Will Tigers Pony up for Skubal

[chasfh]

I wouldn't want us to forego the 2026 playoffs because we are big mad at Boras and Skubal.

[KL2]

1 hour ago, Longgone said:

These are mostly old issues that have been proposed, discussed and tweaked for decades. There is no large precipitating issue that should lead to an impasse. We are dealing with human beings, however.

i think you're digging your head in the sand if you think they are non issues. They are the constant issues, and remain big, and any one let alone the wide gaps on multiple is why people fear a work stopage. 

Take salary cap for example, its been discussed. But now more owner want it because of crumbling RSN (something that didnt exist in the last few years) and they cant keep up with the Dodgers and Mets of the world.

Paying players more sooner will also be a factor but owners will want to tie that to some sort of cap, which the players will hate.

While they have bene tweeaked they are still major issues with wide gaps between the sides and major current and future financial factors at play. To think there is no large issue that should lead to an impasse is being obtuse and aware of the current labor situation.  

Edited Friday at 07:41 PM by KL2

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Every time the CBA expires, there is talk about bitterness on both sides are and how the season is going to be lost, but we haven't had a lot season in 30 years other than the Covid season.  Why is this time going to be different?  

If there is a driver this time around, I think it would be a schism within ownership between those are demanding to have the playing field leveled vs the Dodgers/Yankees/Mets. In that collision the players would be more or less just be caught in the middle. I don't have any particular insight into how PO'd the majority of owners are at the way the Dodgers and couple others have been throwing money around, but I wouldn't be surprised if the temperature around the issue is rising, in part because of the on-going failures to thrive at so many RSNs. When a dozen or so teams are going to be asked to negotiate away income they thought they could count on, it can't make them happy to see LA drop $60M on a 4 WAR player. So while I don't know if the strain between owners is high or not, it's easy enough to see the reasons it might be growing.

One way that could play out in terms of the actual contract issues is that the players want the number of years of arb control cut, and I can't see any way the mid market and below teams would ever agree to that without a big increase in revenue sharing. So there is one possible three way dance.

Edited Friday at 07:58 PM by gehringer_2

[casimir]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

I wouldn't want us to forego the 2026 playoffs because we are big mad at Boras and Skubal.

Exactly.  There’s the “equation” of a trade.  And who is going to offer what right now?   Is it better than a compensation pick?

But there’s also 2026 to consider.  The Tigers are a playoff team with Skubal.  Any playoff team can win the World Series.  I get wanting to move a one season guy for possible future production..  but it seems to me like they should take advantage of being a playoff team now.  It was a tough time getting back to the postseason.  Take another shot at the ring with a top of the league pitcher whilst he’s still here in Tiger clothes.

[tiger2022]

Skubal to the D-backs for Dawel Lugo, Sergio Alcantara, and Jose King.

Get it done Harris!

Edited yesterday at 02:55 AM by tiger2022

[Longgone]

7 hours ago, KL2 said:

i think you're digging your head in the sand if you think they are non issues. They are the constant issues, and remain big, and any one let alone the wide gaps on multiple is why people fear a work stopage. 

Take salary cap for example, its been discussed. But now more owner want it because of crumbling RSN (something that didnt exist in the last few years) and they cant keep up with the Dodgers and Mets of the world.

Paying players more sooner will also be a factor but owners will want to tie that to some sort of cap, which the players will hate.

While they have bene tweeaked they are still major issues with wide gaps between the sides and major current and future financial factors at play. To think there is no large issue that should lead to an impasse is being obtuse and aware of the current labor situation.  

The broadcast issues are those that can and need to be solved by the owners, not at the table. The owners know they're not getting a cap and aren't going to die on that hill.

[Tiger337]

11 hours ago, NorthWoods said:

True enough and I'm old enough to remember the 1972 strike so I've been around for all of them.  I just get the sense that there enough owners out there willing to hold out for a cap that it could create an extended standoff.   Hard to believe?   Yes, but then again I never would have believed the 2 sides would allow an entire post season to be cancelled.

On the positive side it would seem that the owners offering 2 expansion franchises with the accompanying additional jobs and maybe a permanent 26 man roster spot might be enough to get to a deal.  The strikes in general benefit the top players more than the rank and file, it would seem they would vote their own interests.

They already have a 26-man roster, but with teams carrying 13 pitchers and platooning back in style around MLB, I'd like to see more than that. 

[tiger2022]

8 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

They already have a 26-man roster, but with teams carrying 13 pitchers and platooning back in style around MLB, I'd like to see more than that. 

Some leagues in South/Latin America allow 25 or 26 players on the roster but allow the teams to update the roster every game, so they can rotate guys back and forth every game onto the roster.  So they might have 20 pitchers going back and forth

Not many pitchers go more than an inning or 2.

If you hate the way bullpen are used now, you'd really hate something like that

Edited 17 hours ago by tiger2022

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

They already have a 26-man roster, but with teams carrying 13 pitchers and platooning back in style around MLB, I'd like to see more than that. 

A bigger roster would degrade the quality of big league play because, by necessity, they’d have to conclude players on the roster considered not good enough to make them now. So would expansion, for that matter. The $64 question is, can the game withstand such quality decrease? Meaning, is the quality of play high now, versus historical norms? I think it is, but it would be more so with more balls in play than there is now.

Edited 15 hours ago by chasfh

[Tiger337]

11 minutes ago, chasfh said:

A bigger roster would degrade the quality of big league play because, by necessity, they’d have to conclude players on the roster considered not good enough to make them now. So would expansion, for that matter. The $64 question is, can the game withstand such quality decrease? Meaning, is the quality of play high now, versus historical norms? I think it is, but it would be more so with more balls in play than there is now.

Adding a roster spot solely as a negotiation chip might degrade the quality of play slighthly, but adding a player in order to allow more strategic substitution without worrying about running out of players, might improve the quality of play.  

Teams carry substantially more pitchers than they used to carry and it has not necessarily degraded quality of play.  One could argue that top starters sometimes get pulled to soon, but in general fresh relievers pitch better than tired starters.  One could also argue that bigger pitching staffs have contributed to higher strikeout totals and has necessitated all or nothing batting approaches.  That might be considered a degration of quality aesthetically, but not in performance.  

[romad1]

7 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Adding a roster spot solely as a negotiation chip might degrade the quality of play slighthly, but adding a player in order to allow more strategic substitution without worrying about running out of players, might improve the quality of play.  

Teams carry substantially more pitchers than they used to carry and it has not necessarily degraded quality of play.  One could argue that top starters sometimes get pulled to soon, but in general fresh relievers pitch better than tired starters.  One could also argue that bigger pitching staffs have contributed to higher strikeout totals and has necessitated all or nothing batting approaches.  That might be considered a degration of quality aesthetically, but not in performance.  

Adding more roster spots specifically for position players would create career opportunity and longevity for specialists such as all-hit no-field PH guy, defensive wizards, guys who had ample speed, or backup catchers who can help you spy on the Japanese Navy.  

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

Adding more roster spots specifically for position players would create career opportunity and longevity for specialists such as all-hit no-field PH guy, defensive wizards, guys who had ample speed, or backup catchers who can help you spy on the Japanese Navy.  

 

not really on board for 1-3, but who can argue with 4?

[romad1]

34 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

not really on board for 1-3, but who can argue with 4?

Berg and Hedy Lamar are two of WWII's most interesting brains.  I would have called Berg an autodidact like Lamar but really as a lawyer with some language skill he had the skillset to do espionage.  She's the one who just whipped stuff up on the back of a napkin Carol Sturkas style. 

[chasfh]

59 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Berg and Hedy Lamar are two of WWII's most interesting brains.  I would have called Berg an autodidact like Lamar but really as a lawyer with some language skill he had the skillset to do espionage.  She's the one who just whipped stuff up on the back of a napkin Carol Sturkas style. 

The Hedy Lamarr doc is simply incredible. It is on Netflix right now. This trailer doesn't really do it justice. 

 

[romad1]

12 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The Hedy Lamarr doc is simply incredible. It is on Netflix right now. This trailer doesn't really do it justice. 

 

Her problem is she had a really slow POP time on that throw to second base.   She could never get it under 3 seconds depending on the pitch. 

Edited 11 hours ago by romad1

[Edman85]

Hedley!

[NorthWoods]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

A bigger roster would degrade the quality of big league play because, by necessity, they’d have to conclude players on the roster considered not good enough to make them now. So would expansion, for that matter. The $64 question is, can the game withstand such quality decrease? Meaning, is the quality of play high now, versus historical norms? I think it is, but it would be more so with more balls in play than there is now.

Of course the longstanding answer to this concern is the much larger population pool to draw players from.   Japan, Korea, Australia, etc, etc, etc.

 

337:  Sorry about the 26 man error up there, I was thinking about the extra roster spot for DH's and making it permanent.   Still too stuck on the long time 25 number.

[tiger2022]

If they allowed another roster spot, it would just be another pitcher in all likelihood

[Tiger337]

9 minutes ago, tiger2022 said:

If they allowed another roster spot, it would just be another pitcher in all likelihood

I doubt it.  I believe they would be more likely to reduce pitchers to 12 max.  Manfred is not happy about the increasingly shorter starts and there has been talk about incentivizing longer starts.  They'll probably do something stupid, but I don't think more pitchers will be the answer.  

[gehringer_2]

25 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I doubt it.  I believe they would be more likely to reduce pitchers to 12 max.  Manfred is not happy about the increasingly shorter starts and there has been talk about incentivizing longer starts.  They'll probably do something stupid, but I don't think more pitchers will be the answer.  

If you 'incentivize' longer starts, you'll just destroy more arms. It's not the players, it's the game.

[SoCalTiger]

Here is how I would "fix" MLB and settle the upcoming labor negotiations :

1. Eliminate all deferrals .

2. We don't need a salary cap but we do need a Floor. This will spread the signing of free agents to ALL teams and not just five or six. There are only 30 teams and if you can't spend at the minimum sell and get out. This makes all teams better.

3. Have a "Cap Tax" that is 2 times the floor. Say the floor is 200 million then the "Cap Tax" starts at 400 million and is 100 % tax on the overage and  the teams first round pick in the next seasons draft. The tax stays the same each year but more draft picks are lost for habitual abusers. 

4. TV and radio revenue share. 40  % of every teams media revenue is put into a pot and distributed to all the teams. 

5. No more draft gimmicks. Worst team drafts first etc. Given the "Floor" tanking is  less likely. 

6. Eliminate the international signing period and have a second Draft instead or roll both drafts into one. 

7. Each year the Final four teams must offer a portion of the 40 man roster to the non playoff teams. This would be two  rounds. The World champion can freeze 25 players, the runner up 30 players and the other two 35 players Each. It would be an exciting event at the conclusion of the year and help teams be competitive. 

8. Arbitration is limited to years 4 and 5 and  players are free agents after year five. No draft pick lost or gained. 

9. Rosters expanded to 28 and pitchers to 15 to help wear and tear. We need out star hurlers on the filed and deeper bullpens help smartly managed teams.

11. Eliminate the runner on second ( larger rosters assist this) until the 13th inning. 

10. Make the contract 10 years. 

[Tiger337]

51 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

If you 'incentivize' longer starts, you'll just destroy more arms. It's not the players, it's the game.

Maybe, but it seems like there are just as many (if not more) injuries now than there was in the past.