2019 MLB Thread

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-2028-could-be-the-year-that-reshapes-expands-and-completely-alters-major-league-baseball/

Lots of increased talk lately that MLB will undergo some huge changes in the coming years. First the switch to the universal DH. Then the reduction of the regular season to 154 games. Then the end of the AL and NL. Then an agreement to expand by two teams. Then a solution to the situations with the Athletics and Rays. And then finally, total geographic realignment.

The article that I linked is one writer laying it out pretty well, but he's not the only one saying it. The thought is that by the 2028 season, all of that could go down and we'll be in a totally new era.

I'll probably be unpopular for saying this, but I hate the DH. If anything I wish the AL would get rid of it, which would never happen.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

I'll probably be unpopular for saying this, but I hate the DH. If anything I wish the AL would get rid of it, which would never happen.

Oh I hate the DH too. I always have. It leads to a more boring style of play, often with the same nine guys just doing their own thing and not playing team baseball while at bat. The manager can take a nap. But sadly, with the spread of sabermetrics and the like, that type of play has seeped into the NL regardless. Walks, strikeouts and homers. Over and over. Again, I hate it. But its what MLB is right now, like it or not.

I like the DH. Pitchers just largely suck. It's fun every couple dozen games when someone like MadBum gets a homer, but otherwise it's largely a black hole of run-killing non-production. Game is just too specialized for it, doesn't make sense in an era when pitchers just flat out don't hit. I don't see a problem with opening the NL up to guys like Nelson Cruz, JD Martinez or Big Papi.

As for the Bryant/Arenado rumors ... they just don't make any sense whatsoever. Just keep your own guy or pay him. If you really want to trade Bryant, you would probably need some pitching in return. Dodgers make a fair bit of sense, though earlier reports of the Cubs wanting Victor Robles from the Nats made a lot of sense as well. The whole thing is stupid though, billionaire owners crying poor.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-2028-could-be-the-year-that-reshapes-expands-and-completely-alters-major-league-baseball/

Lots of increased talk lately that MLB will undergo some huge changes in the coming years. First the switch to the universal DH. Then the reduction of the regular season to 154 games. Then the end of the AL and NL. Then an agreement to expand by two teams. Then a solution to the situations with the Athletics and Rays. And then finally, total geographic realignment.

The article that I linked is one writer laying it out pretty well, but he's not the only one saying it. The thought is that by the 2028 season, all of that could go down and we'll be in a totally new era.

Hate hate hate the DH. And that’s even with the Mets having a guy who could probably be a DH well in to his 40’s in Cano ready to slide neatly in to that role when the time comes. Mets Gm Brodie Van Wagenen even cited the DH in the NL when dealing for Cano.

Pitching in particular still hasn’t caught up from the last expansion and the amount of kids you have playing baseball is at an all time low. As much as the league wants to monetize the opportunity, this isn’t the time imo to do it as your player pool is shrinking, particularly in US born players. Maybe it’ll be different by the time the the article proposes....

EDIT: RE Expansion...

Not for nothing, I fully understand the revenue aspect of the game but until teams are ready to invest in a real hard cap floor of say 125M and a hard cap of say 225M, the league needs to contract, not expand. You have the bottom 1/5th of the league in any given year as a complete and utter joke payroll wise. There has to be a willingness to compete. While baseball is different from other leagues with their player development and player development time frames, and rookie contracts, arbitration etc there has to be a willingness from small markets to use their revenue sharing teams as a way to reinvest. It’s pretty ridiculous when some teams are dealing players when they get to arbitration just to avoid paying them. The job that TB and Oakland do is outstanding but it shouldn’t be so uneven when sports is about competing on a level playing field

Also Pittsburgh has some balls on them. They asked the Mets for 2 of their top 5 prospects (Ronny Maurício, Andres Gimenez, Brett Baty, Francisco Alvarez, Matthew Allen) for Marte, 3 of whom (Maurício, Baty and Alvarez) are top 100 prospects in all of MLB and the other two either were there last year (Gimenez) or will be soon (Allen). Then they accepted 2 guys who are projects and a ways away from such status in Arizona. Obviously prospects are more about projecting long term but Pittsburgh clearly thought they could take advantage of BVW. I’m glad Brodie killed it.

"texanphinatic wrote:

I like the DH. Pitchers just largely suck. It's fun every couple dozen games when someone like MadBum gets a homer, but otherwise it's largely a black hole of run-killing non-production. Game is just too specialized for it, doesn't make sense in an era when pitchers just flat out don't hit. I don't see a problem with opening the NL up to guys like Nelson Cruz, JD Martinez or Big Papi.

As for the Bryant/Arenado rumors ... they just don't make any sense whatsoever. Just keep your own guy or pay him. If you really want to trade Bryant, you would probably need some pitching in return. Dodgers make a fair bit of sense, though earlier reports of the Cubs wanting Victor Robles from the Nats made a lot of sense as well. The whole thing is stupid though, billionaire owners crying poor.

As far as the Rockies go, the story is that there is suddenly some really bad blood between the team and Arenado (I dont know why), and they're eager to separate from him and get out from under the 250m commitment. Its speculated that Bryant would only be a rental for them, and they might try to flip him again in a year.

The as far as Bryant and the Cubs, Scott Boras is doing his thing, and the team has a legit fear that he'll walk in two years without signing an extension, and they're left with nothing.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

As far as the Rockies go, the story is that there is suddenly some really bad blood between the team and Arenado (I dont know why), and they're eager to separate from him and get out from under the 250m commitment. Its speculated that Bryant would only be a rental for them, and they might try to flip him again in a year.

The as far as Bryant and the Cubs, Scott Boras is doing his thing, and the team has a legit fear that he'll walk in two years without signing an extension, and they're left with nothing.

The bad blood seems to stem from them inking him to a big contract last season with promises to compete and spend money, but then this offseason they start crying poor (seems to be a theme) and making noise about cutting salary and listening to offers on Nolan, Story, John Gray and other big names instead of trying to compete. I can see why he would be pissed and wants to go to a contender. The problem is that a Bryant for Arenado deal just doesn't really make sense. This was a good encapsulation on some of the financials I think: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/01/nolan-arenado-trade-rumors-rockies-cubs-kris-bryant.html. In addition, it just doesn't seem to make sense that the Cubs would want to give up a good amount of prospect talent to land an all-star 3b when they ... have an all-star 3b.

FYI, Arendao has an opt out after the 2022 season I think, so it's not much more guaranteed time than Bryant.

The Cubs ownership seems happy with their championship and are now concentrating on monetizing and profiting more than competing.

"texanphinatic wrote:

FYI, Arendao has an opt out after the 2022 season I think, so it's not much more guaranteed time than Bryant.

The Cubs ownership seems happy with their championship and are now concentrating on monetizing and profiting more than competing.

Several Cubs blogs that I read yesterday suggested that if the Cubs were to pursue a deal, that getting Arenado to push back those out years would be a part of the process. I don't know if that's realistic, but it could happen.

As far as the Ricketts, I think that you're partially right. I won't go too far down that hole because it'll turn PoFo, but the family has some issues. However, a big chunk of it is also the team's total opposition to pay the consequences of the luxury tax. They essentially have a max payroll, and need to offload some really bad contracts before they can fix it. Most of the moves that they've made the last three years have come up poorly, and now they're paying the price. They could have honestly done jack squat since winning the series as far as veteran players and be better off than where they are today.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Several Cubs blogs that I read yesterday suggested that if the Cubs were to pursue a deal, that getting Arenado to push back those out years would be a part of the process. I don't know if that's realistic, but it could happen.

As far as the Ricketts, I think that you're partially right. I won't go too far down that hole because it'll turn PoFo, but the family has some issues. However, a big chunk of it is also the team's total opposition to pay the consequences of the luxury tax. They essentially have a max payroll, and need to offload some really bad contracts before they can fix it. Most of the moves that they've made the last three years have come up poorly, and now they're paying the price. They could have honestly done jack squat since winning the series as far as veteran players and be better off than where they are today.

Yeah the luxury tax (at least the first level) is nearly meaningless and shouldn't really be a deterrent except for maybe some of the smallest market teams. But teams like the Yanks, Red Sox, Dodgers and Cubs shouldn't have any fear. It's just penny pinching. You are right that they were hamstrung by underperformance on some contracts. Heyward was ... not a good pickup. But at least Darvish showed some stuff last year, and hopefully Kimbrel can regain his form after that weird year. The other issue is just Lester aging on the back end of his deal, he needs to be better if they want to compete - at least a solid mid rotation guy behind Darvish and Hendricks.

"texanphinatic wrote:

Yeah the luxury tax (at least the first level) is nearly meaningless and shouldn't really be a deterrent except for maybe some of the smallest market teams. But teams like the Yanks, Red Sox, Dodgers and Cubs shouldn't have any fear. It's just penny pinching. You are right that they were hamstrung by underperformance on some contracts. Heyward was ... not a good pickup. But at least Darvish showed some stuff last year, and hopefully Kimbrel can regain his form after that weird year. The other issue is just Lester aging on the back end of his deal, he needs to be better if they want to compete - at least a solid mid rotation guy behind Darvish and Hendricks.

From what I understand, when you excede the tax three years in a row, the punishments get a lot bigger. The Cubs did last year, and the thought is that they would like to be able to spend bigger in the future, so they're eager to get under in 2020.

So, the Phillies are apparently retiring the number 34 in honor of Roy Halladay, who played there a whole four seasons after he had spent his first twelve years in Toronto. Yes, he was excellent in his first two seasons there, but these kinds of things always leave a really sour taste in my mouth. Four years is just far too short for that kind of permanent honor, especially for someone who had a much longer career somewhere else.

I mean, John Lester has had a longer and arguably better career as a Cub than Hallady had as a Philly, but Chicago is never going to retire his number. Its just silly.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

So, the Phillies are apparently retiring the number 34 in honor of Roy Halladay, who played there a whole four seasons after he had spent his first twelve years in Toronto. Yes, he was excellent in his first two seasons there, but these kinds of things always leave a really sour taste in my mouth. Four years is just far too short for that kind of permanent honor, especially for someone who had a much longer career somewhere else.

I mean, John Lester has had a longer and arguably better career as a Cub than Hallady had as a Philly, but Chicago is never going to retire his number. Its just silly.

Not to be crass but it's probably because he died unexpectedly. I don't really care either way, he meant a lot to several title teams for them so if they want to retire his number to remember him so be it. I wouldn't be mad if they Cubs did that for Lester either considering what he meant to the team. Teams do it to drum up interest and establish sentiments that keep fans rooted in the game and team.

Anyway, Dodgers going all-in with a trade for Mookie. Anything short of a Yankees/Dodgers series will be an upset at this point (barring injury). Should be an interesting season. Dodgers probably didn't HAVE to make that move on paper, but they needed a spark after that disheartening loss last year, so I like the move. Plus, Betts is a fun player, good for their fans.

As for Boston, seems they are good with letting this season go to reset the cap and give Bloom a year to assess things. They still need a manager too, but less pressure on that front what with them apparently ceding a serious contention this year.

The biggest remaining offseason moves are likely down to the possible trades of Arenado and Bryant, though not sure either is particularly likely at this juncture. We may be all wrapped up until mid-season trade period.

I totally agree regarding Hallady's death. It almost certainly factored into Philly's choice, and that is something that should never, ever happen, IMO. Things like this are why they have the waiting period for the HOF. A number retirement should be reserved for the very best, most important players who ever wore that team's uniform, period. Sentimentality should be kept at arm's length.

As far as Betts, I'm honestly shocked that Boston basically got jack squat as a return for one of the best players in baseball. Its the baseball equivilant of an NFL team just cutting a guy with a small cap hit and him signing with another team. Just clearing money off the books.

And so yeah, the Dodgers are now a super team that's likely to just cruise to the NL's best record by a wide margin.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I totally agree regarding Hallady's death. It almost certainly factored into Philly's choice, and that is something that should never, ever happen, IMO. Things like this are why they have the waiting period for the HOF. A number retirement should be reserved for the very best, most important players who ever wore that team's uniform, period. Sentimentality should be kept at arm's length.

As far as Betts, I'm honestly shocked that Boston basically got jack squat as a return for one of the best players in baseball. Its the baseball equivilant of an NFL team just cutting a guy with a small cap hit and him signing with another team. Just clearing money off the books.

And so yeah, the Dodgers are now a super team that's likely to just cruise to the NL's best record by a wide margin.

I wouldn’t call Verdugo jack squat. Verdugo has all star caliber talent. For 1 year of Betts how much could you expect to get especially when you’re asking the other team to take 3 years and 96M of old man Prices deal?

"Boik14 wrote:

I wouldn’t call Verdugo jack squat. Verdugo has all star caliber talent. For 1 year of Betts how much could you expect to get especially when you’re asking the other team to take 3 years and 96M of old man Prices deal?

You're right, I didn't take into account the Price salary dump when I posted that. It obviously effects the return. Still, I guess I'm just still wired to see guys of Betts calibre traded for elite prospects or a big package of guys as a return.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

You're right, I didn't take into account the Price salary dump when I posted that. It obviously effects the return. Still, I guess I'm just still wired to see guys of Betts calibre traded for elite prospects or a big package of guys as a return.

Remember LA also got Brusdar Graterol from Minnesota for Maeda who was a top 100 guy (33rd on baseball prospectus) and sent to Boston. So in essence Boston got back 1 former top 100 prospect in Verdugo who was a top 20-30 prospect anywhere you looked and Graterol from Minnesota who is a top 100 prospect for 1 year of Betts and a salary dump who is an expensive diminishing asset for Verdugo who is arbitration eligible in 2022/FA in 2025 and Graterol whose sinker tops out at 101.

And Betts is intent on testing FA so he’s going to cost AT LEAST what Harper got because he’s A) much better B) lower maintenance and less of an asshole and C) not a primadonna.

I’d say Boston did fine once you get past the fact that the whole purpose for the deal was to lower payroll.

Well, the Cubs are now officially planning on batting Kris Bryant leadoff full time this year. Yay. I looked it up, and apparently the record for fewest RBI when hitting 30 homers is 59, set recently by a few different players. I say he has a solid shot at breaking that one. More interesting is that the fewest RBI with 40 homers is 90, set by Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. If Bryant gets hot, he could "beat" that one by dozens this year.

Jason Heyward gets on base at a good clip (.343), has inconsistent power, and stinks at hitting with men on, so he seems like the clear and obvious choice to lead off instead. But they're apparently going to have him hit 7th or 8th.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Well, the Cubs are now officially planning on batting Kris Bryant leadoff full time this year. Yay. I looked it up, and apparently the record for fewest RBI when hitting 30 homers is 59, set recently by a few different players. I say he has a solid shot at breaking that one. More interesting is that the fewest RBI with 40 homers is 90, set by Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. If Bryant gets hot, he could "beat" that one by dozens this year.

Jason Heyward gets on base at a good clip (.343), has inconsistent power, and stinks at hitting with men on, so he seems like the clear and obvious choice to lead off instead. But they're apparently going to have him hit 7th or 8th.

Heyward's issue seems consistency more than anything - he will get hot for a month then do jack for the next.

The new leadoff theory many teams are taking is simply using your best hitters as early as possible. The traditional smaller/faster guy isn't as important as a person who just hits the ball and extends at bats. I'd be worried about Bryant's SO numbers more than anything.

I think the most interesting thing is that for yet another offseason big changes were pretty clearly hinted at with nothing of consequence happening. I guess they either are just THAT confident Ross will provide the team with positive regression or they are just being that cheap.

Whatever, I am ready for the season! :up:

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Well, the Cubs are now officially planning on batting Kris Bryant leadoff full time this year. Yay. I looked it up, and apparently the record for fewest RBI when hitting 30 homers is 59, set recently by a few different players. I say he has a solid shot at breaking that one. More interesting is that the fewest RBI with 40 homers is 90, set by Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. If Bryant gets hot, he could "beat" that one by dozens this year.

Jason Heyward gets on base at a good clip (.343), has inconsistent power, and stinks at hitting with men on, so he seems like the clear and obvious choice to lead off instead. But they're apparently going to have him hit 7th or 8th.

Heyward's not the answer at leadoff IMO. They tried it in Atlanta. Seven or eight is where you want him in the order. He's just too inconsistent a hitter to be in a key spot. And for a leadoff guy that's not the greatest OBP. For comparison, last year, Acuna Jr. had an OBP of .365 (and he's an aggressive hitter in the lead off spot), and Jeff McNeil, a more traditional leadoff type, got on at a rate of .384.

"muscle979 wrote:

Heyward's not the answer at leadoff IMO. They tried it in Atlanta. Seven or eight is where you want him in the order. He's just too inconsistent a hitter to be in a key spot. And for a leadoff guy that's not the greatest OBP. For comparison, last year, Acuna Jr. had an OBP of .365 (and he's an aggressive hitter in the lead off spot), and Jeff McNeil, a more traditional leadoff type, got on at a rate of .384.

Oh I don't disagree big picture. The Cubs plain don't have a leadoff guy at the moment. I just think that they're going to completely waste Bryant by putting him in that spot.

"texanphinatic wrote:

Heyward's issue seems consistency more than anything - he will get hot for a month then do jack for the next.

The new leadoff theory many teams are taking is simply using your best hitters as early as possible. The traditional smaller/faster guy isn't as important as a person who just hits the ball and extends at bats. I'd be worried about Bryant's SO numbers more than anything.

I think the most interesting thing is that for yet another offseason big changes were pretty clearly hinted at with nothing of consequence happening. I guess they either are just THAT confident Ross will provide the team with positive regression or they are just being that cheap.

Whatever, I am ready for the season! :up:

While I'm still a proponent of NL style baseball, with the fast guy getting on base, stealing bases and using the hit and run, I accept that MLB teams aren't any longer. But I would at least rather have a guy with good OB skills but low power to put there instead of our All Star with 40 homer power.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Oh I don't disagree big picture. The Cubs plain don't have a leadoff guy at the moment. I just think that they're going to completely waste Bryant by putting him in that spot.

Agreed. This reminds me of last season when the Phillies got desperate and tried Bryce Harper there.

"muscle979 wrote:

Heyward's not the answer at leadoff IMO. They tried it in Atlanta. Seven or eight is where you want him in the order. He's just too inconsistent a hitter to be in a key spot. And for a leadoff guy that's not the greatest OBP. For comparison, last year, Acuna Jr. had an OBP of .365 (and he's an aggressive hitter in the lead off spot), and Jeff McNeil, a more traditional leadoff type, got on at a rate of .384.

McNeil can hit anywhere in the order and get on at a high obp clip. They hit him lead off some last year cause Rosario was still too inconsistent for the role tho he came in late for the second straight year. Ideally tho, I’d have McNeil batting 2nd.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Oh I don't disagree big picture. The Cubs plain don't have a leadoff guy at the moment. I just think that they're going to completely waste Bryant by putting him in that spot.

But analytics! :001_rolleyes:

"Boik14 wrote:

But analytics! :001_rolleyes:

LOL. I'm all for using the sabermetrics as a tool, along with everything else. But you can't just use it as a guidebook that's never wrong like these guys are doing. They're robots, bound to what the numbers tell them. And its boring as Hell, and frankly wrong a lot. An experienced human being can just know when something needs to be done differently. More art than science.