MLB work stoppage almost certain on Dec. 2

[low]

MLB wants expanded playoffs. 14-team postseason? Gross.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by low

MLB wants expanded playoffs. 14-team postseason? Gross.

Didn't the MLBPA offer 12-team playoffs? Also gross.

Also doesn't make sense with six teams per league, but maybe that is my limited imagination...

[swoboda]

I have grown to despise the business side of pro sports and I am not changing my tune.

Am I overly optimistic about the MLB 22 season? I see several places for middle ground compromise and no deadly deal breakers in this summary from USA Today.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ls/6515436001/


Your thoughts below

[Westheim]

I don't care for the union's $245m soft cap proposal. There's like three teams that would ever spend that money, and they do it regardless of what the cap is. It's not like the Royals are suddenly gonna spend bigly just because the soft cap went up. That is an entirely moot point that is not worth fighting over for even five minutes.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Westheim

I don't care for the union's $245m soft cap proposal. There's like three teams that would ever spend that money, and they do it regardless of what the cap is. It's not like the Royals are suddenly gonna spend bigly just because the soft cap went up. That is an entirely moot point that is not worth fighting over for even five minutes.

I think it has subtle, yet still immense, implications. While, yes, not many teams will reach it, it would mean that more teams will feel less pressure to sign larger contracts. And while many of those contracts will still ultimately be traded to the big money teams, there will be more of those contracts in the first place.

It's interesting to me, does the union see its mandate as fighting for their little guys or their big guys? Sure, they'll say both and of course they're happy to publicize whenever they increase the minimum, but deep down I suspect what really gets them off is seeing huge contracts and so I wouldn't be so sure that this point isn't a huge issue for them.

[Cod]

Was there anything in the recent proposal about a salary floor? I didn't see anything online regarding it being part of the most recent proposal.

[tejdog1]

Manfred is absolutely awful. Selig was trash too.

[low]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

Manfred is absolutely awful. Selig was trash too.

I'd rather have Selig back. At least Selig didn't hate the sport he ran.

[GeoWar]

A FLOOR for player salaries needs to be in place - but what should it be a % of ...... what do you do about small and distressed markets .... Do teams continue to promote players market value if the player just walks .

If this stoppage is seen as only being about the top level player money - the players will take the heat . Not the Owners . And communities have to assist in building and promoting stadium value ( not sure about the wording ) .

[Irrelevant Dude]

Originally Posted by low

MLB wants expanded playoffs. 14-team postseason? Gross.

Yeah, I hate that. Most other sports have already watered down their playoffs, but baseball should be different. MLB owners are chasing that extra playoff money, regardless of whether it is good for the game itself. Yet they will wonder why there are 20,000 empty seats for a near-meaningless regular season game in May...

[Irrelevant Dude]

Originally Posted by low

I'd rather have Selig back. At least Selig didn't hate the sport he ran.

I never thought I could despise a commissioner more than Selig, but Manfred is the absolute worst. And he is only 63 years old, so he could be around for a long time. The role of the commissioner has become making the owners as much money as possible, rather than making the sport better. Maybe that has always been the case, but now it is blatantly obvious.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Irrelevant Dude

Most other sports have already watered down their playoffs, but baseball should be different.

Other than "tradition," why should baseball be different?

[Irrelevant Dude]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Other than "tradition," why should baseball be different?

For starters, because they play 162 games to earn the right to be in the playoffs. That should mean something, especially in a sport where any playoff series is a crap shoot.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Irrelevant Dude

For starters, because they play 162 games to earn the right to be in the playoffs. That should mean something, especially in a sport where any playoff series is a crap shoot.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Baseball plays 162 games because the physicality of the game allows them to play 162 games.

The average length of a regular season for top-level American professional sports is 5.5-6 months. In that time, both basketball and hockey play 82 games. They do so because the physicality of their games allows (and limits) them to play 82 games over that period of time. Football plays 17 (now) games over that timeframe because, again, the physicality of the game allows (and limits) them to play 17 games.

Playing 162 games versus 82 games versus 17 games means nothing because all of the big four American sports play the amount games they can play over the course of 5.5-6 months that the physicality of the game allows (and limits) them to play.

So, playing 162 games in a season is not a good reason for not having 14-16 teams in the playoffs. Because 162 games of baseball is equivalent to 82 games of basketball and hockey and 17 games of football. Yet those other leagues have about that many teams in the playoffs.

[kq76]

I think it's easier for a lesser baseball team to go on a run and win a championship than for a lesser hockey or basketball team to. I'm not one of those who thinks there should only be 2 or 4 teams in the playoffs, but I also don't think teams anywhere close to .500 should be in the playoffs.

[mytreds]

Because a team with 116 wins shouldn’t be the wild card team. Because it’s exciting seeing the best teams go head to head instead of being knocked out early due to variances that get eliminated over 162 games. Because by the time you get to the Finals, you’re worn out from watching so many earlier playoff games. Playoff fatigue is no different to Election fatigue- it takes so long that by the time it’s ending, you’re apathetic and don’t care.

[knightdreamer2k]

Honesty I am neutral to expanded playoffs or maybe even prefer it. When I play OOTP I like my fictional leagues to have a 50% or near playoff rate. I like this because I love teams coming down to the wire and making pushes for the playoffs, keeps the regular season from being stale.

I remember pre-wild card that if you were not one of the teams in the division race then it did not matter. This worked for its time, but modern times requires the audience to more engaged.

I also like more incentives for teams that win their division. l like that they don't have to play in a one-off game so I think something like that should remain.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by kq76

I think it's easier for a lesser baseball team to go on a run and win a championship than for a lesser hockey or basketball team to.

I agree. I think this is a proven fact about baseball.

Originally Posted by kq76

I'm not one of those who thinks there should only be 2 or 4 teams in the playoffs, but I also don't think teams anywhere close to .500 should be in the playoffs.

I'm not a fan of near .500 teams making either. Despite me questioning the number of postseason teams, I am a fan of the fewest teams possible in the playoffs. I just think it's a legitimate question to ask.

Originally Posted by mytreds

Because a team with 116 wins shouldn’t be the wild card team.

If a team with 116 wins can't win its division then... In years past, a team that didn't win their division, no matter how many wins they had, didn't even go to the postseason. For instance, the 1993 San Fransisco Giants won 103 games but because they didn't win their division they didn't make the playoffs. In fact, pre-wildcard, there have been 8 teams throughout history that have won 100 or more games and not even made it to the postseason because they didn't win their division or league.

Originally Posted by mytreds

Because it’s exciting seeing the best teams go head to head instead of being knocked out early due to variances that get eliminated over 162 games.

This is an opinion to have, sure. I'm a fan of the underdog. I like seeing the little guy fight for the chance to keep fighting and the big dogs fighting to stay on top.

Originally Posted by mytreds

Because by the time you get to the Finals, you’re worn out from watching so many earlier playoff games. Playoff fatigue is no different to Election fatigue- it takes so long that by the time it’s ending, you’re apathetic and don’t care.

This is also an opinion to have, sure.

Originally Posted by knightdreamer2k

I remember pre-wild card that if you were not one of the teams in the division race then it did not matter. This worked for its time, but modern times requires the audience to more engaged.

I also think this worked better when there were fewer teams... 16, 20, maybe even 24. 2-4 playoff teams worked fine. Once it got to 28 and 30, increasing the number made some sense.

But, again, I prefer the fewest teams possible. Three divisions? Four teams max. I just think asking, "Why not 14-16 teams?" is a fair question to ask that shouldn't be dismissed simply because I don't like the idea.

[stl jason]

Originally Posted by kq76

I think it's easier for a lesser baseball team to go on a run and win a championship than for a lesser hockey or basketball team to. I'm not one of those who thinks there should only be 2 or 4 teams in the playoffs, but I also don't think teams anywhere close to .500 should be in the playoffs.

yeah, always kinda sits wrong with me to see playoff teams that barely made it above the .500 mark (and that's coming from a fan of a team (Cardinals) who made the post season and won a WS after only 83 regular season wins in 2006 of course, when the rest of your division is craptacular, what can you do)...

expanding to 16 teams (assume it's 8 NL / 8 AL) all but guarantees sub-500 teams in the playoffs... if you go back to 2017 for an example and take the top 8 teams from each league, you end up with 4 sub-500 teams in the playoffs (Royals/Rays/Angels all at .494 in the AL; Marlins at .475 in the NL)

[cephasjames]

Yeah, I don't think 16 teams is good for that very reason. But less than that and you start getting into series byes. Baseball is a game of routine. I think a series bye would actually have a negative effect on the team that earned that bye. We've seen that become an issue with teams that sweep a post season series and then have to wait for their opponent to go 7. The number of teams needs to be divisible by 4. Or stick to what they're doing now with the single wildcard game (which I detest).