Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought f this 40 years ago, and I still think its the answer, now that this very issue has bubbled to the top.
Legacy players. After 8 years with one team, a Legacy Player has his 8th year salary subsequently paid out of a league pool for as long as he stays with the same team. Example: Player is with Cubs 8 years, and has a $10M a year obligation that year. Rays offer him 20M, but Cubs need to counter-offer only 10M to match that -- the pool will pay him 10M a year to re-sign with the Cubs..
Incentive to team to keep home-grown players, and call them up early, with a reward prospect of pool-paid legacy salary. Incentive to players to not jump on the free-agency bandwagon early. Bonus to fans: Stop playing this insane game of musical uniforms. Who is better for baseball and fan interest? Joey Votto, or Albertr Pujols?
Quicker time to free agency & arb years. That are a couple.
Sure....the four year window a small-payroll team has now to compete with homegrown players is too much. Mightas well cut the MLB down to 12 teams and make the other 16 into a new AAAA league.
Legacy players. After 8 years with one team, a Legacy Player has his 8th year salary subsequently paid out of a league pool for as long as he stays with the same team. Example: Player is with Cubs 8 years, and has a $10M a year obligation that year. Rays offer him 20M, but Cubs need to counter-offer only 10M to match that -- the pool will pay him 10M a year to re-sign with the Cubs..
Interesting idea.
To me, one of the most interesting things about baseball is seeing young players develop. Teams put a lot into developing those players, and I'd like to see most of them stick around.
For many players, the first couple years are up-and-down and not very productive. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part it takes a while for a team to get its money's worth from a player.
Trades are different, of course. If you develop a player, then trade him, you are still getting value. But if you develop a player, patiently bring him along, and lose him to free agency just when he's getting good, . . .
Then teams try to avoid losing players by gambling and signing them to extensions. Sometimes that backfires, the player is overpaid and untradeable, and they put him in the lineup because they don't know what to do with him.
The owners have a point: other major sports have salary caps. MLB players don't have it so bad.
Sadly, Manfred is gutting the minorss, wanting to turn player development over to the colleges. As I read it, players demands are no so much about specofics, but the mindset. For example reducing the roster to 24 exactly when managers want 13 pitchers means no utility positions at all on the bench.
One good rule would be a non-roster back-up catcher, like the goalie in NHL How do develop a catcher if he never gets to play?
For example reducing the roster to 24 exactly when managers want 13 pitchers means no utility positions at all on the bench.
One good rule would be a non-roster back-up catcher, like the goalie in NHL How do develop a catcher if he never gets to play?
I didn't realize the owners were trying to reduce the roster to 24. The roster should be 25, with some way of limiting the number of pitchers. Especially in the American League, where the dh takes a spot, the bench sometimes consists of
1. backup catcher
2. someone who is day-to-day and shouldn't play
3. utility player batting .150
I also didn't like what they did last September with the rosters. Maybe expanding to 40 is too far (teams generally didn't anyway), but 32 or so would be good.
Sadly, Manfred is gutting the minorss, wanting to turn player development over to the colleges. As I read it, players demands are no so much about specofics, but the mindset. For example reducing the roster to 24 exactly when managers want 13 pitchers means no utility positions at all on the bench.
One good rule would be a non-roster back-up catcher, like the goalie in NHL How do develop a catcher if he never gets to play?
Are you sure cutting the minors is Manfred or the owners or just common sense?
I feel like the minor leagues specifically the lower level teams in A ball have been around as long as they have because of the history of having them. They are a lot of teams in smaller towns & the team is a part of a town. But does it really make sense?
The % of players on an average A ball team that actually make it to the MLB & even stick around for more than a season is so low they are realizing it just doesn't make sense to have as many teams. Especially now that owners are going to be paying for housing.
Every team probably has a profile on each player in their organization & I'm sure there is a # of some type that notes the likely hood of that player reaching the majors or even AAA. Teams know pretty early in a players minor league career whether that player has a chance. So why keep so many around? Well you need players around so that the prospects can keep growing but do you need 2 A teams per MLB team? or even 3 A/Rookie teams?
To be honest if a player can continue getting an education in college he is better off doing that if he can continue to grow as a baseball player because all these players that leave after 2 years of JUCO or 3 years of a 4 year college are giving up a chance at a degree that can help be a back up plan for life.
I didn't realize the owners were trying to reduce the roster to 24. The roster should be 25, with some way of limiting the number of pitchers. Especially in the American League, where the dh takes a spot, the bench sometimes consists of
1. backup catcher
2. someone who is day-to-day and shouldn't play
3. utility player batting .150
I also didn't like what they did last September with the rosters. Maybe expanding to 40 is too far (teams generally didn't anyway), but 32 or so would be good.
I would like to see it expand more than what it is now. I think the whole 40 man expansion might have been something that teams were against because I think having to many players in the clubhouse might cause distraction for some teams.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
