Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New MLB labour deal to scrap all-star game's World Series 'incentive'
#1
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/ml...-1.3875729
 "covfefe" 
 







Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
Give multi-millionaires a chance to play for a little bit more money. Some incentive.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
Meh.

My indifference is immeasurable.

*I really dunno.



*the answer to the question "Well then, why did you respond?"
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
(2016-12-01, 04:47 PM)Chris D Wrote: Give multi-millionaires a chance to play for a little bit more money.  Some incentive.

Exactly.

People griped on & on about how it "wasn't fair" that homefield advantage in the World Series was essentially decided in July. Well what other incentive besides that do the players now have to partake in the All Star festivities? You just watch now how many players decide to skip the All Star Game because they don't want to play an "exhibition" contest; they'd probably rather have that week off now. At least when homefield advantage was on the line, if I was a player on a team that had a great chance at going to the World Series, I might've said "If our league wins my team has a shot at opening the World Series at home!" Now that this stipulation has been removed, I doubt players will care enough to go. They'll still have the All Star Game( which is still the best All Star Game in any sport IMHO ), but there will be a lot of players who were voted in likely absent perhaps...because they'd rather take the week off instead now.

Now IF they had something like....the winner gets to donate to a charity of their choice...I could see something like that happening. Might be a decent incentive after all.

But here's something else....of the 14 World Series played where the All Star Game determined homefield advantage, turns out that 11 of those Series still had the team with the better record holding homefield advantage anyway. So....what was all the fuss about? Wink

There were only 3 Series in which the team with better record started on the road....including this year. But did it really hamper the Cubs' chances of winning? NOPE...they still took 3 of the 4 games on the road including Games 6 & 7. It didn't matter if they had to start on the road even if they had a better record than Cleveland. What mattered was the Cubs, over a 7-game Series, were the better team in the end. I actually think it was more memorable for the Cubs in that they had to go on the road to win Games 6 & 7 to win the Series. Happy

But now, all those skeptics finally got their wish & from now on the team with the better record will permanently own homefield advantage for the World Series. So you won't have to complain about it anymore. Although....it's like I said, homefield advantage doesn't necessarily guarantee a World Series victory anyhow. It really comes down to who the better team is over a 7-game Series.

Anyhow...that's my 2 cents Wink
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
(2016-12-01, 04:47 PM)Chris D Wrote: Give multi-millionaires a chance to play for a little bit more money.  Some incentive.

By all reports hardly any, it any at all, players cared about the home field advantage either so it not like it was an incentive.

Quote:The retired closer Brad Lidge, now a host on MLB Network Radio, pitched in his first All-Star Game in 2005, the third year in which the winning league received home-field advantage. He said he had not thought about it at all.

“Home-field advantage was the furthest thing from my mind — and to be honest, no one else was talking about it, either,” said Lidge, who worked a scoreless inning in Detroit. “It just didn’t seem to be a relevant thing.”

The National League lost that game, and Lidge’s Houston Astros wound up representing the N.L. in the World Series. Even then, he said, he didn’t actively think about why they opened on the road. The Chicago White Sox had been 10 games better than the Astros in the regular season, anyway, and Lidge said it only seemed right that they would host.


The all star game is supposed to just be for fun anyway. The most memorable parts of all stars games are when guys are just having fun. Like Bond's playfully going after Tori Hunter for robbing a HR or Randy Johnson throwing the ball 20 feet over peoples heads.  All this stuff about incentives or making it mean something are just dumb. I just want to see the best ball players in the world go out and put on a show and have fun.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
Other interesting tidbits from the new CBA:

- the A's will have their money from MLB revenue sharing phased out by the final year of the 5-year agreement.

- the luxury tax threshold will rise to $210 million by the final year of the deal, 2021.

- teams with payrolls $40M over (looking at you, Dodgers) will have their highest draft selection pushed back 10 spots (the top 6 overall are protected) starting in 2018.

- the change to Qualifying Offer compensation has been well reported but also interesting is that teams can't tender QO's to players who have been tendered one in the past.

- existing international signing bonus penalties will carry over under the new agreement (there was some speculation that they wouldn't)

- all players on a club's 40 man roster will now be subjected to one random urine test in the off-season (previously, only 350 tests were done league-wide despite there being 1,200 rostered players). The number of in-season urine and blood tests are increasing as well.

- players entering the league from now on will not be allowed to chew tobacco
Reply
Thanks given by:
#7
Why didn't the owners lock the players out to get the international draft they wanted?   What concessions, if any, did the players make?

This seems so stupid with the luxury tax, draft pick compensation, qualifying offers, penalties. Just get a salary cap already!  Lock the players out for 5 - 6 years if you must.   I love baseball but i hate the system with an absolute passion!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
(2016-12-02, 08:37 PM)CTS Wrote: Why didn't the owners lock the players out to get the international draft they wanted?   What concessions, if any, did the players make?

This seems so stupid with the luxury tax, draft pick compensation, qualifying offers, penalties. Just get a salary cap already!  Lock the players out for 5 - 6 years if you must.   I love baseball but i hate the system with an absolute passion!

They don't need the International draft. They got an annual cap of $5M-$6M per team on international signings. That accomplishes pretty much the same thing owners want from a draft. Really screws international players too.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
(2016-12-02, 08:37 PM)CTS Wrote: This seems so stupid with the luxury tax, draft pick compensation, qualifying offers, penalties. Just get a salary cap already!  Lock the players out for 5 - 6 years if you must.   I love baseball but i hate the system with an absolute passion!

Why? What benefit would there be to a salary cap?  Confused

If you are willing to lock the players out for 5 years to get a salary cap there better be a bunch of really good reasons. And frankly I don't even see a minor reason.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#10
He hates Unions, and is waiting for the return of the reserve clause...
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
It has nothing to do with being anti union. From a fans perspective, MLB has the worst CBA of the 4 major sports.   Payroll discrepancy is a joke.   Yes I know some owners choose not to spend.  Cap floor, cap ceiling would even the landscape out.

As a fan of a small market team I really hate this system.  I have virtually no chance of ever seeing a Pirates World Series because of this system & also because our owner is a cheap POS!    

We drafted Garrett Cole 1st overall but only have him for 7 years max. before he leaves for free agency.  Actually we'll only have him for 6 years because we'll need to trade him for something.  We have zero chance of resigning him.  Zilch.   Partly because of his agent, but mainly because of the system.  

Then we have this ridiculous draft / slotting system.   Make rookies subject to a hard cap at least!   Like the NHL
Reply
Thanks given by:
#12
Every league can only hold players for 6 to 7 years max if they're lucky. That part isn't different.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#13
(2016-12-02, 08:37 PM)CTS Wrote: Why didn't the owners lock the players out to get the international draft they wanted?   What concessions, if any, did the players make?

This seems so stupid with the luxury tax, draft pick compensation, qualifying offers, penalties. Just get a salary cap already!  Lock the players out for 5 - 6 years if you must.   I love baseball but i hate the system with an absolute passion!

I thought the owners made out very well in these negotiations. To say that they didn't take enough from the players doesn't seem to be accurate.

It'll be interesting to see how the penalties for going over the luxury tax threshold manifest in free agency. Certain players could lose a whole lot of negotiating leverage.

The Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox are rumoured to be in on Justin Turner this winter. Imagine if none of them could justify adding a $20M contract to the books because of overage penalties? All of a sudden Turner's earning power doesn't look so good.

I'd wait and see how things shake out over the next couple years before saying the new CBA won't level the playing field a bit.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#14
(2016-12-02, 10:43 PM)CTS Wrote: It has nothing to do with being anti union. From a fans perspective, MLB has the worst CBA of the 4 major sports.   Payroll discrepancy is a joke.   Yes I know some owners choose not to spend.  Cap floor, cap ceiling would even the landscape out.

As a fan of a small market team I really hate this system.  I have virtually no chance of ever seeing a Pirates World Series because of this system & also because our owner is a cheap POS!     

We drafted Garrett Cole 1st overall but only have him for 7 years max. before he leaves for free agency.  Actually we'll only have him for 6 years because we'll need to trade him for something.  We have zero chance of resigning him.  Zilch.   Partly because of his agent, but mainly because of the system.  

First of all, the NFL's CBA is the worst by miles. It's an absolute joke.   More importantly though, all of your complaints have very little to do with a salary cap and implementing one would not fix any of them. Players still leave via free agency constantly in the NBA, NFL and NHL all of which have salary caps (go tell an Oklahoma Thunder fan that salary caps help you retain talent) and we have ample proof that salary caps do not level the playing field. Teams that are run well are still good and teams that are run poorly are still bad. Teams that want to spend money spend money and teams that don't want to spend money don't spend money.

Basically you want a salary cap because your favourite team has been pretty poorly run and wants to win on a budget (Don't kid yourself. The Pirates could easily resign Cole if they wanted too). Neither of those will actually be fixed by a salary cap. The owners will just make even more money that they now now have an actual reason to not reinvest revenue (the cap wont let them) and they will still be pretty poorly run.

Not to mention that the Pirates won 98 games in 2015. So this idea that they cannot win under the current system is not even remotely a reality.

Quote:Then we have this ridiculous draft / slotting system.   Make rookies subject to a hard cap at least!   Like the NHL

Are you kidding? Pre-arbitration players in MLB are ridiculously cost controlled. Its crazy how little they get. Connor McDavid's rookie contract will pay him 11 million over 3 years. Mike Trout made less than 500K his rookie year and made less than 2 million his first 3 years.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#15
I would agree that the NHL does give teams a better chance of re-signing their own young players, and it's true that the big names rarely make it to free agency anymore. That said, there is still an element of risk involved.

A salary cap could work well in baseball, but given the restraint we've seen from even big market teams recently leads me to believe the previous CBA (and the current one) could work quite well.

The smart teams in baseball realize that it's best to develop your own talent and augment with free agency - just like the NHL.
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)