Sign in to follow this  
UndertheHalo

MLB and the MLBPA made a deal.

81 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

Exactly this.

Yeah...This still doesn't really make sense, though. Why specify that they need to have the requirements "in either the current or the prior season"? That sounds like if you have a pitcher who gets 20 games started as a hitter, you could then become a two-way player that year; except that they also say "clubs will have to designate each of their players as either a pitcher or a position player prior to each player’s first day on the active roster for a given season. That designation cannot change for the remainder of the season."

It feels really sloppy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then that's a specific rule that screws the Angels and ONLY the Angels.  There's no way it's going to work out like that.  MLB will make an exception for Shohei Ohtani.  And if they don't, the Angels should just have him toss some garbage innings in September to make sure he meets the requirement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look forward to Fletch being able to add some insight into this topic. The way I see it, though, a team should get its (proposed) 28 roster spots and be permitted to construct said roster as they see fit, pitchers, fielders, DH’s, have at it. Teams being able to be flexible and try new things is how innovation happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Then that's a specific rule that screws the Angels and ONLY the Angels.  There's no way it's going to work out like that.  MLB will make an exception for Shohei Ohtani.  And if they don't, the Angels should just have him toss some garbage innings in September to make sure he meets the requirement. 

I'm not sure that's true, actually. It screws over a lot of teams - but it does have the largest effect on the Angels. There are more and more teams who have been using position players to pitch. Its all the rage right now. Sandoval actually has a pretty mean curve ball and can hit his corners, if I remember correctly. Teams have decided (correctly, imo) that its better to have a position player pitch in a blowout than to waste a real arm.

I think for some reason, the MLB has decided they don't like when teams are doing that, and we are getting caught in the crossfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blarg said:

The two way player (Ohtani) rule is plain stupid and without any merit. It should not matter in the least what a player does in the field whether it is play a defensive position or pitch or both in a single game. 

I agree completely.  This does seem to be a deliberate attempt to stop the movement toward two way players.  And as you said, there really isn't logic to it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stormngt said:

I agree completely.  This does seem to be a deliberate attempt to stop the movement toward two way players.  And as you said, there really isn't logic to it!

Something that fans find entertaining and teams find very useful.

MLB: “Make it stop!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

And aren’t the Angels trying to make Cowart into a utility INF/RP? Would this mean they wouldn’t be able to do that since he’d likely miss one of those targets per position?

Why not just carry him as a pitcher? Then they can play him wherever they want. At least that’s the way I read the rule. From what I read, there is zero restriction on a pitcher becoming a position player; but there are very specific restrictions on a position player pitching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Don said:

Why not just carry him as a pitcher? Then they can play him wherever they want. At least that’s the way I read the rule. From what I read, there is zero restriction on a pitcher becoming a position player; but there are very specific restrictions on a position player pitching.

The trick is that they are going to cap the number of pitchers you can carry - they haven't decided the number yet, but they have officially signaled that they will add a number. So, I expect pitcher slots will become like gold. Teams will look to milk as much as they can out of them, and its going to be a real sacrifice to burn one on someone who isn't necessarily a top reliever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, krAbs said:

The trick is that they are going to cap the number of pitchers you can carry - they haven't decided the number yet, but they have officially signaled that they will add a number. So, I expect pitcher slots will become like gold. Teams will look to milk as much as they can out of them, and its going to be a real sacrifice to burn one on someone who isn't necessarily a top reliever.

Got it. That makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I think I figured it out.  

In 2020, Ohtani will be designated as a pitcher, because there are no restrictions on pitchers hitting.  there are only restrictions on hitters pitching.  So he will be declared a pitcher, and the fact that he also DH's won't have any effect on him one way or the other.  Come 2021, he'll be re-designated as a two-way player, which means he won't fall under the 13 pitcher maximum, which will allow the Angels to keep one additional pitcher.  So either way, he won't be limited. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, it's just creating a problem when there wasn't one before. Roster assembly should be a teams prerogative and not up MLB to decide how many of any given player is allowed on the roster. If a team wants to carry 24 pitchers that can play the field on any given day, that's what the team has a right to do. 

This is overreaching to accomplish nothing of value to the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don said:

Why not just carry him as a pitcher? Then they can play him wherever they want. At least that’s the way I read the rule. From what I read, there is zero restriction on a pitcher becoming a position player; but there are very specific restrictions on a position player pitching.

This is making more sense.  The purpose is to not get around the 13 max on pitchers.  If you have a player who is a pitcher he can still bat.  However you cant classify him as a position player unless he starts 20 games and gets 60 at bats as a starter.

What's the exception for the dh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, stormngt said:

This is making more sense.  The purpose is to not get around the 13 max on pitchers.  If you have a player who is a pitcher he can still bat.  However you cant classify him as a position player unless he starts 20 games and gets 60 at bats as a starter.

What's the exception for the dh?

I think the issue is the rule takes away some flexibility in roster construction and usage of players. A player like Cowart is kind of a project as a pitcher. For now he’s probably only be used situationally. If he has to take a designated pitcher’s slot, it can cost the team the opportunity to carry a more established reliever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Slegnaac said:

Just another Federal Holiday

 

 

Hopefully 

First Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even-numbered years...?

Didn’t Fletch say some of us need to re-take our civics classes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Stradling said:

Here’s my solution for free agency.  Unless you’ve already signed an extension everyone is a free agent after their age 26 season, regardless of service time.  My thought would be they become a free agent entering their prime.   If you are a phenom you aren’t getting dicked around playing the service time game.  

Now I’m sure there are logic flaws in this or unforeseen unintended consequences, but to me it helps a bit.  If a team has a 19 year old stud they could have 8 years of club control.  They could still keep the arb process after year three so guys like Trout, Harper, Soto and Acuna would still get paid a ton pre free agency if they continue to perform.  

The other thing I would add is a roster spot for a player you signed after a certain age, say 34 years old.  His contract would be free of luxury tax implications.   

Lastly no more draft pick forfeiture for signing any free agents   

 

Something I've always thought of for this is depending on how much the player signs for determines what draft picks are lost by the signing team. Player signs for 75M+ signing team loses a 2nd round pick, Player signs for 125M+ signing team loses 1st round pick, Player signs for 200M+ signing team loses 1st and 3rd. Or something along those lines. You will probably see players signing for 74,999,999, 124,999,999, etc but in the case for someone like Keuchel/Kimbrel they could still sign a 1 year deal and not cost the signing team a draft pick. And if it were changed to this method teams would still lose draft picks for signing players that were traded during the season. Machado for example, the Padres would still lose a pick or picks but the Dodgers wouldn't receive compensation. While the Nationals and Diamondbacks would be compensated for losing Harper/Corbin

Another rule that could be implemented is similar to the NBA's amnesty clause. If a player is released a team can amnesty that players contract from costing against the luxury tax. So hypothetically if the Angels released Pujols tomorrow his 3 remaining years would not count against the luxury tax threshold, but they could not amnesty another contract until the end of Albert's contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walsh and Cowart end up being really interesting. If they aren't good enough to justify 20 innings of relief, their value TANKS (especially Cowart, who is pretty much a known quantity at this point). If they are good enough for that, though, they become much more valuable than they are now. Now they become a way to cheat and get extra relief pitchers on your roster, who don't count against your total pitchers. Actually, this gives them more clear value than they have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I'd say this is an unnecessary rule.  No reason for oversight.  But in the end, I don't think it will matter much.  If the kid isn't good enough at pitching or hitting to do both, then he won't end up doing both.  This is a natural consequence.  

Making this rule equates the idea of outlawing whale-hunting in Montana.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options