What changes should MLB prioritize now

[primetime714]

Figured this might be interesting to see what changes this forum would want to see prioritized. As a Yankee forum we'll probably be biased towards ones that benefit us as Yankee fans, but we're all also fans of the game so feel free to answer in a biased manner or what's in the best interest of the game and explain in the thread if you're inclined to.

Select as many as you want or pick your top ones.

[bucky]

I included other

1. I can't stand the extra inning rule with the ghost runner and move it to 15th inning.

2. They should expand the minor league farm system and made a mistake to make it smaller. I can NOT believe these owners are so greedy and dropped local A teams. When I work I would go to Lowell Spinners (A BOS) after work. Great seats, less than $10 behind home plate, kids loved it. It was a blast. I sat close/ same row/next to Mayor of Boston, retired Joe Morgan (BoSox), Manager (?) of Lowell, scouts, FO baseball guys, Tanner Houck (signature gave it to a BoSox fan), old timers. It was a financial decision because BOSTON moved AAA from Pawtucket, RI to Worcester, MA but Lowell was NOT the competition because traffic in Worcester sucks and 2 hours away. This hurt the fans.

3. More cheap seats instead of empty seats.

[ThePinStripes]

Draft lotto is a no brainer IMO.

[False1]

I prioritized things that effect my enjoyment of the game overall, versus just individual game or point-in-time issues. The top 2 for me are eliminating the constant buzz-killing shifting and doing something relative to minimizing the impact of the CBT. Also, tanking is anti-competitive so either doing a lottery and/or some other creative concept (e.g. rewarding poor performing teams with better W/L% in the second half with greater lottery chances).

[ThePinStripes]

I prioritized things that effect my enjoyment of the game overall, versus just individual game or point-in-time issues. The top 2 for me are eliminating the constant buzz-killing shifting and doing something relative to minimizing the impact of the CBT. Also, tanking is anti-competitive so either doing a lottery and/or some other creative concept (e.g. rewarding poor performing teams with better W/L% in the second half with greater lottery chances).

That's a really good idea.

Better yet, base the draft position on where the team is before the ASG or trade deadline.

They should also figure out some way to incentivize small market teams to keep their homegrown players. Make rev share linked to percentage of their spending on players (after arbitration years). Not sure how you structure that.

There should also be some sort of LT exemption for players that made their rookie appearance with the team. X% of their post-arb salaries are LT exempt.

Honestly, if LT is supposed to stop buying championships, it should only apply to free agency signings.

[False1]

That's a really good idea.

Better yet, base the draft position on where the team is before the ASG or trade deadline.

They should also figure out some way to incentivize small market teams to keep their homegrown players. Make rev share linked to percentage of their spending on players (after arbitration years). Not sure how you structure that.

There should also be some sort of LT exemption for players that made their rookie appearance with the team. X% of their post-arb salaries are LT exempt.

Honestly, if LT is supposed to stop buying championships, it should only apply to free agency signings.

This is also interesting. I need to think through unintended consequences some, but it would seem to give a small advantage to teams that can extend players already under contract if they are willing to step up and pay, and elite players wouldn't have to feel like they are doubly impacting their team by collecting a fat salary AND eating up a huge chunk of CBT.

Free agency is great for players but is a mixed bag for fans (teams add exciting players but also lose fan favorites). I think the current system in the NBA for example basically took me from diehard fan to casual.

[False1]

That's a really good idea.

Better yet, base the draft position on where the team is before the ASG or trade deadline.

Hmmmm...wonder if that would disincentivize teams kind of on the possible playoff bubble from making pre-season upgrades? I think if there is a possible solution in this idea, it's to try and motivate teams to come into the season with the best roster possible, and prevent those that fall behind (predictably or due to injuries, etc) from throwing in the towel. So maybe you take bottom 5 teams at the deadline and they go into a pool. From that pool, team with best W/L% post trade deadline gets 20 lottery chances. Second best 16, third best 12, etc. Teams with the 6th through 10th worst records get 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 by W/L% respectively. Or something like that, where there is a balanced view of allowing a team that struggles a higher draft pick, but limits risk of tanking particularly at a stage of the season that has playoff implications for the other teams.

Something like this maybe, with all other teams selecting in order of W/L% ascending. Maybe even make these "options" tradeable. The number of "options" I included was really just illustrative, as you'd want more separation between teams to create a greater carrot to winning late in the season. Or perhaps instead of straight W/L%, you use the pre-ASB W/L% as a baseline and then rank by "wins over baseline" or something. So that if a team is just too terrible to materially improve even if they call up young exciting players or make some minor trades, they just have to improve in the second half. For example:

• Team A wins 30 of first 81 games and 37 games in second half, resulting in a .457 W/L% and +7.
• Team B wins 42 of first 71 games and 39 games in second half, resulting in a .481 W/L% and a -3.

This probably isn't exactly right but something like this seems doable.
.

	Pool 1: Teams with worst 5 W/L% at ASB					Pool 2: Teams with 6-10 worst W/L% at ASB
Ranked by highest W/L% after ASB	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
Lottery Options	20	16	12	10	8	5	4	3	2	1
Odds of top pick	25%	20%	15%	12%	10%	6%	5%	4%	2%	1%

[HelloNewman]

Higher lux-tax ceiling, automated strike zone, pitch clock. I also added "other" to augment pitch clock -- batter can't leave batter's box during at bat. OK, leave some leeway to ask for time from the ump if a bug flies in your face or your jock snaps on a hard swing lol, but no routinely stepping out to contemplate your navel.

[ymike673]

Not on that list but getting rid of the stupid extra inning rule would be #1 on my list.

[JL25and3]

Not on that list but getting rid of the stupid extra inning rule would be #1 on my list.

Yes, #1 on mine as well. Then the seven-inning doubleheader.

[ThePinStripes]

Hmmmm...wonder if that would disincentivize teams kind of on the possible playoff bubble from making pre-season upgrades? I think if there is a possible solution in this idea, it's to try and motivate teams to come into the season with the best roster possible, and prevent those that fall behind (predictably or due to injuries, etc) from throwing in the towel. So maybe you take bottom 5 teams at the deadline and they go into a pool. From that pool, team with best W/L% post trade deadline gets 20 lottery chances. Second best 16, third best 12, etc. Teams with the 6th through 10th worst records get 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 by W/L% respectively. Or something like that, where there is a balanced view of allowing a team that struggles a higher draft pick, but limits risk of tanking particularly at a stage of the season that has playoff implications for the other teams.

Something like this maybe, with all other teams selecting in order of W/L% ascending. Maybe even make these "options" tradeable. The number of "options" I included was really just illustrative, as you'd want more separation between teams to create a greater carrot to winning late in the season. Or perhaps instead of straight W/L%, you use the pre-ASB W/L% as a baseline and then rank by "wins over baseline" or something. So that if a team is just too terrible to materially improve even if they call up young exciting players or make some minor trades, they just have to improve in the second half. For example:

• Team A wins 30 of first 81 games and 37 games in second half, resulting in a .457 W/L% and +7.
• Team B wins 42 of first 71 games and 39 games in second half, resulting in a .481 W/L% and a -3.

This probably isn't exactly right but something like this seems doable.
.

	Pool 1: Teams with worst 5 W/L% at ASB					Pool 2: Teams with 6-10 worst W/L% at ASB
Ranked by highest W/L% after ASB	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
Lottery Options	20	16	12	10	8	5	4	3	2	1
Odds of top pick	25%	20%	15%	12%	10%	6%	5%	4%	2%	1%

Yeah, it needs to be something to make the team want to perform the best they can, while balancing draft picks.

Heck, why not make it real simple.
No luxury tax at all. Your drafting order is inverse to your spending. Then shorten team control to 3 or 4 years.

...okay, that's probably too simple. The teams spending the least would always be the best. But if you use spending as one of the factors to move you back in drafting, I could see that helping the end of goal of giving small market teams a way to compete against big spenders.

[JDPNYY]

3 people voted for expanded playoffs?

[ymike673]

Yes, #1 on mine as well. Then the seven-inning doubleheader.

Yes 100%. The two Manfred so called "Covid" rules that I fear we will never see dropped.

[ymike673]

3 people voted for expanded playoffs?

Must be lovers of the "Get in and it's a crapshoot theory "

[twsalso]

Manfred ball must go the way of the wooly mammoth.