No announcement yet.

2020 MLB Rules - The Changes

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by jeffmetsfan View Post
    They should change the Super 2 (is that it?) Rule so that rookies can start the season with their major league squads without it impacting their service time. Is there a reason 2 week delay gives teams an additional year of control? Sounds pretty dumb
    oh, and what they'd need to change was the 172 day rule to equal a year.

    Option 1. Make it a full 187 so that opening day vs mid-April doesn't matter. Unintended consequence, owners hold player for 1 day and avoid full year of service. Great for fans. Shitty for players. Also a disservice to players that come up mid year as they'd need 15 more days on the active 25 man roster to qualify for that full year.

    Option 2. Make it a shorter number, so that holding a player really hurts the club. Lets call it July, or 50% = season accrued. If a team wants to avoid a year of service they'd need to hold off an Alonso for half the season. We've seen teams do this to avoid super 2 which is only money, so how many more do you think would do it for a full year of control? Again, not sure that so much solves the problem as much as shifts it.

    The Super 2 rule could also be changed, but again it appears to be at the detriment of the player because right now, they hit arbitration a year earlier so they get paid earlier. Remove the Super 2 rule, and just count a year as a year, then they will have to wait 3 full years to get paid vs the 2+ they currently wait.

    Sadly, it's just not as simple as 'not having the pitcher hit'


    • #47
      how do you account for their service time in overlapping years?

      FANG I assume you are referring to players that are called up over 2-3 years while not acquiring the service time to qualify for 1 year. In those cases the time is cumulative. In example JD Davis has 137 days of service earned over the 2017-18 seasons and still has 6 years of control. That 137 will continue to follow him when he reaches 1 year of service, he will have 1.137. DeGrom came up on May 15 and had 139 days in his first he has 4.139 with 2 more years of control.
      Last edited by yogi8; 21-Feb-2019, 05:09 PM.


      • #48
        right - my point was if you don't have a # associate with what represents a full year, how would you do it? It was an argument for why the rule makes sense in some ways.


        • #49
          It was an argument for why the rule makes sense in some ways.

          If the 'rule' under discussion is the 172 day threshold for a year of service, I am OK for the teams ability to delay that first year's clock. Teams have invested in a minor league system 150-200 players deep in 6-7 locations along with staff as well as scouting not only the US but globally.

          If you were heading toward a career in business, engineering, medicine or law, you would be financing your own future....players are not applying to colleges with tuitions as high has 40 K per year. There are no guarantees for those players OR for you. You have taken on the risk of tens of thousand of dollar in debt, the player nil and if both you and the player both reach their goal he will out pace you in earnings.

          Part II, if the rule is concerning the QO, that needs, imo, further tweaking. Currently the lower payroll teams teams don't pay the same penalty as the big spenders, which was always the intent of the QO. Carry that intent to the absolute level. Stiffen the penalty for the 'rich' teams and reduce all the way to a zero penalty as spending ability drops.


          • #50
            MLB, MLBPA Agree To Single Trade Deadline, Changes To Roster Size

            by STEVE ADAMS
            13 Mar 2019 at 10:53 PM CDT

            Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association have reached an agreement on a series of changes regarding roster construction, per both Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription required) and Jeff Passan of ESPN. While it seems that this wave of agreed-upon changes will not technically impact actual in-game rules, the two sides have agreed to make July 31 a hard deadline for the completion of trades, thus doing away with the convoluted August waiver system. That change will go into effect for the 2019 season, and beginning in 2020, the standard roster size will expand from 25 to 26 (with a 13-pitcher maximum). September rosters, meanwhile, will shrink from 40 to 28 (with a 14-pitcher maximum).

            As Passan details, the All-Star Game selection process will also be getting a facelift in 2019. Fans will still be permitted to cast votes online, but the top three players at each position will then be included in a newly implemented All-Star “Election Day” which figures to provide new avenues to marketing the game’s top talent both in mainstream media and via social media.

            The precise manner in which the singular trade deadline will impact action on the summer trade market won’t be known for certain until we have multiple seasons of data, but from a distance it figures to heighten July trade activity. Contending clubs, one would imagine, will be forced to be more aggressive when seeking to acquire talent, while borderline teams who would previously have waited until mid- or late-August to sell off assets in a series of waiver claims will now be forced to make a decision much sooner. The idea is divisive among the GMs to whom Rosenthal spoke, but it seems that the Union’s hope is that pushing up the final date for in-season improvements will also prompt expected contenders to be a bit more aggressive in the offseason.

            The broadest, most far-reaching development comes from Passan. As part of the recent agreement, both the league and the Union have already agreed to “imminently” begin discussing the labor issues that have been thrust to the forefront of the industry despite the fact that the current collective bargaining agreement doesn’t expire until 2021. Among the topics to be discussed will be the state of free agency, service time manipulation and the luxury tax.

            The MLBPA, player representatives and players themselves have become increasingly frustrated with the current state of free agency, lamenting the stagnant market (particularly for second- and third-tier free agents). While many are quick to point out that in some instances, players have harmed their own markets by aiming too high early in the offseason (e.g. Dallas Keuchel, Craig Kimbrel), one of the greater issues on the player side has been the slow disappearance of the so-called “middle class” of free agency. Players such as Adam Jones (via USA Today’s Bob Nightengale), Matt Wieters (via’s Jenifer Langosch) and Brad Brach (via The Athletic’s Patrick Mooney) are among the many who’ve been open about frustrating forays into the open market. Veterans Justin Verlander, Marcus Stroman and numerous others have been active on social media in calling out the glacial pace of free agency.

            While commissioner Rob Manfred has staunchly dismissed suggestions that a significant portion of the league is no longer attempting to win, players and Union officials have decried widespread tanking/rebuilding efforts that have created decreasing levels of parity and discouraged teams from venturing into free agency amid record MLB revenues.

            It’s an exorbitantly layered conversation and one to which there’s no clear and easy fix, so it’s promising that the two sides have agreed to at least begin even preliminary discussions that could lead to a system which all parties find more palatable. Certainly, there won’t be any resolution on those issues anytime in the near future, but the early efforts to maintain labor peace will assuredly be among the more fascinating storylines to follow in the months and possibly years to come.

            Drew's Sig


            • #51
              Not really happy with 13-pitchers limit on the 26-man roster.

              My choice would be 12.
              Drew's Sig


              • #52
                Who is served by eliminating the waiver period? Certainly not the teams in a pennant race, and by extension, neither are the teams that are eliminated and/or (considering) rebuilding. Are the players benefitting...perhaps by avoiding a move in the last two months of the season. Yet if they were at risk for waivers...nothing changed and they now face being traded or released.

                Seems to me that this is a simplification for simplifications sake and without concern for the engine that drives the game...the fannies in the seats.

                Waivers add a strategy to the game and a mechanism I have employed into my league. The AS week is our firesale week with a teams posting players with a minimum bid of draft pick, it also marks the trading deadline. Then waivers* kick in with team putting players or full rosters on waivers, with the option of withdrawing a player before negotiation or if negotiation's aren't realistic. The team can also have the negotiation arbitrated with a team blocking a trade being penalized and the player resubmitted for waivers. If the trading team isn't realistically negotiating the claiming team can request arbitration ending in the commissioner setting the trade price or returning the player to his team and removed from future waivers.

                Fortunately, waivers have operated well without the drama and have given teams a opportunity to recover from an injury to a key player.

                * A waivered player can be claimed by the last through the top team in the division and the same order in the other division should he is not claimed within his own division. The claim is public, but negotiation's are private until a agreement is reached.