Seems like the schedule is going to be unchanged, they're just going to re-schedule the first week.Huzzah! Is the late schedule still the same? Was hoping to attend the September 22-24 home series.
Seems like the schedule is going to be unchanged, they're just going to re-schedule the first week.Huzzah! Is the late schedule still the same? Was hoping to attend the September 22-24 home series.
I know that I'll get used to it after a few weeks--I barely notice the jersey ads in the NBA and in the EPL--but I guess Nike greased the skids for this a few seasons ago with the swoosh on the front of the jersey. There's always a buck to be made.I hate it too, but there have been similar things that I initially despised but have grown to actually like/prefer (e.g., advertisements on the boards in hockey, Monster seats in place of the netting).
Maybe Pivetta drives a pickup truck.Not a fan of players with relatively short tenure with club to be player reps, although to be fair, I can't give a rational reason for it.
It's not too uncommon - execs know what they lost more than membership.It's possible (I am just guessing) that the executive board understands much better the value of the grievances which presumably were dropped as part of this deal, hence their 'no' votes.
D'oh, had the week ahead. Meant the previous weekend (Sept 16-18 vs KC)Which park/team are you talking about?
There is an entire package of Rays-thwarting measures here--banning the shift, limiting # of times player can be optioned to minors, increased CBT thresholds, tweaks to revenue sharing, international draft, etc. But you can't fight the last war, with new rules come new opportunities to be exploited.Seems like this would hit the Rays pretty hard.
Just a guess, but as we've discussed at length on this board, the union was broadly understood to have given away the farm in the 2016 CBA. Six years later, people have not forgotten that. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that this was a kind of ass-covering vote to position the union as officially against this deal even as informal polling made it clear that the deal had the support of the players. If the deal proves a success longterm--great, the union negotiated it! If it proves a failure? "Don't blame the union, we recommended not supporting it!" Again, just a guess.The parties appeared to be "close" on a number of issues - like 10 million apart - so its difficult for me to see how it was roundly rejected by the executive committee. 10 million isn't changing the long term trajectory of "larger economic issues" so why did they oppose it so universally?
I HATE this. Hope they're small.Don't love this, from the ESPN article:
Additionally, player uniforms will feature advertising for the first time, with patches on jerseys and decals on batting helmets.
I think so. The players got a pretty fair deal here.Am I the only one kind of upset that the rank and file players relented?
The owners vote to ratify at 6 PM EST, and after that hunting season is open.I've currently got IVs available in both arms, so there's no excuse not to get free agency news hooked up to one of them immediately. Thx.
I would've liked to see the players get more too - but more than half of the players last year had < 3years service time. Those guys are getting a nice raise with higher minimums and the bonus pool for top performers. The Phillips Valdezes of the world are voting for this deal every day of the week and twice on Sunday.Am I the only one kind of upset that the rank and file players relented?
I don't know. People always think they'll hate this, but Americans rock soccer kits a lot these days and it's all about the sponsor on them.I HATE this. Hope they're small.
Seems like its a better deal and the players made some significant progress on important issues. I don't think its realistic to assume that all of the issues would be addressed and fixed in this CBA. There is simply too much money at stake for all the parties to continue to play chicken with the season.Am I the only one kind of upset that the rank and file players relented?
They have almost nothing on the books for 23/24.Good year to go over if it makes sense. Could be hard to clear $230 million in ‘23/‘24 even if they somehow extend both Devers and Bogaerts.
My point exactly! ‘22 is a good year to clear the $230M threshold. We’re pretty poised to get under again by ‘24.They have almost nothing on the books for 23/24.
A bit late to this but I just got out of a meeting and was texting my friend (who's been attending Patriot's Day games with me for 30+ years) to say it's on.And even better, there will be baseball on Patriots Day.
Pujols back to St. Louis?So NL teams need to start signing some sluggers. Who are the free agent mashers besides Schwarber and Nelson Cruz?
It kind of felt like a capitulation to me at first, but upon reviewing the details I do believe that the players got a pretty good deal, as much as I'd hoped they'd have gotten more out of the owners.Am I the only one kind of upset that the rank and file players relented?
This dude, who is probably feeling pretty psyched right now.So NL teams need to start signing some sluggers. Who are the free agent mashers besides Schwarber and Nelson Cruz?
Yeah but that Celtics patch annoys me every time I see it.I don't know. People always think they'll hate this, but Americans rock soccer kits a lot these days and it's all about the sponsor on them.
As long as baseball is back, for me the Red Sox could wear DraftKings onsies and I would be fine with it. (Not totally serious but it's not in the same... BALLPARK... for me.)I hate this. More than I hate no baseball? No. But it's still gross.
We talked about this a little bit in the now-moot thread. Its a pool of $ that can be distributed to guys who aren't eligible for arbitration - the 78% of players that aren't eligible for Super 2 and below in service time.A bonus pool worth $50 million will be distributed among those younger players who have yet to reach salary arbitration. I've not heard of this pool before. Is this a new feature? Anyone know more about this?
weird to call it the rocker rule when the whole problem was that he didn’t have a physical, no?
I can't even remember the last time I even thought about the little one the Celtics have on their shoulder (before just now).I HATE this. Hope they're small.
Two byes in each league and the other 4 play 2 of 3, a big improvement on the previous system I think.I'll need more clarity, but so far I'm really happy. No DH, no stupid seven inning games, no stupid extra innings rules.
I can live with the 12 team playoffs if, as I understand, there's one bye and three three game series. They should give the home team all three games in that three game round though, make it mean more.
I don't think there was any conventional wisdom suggesting his callup was imminent. I guess if he goes crazy in spring maybe he pressures them into a decision, but otherwise I doubt it will be an issue.Service time stuff is interesting for the Sox with Casas. Do they hold off on calling him up until he’s no longer a ROY candidate? Or do they call him up to start the year and maybe get an extra pick?
To be clear, no pitch clock or banned shifts this year, very likely in 2023.I love the deal. In order of best things:
1) no more extra inning runner
2) no more 7 inning double headers
3) universal dh
4) pitch clock
5) banned shift (I don’t like this)
So excited for the season to start
Even better.Two byes in each league and the other 4 play 2 of 3, a big improvement on the previous system I think.
Yea, just hyped (for pitch clock) and mildly annoyed (ban) in advanceTo be clear, no pitch clock or banned shifts this year, very likely in 2023.
He’s expected mid-2022, and guys have won ROY by having great partial seasons. If he does that, Sox lose a year of service time. It’s unlikely, but something that they have to think about. I’m more wondering if the keep him down longer, not really if they call him up for opening day (although if he’s ready for that I’d be psyched)I don't think there was any conventional wisdom suggesting his callup was imminent. I guess if he goes crazy in spring maybe he pressures them into a decision, but otherwise I doubt it will be an issue.
I'm interested to see how this actually reads. When are these picks? Or are they just potential picks?
This is stupid.No more Game 163 tiebreakers. All playoff spots will be determined through NFL-type tiebreaker formulas.
Agreed with almost all of this.As fans, this is the best we could have hoped for:
162 game season (barring some horrific new variant)
None of the gimmicky rules of the last two seasons
12-team playoffs instead of 14
Universal DH
Chance to a pitch clock in 2023
And, most importantly, five years before we have to worry about this again.
If the first week of April is cold and rainy in Boston, we'll be glad the opener got pushed back.
But under this rule, he would have been incentivized to get one, which would probably have been to both his and the Mets benefit. Or, he would have shown red flags by not getting one, which would probably still have been to both his and the Mets benefit as he'd likely have been drafted much later and whoever drafted him would be more comfortable rolling the dice at the lower slot price and signing him despite the bad MRI's or whatever. So although the rule wouldn't have applied to him directly, if it had been on the books, his awkward situation would likely have been avoided.weird to call it the rocker rule when the whole problem was that he didn’t have a physical, no?
The latter is a drag.
This is the conventional wisdom, but not every AL team has a slugger/masher or even a specific player in their DH slot, so I don't think every NL team is going to do that either. Of course the Schwarbers and Castellanos will be signed, but I don't see a run on them coming. NL teams were already carrying at least four bench guys for pinch-hitting and double switching purposes. Odds are a few of those roster spots will go to relievers.So NL teams need to start signing some sluggers. Who are the free agent mashers besides Schwarber and Nelson Cruz?