This article is free for anyone to read, but please consider becoming a Patreon subscriber to allow me to keep writing posts like this one. Sign up to receive articles like this one in your inbox here.
For the last month or so, there have been leaks and instances of Rob Manfred speaking at press conferences that give you an idea of what’s being discussed in MLB’s offices. Which is always notable to some degree, but at this point, this far into the current collective bargaining agreement, it’s worth maybe noting all of it a little bit more than it would have been a year or two back.
The current CBA kicked off in 2022, so it will end after the 2026 season, which means we’re less than two years away from the serious ramp up that leads to the actual end of things. Remember, the 2021 deal expired in the offseason without a new deal in place, and MLB imposed a lockout: that could always occur again, if the league thinks the strategy of purposefully waiting out the players worked for them, or, helped expose rifts within the ranks of the players that the league would like additional chances to exploit.
So, you’ll hear more and more about the little plans they’ve got in mind for the future, leading to that date. Last month we got a couple of mentions of the ability to trade draft picks, and also a necessary caveat for MLB to allow such a thing to happen — necessary in MLB’s mind, of course, not that of anyone else. And on Thursday, we got a real weird one: a forced six-inning minimum for starting pitchers, to try to elevate that role once more and cut down on the number of pitching changes and injuries.
Now, just in a vacuum, “fewer pitching changes, fewer injuries, and pitchers going longer once again” is a good idea. This max effort stuff that makes 200 innings the stuff of legend is aggravating, to say the least. How did we get to a place where just five pitchers reached that threshold in 2023? It’s not like this drop in innings slowed down pitcher injuries, either, considering cutting down on those remains a priority. Pitchers went from throwing too many pitches than was safe to throwing fewer pitches, but at a much higher level of strain on their arms. It’s the same problem in a different package.
Granted, this whole idea is one that MLB expects to have repercussions in the minors and how pitchers are developed in the first place, which in turn might also change things on the amateur side. Though, that’s filed in the remains to be seen folder. Here’s Jesse Rogers at ESPN on that note:
In the same way that the pitch clock was tested throughout the minors before being brought to the majors, a six-inning requirement for starters would take years of advance notice before arriving in MLB. The process for teams would also need to begin at the lower levels, in finding out which pitchers have what it takes to succeed in the new role of a starter and by pushing younger pitchers harder before they arrive in the majors.
“I think we would look to build up pitch counts a bit sooner than we currently do in the minor leagues,” Los Angeles Dodgers GM Brandon Gomes said.
The league believes a trickle-down impact on the amateur world would also take place — especially if teams begin to prioritize command and efficiency.
“The broader question of simply developing pitchers to pitch deeper in games is one that we talk about all the time within the industry, and it’s something that probably doesn’t get fixed if we attempt to address it only at the professional levels,” an NL assistant general manager said. “I think teams would approach their top prospects the same but maybe invest a bit more in the middle draft rounds to guys they think can command the ball with upside.”
Now, the point of this today isn’t to talk about whether the plan is feasible or not. It’s about how MLB is letting this one out of the bag at all. Bringing something like this up now is meant to start a conversation, and work toward some kind of ruling or change that MLB can fight for in the next CBA. Any kind of minimum innings rule would need to be agreed to by the Players Association, just like with other rule changes: MLB is showing some of what they’d like to be done, and if the PA wants one of their own projects to make it through the next round of bargaining, well, they might need to work with the league on something like this to make that happen.
The draft picks thing is the same idea. MLB doesn’t care about the draft picks, as their previously tipped hand shows. They care about creating a hard-slot system that further limits player leverage and keeps teams with the desire to do so from trying to spend more on amateurs.
It might seem early to start discussing all of this and assign CBA-related importance to it, but these changes don’t happen all at once. They have to be brought up, refined through conversation, and so on before they’re presented at the table. So it’s worth not dismissing some of these ideas out of hand, even if they appear ludicrous on the surface, mostly because it’s the league letting everyone know just what it is they’ve got on their mind. Which also means it’s something they’re going to start pushing for, an announcement that this is what you’ll be hearing about, in some form, until the league manages to get its way on the matter.
Visit my Patreon to become a supporter and help me continue to write articles like this one.