2017-18 Offseason Non-Phillies News/Notes/Discussion

[Philsmania]

it would kill some rivalries

I don't think there really are that many rivalries worth preserving. No particular Phillies rivalry I feel strongly about -- not in the same way I viewed the Dodgers in my younger days or that I view the Dallas Cowboys today. Frankly, I'm tired of the disadvantage the Phillies are placed at because of our supposed natural rivalries with a couple of free-spending, rule over-stretching AL East teams.

Why would MLB think that the second time is the charm for a team in Montreal? Can Portland really support a team? Other than a money grab by the owners, I don't see a compelling case for expansion. The available talent seems thin on the ground, especially for starting pitching.

I also am more than tired of all the 'low revenue' teams, including the hugely-drawing Cardinals, getting bonus draft picks and international allocation. Baseball would be stronger if some of these weak teams were simply eliminated. Adding two more basket cases seems very ill advised.

Supposedly, Montreal has gotten its "stuff" together on a new ballpark and a lot of the ambivalence toward baseball was really ambivalence toward the Expo organization, particularly under Loria who instead of saving the organization, trashed it and the strike of '94 which wiped out the Expos' team for the ages.

I admit I miss the Phillies-Pirates rivalry of the '70's. That was a heated cross-state rivalry. I don't think that can ever be replicated though and, to be honest, it was limited to a short period of time, unlike say, Giants-Dodgers, Yankees-Red Sox, Cubs-Cardinals, all of which are deeply rooted in history and which span generations.

[andyb]

This lineup would separate the Phillies from both New York teams and Boston. The Nats are limited a bit by their TV contract so the Phillies could be the highest revenue team (at least when they are winning) in that division.

Agree that the case for expansion is not overwhelming. And part of me thinks that Latin America (Mexico City) might pay better future dividends than Montreal.

On the "low revenue" team question I would prefer that baseball just up the revenue sharing on local ticket sales and TV to close to 50% rather than the 30%-35% range it is in now. They do no competitive balance picks or anything like that. A simpler system would be much fairer.

[EastFallowfield]

Gotta think that both the Mets and Phils organizations like being in the same division...get lots of fans daytripping to the other park when either is in contention.

[tom81]

The concept is ok but the alignment could be better. I think something along these lines makes more sense:
North: , Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Toronto, Both Chicago franchises, Cleveland, Detroit,

East: Boston, both New York franchises, Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Montreal, and Pittsburgh

South: Colorado, Kansas City, St. Louis, Texas, Atlanta,Tampa Bay, Houston, and Miami

Some tweaks might be better, maybe swaping Cleveland for Montreal so both Canadian teams are in the same division.

It would really make no sense to me to not have all the big eastern cities in the same division.

[zambonir]

I think rivalries are still alive but they are based entirely on division (and playing so many division games), and the stakes are lower in the wild card era. I would not want to be removed from the Mets (or the Yankees for that matter) and I can't imagine the Orioles want that either. Even if we did get Pittsburgh back. You can't separate Cincinnati from Cleveland either (and you'd want Cleveland with PIttsburgh).

But this general sort of thing - the end of leagues, a more open format, is probably inevitable.

[allentown]

With the end of leagues, what becomes of the DH or will this become known as the 'Otani to Philly' rule change?

[Philsmania]

With the end of leagues, what becomes of the DH or will this become known as the 'Otani to Philly' rule change?

I got to imagine that everyone will have the DH. For better or for worse, it's probably inevitable even if there is no expansion. What will happen to the leagues? All bets are probably off. In the interest of maintaining some semblance of tradition, they'll name one league National and the other American. Or, they can do like the NBA and NHL and call them Eastern Conference and Western Conference.

[andyb]

I suppose that is a proposal that has not been vetted, but I was thinking that it was a proposal that had no leagues in it. 4 divisions and you could play best versus worst record in the seeding of the divisions in the playoffs. Note the schedule of 12 in division and 3 in all other divisions. If they wanted to preserve the leagues then the schedule would be 12 in division, 6 in the other division and then 3 in one of the other league divisions rotating yearly (so you would play a division in the other league every other year, home series every 4 years).

If you group all the NY teams in one division and all the CA teams in another division the concept of leagues goes away completely.

They also make a huge point of time zones in their divisions like the NHL. While the PR claim is that this minimizes travel, I suspect that the real reason is to keep game starting times at 7:00 or 7:30 for the most part for local TV.

If this is the stealth Otani to Philly plan I am all for it. Add Darvish, Otani, one more late inning bullpen arm and shift around the reserves (knowing we might trade Galvis or Hernandez or Rupp) and we might be competitive next season....

[zambonir]

I suspect Otani would be heading into free agency by the time this is all agreed upon and ready to go.

[andyb]

Though a DH in the National League in the next agreement might have a 50-50 chance no matter what they do with realignment. I am guessing we will get a 26 or 27 man roster as well. Teams just need too many pitchers these days with modern usage. Like it or not but the 5-inning starter followed by at least 4 relievers (more if you do a LOOGY) is the way baseball is played these days.

[zambonir]

Being able to "de-activate" 2-3 pitchers every day is kind of a logical extension of the DH

[andyb]

You know if they are on the roster I don't know what benefit "deactivating" 2 or 3 starters who were not going to pitch anyway means. It is kind of like a sound bite that managers and executives use to show us that our 9 inning games are not going to last 4 hours. I'd rather just let them play - pinch hit or pinch run - than deactivate anyone. It won't make any difference in game time.

If they did go to 27-man rosters they probably need to up the 40-man roster to 42 or you would have too many issues losing players to waiver claims when organizational stability is more important.

The other thing in baseball's future that I could easily see is the birth of the 3-inning starter. What if teams went with 4-man rotations of 2 stacked starters that would go through the lineup once. 8 starting-role pitchers that got you through 6-7 innings. I am surprised we do not see more of this with 4th and 5th starters in the playoffs. Really thought the Nats should have done that in game 5 with Gio and Roark rather than go to Scherzer so early. It lets you switch up a L/R lineup as a side benefit.

[zambonir]

You could keep the 25-man game day roster that way, is all. Two SPs inactive still leaves two SPs available for emergencies or pinch-running (how often does a pitcher pinch-hit in the AL? I guess when they burn the DH it happens, rarely). And it wouldn't just be the SPs on the "inactive" list, you could shuffle relievers based on availability or maybe even position players in some cases (like minor injuries).

You lose a lot of quirks and traditions but it's heading that way anyway, especially if they do the extra-innings baserunner thing (at which point it really should just be a home run derby, and it really would be a shame, baseball, playoff hockey and the NBA have the best overtimes because it's still the real sport).

[andyb]

I just don't see any benefit to a 25-man active list. It would not impact that game one bit. It won't speed it up. It won't change player usage. It will just give reporters one more useless thing to report to us.

[zambonir]

Well, if they are going to speed the game up by limiting reliever appearances (or mandating length of an appearance) and making extra-innings games less likely, why expand rosters at all?

The benefit is transactional, no more sending 5th starters down to the minors for an extra reliever, or flip-flopping guys who can't be called up again for 10 days.

Fundamentally, it probably doesn't matter. But it also doesn't really make sense that four guys are on the active roster every day but never play, as entertaining as it might be to see them PH or wear that jacket on the base paths.

[nycphils]

I just don't see any benefit to a 25-man active list. It would not impact that game one bit. It won't speed it up. It won't change player usage. It will just give reporters one more useless thing to report to us.

Could be to help sell other things to the players union. On the MLB roster but inactive is 60-90+ more jobs at the major league minimum or better, with accrued service time.

[allentown]

Could be to help sell other things to the players union. On the MLB roster but inactive is 60-90+ more jobs at the major league minimum or better, with accrued service time

But what would that be? Expansion already adds 80 more 40-man spots and over the course of a season means another 60-70 players get some major league time. Extending the DH to the NL turns 16 low-paid bench spots into 16 highly-paid DH postions. If we are going to add more guys to the MLB roster so bullpens can be deeper, where are the quality pitchers going to come from? Baseball is already very short of quality SP. Expansion requires 10 more, really 12-14 more to get through a season. Most bullpens now are very spotty once you get past the top 2-3 guys. Now expansion requires 16 more MLB bullpenners. Where are another 32 or 64 going to come from if we expand the rosters. It is soon going to be difficult to tell MLB from a top AAA club, as we've seen this past season. Of course AAA will lose all its AAAA guys and be watered down. With expansion and a larger MLB roster size, baseball might as well abolish AAA..

[zambonir]

I agree that expansion plus 27 players (however you get them) would thin out the talent pool a bit. OTOH the analytics (and money)-driven trend in the game, and for bullpens, is towards younger cheaper players. It would mean just as many jobs for young guys as it would for the Navas or Nesheks. And even though there are a handful of expensive, pure DH guys playing out the string as usual, a lot of those ABs go to other types of bench and platoon players too (even if they can still only play LF or 1B).

[Philsmania]

I agree that expansion plus 27 players (however you get them) would thin out the talent pool a bit. OTOH the analytics (and money)-driven trend in the game, and for bullpens, is towards younger cheaper players. It would mean just as many jobs for young guys as it would for the Navas or Nesheks. And even though there are a handful of expensive, pure DH guys playing out the string as usual, a lot of those ABs go to other types of bench and platoon players too (even if they can still only play LF or 1B).

The effect of the thinned out talent pool would be most felt in pitching but, we know that the Lords of Baseball prefer offense. Offense sells. A pitching duel? Bor-ing!

[zambonir]

[Tigers] hiring Gardenhire, who did have that (long-ago) MacPhail/Kelly connection.