Sandoval shot at All-Star team?

[filosofy29]

Excellent point. How to fix?

They could do something like this. Any player who is voted in to the All-Star game must attend anyway (unless a severe injury) whether or not they are playing. Any player who tries to back out of the game due to minor injuries must fly to the All-Star game city and pay for a physical by a non-team doctor out of their own pocket (or just play in the game and have MLB pay for the plane ticket). Any player who does not acquiesce to the above will face a stiff fine from MLB as well as the team that the player plays for. Not sure if any of that would fly with the MLBPA, but I'm sure more players who were nursing minor bumps and bruises would start showing up.

 

[gp956]

Excellent point. How to fix?

I don't think punitive action is the right way to go. I'd try something like paying the arb eligible players who make the team - something like double or triple the league minimum. Perhaps make an equivalent donation amount to the charity of choice for the stars who have had their big payday (so less motivated by money but perhaps public pressure vis-a-vis the charity angle would work as an incentive).

I'd drop the representative from every team thing - fuck you if you can't field an all-star. I'd also drop fan voting as the primary tool to seed the team. Perhaps allow fans to pick 5 reserves. More than anything, get the game back to fielding the best players in the league rather than the most popular from big market teams.

Ceasing inter-league play would help revitalize the game too, I think.

 

[msgkings322]

They could do something like this. Any player who is voted in to the All-Star game must attend anyway (unless a severe injury) whether or not they are playing. Any player who tries to back out of the game due to minor injuries must fly to the All-Star game city and pay for a physical by a non-team doctor out of their own pocket (or just play in the game and have MLB pay for the plane ticket). Any player who does not acquiesce to the above will face a stiff fine from MLB as well as the team that the player plays for. Not sure if any of that would fly with the MLBPA, but I'm sure more players who were nursing minor bumps and bruises would start showing up.

That would work, and there's probably even simpler ideas, like simply making it mandatory to go subject to suspension if you don't. As you pointed out, though, none of that would fly with the players union.

 

[msgkings322]

I don't think punitive action is the right way to go. I'd try something like paying the arb eligible players who make the team - something like double or triple the league minimum. Perhaps make an equivalent donation amount to the charity of choice for the stars who have had their big payday (so less motivated by money but perhaps public pressure vis-a-vis the charity angle would work as an incentive).

I'd drop the representative from every team thing - fuck you if you can't field an all-star. I'd also drop fan voting as the primary tool to seed the team. Perhaps allow fans to pick 5 reserves. More than anything, get the game back to fielding the best players in the league rather than the most popular from big market teams.

Ceasing inter-league play would help revitalize the game too, I think.

I actually don't have a problem with a player from every team, but only if we go back to making the game meaningless. Then it doesn't matter if we have the best teams possible and every kid gets to see 'his' colors out there. Same thing with fan voting, it's an exhibition, and if charisma with the fans sometimes wins over stats for the starters, that's ok with me.

How would ceasing interleague 'revitalize' the game in your opinion? I agree it's had some undesirable side effects but the first order effects have been and continue to be very positive IMO. Attendance is a big one of course, and greater variation of matchups naturally which I like.

It's clearly more for casual fans than old school baseball wonks (like us?) but I'm ok with it.

 

[gp956]

I actually don't have a problem with a player from every team, but only if we go back to making the game meaningless. Then it doesn't matter if we have the best teams possible and every kid gets to see 'his' colors out there. Same thing with fan voting, it's an exhibition, and if charisma with the fans sometimes wins over stats for the starters, that's ok with me.

How would ceasing interleague 'revitalize' the game in your opinion? I agree it's had some undesirable side effects but the first order effects have been and continue to be very positive IMO. Attendance is a big one of course, and greater variation of matchups naturally which I like.

It's clearly more for casual fans than old school baseball wonks (like us?) but I'm ok with it.

The goal I was addressing was to increase participation of the best players. And the primary means I addressed that was to heighten the prestige and interest in playing in the game.

 

[msgkings322]

The goal I was addressing was to increase participation of the best players. And the primary means I addressed that was to heighten the prestige and interest in playing in the game.

OK that makes sense, the AS game problem would be solved by your proposals, but probably the overall effect on baseball would be net negative IMO.

Not that any of it matters, MLB won't make any big changes.

 

[gp956]

OK that makes sense, the AS game problem would be solved by your proposals, but probably the overall effect on baseball would be net negative IMO.

Not that any of it matters, MLB won't make any big changes.

Not sure how the best players playing against each other can be a negative for baseball. Fan voting dominated by Philly, Boston, and Yankee fans and full participation of marginal players from some scrub team that isn't even trying (just taking their revenue sharing check) add nothing desirable to the all-star game

 

[msgkings322]

Not sure how the best players playing against each other can be a negative for baseball. Fan voting dominated by Philly, Boston, and Yankee fans and full participation of marginal players from some scrub team that isn't even trying (just taking their revenue sharing check) add nothing desirable to the all-star game

I meant scrapping interleague to make the ASG better would be net negative.

And what would really help the sport is fixing the problem bolded above. Hard salary cap AND salary floor (adjusted for sport revenue) would probably work, players would get about the same $ they do now and there'd be more parity. Again, ain't never gonna happen.

 

[gp956]

I meant scrapping interleague to make the ASG better would be net negative.

Interleague play sucks. The A's and Giants are not rivals, and I don't want to see the A's six games a year. Never is more like it.

 

[gp956]

I meant scrapping interleague to make the ASG better would be net negative.

And what would really help the sport is fixing the problem bolded above. Hard salary cap AND salary floor (adjusted for sport revenue) would probably work, players would get about the same $ they do now and there'd be more parity. Again, ain't never gonna happen.

I'm not a fan of messing with the market process. Consider that your proposals are meant to fix the faults of a previous incursion into the market.

 

[tzill]

I don't think punitive action is the right way to go. I'd try something like paying the arb eligible players who make the team - something like double or triple the league minimum. Perhaps make an equivalent donation amount to the charity of choice for the stars who have had their big payday (so less motivated by money but perhaps public pressure vis-a-vis the charity angle would work as an incentive).

I'd drop the representative from every team thing - fuck you if you can't field an all-star. I'd also drop fan voting as the primary tool to seed the team. Perhaps allow fans to pick 5 reserves. More than anything, get the game back to fielding the best players in the league rather than the most popular from big market teams.

Ceasing inter-league play would help revitalize the game too, I think.

+100

How about:

1. Get rid of interleague play;
2. Expand to POR and LV
3. 4 - four team divisions in each league;
4. No Wild Card;
5. 5 game DS, 7 game CS, WS
6. 6 DH/year per team intradivision;
7. Season starts first Monday in April (Reds and Red Sox get Sunday night games) and runs through first Sunday in October.
8. All playoffs one day off for travel between cities, no other days off.

We'd finish fourth week of October and the WS would be immensely popular.
18 games vs. each division foe and 9 games vs. other teams in the league.

 

[msgkings322]

Interleague play sucks. The A's and Giants are not rivals, and I don't want to see the A's six games a year. Never is more like it.

As I said, for the wonks sure, but for the masses who pay the freight, interleague is a huge success.

 

[msgkings322]

I'm not a fan of messing with the market process. Consider that your proposals are meant to fix the faults of a previous incursion into the market.

Well, they're meant to bring NFL style parity to MLB. Which may or may not be a good thing. I think MLB LIKES having a bunch of big spenders in the big markets in the playoffs all the time and a bunch of teams just there to be played against that don't even try to win. I don't, but they do.

 

[gp956]

+100

How about:

1. Get rid of interleague play;
2. Expand to POR and LV
3. 4 - four team divisions in each league;
4. No Wild Card;
5. 5 game DS, 7 game CS, WS
6. 6 DH/year per team intradivision;
7. Season starts first Monday in April (Reds and Red Sox get Sunday night games) and runs through first Sunday in October.
8. All playoffs one day off for travel between cities, no other days off.

We'd finish fourth week of October and the WS would be immensely popular.
18 games vs. each division foe and 9 games vs. other teams in the league.

I can't see any reason to dislike those proposals. The players would go for it. The owners should like it too. And the fans would get their natural rivalries.

I'd want the Yankees, Boston, Phillies, and Cubbies in one division. Let the bigger market teams compete against each other, and keep the cubbies the lovable losers for the foreseeable future.

 

[gp956]

As I said, for the wonks sure, but for the masses who pay the freight, interleague is a huge success.

I don't know one Giants fan who cares about the A's. Look, I'd love to see Boston, or the Yankees come into town, or the Giants over there, but if I want to see the A's I can do it nearly any night. I think I'm aligned with the masses on that.

Leave it to Selig to take a potentially good idea and implement it in the worst possible way.

 

[msgkings322]

I don't know one Giants fan who cares about the A's. Look, I'd love to see Boston, or the Yankees come into town, or the Giants over there, but if I want to see the A's I can do it nearly any night. I think I'm reflecting the same sentiment as the masses with that.

Leave it to Selig to take a potentially good idea and implement it in the worst possible way.

But a lot of A's fans care about the Giants. And we're talking the whole league here, not just us, so I think most non-wonk fans would not like to see the NY, Chicago, LA, Texas, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, DC, etc series' go away.

I actually have no problem with getting rid of interleague, I'm just taking the devil's advocate position of the people who actually get to decide...it makes money, it's staying.

 

[gp956]

But a lot of A's fans care about the Giants. And we're talking the whole league here, not just us, so I think most non-wonk fans would not like to see the NY, Chicago, LA, Texas, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, DC, etc series' go away.

I actually have no problem with getting rid of interleague, I'm just taking the devil's advocate position of the people who actually get to decide...it makes money, it's staying.

The Giants and A's aren't rivals. And if you want to see either team you can. Same goes for most of the other faux regional rivalries Selig tried to create.

Yes, you're playing devil's advocate, but you are still using a logical fallacy by alluding to having knowledge of what the masses want (or that interleague has increased revenue). No need to play that game, or really to play devil's advocate at all.

 

[msgkings322]

The Giants and A's aren't rivals. And if you want to see either team you can. Same goes for most of the other faux regional rivalries Selig tried to create.

Yes, you're playing devil's advocate, but you are still using a logical fallacy by alluding to having knowledge of what the masses want (or that interleague has increased revenue). No need to play that game, or really to play devil's advocate at all.

Whatever. Sheesh.

I'm just sayin'...this is what is and will remain. If the powers that be thought they'd make more money scrapping it, I think we can agree they'd do so in a split second.

If you want to restate that you personally don't care about the A's again, you are free to do so.

 

[gp956]

Whatever. Sheesh.

I'm just sayin'...this is what is and will remain. If the powers that be thought they'd make more money scrapping it, I think we can agree they'd do so in a split second.

If you want to restate that you personally don't care about the A's again, you are free to do so.

Yes, couldn't care less about the A's.

Not sure why you say "this is what is and will remain". Interleague play has only been around since 97'. It was a Selig novelty that has run its course. I give it 2 to 5 more years before it's dead - Selig too.

 

[msgkings322]

Yes, couldn't care less about the A's.

Not sure why you say "this is what is and will remain". Interleague play has only been around since 97'. It was a Selig novelty that has run its course. I give it 2 to 5 more years before it's dead - Selig too.[/QUOTE]



You could be right on the demise of interleague, but it will happen if and only if the owners think they'll make more scrapping it than keeping it or changing it. Personally, I doubt that happens.