OnlyBucs

241106060D3406060D0A06630 wrote: True, but from what I've heard, pitchers don't come cheap, either.



Well, many pitchers, anyway. 



Just glad to have baseball to look forward to.  Some baseball, that is.  Then again, bad baseball's better than no baseball at all.



You may need to remind me of that every once in a while. 
The DH doesn't impact pitchers' salaries. They get what they get regardless. The DH creates 10 starting players instead of 9, or to put it another way, 9 starting non-pitchers instead if 8. From the union's perspective, it can only increase salaries.

735E53424554430300310 wrote: True, but from what I've heard, pitchers don't come cheap, either.



Well, many pitchers, anyway. 



Just glad to have baseball to look forward to.  Some baseball, that is.  Then again, bad baseball's better than no baseball at all.



You may need to remind me of that every once in a while. 
The DH doesn't impact pitchers' salaries. They get what they get regardless. The DH creates 10 starting players instead of 9, or to put it another way, 9 starting non-pitchers instead if 8. From the union's perspective, it can only increase salaries.   


Yeah, thanks Bobster. You said what I was trying to say. To translate into local terms, it should, it seems to me, force a team to either make an improvement to the roster OR concede competitive advantage to the other team. To build a starting line up of 9 “position” player (including the DH) is either a huge opportunity or another competitive disadvantage depending on the payroll.



It seems to me….

True, except for maybe those teams who use the "DH By Committee" approach.  I haven't followed it closely, but I think I've heard that fewer (AL) teams have used a full-time DH like they did in years past.  Over the years, some have used their fourth outfielder or an infielder that they're resting from playing in the field for a day. It allows them to stay sharp at the plate, in theory.  Those guys probably won't get paid more for their DH duties, I wouldn't think.

I think the main effect is on pitchers, especially the younger ones. A lot of teams have been using the minor league shuttle to manage their rosters. Limiting that sort of shifting of a player to five times a year may effect that a little but somehow I doubt it has much effect.

You can bet that it will have an effect on pitchers.  ))



Especially PIRATES pitchers. (((

566374747F4674747F7874110 wrote: True, except for maybe those teams who use the "DH By Committee" approach.  I haven't followed it closely, but I think I've heard that fewer (AL) teams have used a full-time DH like they did in years past.  Over the years, some have used their fourth outfielder or an infielder that they're resting from playing in the field for a day.  It allows them to stay sharp at the plate, in theory.  Those guys probably won't get paid more for their DH duties, I wouldn't think.


This is a an important point. I confess I don’t follow the DH abd hoped I would never have to. If it’s “by committee” or the 4th outfielder then that will mean this has little impact to the Pirates. Except in those years the Pirates only have two outfielders on the roster.

Sadly, you're right.

Pivoting away from The DH Discussion:  I think that the potential of an international draft will benefit teams like the Pirates more than the current system.



If implemented, some players that wouldn't have considered teams will become available.



Also, let's not overlook an important part of the CBA:  the players agreed to drop their lawsuit against the league because of the Pirates and three other teams.  That is no small matter.



If that suit would have proceeded to trial, it would have been informative.....but, damaging.



Odds are, the owners would have settled.  That would have been less bad, but still bad.

5065727279407272797E72170 wrote: Pivoting away from The DH Discussion:  I think that the potential of an international draft will benefit teams like the Pirates more than the current system.



If implemented, some players that wouldn't have considered teams will become available.



Also, let's not overlook an important part of the CBA:  the players agreed to drop their lawsuit against the league because of the Pirates and three other teams.  That is no small matter.



If that suit would have proceeded to trial, it would have been informative.....but, damaging.



Odds are, the owners would have settled.  That would have been less bad, but still bad.
The union did not drop the suit against the Pirates, Rays, A's and Marlins. The grievance they dropped was against MLB alleging MLB negotiated in bad faith in 2020 to resume play after the covid shutdown.



https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/03/ ... -rays.html

Thx. The network reported yesterday that both were dropped. Must've been an error.