Uncategorized

POP QUIZ: Name the player who belongs to this 2019 projection:

AB      R      HR      RBI      SB      Avg
550     85      25          75         5        .260

Is it Rafael Devers? Could it be Matt Chapman, or maybe Stephen Piscotty? How about Asdrubal Cabrera or Jed Lowrie? Actually, there are 49 players who could reasonably post this stat line. However, they are currently being drafted anywhere from Round 3 to Round 32!

Mining the gaps between the projections and draft behavior is the secret to a fantasy baseball title. Here’s how to uncover dozens of profit opportunities for Draft Day 2019!

Get this FREE REPORT now!

This is a sponsored post from Ron Shandler.

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said today at the owners’ meetings that the league is not interested in considering certain union-proposed changes in advance of the 2019 season, as Ronald Blum of the AP reports. In particular, Manfred indicated he is not open to the introduction of the designated hitter to the National League.

It emerged recently that MLB and the MLB Players Association were exchanging proposals on a variety of significant potential rules changes. Some of those, including the introduction of a twenty-second pitch clock and a rule requiring any pitcher that enters a game to face at least three hitters, were set forth by the league.

Manfred indicated that he was pleased the union responded to the league’s proposals, a fact which some observers have pointed to as a positive step given the chilly (if not altogether frozen) negotiation atmosphere between the sides of late. Despite the less-testy signals, though, it seems the league isn’t inclined to budge on any substantive matters.

It’s not at all surprising to hear that MLB doesn’t wish to pursue an immediate implementation of the DH in the NL. With a good bit of the offseason movement already in the books, it’d be an odd time to make such a move. That’s all the more true of some of the other union-backed proposals involving draft incentives and service time, which surely would require extensive analysis and negotiation.

It is notable, though, that Manfred suggested the league is also generally not receptive to considering the expansion of the DH until the conclusion of the present Collective Bargaining Agreement, at the end of the 2021 campaign. An unnamed official told Bob Nightengale of USA Today that such a change is “not happening during this CBA.”

If that is indeed MLB’s committed stance, it seems to represent an intention to take a hard line on reopening the current rules regime before the deal is up. The issue of the universal DH seemed at least to offer a potential path to mutual benefit, as the league could market a bump in offense while veteran sluggers would find easier paths to roster spots and extra earnings.

Manfred, though, characterized that proposal (and others from the union) as presenting “significant economic issues” that are “different than the type of playing rule changes that we have out there.” That’s certainly true to an extent, but it’s also a bit of a partisan characterization of the league’s own suggestion that pitchers be required to face at least three batters. It’s debatable exactly how the ramifications of that rule would settle out in terms of player earnings, but it would certainly impact the way teams structure their rosters and invest in certain players (in that case, veteran LOOGYs) in much the same way as a universal DH.

It’ll be interesting to see where these discussions go from here. Manfred says the league “will engage on” the subjects raised by the union, so perhaps there’s still some room for an opening. It all takes place against the backdrop of a still-sluggish free agent market in which two young superstars and several other prominent players remain unsigned. Manfred acknowledged today that the hope is to see both Bryce Harper and Manny Machado under contract when Spring Training opens, though even if that occurs it’s hardly a guarantee of a reduction in tension. For the time being, both the league and union will presumably continue to trade words on these and other matters — cognizant all the while that these may be the preliminary skirmishes of a building public relations battle.

Veteran reporter Ken Rosenthal has sounded the alarm for the possibility of a MLB work stoppage in a piece today at The Athletic (subscription link). He opens the article with the eyebrow-raising observation that “the threat of the sport’s first work stoppage since 1994-95 is palpable.”

Importantly, Rosenthal does not cite sources for the proposition that a strike or lockout are specifically being contemplated now or in the immediate future. But the fact that such a well-placed reporter characterizes the state of affairs in that manner is noteworthy in and of itself. And the piece does document a few nuggets of information that hint that the possibility is in the back of the minds of some. For instance, per the report, the players “have taken the unusual step of authorizing the union to withhold their entire [licensing fees] checks” to keep a reserve fund in place.

It’s hardly novel at this point to see the concept of a labor war floated. Certainly, the increasingly antagonistic relationship between Major League Baseball (and its member teams) and the Major League Baseball Players Association (along with the players that make up its membership) has long been observed. Market changes have been evident since the current CBA went into effect, with last winter’s laborious free-agent market bringing things into sharp focus.

This time last year, it was already clear that change was afoot. But it was generally emphasized, here and elsewhere, that the next winter’s market — that is, the one we’re in at present — would offer a better test due to the presence of uniquely youthful and accomplished superstars Bryce Harper and Manny Machado (along with some other high-end talents). As it turns out, it’s now clear at the winter-long staring contest is not just a one-year phenomenon. Though some significant contracts have been handed out, it’s obvious that teams now have ample resolve when it comes to negotiating major deals.

The question remaining now is how much more cash remains to be distributed — an end game that is upon us with Spring Training closing in. No doubt the union side is still waiting to see precisely how things will shake out, though the above-linked article does not paint a particularly optimistic picture of expectations.

It seems the rub of the issue is just when and how the league and union will head back to the bargaining table on some key elements of the labor accord. Agent Sam Levinson, who warns of a scenario where the sides end up “locking arms and walking off the cliff together,” notes to Rosenthal that “the CBA has been opened in the past to address compelling issues.” Unsurprisingly, MLB chief legal officer Dan Halem has a different perspective, saying he’s “not sure why we are talking about ’walking off the cliff together’ when we are three years away from the expiration of our collective bargaining agreement and there has been no effort by the MLBPA to engage in discussions on these issues.”

As Rosenthal rightly points out, the league surely cannot force teams to spend more money. At the same time, there’s little question that it negotiated the CBA with a healthy dose of foresight regarding the trends in front office valuations, cost-efficient roster-building approaches, and the rising tide of young, affordable talent. While teams likewise cannot be faulted for seeking and seizing advantage, both in collective bargaining talks and in their actions under the bargained-for rules regime, there does seem at minimum to be a legitimate need to, as Rosenthal puts it, “work around the edges of the CBA to create incentives for teams to compete to the fullest.”

Just what that might look like, and how it might come together, isn’t at all clear — hence, the sense of tension. But it’s interesting to wonder whether a solution might not be found in an area that ought to be of concern to all involved. There’s a major competitive imbalance in the American League, in particular, that likely has not only strongly contributed to depressions in the free-agent market, but has likewise impacted the league’s increasing attendance problem. While that concern has been dismissed by some (including myself) in the past, it seems more and more to be a root issue.

Is there a means of inducing more teams to seek near-term wins, such that the overall MLB product (and its revenue-producing capacity) is improved and such that teams have good reason to spend more on players? Might there be a positive, collaborative path to pursue, which may at least offer a partial solution to the labor rumblings while also helping to reduce misgivings? We will have to see how things proceed, but it would surely behoove all involved to begin looking for ways to engage in a constructive manner.

Long-time journalist Jerry Crasnick has an intriguing new gig, with the Major League Baseball Players Association announcing his hiring. He’ll serve as senior advisor for player, agent, and media relations, working alongside just-promoted director of communications Chris Dahl.

It came as a major surprise last year when Crasnick’s tenure with ESPN was brought to a close. He was a fixture in the baseball reporting community and had enjoyed a productive, a 15-year run at the sports media giant. Over the years, Crasnick provided a trove of insightful hot stove journalism; he also reported quite a few items that were cited on this website.

With the move, Crasnick will take up a role at the MLBPA at quite an interesting time for the union and its members. Effectively addressing the suboptimal developments in the sphere of player compensation will obviously require more than new collective bargaining ideas and willpower at the negotiating table. It’ll also mean laying the groundwork for leverage by performing nuanced public relations work.

MLBTR offers a tip of the cap to Jerry for all his outstanding reporting over the years and wishes him well in his new pursuit.