Jump to content

2018 MLB Hot Stove Thread


Eagles27

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, mse326 said:

This makes no sense. The last thing the MLBPA should want is the DH. It hurts more of their membership.

Why? It only enlarges the (potential) market for players leaning towards the DH position - while not decreasing the number of pitchers at all who arent paid for their bats.  I dont see it hurting anyone or anything other than the hitting stats of pitchers and nobody cares about that anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mse326 said:

This makes no sense. The last thing the MLBPA should want is the DH. It hurts more of their membership. Teams won't all of a sudden start paying more money in total because of the DH, they will simply allocate more of it to that player. That money will come out of the pocket of bench players (who won't be needed as often) and middle relievers. All to help 15 players. It could easily hurt 5x that amount. 

And not enough pitchers get injured batting or running bases for that to change the calculus. 

There can be an argument about it being more exciting and good for the game, but frankly the union shouldn't care about that unless they think revenue will get so much higher with the change that everyone will benefit (and it won't). The union should care about conditions of employment and salary. This hurts the salary of more players than it helps.

Agreed. What makes this worse is the 26th man and the reliever cap. That basically means teams are going to split their bench into bats for the DH (but they won't go full time on that because they'll rotate everyday players in that spot) and pure defensive replacements who are basically never going to get ABs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Leader said:

Why? It only enlarges the (potential) market for players leaning towards the DH position - while not decreasing the number of pitchers at all who arent paid for their bats.  I dont see it hurting anyone or anything other than the hitting stats of pitchers and nobody cares about that anyway.

Yes I don't see how this hurts the players...at all.  Pitchers won't get hurt batting/running the bases and guys who are just solid hitters will get paid...where there's a glut of "meh" first basemen (defensively) but can hit the snot out of the ball, they'll actually get paid now.  What's the down side of the DH in the NL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, GmenSeattle said:

It's actually more accurate, so not sure what the complaint is...

The definition of disabled is "incapacitated by illness or injury"

its just unnecessary and pointless to make this change and act like you are doing something to better the world 

People keep coming up with new ways to be offended, whatever 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GmenSeattle said:

Yes I don't see how this hurts the players...at all.  Pitchers won't get hurt batting/running the bases and guys who are just solid hitters will get paid...where there's a glut of "meh" first basemen (defensively) but can hit the snot out of the ball, they'll actually get paid now.  What's the down side of the DH in the NL?

It's going to set up a system where basically teams are going to "platoon" in a sense, all-bat, no glove players (who don't get paid) and all-glove, no-bat players (who don't get paid) instead of having to rely on players who are good with both (who do get paid).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Leader said:

Why? It only enlarges the (potential) market for players leaning towards the DH position - while not decreasing the number of pitchers at all who arent paid for their bats.  I dont see it hurting anyone or anything other than the hitting stats of pitchers and nobody cares about that anyway.

You could read my post I say why. Only so much money. If more goes to one player it comes from the pocket of several.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

It's going to set up a system where basically teams are going to "platoon" in a sense, all-bat, no glove players (who don't get paid) and all-glove, no-bat players (who don't get paid) instead of having to rely on players who are good with both (who do get paid).

This is exactly it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, N4L said:

The definition of disabled is "incapacitated by illness or injury"

its just unnecessary and pointless to make this change and act like you are doing something to better the world 

People keep coming up with new ways to be offended, whatever 

Cherry picking your definition is cute...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disabled

Definition of disabled
1a : impaired or limited by a physical, mental, cognitive, or developmental condition : affected by disability
b : incapacitated by illness or injury

I believe you'll find that those who are actually disabled (1a) might take offense to those who actually aren't and making millions being SO NOT DISABLED yet calling themselves disabled.  Facts are hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

It's going to set up a system where basically teams are going to "platoon" in a sense, all-bat, no glove players (who don't get paid) and all-glove, no-bat players (who don't get paid) instead of having to rely on players who are good with both (who do get paid).

It will also set up a system that will allow players to play longer.  Ortiz...for example.  It's not like hitting a baseball is an easy task...and pitchers shouldn't be doing it.  It allows more players to get paid.  There are already defense first players on teams, usually on the bench but if they're good enough they play (Billy Hamilton for example).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...