PDA

View Full Version : What one thing would you do to improve MLB?



savafan
10-17-2011, 07:42 PM
If you had the power to do one thing to make the game better, what would you choose?

Hoosier Red
10-17-2011, 07:48 PM
Contract the Cardinals. :)

In all seriousness, I'd make a change to the cut down visits to the mound. Mayber pitching coach/manager can only go out to take out pitcher. Or maybe count the catcher visits to the mound. Maybe say there's only one free visit per inning, no matter who.

corkedbat
10-17-2011, 08:01 PM
Either abolish the DH or make it universal, just standardize the game. It actually is fine by me either way, just play by the same rules.

RANDY IN INDY
10-17-2011, 08:01 PM
Enforce the strike zone as defined.

MikeThierry
10-17-2011, 08:02 PM
This is probably sacrilege to the kind of ball we all like in the NL but I would probably institute the DH in both leagues. I do not like the imbalance of teams with 14 in the AL and 16 in the NL. I also think that it will help NL teams be able to keep their high priced players for a good chunk of their career. If there was a DH in the NL, keeping guys like Votto and Pujols on their respective teams would be so much easier because they can slide into that DH position later on in their career when they can no longer play every day in the field. I used to hate the DH but I just feel that it is coming and it is something that we are going to have to embrace.

RANDY IN INDY
10-17-2011, 08:03 PM
This is probably sacrilege to the kind of ball we all like in the NL but I would probably institute the DH in both leagues. I do not like the imbalance of teams with 14 in the AL and 16 in the NL. I also think that it will help NL teams be able to keep their high priced players for a good chunk of their career. If there was a DH in the NL, keeping guys like Votto and Pujols on their respective teams would be so much easier because they can slide into that DH position later on in their career when they can no longer play every day in the field. I used to hate the DH but I just feel that it is coming and it is something that we are going to have to embrace.

And you have a great hitting pitcher and athlete as your avatar.;)

MikeThierry
10-17-2011, 08:04 PM
And you have a great hitting pitcher and athlete as your avatar.;)

:)

savafan
10-17-2011, 08:06 PM
I'd like to see a more balanced schedule. I'm tired of nearly 50% of the Reds' games being against teams in their own division, and I'd rather see teams like the Giants, Dodgers, Braves, etc. come to GABP more than once a year. Of course, a balanced schedule probably isn't possible without realignment.

marcshoe
10-17-2011, 08:08 PM
Balance the schedule. What we have now is NFL-lite. We have the intrinsic unfairness of odd divisions and forced interleague rivalries, and yet MLB acts as if these don't exist. Even up the divisions, lay off interleague play until someone can figure out how to do it fairly (yeah, this is a two for one) and see what happens.

Oh, and end the stupid ASG/WS home field chimera while we're at it. It all seems related.

George Anderson
10-17-2011, 08:13 PM
How bout reinstate Pete Rose....................................Im kidding;)

My vote is end the home field advantage All Star Game thing.

That is just beyond stupid.

cinreds21
10-17-2011, 08:23 PM
I think I'm one of the few who likes baseball how it is. I like how the DH system currently is. The one thing I may change is what Anderson said about the home field advantage. That is kinda silly.

jojo
10-17-2011, 08:40 PM
Eliminate the wild card.

_Sir_Charles_
10-17-2011, 08:43 PM
I can't really pick just one. I'd abolish the DH and interleague play. I'd balance the schedules and put in a salary cap. Those 4 things will even the playing field amongst all teams. Until they make all teams play with the same rules, it'll never be a fair sport. Once you get a fair and balanced playing field...THEN you can tweek things to improve the actual game. But first things first.

VR
10-17-2011, 09:24 PM
Speed up the games

RedsManRick
10-17-2011, 09:25 PM
Speed of the games. Between commercials, pitching changes, stepping out, umps not enforcing rules about time between pitches, etc. the game can be very, very hard to watch at times. The season is 6 months long, 3 hours a night gets boring. I love baseball, but even I have a hard time watching some games.

Things I'd do:
- Tell the umps to stop granting time out unless there's an obvious need. Hitter, it's your job to be ready.
- Pitcher, throw the dang ball. You get one throw to a base between pitches, after that, it costs you a ball.
- No disrectionary visits to the mound. If anybody comes out to the mound, the pitcher comes out of the game.
- TV timeouts between innings only -- make it work guys.
- And I put this here, though I could see it going elsewhere -- umps will be assisted by pitch f/x and instructed to call the full zone and nothing but the zone.
- Replays -- ump in the booth makes the call. Managers who argue will get run just like players. Come out and make your replay request if you want, but then get your butt back in the dugout.

I think that's a good start.

kaldaniels
10-17-2011, 09:27 PM
Speed of the games. Between commercials, pitching changes, stepping out, umps not enforcing rules about time between pitches, etc. the game can be very, very hard to watch at times. The season is 6 months long, 3 hours a night gets boring. I love baseball, but even I have a hard time watching some games.

Things I'd do:
- Tell the umps to stop granting time out unless there's an obvious need. Hitter, it's your job to be ready.
- Pitcher, throw the dang ball. You get one throw to a base between pitches, after that, it costs you a ball.
- No disrectionary visits to the mound. If anybody comes out to the mound, the pitcher comes out of the game.
- TV timeouts between innings only -- make it work guys.
- And I put this here, though I could see it going elsewhere -- umps will be assisted by pitch f/x and instructed to call the full zone and nothing but the zone.
- Replays -- ump in the booth makes the call. Managers who argue will get run just like players. Come out and make your replay request if you want, but then get your butt back in the dugout.

I think that's a good start.

That's an interesting one. Think of the lead guys would take after one throw over though. There may be some unintended consequences on that one.

savafan
10-17-2011, 09:28 PM
That's an interesting one. Think of the lead guys would take after one throw over though. There may be some unintended consequences on that one.

Yeah, they might as well walk to 2nd base. Who's going to stop them? :D

Captain Hook
10-17-2011, 09:43 PM
The fact that some teams spend around/over 200 million dollars on payroll and other teams competing with those big spenders can't manage to have a payroll of over 50 million bothers me a little.I'm pretty confident that if we were playing a pickup game(in any sport)and you give me the first 5 picks I'm going to beat you every time.So my answer would be a salary cap.

kaldaniels
10-17-2011, 09:44 PM
And by the way, I voted salary and payroll equality. If I had one wish about baseball that's what it would be. Most of the gripes on this board can be traced back to the fact that the Reds don't have the resources other teams do. I would gladly endure the human eye calling balls and strikes, and an extra 30 minutes a game, just so I knew that the best run organizations would rise to the top.

kaldaniels
10-17-2011, 09:46 PM
Sure just the early results are in, but really, 14 percent of RZers, if they could change one thing, would use that opportunity to add the DH to the NL? :D

RedsManRick
10-17-2011, 09:49 PM
That's an interesting one. Think of the lead guys would take after one throw over though. There may be some unintended consequences on that one.

Not unintended. If guys take any more of a lead, I'm sure pitchers would be happy to trade a ball for a nearly guaranteed out. But it would get rid of those 4, 5, 6 times in a row situations.

kaldaniels
10-17-2011, 09:52 PM
Not unintended. If guys take any more of a lead, I'm sure pitchers would be happy to trade a ball for a nearly guaranteed out. But it would get rid of those 4, 5, 6 times in a row situations.

Yeah, but think about runners who have no intention of stealing who lean back to the bag all the way stretching a comedic lead. Every 3-2 count where the pitcher has already thrown over, the runner would be off. I just think things would change more than most would think, but maybe that's what you want?

kaldaniels
10-17-2011, 09:56 PM
Like I said Rick interesting idea, not a bad one, but the game would look COMPLETELY different. My mind is racing thinking about how this would work. Could a pitcher step off to look a guy back without getting a ball?

MikeThierry
10-17-2011, 09:58 PM
The fact that some teams spend around/over 200 million dollars on payroll and other teams competing with those big spenders can't manage to have a payroll of over 50 million bothers me a little.I'm pretty confident that if we were playing a pickup game(in any sport)and you give me the first 5 picks I'm going to beat you every time.So my answer would be a salary cap.

I guess I'm in the minority on this but I think having a salary floor would do more for the game than having a salary cap. I feel that some teams, like the KC Royals and the Pittsburgh Pirates, have taken their revenue sharing money and just pocketed the money instead of improving their team. David Glass is one of the richest owners in baseball but for years has kept his team payroll down and traded off top talent in the process. One of the reasons why my child hood loyalties to the Royals didn't last is because the team gave away all their talent like Johnny Damon and it was pointless to keep loyalties to a team where its owners essentially spit in the face of its fan base. I feel a salary cap just won't be that effective because the top teams will still attract the high quality players in baseball. If there is a salary cap, the Yankees will still get the best players while teams like the Pirates and Royals will still be at the bottom of the barrel. Besides, would you rather have a situation where the Yankees owners get filthy rich from a salary cap or a situation where the Yankees invest a ton of money in their ball club like they do now? I just don't have a problem with markets that are the biggest media markets in the world spending as much money as they can to put a winning product on the field. At least with them, I know they are doing everything in their power to create a winner instead of a situation where a "small market team" just does the bare minimum to be competitive. Plus if you look at the history of championships in each North American sport, there is actually more parity in baseball than any other sport. In baseball, there have been more different teams that have won the World Series in the last twenty some odd years vs. that of the NHL, NBA, and NFL.

Here is a decent article about the need of a floor vs. cap. It was written in 09 but still the theory is sound:

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3719:reasons-for-not-having-a-salary-cap-in-mlb-are-numorous&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39

savafan
10-17-2011, 10:05 PM
I guess I'm in the minority on this but I think having a salary floor would do more for the game than having a salary cap. I feel that some teams, like the KC Royals and the Pittsburgh Pirates, have taken their revenue sharing money and just pocketed the money instead of improving their team. David Glass is one of the richest owners in baseball but for years has kept his team payroll down and traded off top talent in the process. One of the reasons why my child hood loyalties to the Royals didn't last is because the team gave away all their talent like Johnny Damon. I feel a salary cap just won't be that effective because the top teams will still attract the high quality players in baseball. If there is a salary cap, the Yankees will still get the best players while teams like the Pirates and Royals will still be at the bottom of the barrel. Besides, would you rather have a situation where the Yankees owners get filthy rich from a salary cap or a situation where the Yankees invest a ton of money in their ball club like they do now? I just don't have a problem with markets that are the biggest media markets in the world spending as much money as they can to put a winning product on the field. At least with them, I know they are doing everything in their power to create a winner instead of a situation where a "small market team" just does the bare minimum to be competitive.

Here is a decent article about the need of a floor vs. cap. It was written in 09 but still the theory is sound:

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3719:reasons-for-not-having-a-salary-cap-in-mlb-are-numorous&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39

Excellent points.

Captain Hook
10-17-2011, 10:09 PM
I guess I'm in the minority on this but I think having a salary floor would do more for the game than having a salary cap. I feel that some teams, like the KC Royals and the Pittsburgh Pirates, have taken their revenue sharing money and just pocketed the money instead of improving their team. David Glass is one of the richest owners in baseball but for years has kept his team payroll down and traded off top talent in the process. One of the reasons why my child hood loyalties to the Royals didn't last is because the team gave away all their talent like Johnny Damon. I feel a salary cap just won't be that effective because the top teams will still attract the high quality players in baseball. If there is a salary cap, the Yankees will still get the best players while teams like the Pirates and Royals will still be at the bottom of the barrel. Besides, would you rather have a situation where the Yankees owners get filthy rich from a salary cap or a situation where the Yankees invest a ton of money in their ball club like they do now? I just don't have a problem with markets that are the biggest media markets in the world spending as much money as they can to put a winning product on the field. At least with them, I know they are doing everything in their power to create a winner instead of a situation where a "small market team" just does the bare minimum to be competitive.

Here is a decent article about the need of a floor vs. cap. It was written in 09 but still the theory is sound:

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3719:reasons-for-not-having-a-salary-cap-in-mlb-are-numorous&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39

I don't see why you can't have both.

RedsManRick
10-17-2011, 10:15 PM
Yeah, but think about runners who have no intention of stealing who lean back to the bag all the way stretching a comedic lead. Every 3-2 count where the pitcher has already thrown over, the runner would be off. I just think things would change more than most would think, but maybe that's what you want?

Again, the pitcher can throw over if he wants to. And yeah, he could step off. As far as I can anticipate, runners will continue to take leads that they feel safe taking. It's not like the guy can't throw over, he's just less likely to. But an out is a big price to pay for getting cute.

Will runners take bigger leaders? Maybe. But would anybody be upset with more SB attempts? Sure, I'd want to play it out a bit, perhaps think it through a bit more -- but I don't mind some side effects. It's the principal of the thing I care about.

MikeThierry
10-17-2011, 10:18 PM
I don't see why you can't have both.

I guess you could have both but it is just a preference of mine not to have a salary cap. Plus, what would you set that cap at? There are more teams now that have payrolls over 100 million than ever. Where is the hard line cap established? If it is established well over 100 million, what is exactly the point in having a cap when teams like the Reds won't even begin to reach it? Yeah maybe the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies will reduce salary, but that leaves a whole lot of teams that still have a ton of talent well within the cap limit. I counted 12 teams that have over 100 million dollar payrolls at the start of opening day this year. That is nearly half of the teams in baseball. Texas has 92 million in payroll and I expect that to increase next year when they go shopping. That will be another team added to the 100 million dollar club.

How I would fix it is increase the amount of revenue sharing money that each team under a certain level gets and institute a salary floor. That would force teams in the lower end to spend while giving them the money to absorb extra costs without hurting the teams, financially, in the process.

*BaseClogger*
10-17-2011, 11:34 PM
I thought I was the young guy around here and yet I'm the only person who wants to abolish the DH!?!?

cincinnati chili
10-17-2011, 11:51 PM
Automate the calling of balls/strikes.

Captain Hook
10-18-2011, 12:12 AM
I guess you could have both but it is just a preference of mine not to have a salary cap. Plus, what would you set that cap at? There are more teams now that have payrolls over 100 million than ever. Where is the hard line cap established? If it is established well over 100 million, what is exactly the point in having a cap when teams like the Reds won't even begin to reach it? Yeah maybe the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies will reduce salary, but that leaves a whole lot of teams that still have a ton of talent well within the cap limit. I counted 12 teams that have over 100 million dollar payrolls at the start of opening day this year. That is nearly half of the teams in baseball. Texas has 92 million in payroll and I expect that to increase next year when they go shopping. That will be another team added to the 100 million dollar club.

How I would fix it is increase the amount of revenue sharing money that each team under a certain level gets and institute a salary floor. That would force teams in the lower end to spend while giving them the money to absorb extra costs without hurting the teams, financially, in the process.

That would help make things better but it wouldn't fix the problem.Your still going to have some teams spending two and three times more then other teams.Unless the team with the lowest payroll is spending at least half of what the team with the highest payroll is spending(it's almost hilarious that I consider this fair)things still aren't going to be right and I know, things probably will never be right.

MikeThierry
10-18-2011, 12:31 AM
That would help make things better but it wouldn't fix the problem.Your still going to have some teams spending two and three times more then other teams.Unless the team with the lowest payroll is spending at least half of what the team with the highest payroll is spending(it's almost hilarious that I consider this fair)things still aren't going to be right and I know, things probably will never be right.


For some reason I just don't have a problem with teams in large media markets and a large population base spending more than other teams. To me, it just doesn't make sense for the Yankees to have less than a 100 million dollar payroll with the kind of market they have.

The other thing is that I don't think a salary cap is feasible unless fans and players are willing to go through a lockout in baseball. A salary floor is way easier to implement because MLB won't be asking players to reduce their salaries. Unlike the NBA, I don't know if a whole lot of MLB teams are losing money so there would be no reason, from a players point of view, to reduce salaries. Just like the theory behind socialism is all well and good but put into practice, it just doesn't work. (mild political commentary for the day :laugh:)

Another thing I would like to add is that a lot of the top payroll teams actually have good farm systems. For example, the Yankees were in the top ten of farm systems in baseball this year (looking at some of the rankings of farm systems from different scouts). I read somewhere that the Yankees have something like 6 top 100 prospects in their system right now (may have changed from the beginning of the year, I don't know). Even if a salary cap is implemented, the Yankees are the kind of team that gets players in the draft that other teams pass on because of money issues. A salary cap would not stop any high price team from spending gobs of money when signing drafted players. In fact, I think having a salary cap would actually hurt small market teams in this respect because high market teams would have extra money to spend on players within the draft. That might price some teams out of the running for high quality draft pics, more so than what is going on now.

kaldaniels
10-18-2011, 12:45 AM
For some reason I just don't have a problem with teams in large media markets and a large population base spending more than other teams. To me, it just doesn't make sense for the Yankees to have less than a 100 million dollar payroll with the kind of market they have.

The other thing is that I don't think a salary cap is feasible unless fans and players are willing to go through a lockout in baseball. A salary floor is way easier to implement because MLB won't be asking players to reduce their salaries. Unlike the NBA, I don't know if a whole lot of MLB teams are losing money so there would be no reason, from a players point of view, to reduce salaries. Just like the theory behind socialism is all well and good but put into practice, it just doesn't work. (mild political commentary for the day :laugh:)

Looking to the NFL as an example though, if they played by the MLB rules, there is no way the Pittsburgh Steelers *whom I hate* would be able to be competitive year in year out. The Chargers would no longer have Phillip Rivers and Antonio Gates, or would be close to losing them. New Orleans would not be a contender the past 3 years. I don't expect the little teams to be able to always compete for top free agents, but at least assure them the opportunity, paywise, to be able to competitively keep their homegrown guys without dire reprecussions.

Captain Hook
10-18-2011, 01:09 AM
For some reason I just don't have a problem with teams in large media markets and a large population base spending more than other teams. To me, it just doesn't make sense for the Yankees to have less than a 100 million dollar payroll with the kind of market they have.


I don't disagree with this.I'd think you'd have to admit that it's out of control though.Maybe the larger problem is the teams that are not spending money like you mentioned.

I just want to add one more thing.As a Green Bay Packers fan I'm very thankful that the NFL isn't ran like MLB is.

MikeThierry
10-18-2011, 01:19 AM
Looking to the NFL as an example though, if they played by the MLB rules, there is no way the Pittsburgh Steelers *whom I hate* would be able to be competitive year in year out. The Chargers would no longer have Phillip Rivers and Antonio Gates, or would be close to losing them. New Orleans would not be a contender the past 3 years. I don't expect the little teams to be able to always compete for top free agents, but at least assure them the opportunity, paywise, to be able to competitively keep their homegrown guys without dire reprecussions.

I see your point here. However, earlier this year, Forbes named the San Diego Padres as the most profitable team in baseball in 2010 when taking into account their debt/value, revenue, and operating income. Here is a quote from that article:

"The most profitable team was the Padres, which had an operating income of $37 million in 2010. The team’s attendance surged by 200,000 at Petco Park as the Padres finished just two games behind the San Francisco Giants in the National League West. The Padres managed to post a 90-72 record despite a payroll of just $38 million, which was the lowest in baseball. The Padres also benefited from a revenue-sharing check of more than $30 million."

Link to article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2011/03/23/baseballs-most-valuable-teams/

I have a major problem with a team that has that low of payroll being the most profitable. To me, this is a huge problem and why I don't have a whole lot of feelings towards the "sorrows" of small market teams.

I also think that one of the reasons why the NFL style of salary cap works in that league and why small market teams are competitive in the NFL is because the contract situation in the NFL, as it pertains to players, aren't guaranteed contracts (I don't even know why they call them contracts at all to be honest with you). Certainly, if the MLB had non-guaranteed contracts where a player can be cut at any time, the salary cap system would probably work in mlb and small market teams would be more competitive. They also have things like the franchise tag and other mechanisms which makes small market NFL teams competitive even against high market teams. The MLB players association would never agree to non-guaranteed contracts and things like a franchise tag. An excellent quote I read somewhere said basically that "Major League Baseball contracts, on the other hand, hold up better than the U.S. Constitution.". It was an interesting observation in that article.

Other factors are that the NFL split about 75% of all league revenue and because there are only 16 games a year for each team, the money handed out for TV contracts is a much greater share than that of MLB teams and those contracts that NFL teams get are on the national level because those teams are shown on Fox, NBC, CBS, and ESPN. While with MLB, the worst teams in the league might get on national tv once or not even at all. Those are some other reasons why I don't think the NFL model exactly works as it pertains to what can be done in the MLB to make things equitable.

Also, on my point earlier about the large market teams and the draft. Could you imagine if the Yankees had 30 million extra dollars (that is very conservative estimate) to spend on the draft and signing foreign born players? That is what would happen if MLB instituted a salary cap. The extra revenue that large markets get from having limits on what they can spend in payroll would be allocated to other places. That would certainly be a disadvantage to small market teams. The idea of a salary cap is all well and good but in my opinion, this is a classic case in which the grass is greener on the other side.

Ron Madden
10-18-2011, 03:29 AM
I vote for salary cap and revenue sharing modeled after the NFL.

GoReds
10-18-2011, 07:28 AM
I'd like to see the ability to trade draft picks. I also hate the fact that the draft takes place during the baseball season, which is contrary to the NFL and NBA, who use the draft as a means to extend their product during the offseason.

I like Rick's idea of limiting throws to first. Nothing to stop a team from pitching out if they feel the runner is being too agressive.

We also need a Tony Larussa rule. Limit the number of visits to the mound in an inning, set a minimum number of batters a relief pitcher must face and a maximum number of pitching changes in an inning (barring injury).

Roy Tucker
10-18-2011, 08:26 AM
I voted for revenue sharing and salary cap.

Of all the things that bug me about MLB, the disparity between the haves and have-nots is the thing that bugs me the most. Yeah, every year one poorer team or another manages to get to the playoffs and is held up as the poster child for how the system works. But besides Tampa, there really isn't anyone who does it consistently and its usually a fluke.

I don't think it will happen though. Too many formidable barriers and the owners are dead-set against it so they'll continue having puppet commisioners. My only hope is that the even split of internet based revenues continues to grow and come to the forefront. I don't think it will make it an NFL-like communist state, but will at least shrink the gap.

bucksfan2
10-18-2011, 08:47 AM
I only get to vote on one!

#1 Salary cap and floor as well as revenue sharing amongst teams. Go towards an NFL style contract.

#2 Get the damn post season games off of TBS and TNT. Seriously baseball that is the best you can do? Put them on one of the major networks or ESPN. Oh yea move the start time up on playoff games and rid yourself of the pregame show. Who wants to watch that? I mean really? Even when the Reds were in the playoffs I wanted baseball and not talk.

#3 Limit trips to the mound by catchers and other players. This comes to a head in the playoffs and makes innings drag on forever. Nothing was worse than Jorge running to the mound to call every pitch a few post seasons ago.

#4 I don't mind different strike zones. I don't mind someone who calls a high zone or someone who calls a low zone, I just want consistency based upon that zone. Allow an ump to set his own zone but hold him to that zone.

#5 Fire CB Bucknor.

#6 Best record gets home field advantage. Seems like a no brainier yet why can't baseball understand.

#7 Lower beer prices at games. Come on throw the fans a bone.

cumberlandreds
10-18-2011, 08:50 AM
Do something to speed up the time of the games. These playoff games are going well over 3 hours. That's crazy. Put a stopwatch on the pitcher;Don't let the batter step out of the box;limit the visits to the mound. Do one,two or all of these but do something. I just read the book 1921. It was mentioned that were complaints back then about the games being too long. Many were starting to go over 2 hours! I wish most were only two hours now. I go back to the early 70's. The Reds games back then didn't start until 8:05 pm. It seems most game were over by 10:30. I don't what's happened besides every game being on TV. Maybe that's it. Too much preening by the players,managers and umpires in front of the camera.

George Anderson
10-18-2011, 09:13 AM
I notice most people are picking some type of salary cap. Not wanting to state the obvious but I hope most people realize this will likely never happen unless we want to see another very long strike. The players union would never in a million years go for this.

oneupper
10-18-2011, 09:37 AM
Abolish DH. Makes game better (closer, shorter, more interesting and consistent)
Automated Strikes and Balls (makes games fairer)
Payroll (revenue) parity. (Makes season fairer)

Some of the other stuff is good too, but secondary to these IMO.

_Sir_Charles_
10-18-2011, 09:39 AM
I thought I was the young guy around here and yet I'm the only person who wants to abolish the DH!?!?

No, I want to do that too...but I could only pick one thing. :O)

MikeThierry
10-18-2011, 01:07 PM
I notice most people are picking some type of salary cap. Not wanting to state the obvious but I hope most people realize this will likely never happen unless we want to see another very long strike. The players union would never in a million years go for this.

This is exactly right. As I said earlier, if fans and the players are willing to go through a lengthy lockout, by all means implement a salary cap. There is no way, I repeat, no way the players association not only will accept lower salaries but they also will not accept non-guaranteed contracts and the franchise tag. Those are things that need to be implemented if people want an NFL style cap. The reason why the cap works in the NFL is because of the structure of the contracts. The reason why I did pick the option in the poll is because it is the most unrealistic thing to implement on the list in my opinion.




We also need a Tony Larussa rule. Limit the number of visits to the mound in an inning, set a minimum number of batters a relief pitcher must face and a maximum number of pitching changes in an inning (barring injury).

I thought that a manager can only come out once and if he comes out a second time, he has to pull the pitcher on the mound? I know watching all these pitching changes can be annoying but I think it is a crucial part of the game. I would hate to handicap any team and limit their options when it comes to the match up part of the game.

Roy Tucker
10-18-2011, 01:15 PM
I think there is an inverse relationship between the items with most votes and their liklihood to occur.

All the things with 0 or 1 vote would be the things I'd say are the most likely to occur.

I'd like to see salary cap/revenue sharing but I'd give it a snowball's chance in heck of occurring.

kaldaniels
10-18-2011, 02:49 PM
I viewed the question as if it would be certain to happen, so I did not base my answer on the likelihood of it happening.

AtomicDumpling
10-18-2011, 02:54 PM
I notice most people are picking some type of salary cap. Not wanting to state the obvious but I hope most people realize this will likely never happen unless we want to see another very long strike. The players union would never in a million years go for this.

I agree with you as long as instituting a salary cap would reduce total player salaries. But a salary cap would not necessarily reduce the money the players make. It could happen as long as it did not result in a net reduction in salaries. If you put in a salary cap you have to put in a salary floor as well. The goal is to keep the total amount of money paid to players the same as before -- just divide it up more equally between the teams.

Putting in a salary cap does not mean that players will earn less money. As long as the total payout going to the players stays the same there is no reason for the players' union to oppose it.

lollipopcurve
10-18-2011, 03:48 PM
Make games go faster. Keep hitters in the box, cut down on breaks between innings (will never happen -- $$$).

Rojo
10-18-2011, 03:52 PM
Things I'd do:
- Tell the umps to stop granting time out unless there's an obvious need. Hitter, it's your job to be ready.
- Pitcher, throw the dang ball. You get one throw to a base between pitches, after that, it costs you a ball.
- No disrectionary visits to the mound. If anybody comes out to the mound, the pitcher comes out of the game.
- TV timeouts between innings only -- make it work guys..

Some of these come from Bill James and they're good.

You have to take the game to the editing room, take out the boring stuff and keep the action.

I'd also like to see baseball be more about the battles that take place outside of home plate -- between hitter and fielders, runner and fielders, runner and pitcher.

MikeThierry
10-18-2011, 03:53 PM
I agree with you as long as instituting a salary cap would reduce total player salaries. But a salary cap would not necessarily reduce the money the players make. It could happen as long as it did not result in a net reduction in salaries. If you put in a salary cap you have to put in a salary floor as well. The goal is to keep the total amount of money paid to players the same as before -- just divide it up more equally between the teams.

Putting in a salary cap does not mean that players will earn less money. As long as the total payout going to the players stays the same there is no reason for the players' union to oppose it.

I just question what will the cap be at? As I pointed out earlier, there are 12 teams in baseball that have over 100 million dollar payrolls. More and more, teams are reaching that 100 million dollar mark. What then do you set the cap at? If MLB would set it over 100 million, what is the point in having a cap because there will still be teams that pay well under that mark even if they institute a salary floor.

Chip R
10-18-2011, 04:47 PM
I thought that a manager can only come out once and if he comes out a second time, he has to pull the pitcher on the mound? I know watching all these pitching changes can be annoying but I think it is a crucial part of the game. I would hate to handicap any team and limit their options when it comes to the match up part of the game.


Right. But there's no limit to how much a catcher or infielder can go out and talk to the pitcher. The Yankees are notorious for doing this.

REDREAD
10-18-2011, 05:16 PM
Speed of the games. Between commercials, pitching changes, stepping out, umps not enforcing rules about time between pitches, etc. the game can be very, very hard to watch at times. The season is 6 months long, 3 hours a night gets boring. I love baseball, but even I have a hard time watching some games.
.

I like your entire list.
Anything to speed up the snail's pace of the game would be very helpful and increase viewership, which would mean more money for everyone.

I remember watching a game with a friend that didn't understand baseball. The batter stepped out of the box for the 3rd time. He asked why the pitcher didn't throw the ball. I told him the batter called time out. He asked "Doesn't the team get mad that he's wasting all their timeouts?" :laugh: He was floored to find out that there's an unlimited number of timeouts.

Captain Hook
10-18-2011, 05:16 PM
I viewed the question as if it would be certain to happen, so I did not base my answer on the likelihood of it happening.

With that in mind I can't imagine why anyone could honestly see any other option on the list as a better way to improve mlb unless they're a Yankee fan and it also appears that Cardinal fans might be against it as well.

reds1869
10-18-2011, 05:23 PM
I think balancing the schedule is the first thing I would do. Without a balanced schedule the wild card is inherently unfair.

AtomicDumpling
10-18-2011, 07:25 PM
I just question what will the cap be at? As I pointed out earlier, there are 12 teams in baseball that have over 100 million dollar payrolls. More and more, teams are reaching that 100 million dollar mark. What then do you set the cap at? If MLB would set it over 100 million, what is the point in having a cap because there will still be teams that pay well under that mark even if they institute a salary floor.

I imagine the cap would be about $130 million and the floor would be about $70 million, at least at the beginning. The goal is not to get everyone to spend the same amount every year, but rather to eliminate the extremes on both ends. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be much fairer than it is now.

Most of the teams with low payrolls are highly profitable. They have a low payroll because the ownership likes it that way, not because they can't afford to spend more. I am not saying every team can afford to spend $100+ million on players, but there are only one or two teams that wouldn't be profitable even with a $75 million payroll. Contrary to what most people believe it is actually the small-market team owners that oppose a salary cap system. They are happy to benefit from the current system that allows them to collect tens of millions of dollars in revenue sharing and put it in their pockets instead of using it to make their teams more competitive, which was the original reason why it was given to them.

Any salary cap/floor scenario should factor in ALL money spent on players -- not just major league salaries. Signing bonuses, minor league salaries and deferred payments should be included in the totals to avoid shenanigans where teams creatively compensate players to get around the salary cap rules.

All the other major league sports have found a way to fairly address competitive balance caused by inequities in player salaries, so I don't believe it is impossible in baseball. If the owners really wanted to do it they would make it happen regardless of what the players' union wants.

MikeThierry
10-18-2011, 09:55 PM
I imagine the cap would be about $130 million and the floor would be about $70 million, at least at the beginning. The goal is not to get everyone to spend the same amount every year, but rather to eliminate the extremes on both ends. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be much fairer than it is now.

Most of the teams with low payrolls are highly profitable. They have a low payroll because the ownership likes it that way, not because they can't afford to spend more. I am not saying every team can afford to spend $100+ million on players, but there are only one or two teams that wouldn't be profitable even with a $75 million payroll. Contrary to what most people believe it is actually the small-market team owners that oppose a salary cap system. They are happy to benefit from the current system that allows them to collect tens of millions of dollars in revenue sharing and put it in their pockets instead of using it to make their teams more competitive, which was the original reason why it was given to them.

Any salary cap/floor scenario should factor in ALL money spent on players -- not just major league salaries. Signing bonuses, minor league salaries and deferred payments should be included in the totals to avoid shenanigans where teams creatively compensate players to get around the salary cap rules.

All the other major league sports have found a way to fairly address competitive balance caused by inequities in player salaries, so I don't believe it is impossible in baseball. If the owners really wanted to do it they would make it happen regardless of what the players' union wants.


Ultimately though, salaries are going to have to decrease if a cap like that is installed. What I might be in favor of is a soft cap, sort of like what the NBA had (I believe) but I just think a hard cap would be unrealistic and unreasonable especially how contracts are formulated in major league baseball. Plus, I think the history of the salary cap in other sports is up in the air. We all know the success of the NFL salary cap but there are several factors that can't be implemented in any other sport as to why that is successful. The NBA is in a lockout now and even with some sort of salary cap in place, teams are struggling to make a profit and signing the best players in that sport. With the NHL, we are not even a decade removed from their lockout and some viability of some NHL franchises are up in the air. I don't know if we will see the full story and success of the NHL cap until several years from now.

Again, it still does not address the problem of large market teams allocating other money to draft and development. Lets use your example of setting a cap at $130 million. The Yankees would, in turn, have an extra 70 some odd million to spend in signing draft picks and acquiring the best foreign talent (particularly in Latin America). So the Yankees might be on par with the rest of baseball as far as their payroll goes, but they would have a huge advantage in their farm system over every other team in baseball (not to say that they don't have one now). I just see a lot of negative ripple effects with instituting a hard cap to where I just would prefer to leave it alone.

Captain Hook
10-18-2011, 10:12 PM
Ultimately though, salaries are going to have to decrease if a cap like that is installed. What I might be in favor of is a soft cap, sort of like what the NBA had (I believe) but I just think a hard cap would be unrealistic and unreasonable especially how contracts are formulated in major league baseball. Plus, I think the history of the salary cap in other sports is up in the air. We all know the success of the NFL salary cap but there are several factors that can't be implemented in any other sport as to why that is successful. The NBA is in a lockout now and even with some sort of salary cap in place, teams are struggling to make a profit and signing the best players in that sport. With the NHL, we are not even a decade removed from their lockout and some viability of some NHL franchises are up in the air. I don't know if we will see the full story and success of the NHL cap until several years from now.

Again, it still does not address the problem of large market teams allocating other money to draft and development. Lets use your example of setting a cap at $130 million. The Yankees would, in turn, have an extra 70 some odd million to spend in signing draft picks and acquiring the best foreign talent (particularly in Latin America). So the Yankees might be on par with the rest of baseball as far as their payroll goes, but they would have a huge advantage in their farm system over every other team in baseball (not to say that they don't have one now). I just see a lot of negative ripple effects with instituting a hard cap to where I just would prefer to leave it alone.

I'm not so sure salaries would have to decrease based on a 130 million cap and a 70 million floor.Teams spending under 70 million would contribute around 179 million in player salaries to get to the floor.Teams over the cap would need to shed around 156 million in salaries to get down to 130 million.For some reason I don't think the players union would object to a extra 23 million going to their guys.These numbers are based on 2011 team salaries.

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

15fan
10-18-2011, 10:21 PM
Other.

Travel back in time to keep Bud Selig from becoming Commish.

The next good thing he does for baseball will be his first.

savafan
10-18-2011, 10:26 PM
Other.

Travel back in time to keep Bud Selig from becoming Commish.

The next good thing he does for baseball will be his first.

For all of the talk about how the game has thrived under his watch, he really has led it down a dark road.

RANDY IN INDY
10-19-2011, 11:02 AM
Play day baseball in the World Series on weekends.

jojo
10-19-2011, 11:04 AM
Bring back double headers.... loved those as a kid. Loved them.

_Sir_Charles_
10-19-2011, 11:12 AM
Bring back double headers.... loved those as a kid. Loved them.

Abso-friggin-loutly. :clap: :clap:

This can also solve this whole problem of the playoffs starting so late in the year too.

*BaseClogger*
10-19-2011, 11:52 AM
Ultimately though, salaries are going to have to decrease if a cap like that is installed.

Again, it still does not address the problem of large market teams allocating other money to draft and development. Lets use your example of setting a cap at $130 million. The Yankees would, in turn, have an extra 70 some odd million to spend in signing draft picks and acquiring the best foreign talent (particularly in Latin America). So the Yankees might be on par with the rest of baseball as far as their payroll goes, but they would have a huge advantage in their farm system over every other team in baseball (not to say that they don't have one now). I just see a lot of negative ripple effects with instituting a hard cap to where I just would prefer to leave it alone.

Did you read his post?


I agree with you as long as instituting a salary cap would reduce total player salaries. But a salary cap would not necessarily reduce the money the players make. It could happen as long as it did not result in a net reduction in salaries. If you put in a salary cap you have to put in a salary floor as well. The goal is to keep the total amount of money paid to players the same as before -- just divide it up more equally between the teams.

Putting in a salary cap does not mean that players will earn less money. As long as the total payout going to the players stays the same there is no reason for the players' union to oppose it.

AND


Any salary cap/floor scenario should factor in ALL money spent on players -- not just major league salaries. Signing bonuses, minor league salaries and deferred payments should be included in the totals to avoid shenanigans where teams creatively compensate players to get around the salary cap rules.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-19-2011, 12:48 PM
1. Balance the payroll disparity between large/small markets.

2. Abolish the DH.

3. Contract the Cardinals.

Roy Tucker
10-19-2011, 12:56 PM
Other.

Travel back in time to keep Bud Selig from becoming Commish.

The next good thing he does for baseball will be his first.

Back in about 2002-2003, I rode in a Milwaukee elevator with Bud and a couple of his cronies. After the inital shock, I actually did have the thought "I could take him out right here and get rid of the DH".

But the only weapon I had was my laptop and I didn't want to crong him with that and bust it. I must have a little John Wilkes Booth in me.

Strikes Out Looking
10-19-2011, 01:20 PM
Limit pitching changes -- maybe require that any pitcher entering a game pitch to at least two batters unless injured; and if injured he msut immediately go on the 15 game dl (so that folks like the guy wearing a dyed rat on his head in St. Louis can't game the rule).

Rojo
10-19-2011, 01:28 PM
Bring back double headers.... loved those as a kid. Loved them.

I'd go back to the 154-game schedule and make Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day all Double-header days. That would cinch in the schedule by about two weeks. I'd probably then make the Divisional Series seven games so we wouldn't be seeing Cardinals-Rangers series.

George Anderson
10-19-2011, 01:35 PM
I'd go back to the 154-game schedule and make Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day all Double-header days. That would cinch in the schedule by about two weeks. I'd probably then make the Divisional Series seven games so we wouldn't be seeing Cardinals-Rangers series.

Stating the obvious again, but no way in hell would the owners go for this one.

corkedbat
10-21-2011, 08:14 PM
Abso-friggin-loutly. :clap: :clap:

This can also solve this whole problem of the playoffs starting so late in the year too.

Used to go to them all the time in college. One time we tried to drink a beer every half inning. Actually made it through the first game and into the top of the third. Thank goodness for cheap bus rides.

It was the Reds vs. the Giants. I remember that the Giants won the first game by about 10-3. Bruce Berenyi walked aobut seven straight batters in the third inning.

The second game is a bit..."fuzzy." :D

corkedbat
10-21-2011, 08:23 PM
I know this is basically a sacrilidge to some, but I'd like to see them make the DH universal. Let the pitchers pitch and the hitters hit, Some say it would take alot of the strategy out of the game. I would counter and say that it would just alter strategies.

If it were adopted now, it would allow you to have three legit OFers in the game and have Alonso and Votto in the lineup at the same time. I would also use it to keep guys fresh. It would also allow you to keep both Mes and Grandal. One can catch while the other DHs and vice versa (again, keeping both fresh).

Reds4Life
10-21-2011, 08:51 PM
There would be squabbles with owners and the union over over a cap or floor, but how about a simple rule change? Make it a requirement that ALL revenue sharing money a team receives be used for player payroll.

If I was the owner of a large market club, I would be seriously PO'ed that I'm paying luxury tax money that is going directly into the bank accounts of other owners.

RedsManRick
10-21-2011, 09:14 PM
There would be squabbles with owners and the union over over a cap or floor, but how about a simple rule change? Make it a requirement that ALL revenue sharing money a team receives be used for player payroll.

If I was the owner of a large market club, I would be seriously PO'ed that I'm paying luxury tax money that is going directly into the bank accounts of other owners.

But then a team would just spend less of "it's own" money on payroll. That would only have an effect if teams are receiving more than their total payroll - though perhaps they are.

Hoosier Red
10-21-2011, 09:45 PM
Looking to the NFL as an example though, if they played by the MLB rules, there is no way the Pittsburgh Steelers *whom I hate* would be able to be competitive year in year out. The Chargers would no longer have Phillip Rivers and Antonio Gates, or would be close to losing them. New Orleans would not be a contender the past 3 years. I don't expect the little teams to be able to always compete for top free agents, but at least assure them the opportunity, paywise, to be able to competitively keep their homegrown guys without dire reprecussions.

The salary cap gets all the credit, but the revenue sharing is a larger reason why the "small market" teams can compete. Imagine if all the MLB teams had the league negotiating TV deals for each team's games.

Hoosier Red
10-21-2011, 09:51 PM
Looking to the NFL as an example though, if they played by the MLB rules, there is no way the Pittsburgh Steelers *whom I hate* would be able to be competitive year in year out. The Chargers would no longer have Phillip Rivers and Antonio Gates, or would be close to losing them. New Orleans would not be a contender the past 3 years. I don't expect the little teams to be able to always compete for top free agents, but at least assure them the opportunity, paywise, to be able to competitively keep their homegrown guys without dire reprecussions.

DP

OesterPoster
10-21-2011, 10:42 PM
Other - fix the inane blackout rules and actually market your product to the fans properly.

jojo
10-21-2011, 10:51 PM
Other - fix the inane blackout rules and actually market your product to the fans properly.

This response is currently unavailable due to blackout restrictions....

Captain Hook
10-22-2011, 11:04 PM
There would be squabbles with owners and the union over over a cap or floor, but how about a simple rule change? Make it a requirement that ALL revenue sharing money a team receives be used for player payroll.

If I was the owner of a large market club, I would be seriously PO'ed that I'm paying luxury tax money that is going directly into the bank accounts of other owners.

If I was the owner of a large market club, I would be seriously thrilled that teams weren't using my money to improve their rosters, considering that in the end I have to compete with those teams.

savafan
10-22-2011, 11:16 PM
NM

RedsBaron
10-23-2011, 08:38 AM
While it was not the decisive factor in last night's game, the blown call on the tag play at first base illustrated why it is ridiculous not to make use of instant replay to review umpires' calls (as if blowing a perfect game last year wasn't illustration enough).

savafan
10-25-2011, 05:54 PM
Bud once again being reactionary instead of proactive:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/commissioner-bud-selig-tells-radio-station-mlb-plans-to-enlarge-replay-a-little-bit/2011/10/24/gIQApXFFEM_story.html


ARLINGTON, Texas — Commissioner Bud Selig tells a Dallas radio station baseball plans to expand its use of replay, but he says reviewing every close call would hurt the game.

MikeThierry
10-25-2011, 08:29 PM
ARLINGTON, Texas Commissioner Bud Selig tells a Dallas radio station baseball plans to expand its use of replay, but he says reviewing every close call would hurt the game.

Ironic he would make that statement considering that by him being commissioner, he is hurting the game of baseball.

Chip R
10-25-2011, 11:52 PM
I like what LaRussa said about replay interrupting the flow of the game. :lol:

jojo
10-26-2011, 01:10 PM
I like what LaRussa said about replay interrupting the flow of the game. :lol:

:laugh:

cincinnati chili
10-30-2011, 02:03 PM
Bud once again being reactionary instead of proactive:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/commissioner-bud-selig-tells-radio-station-mlb-plans-to-enlarge-replay-a-little-bit/2011/10/24/gIQApXFFEM_story.html

I am going to guess that they're going to first look at fair/foul calls on line drives down the lines, not calls at first base. But we'll see.