DH rule continues to prove its stupidity...

[Matt700wlw]

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseb...102607.article


Either get rid of it...or put it into effect baseball-wide.....I vote for the former.

[Spitball]

Peter Ueberroth tried back in the 1980's, but it was just not that easy. There were, and are today, just too many big contracts paid to big name sluggers, Thome, Ortiz, et al, functioning as DH's..

[BCubb2003]

I think it would be cool if one league played by modern rules and the other league had to play by vintage base ball rules.

[M2]

I hate the DH more than most, but it's not going anywhere and the reason why has nothing to do with big contracts. It's because it's been part of the AL for 35 years now. It's baked into the league's identity. AL fans are fine with it, making it just about the biggest non-issue out there.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by BCubb2003

I think it would be cool if one league played by modern rules and the other league had to play by vintage base ball rules.

That would rock! Like to see some of these dudes play without gloves. Although I'm sure a lot would abuse the fair-foul rule.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by Spitball

Peter Ueberroth tried back in the 1980's, but it was just not that easy. There were, and are today, just too many big contracts paid to big name sluggers, Thome, Ortiz, et al, functioning as DH's..

I think they could have tried harder to phase out the DH when they were negotiating the deal to avoid contraction. I think if MLB wanted to, they could find something that the union would be willing to trade off on in exchange for dumping the DH. The problem is that it would require the owners to give the players something that increases their share of the revenue that major league baseball generates. Unfortunately, I don't think the owners would agree to such a deal.

Guys like Thome and Ortiz will find a spot in the field, either at 1B or in LF. Bats like that will always find their way into a lineup. It's the marginal guys that platoon at those positions who will find their job prospects decrease.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

I think they could have tried harder to phase out the DH when they were negotiating the deal to avoid contraction.

The owners put it on the table for leverage - like a lot of other things they were never all that serious about. Basically it's designed to make the MLBPA negotiate against phantoms in order to gain advantage in more critical areas. Like most other goofy ideas by MLB owners, it didn't work. The union was able to massage the system to create an even more robust free agent market.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by M2

The owners put it on the table for leverage - like a lot of other things they were never all that serious about. Basically it's designed to make the MLBPA negotiate against phantoms in order to gain advantage in more critical areas. Like most other goofy ideas by MLB owners, it didn't work. The union was able to massage the system to create an even more robust free agent market.

The owners don't always realize what's in their best interest. They need to realize that they can work together with the players and everybody can make money. Unfortunately they're still trying to "beat" the union in negotiations. There's no attempt to seek win-win outcomes.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

The owners don't always realize what's in their best interest. They need to realize that they can work together with the players and everybody can make money. Unfortunately they're still trying to "beat" the union in negotiations. There's no attempt to seek win-win outcomes.

True enough. Though when it comes to the DH, I don't get the sense that the owners much care about getting rid of it. In fact, I'll bet the majority of AL owners would prefer to keep it.

[KronoRed]

You'll see it in the NL in 10-15 years.

[WVRedsFan]

Originally Posted by KronoRed

You'll see it in the NL in 10-15 years.

who cares. By that time I'll be 70+ and I won't care. I'll be asking for the nurse to wipe my drooling. As long as it doesn't happen in my conscious lifetime, I'm OK with it. Baseball was meant to have 9 players including a pitcher batting in order. If we give in to the DH, why not have DF (designated fielders). You know some guys bat and some guys field. It would open up a new career for guys like Juan Castro who everyone thinks is a good fielder or even Royce Clayton. Maybe even Ryan Freel. how nice would it be to not have to sit through an at-bat by Freel as he hacks away. Of course, he would have to run the bases which might prove to be a problem, but then you could have the DR's--the designated runners. Guys like Norris Hopper and any number of others could just run and use their speed.

The possibilities are endless if we want to bastardize the game like the American League has done.

[KronoRed]

The designated runner was another of Charlie Finleys' ideas, maybe we'll see that in a few years

[harangatang]

Dice-K was 1-3 for 2 RBI's tonight.

[Hap]

Before we reach a consensus to abolish, let's ask ourselves:

What if the Big Red Machine had the DH? Bench could have DH'd 2-3 times per week and saved wear and tear. Perez and Foster and Rose could have spent time there also, as well as Driessen. It would have made them even better than they were.

[4256 Hits]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

I think they could have tried harder to phase out the DH when they were negotiating the deal to avoid contraction. I think if MLB wanted to, they could find something that the union would be willing to trade off on in exchange for dumping the DH. The problem is that it would require the owners to give the players something that increases their share of the revenue that major league baseball generates. Unfortunately, I don't think the owners would agree to such a deal.
.

The only possible way the union would agree to drop the DH is if they add a 26th roster spot. Even then I don't see it happening.