PDA

View Full Version : AL to get rid of DH role?



Stephenk29
11-13-2011, 02:12 PM
I was listening to the MLBNetwork on satellite radio a couple weeks ago and the commentator was saying that the MLB was looking into removing the DH from the game. Has anyone found anything in writing or rumors that relates to this?

George Anderson
11-13-2011, 02:14 PM
Whats the players union have to say bout this idea?????

KronoRed
11-13-2011, 06:45 PM
I wish, union would throw a tantrum though.

pedro
11-13-2011, 07:08 PM
If they agreed to expand Major league rosters to 28 players they might be able to get it done.

redhawkfish
11-13-2011, 11:18 PM
If they agreed to expand Major league rosters to 28 players they might be able to get it done.

Not disagreeing at all, but just curious where the 28 players number came from?

FlightRick
11-14-2011, 12:24 AM
I suppose pedro may have just been joking about the disproportionate amount of power wielded by the once-important-but-now-significantly-less-necessary-and-relevent players' union, but if he was serious about a demand to expand to 28, the logic would be this:

By eliminating the DH, 14 teams would be able to get rid of one highly-paid (generally veteran) starting player. The 14 replacement players wouldn't come any near off-setting that loss of revenue, as teams would just add a lower-paid utility player; it also wouldn't off-set the fact that a certain number of careers would end sooner if there's no DH for a defensive liability to fall back on. The union would further contend that adding 1 extra player per roster, league-wide, wouldn't make up the difference, either (30 more back-end relievers/pinch hitters, again likely to average less than $1m each), and they might be right. I suspect that the math works out in the union's favor if you expand by 2 players per roster, but they could easily ask for 3 just to be sure (or just to be jerks).

Some time ago, my friends and I had a discussion about expanding rosters to placate the union while losing the DH... we ended up realizing the demand for 28-player rosters might be something the union would pull, and I had this idea: if rosters ever did expand to 28 players as result of union shenanigans, you accompany that with a rule that prior to every game, the team/manager must designate 25 players (same as it ever was) for his Eligible Roster.

Carrying a perpetual extra 3 players as a "taxi squad" or whatever the right term is would afford the union its extra membership (with all the perks of MLB service time, but in a situation that would guarantee these would be lower-pay/league-minimum roster spots, which would placate the owners), and create some interesting possibilities without drastically harming gameplay. A team could add an extra reliever to spell a tired bullpen, or add an extra pinch-hitter of a certain handedness to offset the handedness of that day's pitcher, or best of all: dealing with those pesky day-to-day injuries where you don't want to go for a full 15-day DL stint suddenly gets MUCH more manageable. Forget the "Kremcheck Special" where a sprained knee turns into MCL surgery, leaving the team playing with 24 in the interim!

When having this discussion with friends, it seemed like I came up with a solution to most problems/queries, and came up with the set of rules that would govern the 3 extra players (not allowing starting pitchers to be placed on the taxi squad between starts to free up an extra roster spot, requiring "extra" players to be declared eligible for a certain number of games per time period or else they have to be DL'd or demoted to AAA, slightly expanding the 40- and 60-man rosters accordingly, etc), but I shan't bore you until/unless somebody thinks this bears discussing further....


Rick

Col_ IN Reds fan
11-14-2011, 12:41 AM
As much as I dislike the DH, just as many fans like it.

25 man rosters are a good number. No way teams would want to carry 28 players. No need too.

The DH is like salary arbitration, once here almost impossile to get rid of.

pedro
11-14-2011, 12:44 AM
Not disagreeing at all, but just curious where the 28 players number came from?

Just a guess at what it might take from the players union perspective.

Captain Hook
11-14-2011, 12:59 AM
I suppose pedro may have just been joking about the disproportionate amount of power wielded by the once-important-but-now-significantly-less-necessary-and-relevent players' union, but if he was serious about a demand to expand to 28, the logic would be this:

By eliminating the DH, 14 teams would be able to get rid of one highly-paid (generally veteran) starting player. The 14 replacement players wouldn't come any near off-setting that loss of revenue, as teams would just add a lower-paid utility player; it also wouldn't off-set the fact that a certain number of careers would end sooner if there's no DH for a defensive liability to fall back on. The union would further contend that adding 1 extra player per roster, league-wide, wouldn't make up the difference, either (30 more back-end relievers/pinch hitters, again likely to average less than $1m each), and they might be right. I suspect that the math works out in the union's favor if you expand by 2 players per roster, but they could easily ask for 3 just to be sure (or just to be jerks).

Some time ago, my friends and I had a discussion about expanding rosters to placate the union while losing the DH... we ended up realizing the demand for 28-player rosters might be something the union would pull, and I had this idea: if rosters ever did expand to 28 players as result of union shenanigans, you accompany that with a rule that prior to every game, the team/manager must designate 25 players (same as it ever was) for his Eligible Roster.

Carrying a perpetual extra 3 players as a "taxi squad" or whatever the right term is would afford the union its extra membership (with all the perks of MLB service time, but in a situation that would guarantee these would be lower-pay/league-minimum roster spots, which would placate the owners), and create some interesting possibilities without drastically harming gameplay. A team could add an extra reliever to spell a tired bullpen, or add an extra pinch-hitter of a certain handedness to offset the handedness of that day's pitcher, or best of all: dealing with those pesky day-to-day injuries where you don't want to go for a full 15-day DL stint suddenly gets MUCH more manageable. Forget the "Kremcheck Special" where a sprained knee turns into MCL surgery, leaving the team playing with 24 in the interim!

When having this discussion with friends, it seemed like I came up with a solution to most problems/queries, and came up with the set of rules that would govern the 3 extra players (not allowing starting pitchers to be placed on the taxi squad between starts to free up an extra roster spot, requiring "extra" players to be declared eligible for a certain number of games per time period or else they have to be DL'd or demoted to AAA, slightly expanding the 40- and 60-man rosters accordingly, etc), but I shan't bore you until/unless somebody thinks this bears discussing further....


Rick

This is a brilliant idea imo.

George Anderson
11-14-2011, 01:01 AM
If the rosters are increased to 28 that would also increase the salaries paid by the owners. The MLB minimum salary last year was $414,000. Are the owners especially the small market ones going to want to pay another 1.2 million in salaries just so they can be rid of the DH?

KronoRed
11-14-2011, 01:26 AM
Hmm, 15 man bullpen, some managers drool at the thought.

blumj
11-14-2011, 01:44 AM
David Ortiz may have picked a really terrible time to be free agent for the first time since 2002.

redsmetz
11-14-2011, 06:50 AM
If the rosters are increased to 28 that would also increase the salaries paid by the owners. The MLB minimum salary last year was $414,000. Are the owners especially the small market ones going to want to pay another 1.2 million in salaries just so they can be rid of the DH?

I came across this on the web; back in 2007 (I think that's when this is from), the average salary for DH's was nearly $6.7M, so based on the assumption they'd only be adding league minimums, I'd say the math is pretty easy. Of course, it's a not a given that all the extra players would come in at league minimum, but you still have a lot of room to play with and still save money. And I'd guess the average is over $7M by now.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0807/mlb.average.salaries.by.position/content.1.html

RANDY IN INDY
11-14-2011, 08:14 AM
28 man roster. Definitely something to look at. Would really save some arms, and I think that would be a good thing.

remdog
11-14-2011, 09:59 AM
28 man roster. Definitely something to look at. Would really save some arms, and I think that would be a good thing.

Ageed. I've wondered why they haven't considered this before. Or, maybe 27.

What was the old rule? Was it 27, or 28 players for the first month of the season and then you had to cut down to 25? I've forgotten exactly.

Rem

WVRed
11-14-2011, 12:55 PM
Most of the speculation I have read is expanding the DH to the National League. That is more of a Bud Seligesque move IMO.

durl
11-15-2011, 11:54 AM
Most of the speculation I have read is expanding the DH to the National League. That is more of a Bud Seligesque move IMO.

That's what I've read, too: realignment and bringing the DH to the NL.

I would hope that NL fans everywhere would rise up against this. Surely one of the many great minds on this board could come up with a clever protest idea. :)

Yachtzee
11-16-2011, 09:07 PM
That's what I've read, too: realignment and bringing the DH to the NL.

I would hope that NL fans everywhere would rise up against this. Surely one of the many great minds on this board could come up with a clever protest idea. :)

Occupy GABP?

jmcclain19
11-19-2011, 10:02 PM
Most of the speculation I have read is expanding the DH to the National League. That is more of a Bud Seligesque move IMO.

It would be the best move Bud has made as Commish, besides the Wild Card.

Its hilarious to me, out of all the debatable topics facing baseball today, one that gets everyone's ire up is that a bunch of limp batting pitchers get 4-5 ABs a game.

westofyou
11-19-2011, 10:06 PM
Won't happen.

The DH is a wreck to the games x's and o's

kaldaniels
11-19-2011, 10:08 PM
It would be the best move Bud has made as Commish, besides the Wild Card.

Its hilarious to me, out of all the debatable topics facing baseball today, one that gets everyone's ire up is that a bunch of limp batting pitchers get 4-5 ABs a game.

Oversimplification.

westofyou
11-19-2011, 10:50 PM
Oversimplification.

It's limiting to think the game is all about batting, isn't that what created the steroid mess?

Always Red
11-19-2011, 11:21 PM
It's limiting to think the game is all about batting, isn't that what created the steroid mess?

Maybe they can ban curve balls and changeups? Fans don't want to see guys strike out or hit into double plays, they want to see home runs.

westofyou
11-19-2011, 11:24 PM
Maybe they can ban curve balls and changeups? Fans don't want to see guys strike out or hit into double plays, they want to see home runs.

My favorite DH quote:

"The designated hitter rule is like letting someone else take Wilt Chamberlain's free throws." - Rick Wise (1974)

(Wilt Chamberlain's career free throw percentage was 51.1. He made 6,057 in 11,862 attempts.)