Blue Jays Discussion: Off-Season IV: Off-season progression! (Lockout over: Jays acquire Chapman for 4 prospects!)

[Blitzkrug]

I really dislike the concept of a bye in baseball.

Baseball is a sport about rhythm more so than the other big 4. offenses get into a groove, stay hot over a couple weeks stretch and win games.

Say you're a team like the Giants. You hit well down the stretch, couple guys performing above their heads and you manage to finish in the top 2 in the NL. You get to sit for a week, maybe more depending how long the other DS drags out. Congrats, you now have to face a team who has been playing pretty much every day since the end of september.

The most obvious one i can recall is the 2007 Rockies. They were stupidly hot in September, rolled through a tiebreaker, the NLDS and CS with ease. Because Cleveland decided to implode, Colorado had to sit something like 10 days waiting for the World Series. The result? All of those guys hitting over their heads went cold and the Rockies were blown out.

Not exactly the same thing since Colorado didn't have a "bye" but the concept of that much rest not being good still remains.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Probability wise (assuming a ~4% HFA rate) a 100 win team would win a three game series against an 81 win team ~69% of the time (72% if all three games were at the 100 win team's stadium).

Is that a fair tradeoff for winning 19 more games in the regular season, especially when accounting for the specific value of those 19 wins? I don't think its remotely close. Just completely neuters the meaning of the regular season.

This is why I didn't mind the "Ghost win" proposal that was brought up, but only if a certain threshold of win differential was reached. If the division winner has 5 wins more than the WC team(or you could make the threshold 10 wins more) then they automatically win game 1 of a 5 game series. They play 4 games, the WC team has to win 3, the division winner has to win 2. I would guess that would put the probability closer to 80% which is fair in my books.

If the teams are closer than 5 win differential(Toronto/Chicago this past season in the 3/6 series that would have happened) then they play a regular 5 game series. Both teams have to win 3 to advance.

It includes more teams into the playoffs but with a significant disadvantage if they're much worse than the team they're facing, but if it's fairly even then it remains even. It's not a blanket setup of always ghost win, or always best 3 of 5.

 

[Hoverhand]

We're going to miss games and the owners are to blame. No other way to slice it.

 

[hockeywiz542]

 

[TheBeastCoast]

f*** Rob Manfred

 

[Canada4Gold]

On the bright side we play the Rays 3 less times this season. On the down side we play the Orioles 3 less times this season. Someone please tell me we play all the good teams in the first 3 months

 

[dredeye]

Probability wise (assuming a ~4% HFA rate) a 100 win team would win a three game series against an 81 win team ~69% of the time (72% if all three games were at the 100 win team's stadium).

Is that a fair tradeoff for winning 19 more games in the regular season, especially when accounting for the specific value of those 19 wins? I don't think its remotely close. Just completely neuters the meaning of the regular season.



Yes I steadfastly remain a 1993-style playoff/league schedule guy but I know we'll never go backwards (although a balanced schedule needed to be implemented yesterday).

Having to play the yanks, Red Sox and the Never bad rays way more than the rest of the league I’m happy with expanded playoffs. Our division is ridiculously harder than any other at all times and it’s not even close.

 

[dredeye]

Everyone will love expanded playoffs until their 97 win 2-seed gets knocked out by some 82-80 team.

If the 82 wins are in our division they could very well be better than the tigers winning their garbage division handily.

 

[dredeye]

On the bright side we play the Rays 3 less times this season. On the down side we play the Orioles 3 less times this season. Someone please tell me we play all the good teams in the first 3 months

If it was three lost games at the trop I’d be happier about it.

This is such a stain on the league that they didn’t get a deal done. Just a really bad look from a league and players that make insane amounts of money.

 

[TeddyBare]

What’s the gap in the highest salaries compared to the average paid players?


it seems like so many players were signing just atrocious contracts

seagar, hey bud l, here have 13 years and $355 mill
Siemen, 7 years and just under $200 mill
Hey Robbie Ray have $130 mill

Hey Scherzer have $140 million at age 38

 

[hockeywiz542]

 

[Dr.Funk]

 

[TheBeastCoast]

 

[habamillions]

He said, she said. The people that lose are the fans. Players are more then compensated for playing a game we would do at a fraction of the money. Then there are the billionaires that sit on the high horse that care about themselves only.

 

[dredeye]

He said, she said. The people that lose are the fans. Players are more then compensated for playing a game we would do at a fraction of the money. Then there are the billionaires that sit on the high horse that care about themselves only.

Not to mention at the end of the day we’ll be rewarded with higher ticket prices

 

[Apex Predator]

I find it crazy that players in sports are fighting for more money while the average Joe is getting priced out of the housing market.

Players are making millions or close to it after taxes that will set them up for life but they’re so use to a certain life style that they need more money.

 

[Discoverer]

I find it crazy that players in sports are fighting for more money while the average Joe is getting priced out of the housing market.

Players are making millions or close to it after taxes that will set them up for life but they’re so use to a certain life style that they need more money.

I find it even crazier that billionaire owners are fighting for the same money.

 

[Apex Predator]

I find it even crazier that billionaire owners are fighting for the same money.

You’re right. I should have worded it as both of them and not just players. At the end of the day the fans will get screwed over because players will get paid. Owners will raise ticket prices, concession prices, memorabilia, etc to make up the difference.

 

[canucksfan]

This is stupid. I thought there was promise last night and there might be a deal done.

 

[Brown Dog]

This is such a "f*&# you" to fans after 2 years disrupted by Covid. Honestly makes me just want to tune out of MLB completely. What a joke.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Striplings quote on negotiations:

As Monday turned into Tuesday and talks continued late into the night, some players got the impression owners were underestimating them.
“It got to be like 12:30 and the fine print of their CBT proposal was stuff we had never seen before,” Stripling said. “They were trying to sneak things through us, it was like they think we’re dumb baseball players and we get sleepy after midnight or something. It’s like that stupid football quote, they are who we thought they were. They did exactly what we thought they would do. They pushed us to a deadline that they imposed, and then they tried to sneak some shit past us at that deadline and we were ready for it. We’ve been ready for five years. And then they tried to flip it on us today in PR, saying that we’ve changed our tone and tried to make it look like it was our fault. That never happened.”​

 

[Bjindaho]

As was mentioned earlier, while the two sides are reasonably far apart on core economic issues, they are close enough that there is no chance that the players would have gone on strike from this position.

At this point, there's no possible way to put any blame on the players when 1) they would have reported to camp without a CBA with virtually no chance of a strike, 2) they are the only side that has conceded (throwing out the garbage proposals that both sides offered as easy drops because the other side wouldn't even listen to them), and 3) MLB has introduced new clauses in every offer in the past week and some of them were hard deal breakers (like the ability to change any rules with 45 days notice and the players having little to no say).

 

[theaub]

You’re right. I should have worded it as both of them and not just players. At the end of the day the fans will get screwed over because players will get paid. Owners will raise ticket prices, concession prices, memorabilia, etc to make up the difference.

Ticket prices and salaries have zero correlation.

The team could have a 10M, 100M or 1B payroll and ticket prices will be set to maximize revenues.

 

[rojac]

As was mentioned earlier, while the two sides are reasonably far apart on core economic issues, they are close enough that there is no chance that the players would have gone on strike from this position.

At this point, there's no possible way to put any blame on the players when 1) they would have reported to camp without a CBA with virtually no chance of a strike, 2) they are the only side that has conceded (throwing out the garbage proposals that both sides offered as easy drops because the other side wouldn't even listen to them), and 3) MLB has introduced new clauses in every offer in the past week and some of them were hard deal breakers (like the ability to change any rules with 45 days notice and the players having little to no say).

Yes. If they lifted the lockout, the players would not have gone on strike. At this time. The more likely tactic for the union would be to happily play until and delay reaching an agreement so they could strike closer to a time that puts the postseason in jeopardy so that they would have more leverage on the owners.

I don't know if the owners would agree to lift the lockout if the players agreed to play the full season under the expired CBA without striking. But I'm not even sure if the players would agree to that.

 

[Bjindaho]

Yes. If they lifted the lockout, the players would not have gone on strike. At this time. The more likely tactic for the union would be to happily play until and delay reaching an agreement so they could strike closer to a time that puts the postseason in jeopardy so that they would have more leverage on the owners.

I don't know if the owners would agree to lift the lockout if the players agreed to play the full season under the expired CBA without striking. But I'm not even sure if the players would agree to that.

Again, the league has gone on strike 3 times. All three were directly caused by the owners (they literally offered CBAs that were worse than the existing deal in each case).

We are already in a better position than we've ever been when the league has had a strike.

Also, the differences could be mediated (or arbitrated) if the owners were interested in anything other than flat out winning (which they aren't).