Gwreck

The deplorable conduct exhibited in connection with the lockout was bad, but even with that dark period over, we're still left with: -The abomination that is the designated hitter. -The idiotic “ghost runner” rule that privileges weaker teams, and “solves” only a very minor “problem.” -Expanded playoffs, further cheapening the regular season. All is not well. These are not ok changes, and baseball will be forever scarred until they are rescinded. I do expect I can still enjoy the game, but it'll never be quite as good as it was.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Pretty good contributor though and handled his smashed nose with class and dignity 15 homers was good, and a few came at big moments, but a .692 OPS is not what I would call a “pretty good contributor.” He was also on the wrong side of the Baez thumbs-down issue.

Frayed Knot wrote: union bosses have shown they're more than willing to dismiss what the younger rank and file thinks in order to protect the big boys in the room. Interestingly, it was reported that MLBPA's executive subcommittee voted 8-0 against accepting the new deal, but it passed 26-12 when voted upon by the broader player board. Seems the specter of those shadowy “Union bosses” aren't quite so all-powerful.

Prior reporting of “progress” appears to be inaccurate. More: The union lowered its ask today on pre-arb bonus pool from $115M to $85M (with a $5M increase/year). MLB had proposed last night $25M w/ no annual increase. Among other areas of disagreement: proposed luxury tax rates: — MLB: $220M/220/220/224/230 — Union: $238M/244/250/256/263

Edgy MD wrote: It's a crappy system that forces teams to make anti-competitive decisions. I dispute that teams are “forced” to do so (and certainly not the Braves).

Ken Rosenthal: [bLOCKQUOTE] If commissioner Rob Manfred truly believes missing games will be a “disastrous outcome for the industry,” he sure does not appear to have convinced his bosses, the 30 major-league owners. The players' union made moves on Saturday, moves it considered significant toward reaching a new collective-bargaining agreement. Major League Baseball responded by raising a collective middle finger.[/bLOCKQUOTE]

The owners (a) locked out the players; ( had the temerity to call it a “defensive” lockout; © claimed that the lockout would “jumpstart negotiations; and (d) then sat on their hands for 43 days before making an offer that wasn't even in the realm of what the players would reasonably consider. To be now issuing deadlines is disingenuity of the highest order.

Missed that. Agree, though: the lockout plus lowball offers by the owners is deeply insulting.

They didn't all take PEDs; they refused to appear for the tests or some other procedural violation, which counted the same as a failed test. Edit: Found it. Sandy Alomar Jr. says it was a plan hatched by veteran players on the White Sox. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/sports/baseball-the-white-sox-take-a-stand-on-steroid-tests.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/sports/baseball-the-white-sox-take-a-stand-on-steroid-tests.html

Who was insulted? Previously, the players had proposed changes to free agency and arbitration eligibility; the owners had refused to negotiate on those points. My understand is the proposed compromise “pre-arbitration bonus pool” was born as a result. Not discussed above (in that article at least, but there are plenty of others) are: -minimum salary -anti-tanking proposals. I recall reading that the owners were proposing a 3-team draft lottery and the players an 8-team draft lottery. -how CBT/Luxury tax funds are actually distributed and spent -service time manipulation. From a February 1 Athletics article: Regarding service-time manipulation, the union has proposed a system where a player who might not normally get a year of service time would be credited with one year if they reach certain thresholds and levels of performance. The union plan would award a full year of service to rookies who finish in the top five in their league for Rookie of the Year, top three for reliever of the year and/or make first- or second-team All-MLB. Before Tuesday's adjustments, non-outfielders and non-pitchers who place top 10 at their positions in their respective leagues according to an average of bWAR and fWAR also would qualify, as would starting pitchers, relief pitchers and outfielders who place top 30. Now, it's top 7 and top 20, respectively.

The Athletic seems to have pretty good sources: Regarding the proposal made last Saturday by MLB, which reportedly was described by the Union as “underwhelming:” The league proposed a $5 million increase to the pre-arbitration bonus pool, upping it to $15 million. The union most recently proposed $100 million, leaving still a major gap. MLB raised the luxury-tax thresholds by $2 million in the final three years of five over the deal. They would now progress as $214 million, $214 million, $216 million, $218 million and $222 million. Previously, they were: $214 million, $214 million, $214 million, $216 million and $220 million. MLB maintained a tax rate of 50 percent for teams that exceed the first CBT tier but took away a penalty of a third-round draft pick for doing so. Exceeding the second and third tier remained the same as MLB's last proposal: 75 and 100 percent, respectively, for the second and third tiers; and the loss of a second-round and first-round pick, respectively. The union considers those tax rates onerous. MLB also made changes to its proposal for service-time manipulation.

Frayed Knot wrote: as their long-time anti-PED testing stance showed, union bosses have shown they're more than willing to dismiss what the younger rank and file thinks in order to protect the big boys in the room. It's not at all clear that an anti-testing stance favors established players over younger ones. The results of testing - (which the MLBPA was apparently in favor of back in 2004) certainly shows some big names (Palmeiro, Ramirez) getting caught but also far more marginal players or those trying to break in to MLB for the first time getting caught. Also, the reference to “union bosses” is unclear here. Aren't they doing what the players what? The same way that Manfred is doing what the owners want? Regardless, this is a bit off-topic from the abomination that is the Designated Hitter. If that's the extent of the rule changes, then the game will survive. The other changes that Manfred (in service of the owners) has pushed (7 inning games, phantom runners) are probably even more intolerable.

Rob Manfred has done more to ruin baseball than…anyone else in my lifetime?

The voters are dumb. There's no principled basis to omit Bonds while voting for Ortiz.

Sleeping in your car at 4 AM while illegally parked, on the night after a team function at the owner's house is a tremendous lapse of judgment, even if he was not driving while intoxicated. Plenty to apologize for.

Missed that story. Not a good look for Sandy.

=Ceetar post_id=82647 time=1638906124 user_id=102]Except in the front office obviously, where it's okay to continue to employee sexual harassers.

=Ceetar post_id=82178 time=1638306955 user_id=102]but on the infield you have McNeil, Davis, Cano and Escobar for two spots.

Good acquisition.

Weird, didn't mean to leave him off. Thanks; fixed.

Gwreck Ballot: Bonds Clemens Helton Ortiz Rodriguez Rolen Schilling Sheffield Sosa Wagner

New Names: Carl Crawford Prince Fielder Ryan Howard Tim Lincecum Justin Morneau Joe Nathan David Ortiz Jonathan Papelbon Jake Peavy AJ Pierzynski Alex Rodriguez Jimmy Rollins Mark Teixeira Final Year on Ballot: Barry Bonds Roger Clemens Curt Schilling Sammy Sosa Other Holdovers: Bobby Abreu Mark Buehrle Todd Helton Tim Hudson Torii Hunter Andruw Jones Jeff Kent Andy Pettitte Manny Ramirez Scott Rolen Billy Wagner Gary Sheffield Omar Vizquel

I take this to mean Francis is a Mets fan.

I just assumed in your scenario the Mets also sign Jon Gray, Scherzer, and re-sign Stroman.

Also couldn't Baez play third and Correa second?