for the Brewers.

[JohnBriggs12]

Thank god the union rejected the 3 batter minimum.

 

I thought that was the best proposal out there from a fan's perspective.

[pacopete4]

Thank god the union rejected the 3 batter minimum.

 

I thought that was the best proposal out there from a fan's perspective.

 

I was all for it. End the specialty pitcher. Put it out of its misery already. Make these guys earn a paycheck.

[adambr2]

Sorry, I absolutely hate that one. I'm all about specialization, and specialization is good for the Brewers.

 

There are also times it's going to end up seeming silly in practice. What if an already overworked pitcher end ups throwing 17 pitches in his first 2 ABs? You're still going to force him to face another?

 

In reality I think when these situations come up an injury is just going to be feigned. Here's a potential scenario, Brewers lead the Phillies 3-2 in the 8th and Jeffress comes in with 1 runner on first and 0 out and mows down the first two batters he faces and the runner ends up on 2nd. Now Bryce Harper comes up. What Counsell really wants to do is bring in Hader for the last 4 outs of the game, but he can't because of the 3 batter minimum.

 

What exactly is stopping Jeffress from asking the trainer to come out and look at 'something' and subsequently being pulled from the game?

 

I just think the whole thing has potential to just be turned into a mockery.

[FVBrewerFan]

That's a good example Adam, it's why I hate the idea too. As a baseball fan, I've always accepted it's a game played without a clock. And I love the strategy aspect of moves and counter-moves.

 

But, I'm realistic too. The game probably does need to be shorter for the new generation of fans and pitching changes have a ton to do with that. DH (boo) is inevitable in the NL, which will kill a lot of the strategy anyhow. I still don't like the 3 batter minimum, but maybe you come up with 4 pitcher max per game (exception for extra innings.) Of course, that could be abused too with phantom injuries. But I don't think you could go to the well very often on that without hearing from MLB.

[jerichoholicninja]

Thank god the union rejected the 3 batter minimum.

 

I thought that was the best proposal out there from a fan's perspective.

 

I was all for it. End the specialty pitcher. Put it out of its misery already. Make these guys earn a paycheck.

 

Specialization is part of the game. Let's get rid of speedy pinch runners and no glove, all bat DH types, or late inning defensive replacements while we're at it.

 

Any time saved by a 3 batter minimum would be lost when a reliever can't find the plate. How many times do we see a guy come in and walk the first batter on 4 or 5 pitches and it's obvious he just doesn't have it? Now that guy has to face two more batters and he will walk at least one of them if not both.

[pacopete4]

 

Specialization is part of the game. Let's get rid of speedy pinch runners and no glove, all bat DH types, or late inning defensive replacements while we're at it.

 

Any time saved by a 3 batter minimum would be lost when a reliever can't find the plate. How many times do we see a guy come in and walk the first batter on 4 or 5 pitches and it's obvious he just doesn't have it? Now that guy has to face two more batters and he will walk at least one of them if not both.

 

-Speedy pinch runners have a role but they also play positions and hit. It is a teams choice if they want to carry a below average hitter in return for some speed.

-DH types again play a more significant role in the game than a one-out getter in the pen. If a team wants a big bat that can't defend, that is their choice to have that trade-off and the same goes but in the opposite direction for late defensive game replacements. If a team wants a crappy hitter on their bench because the guy is a whiz with the glove, well then again, that is their choice.

 

-If a guy can't pitch to three batters and hit the strike zone, then he doesn't belong in the major leagues. Maybe having this rule would force the GM's to find actual pitchers rather than just throwers that can bring it 95+. Either the game will go faster because there are less pitching changes or it will create offense from those GM's not being able to find strike throwers. Win-win!

[KeithStone53151]

I like limiting the September callups to 28 players, but I'm not sure how much I like expanding overall rosters to 26. Seems like a complete waste, especially with the 13 pitcher minimum and in the AL with the DH. What's the point in the AL having 13 position players? It might create a few more jobs for veterans, especially those with good platoon splits that could be a late game PH. Also might create a couple jobs for speed guys...as having a speed only guy is a bit more realistic with the expanded roster. I can't see how anyone sees this as generally good for the game, the only purpose to expanding to 26 is creating 30 more roster spots at the MLB level...more money for players and the MLBPA.

[And That]

Why three batters, though? That seems incredibly arbitrary. Why not four batters or three outs? Or two batters? Or three outs? Or two outs?

 

Agree with the poster above - this seems like a great way to lengthen games by forcing ineffective pitchers to stay in longer.

[young guns]

To me it seems like they are saying pitching changes add to much time to the game. And so they think to themselves let's have fewer pitching changes and that will solve it, instead of realizing that pitching changes just take forever to happen. We have to wait for the manager to meander to the mound, then he has to chat up the pitcher, then he signals, then the pitcher walks in from 350 feet away and has to throw 10 pitches before we can resume play.

 

Here's how it should be. You signal from the dugout and the pitcher comes out on a golf cart gets maybe 1 pitch to remind himself that the pitchers mound is just like every other pitching mound and boom we are good to go and it's taken maybe a minute. You want talk to the pitcher to find out if you want to talk him out? Fine, but it counts as a mound visit.

[MadThinker88]

I don't know what the fully proposal was regarding the "3 batter minimum" but I was FOR the concept. The reduction of pure specialization and number of "during the inning pitching changes" would definitely pick up the pace of play help the game move along.

I do think the verbage of the proposal was extremely important & I would be very interested in learning what that was.

 

For example: reliever comes in, throws 3 pitches and induces a double play to end the inning.

Does that equal 1 batter or 2?

It ended the inning, must that same pitcher return to the mound next inning (for 1 or more batters) or can the manager use the natural inning break to change pitchers?

 

Let's change the example and say the reliever comes in with 2 out and pinch runner on 1st. Before delivering a pitch to the plate, the reliever is able to pick off the runner to end the inning. Same general questions apply.

Does that count as a batter?

Does he need to return to mound the next inning??

Would it count as a batter if on the 1st pitch, the runner tries to steal and is gunned down by the catcher to end the inning???

 

Saying "3 batters" seems too simplistic and a penalty for a pitcher that was successful for getting his team out of a jam or quickly ending the inning.

[LouisEly]

I read this as "active limit" means you can expand your roster to 40, but only 28 can be active for a particular game. I could be 100% wrong, but that was my first impression. That would keep the union happy (more jobs) and address the issue of 37 pitching changes per game. In theory.

I would hope that is the case, as if it's a roster limit then that will really inhibit young guys getting valuable major league experience in September.

 

Part of me did wonder if that was a ploy by the player's union to deliberately restrict development of young players. If the younger players have less opportunity to show what they can do at the major league level, then it means less confidence in younger players and may increase demand to sign veteran free agents. But I think Paul is correct, and it is how many guys can be active for a game.

 

Along those lines, I'd support the 26-man roster more if it meant only 25 active guys per game. That being said, deactivating yesterday's starting pitcher will be the standard and it will still mean an extra available body. Could come in valuable in days after extra innings games where more than one pitcher is unavailable, and could eliminate the AAA-majors shuttle which isn't easy on players (ok, go pack your bags, you're going to a different city right now for an undetermined amount of time).

[jerichoholicninja]

Here's how it should be. You signal from the dugout and the pitcher comes out on a golf cart gets maybe 1 pitch to remind himself that the pitchers mound is just like every other pitching mound and boom we are good to go and it's taken maybe a minute. You want talk to the pitcher to find out if you want to talk him out? Fine, but it counts as a mound visit.

 

This exactly. There's way too much wasted time during pitching changes. Signal the change from the dugout, drive the pitcher to the mound, and give him 3 pitches to warm up. No one needs the 8 or 10 they already get. Get fully warm in the bullpen, that's why it's there.

[SomewhereInTime]

To me it seems like they are saying pitching changes add to much time to the game. And so they think to themselves let's have fewer pitching changes and that will solve it, instead of realizing that pitching changes just take forever to happen. We have to wait for the manager to meander to the mound, then he has to chat up the pitcher, then he signals, then the pitcher walks in from 350 feet away and has to throw 10 pitches before we can resume play.

 

Here's how it should be. You signal from the dugout and the pitcher comes out on a golf cart gets maybe 1 pitch to remind himself that the pitchers mound is just like every other pitching mound and boom we are good to go and it's taken maybe a minute. You want talk to the pitcher to find out if you want to talk him out? Fine, but it counts as a mound visit.

 

The advertisers may have something to say about this...

[stalton]

To me it seems like they are saying pitching changes add to much time to the game. And so they think to themselves let's have fewer pitching changes and that will solve it, instead of realizing that pitching changes just take forever to happen. We have to wait for the manager to meander to the mound, then he has to chat up the pitcher, then he signals, then the pitcher walks in from 350 feet away and has to throw 10 pitches before we can resume play.

 

Here's how it should be. You signal from the dugout and the pitcher comes out on a golf cart gets maybe 1 pitch to remind himself that the pitchers mound is just like every other pitching mound and boom we are good to go and it's taken maybe a minute. You want talk to the pitcher to find out if you want to talk him out? Fine, but it counts as a mound visit.

 

I vote everybody sprints in ala Todd Coffey.

[wntrtxn21]

Sorry, I absolutely hate that one. I'm all about specialization, and specialization is good for the Brewers.

 

There are also times it's going to end up seeming silly in practice. What if an already overworked pitcher end ups throwing 17 pitches in his first 2 ABs? You're still going to force him to face another?

 

In reality I think when these situations come up an injury is just going to be feigned. Here's a potential scenario, Brewers lead the Phillies 3-2 in the 8th and Jeffress comes in with 1 runner on first and 0 out and mows down the first two batters he faces and the runner ends up on 2nd. Now Bryce Harper comes up. What Counsell really wants to do is bring in Hader for the last 4 outs of the game, but he can't because of the 3 batter minimum.

 

What exactly is stopping Jeffress from asking the trainer to come out and look at 'something' and subsequently being pulled from the game?

 

I just think the whole thing has potential to just be turned into a mockery.

 

I believe all 3 batter minimum sceniros called for a 10 day DL stay if a pitcher was removed for injury prior to the minimum being reached.