It's been a busy few days in Major League Baseball. Not regarding free agents sadly (because why would Bryce Harper and Manny Machado be signed two weeks before Spring Training starts?). Rather, we found out that the owners and Union are discussing several rule changes that, if passed, would be significant.
Perhaps the most significant changed proposed is the universal DH. They toss this idea around every few years and it never goes anywhere, and I'd be shocked if National League owners actually budged on the issue. The DH debate is never going to end. But, I think even the anti-DH camp acknowledges that the NL is eventually going to adopt the DH at some point.
You know the players would be all for it. It would create 15 additional jobs and guys like Nelson Cruz or Albert Pujols would be able to play anywhere instead of limiting themselves to half the teams.
Evidently, the MLBPA wants the universal DH put in place for the 2019 season, which seems unlikely. National League teams have been setting their rosters with the understanding that they'll only need DHs for interleague road games. It's February. That's not enough time for the owners and GMs to completely rethink their roster construction for the upcoming season. Maybe use it in all interleague games, regardless of ballpark, as a compromise. But I don't think there's any way this would be implemented this season.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the universal DH. I actually like the fact that the style of play in the two leagues is completely different and the different strategies that go with it. That's one of the few proposed changes I don't like, though. I'm in favor of most of the others. They wouldn't just improve the game, they'd be easy to implement.
There are two proposed changes in particular that I really like. The first is a three-batter minimum for pitchers. Especially in the American League, this is what absolutely kills the pace of a game. They can play six innings in 90 minutes, then you look up and the top of the seventh takes 25 minutes on its own because they made four pitching changes to get three outs. All because of the overmanaging involved looking for those lefty-on-lefty matchups, but also wanting to make sure their relievers don't throw too many pitches and are available again tomorrow.
Under the proposal, relievers would be required to pitch to at least three hitters unless the inning ends or they're injured (I'm assuming being ejected also applies here). You pitch to one guy and get out of the inning, great. Your closer's free to come in for the ninth. Likewise, pitcher's due up third, you can still pinch hit. The point is you can't have a pitcher come in, walk the only guy he faces, then make a pitching change, and keep doing this over and over. That's not a bad thing (even if it would eliminate the term LOOGY from the baseball vernacular).
Another element of the proposal that I really like is the expansion of the roster from 25 to 26 (thus creating 30 more Major League jobs), with a maximum of 12 pitchers. Don't make a mistake. This is related to the current overuse of relief pitching. Since teams carry eight relievers, they only have a three-man bench, which is really two when you consider one is the backup catcher. Which really limits managers in what they're able to do.
Setting a cap on the number of pitchers, though, also means that you'll have at least four position players available at the start of the game. So, teams will end up swapping their extra reliever for an extra bench guy. I have no issue with that. And since most teams carry 12 pitchers already, all the pitcher limit would do is make them use the 26th roster spot on a position player instead of an eighth reliever.
Speaking of that, ever since a DL stint (they know people are still going to call the "injured list" the DL, right?) was reduced to 10 days, teams have (legally) manipulated it to get an extra reliever on the roster when the fifth starter wasn't needed. With the name change, they're looking at ways to eliminate that loophole. Perhaps the best solution I've seen is keeping DL stints at 10 days for position players, but bringing it back to 15 for pitchers. (I'd also like to see something like the postseason rule where a pitcher can only replace a pitcher and a position player can only replace a position player on the roster.)
They also suggested a 28-man roster cap in September, which I think everyone can agree is long overdue. It makes no sense that you're limited to 25 players for the first five months of the season, then in the final month, when the games matter most (or least), you can have as many as 40. Especially since some teams choose to call up more players than others.
Players are concerned about service time, and they should be. Kris Bryant spent three weeks in the Minors for no reason in April of his rookie year, and the same thing is going to happen to Vlad Guerrero, Jr., this season. It seems like there's a compromise to be had there, though. Whether it be counting postseason games as service time or giving players free agency a year earlier. And if the 28-player limit in September is put into place, you should still get service time for being on the Major League roster, even if you're not on the game roster that particular day.
Rob Manfred can apparently implement a 20-second pitch clock on his own, so it looks like that's probably going to happen whether the players (and fans) like it or not. The gimmicky international rule where a runner starts at second base in extra innings probably won't happen yet, at least in the Majors. I'm 100 percent against ever putting this rule into place in the Major Leagues. But they are talking about using it in Spring Training games this season, which would be fine (a lot of Spring Training games end in ties anyway).
The MLBPA has also proposed having a single trade deadline before the All-Star Break. I have no idea how that would work, and it seems incredibly early. I do think the idea of having the non-waiver deadline on July 31 and another for players who cleared waivers a month later is silly. But the solution is to just have one deadline in mid-August, not at the All-Star Break.
Among the other proposals was some sort of advantage/penalty system in the draft to prevent teams (*cough* Marlins *cough*) from being intentionally uncompetitive, yet still collecting their revenue sharing money and not doing anything with it. The whole idea is to not also reward these teams with high draft picks year after year. At the same time, low-revenue teams that succeed would benefit in the draft. There are definitely a number of elements that would need to be worked out, but the idea itself is interesting.
Are all of these changes going to happen? Of course not. This is all really just foreplay heading into the CBA negotiations. The CBA doesn't expire until December 2021, though, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them approved and put into place well before then. Which wouldn't necessarily be all bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment