River Avenue Blues

There are ten questions in this, the final mailbag of the 2018-19 offseason. Hooray for that. Spring Training begins next week and I can not wait. Remember to send your questions to RABmailbag (at) gmail (dot) com and I’ll get to as many as I can each week.

Garrett asks: Are you surprised that the Yankees haven’t worked out an extension for Didi yet? There’s no way he plays the 2019 season at his current arbitration number without an extension right? Would there be any benefit to the Yankees in doing so?

I am not surprised and for a few reasons. One, waiting to see how Didi Gregorius recovers from Tommy John surgery always made sense. The Yankees would be paying for an above-average two-way shortstop, but what if he loses some arm strength and is no longer an above-average fielder, or no longer able to play short? Two, the Yankees are over the $206M luxury tax threshold, so keeping costs down isn’t that big of a concern. They can pay Gregorius his entire $11.75M salary this year without it standing in the way of anything.

And three, free agency is in bad shape right now. Gregorius has an argument for Jean Segura money (five years and $70M), but, after missing half a season to Tommy John surgery, his market might be limited next winter. With free agency being what it is today, why rush into a contract with Gregorius? The chances of a big money bidding war are slim. It could be the Yankees and Sir Didi are far apart in contract talks, far enough that letting Gregorius go out into free agency so he feels the squeeze is the best way to get him signed to a favorable deal.

The Yankees have been stingy with extensions this century, which tells us they’re willing to pay large salaries down the road to reduce risk up front. They didn’t pay Chien-Ming Wang, he broke down, and they saved a bunch of money. Now, with free agency being what it is, the Yankees have even less of a reason to hand out extensions because those large salaries down the road might not be there, even if the player is healthy and productive. So no, at this point I’m not surprised they haven’t signed Didi yet.

Adam asks (short version): While I completely understand the point of the low risk, low cost signing of Troy Tulowitzki, I don’t understand the notion that he’s already been penciled into the starting shortstop spot while DJ LeMahieu, signed for 24M/2yrs, is expected to platoon vs. LHP. Wouldn’t it be fair to expect LeMahieu to see more playing time between the two?

Yeah, I don’t get that either. I mean, I totally get rolling the dice on Tulowitzki, but he hasn’t played in a year and a half, wasn’t good the last time he played, and he’s 34, so even if he were perfectly healthy last year, he’s at the point where you’d expect age-related decline. Teams are steering clear of free agents in their mid-30s these days, yet when a brand name like Tulowitzki becomes available for the minimum, half the league tries to sign him. Potentially getting something for nothing is a hell of a drug.

Anyway, yeah, it sure seems to me the best possible 2019 Yankees team has Gleyber Torres at short and LeMahieu at second, with Tulowitzki in a utility role. I think LeMahieu is a better player than Tulowitzki — he might be the better hitter at this point and is almost certainly the better defender — and therefore should play every day. Like I said, I get rolling the dice on Tulowitzki. It’s basically zero risk. But if we get to the end of April and he’s stinking it up, I hope the Yankees would pull the plug. They shouldn’t feel obligated to stick with him for two or three months just because he was great a few years ago and badly wants to prove he can still contribute.

Colin asks: In light of Miggy and Gleyber having both outperformed on power versus their prospect profiles, is it possible that the juiced balls have made contact tools significantly more valuable than power tools. Like if we regressed future WAR of 60 power prospects from 1990 to 2020, versus future WAR of 60 contact prospects on the same period do you think there would be a divergence in the last couple years?

The hit tool has always been more important than the power tool and yes, I think the current state of baseball makes that more true than ever. First of all, contact is harder to come by nowadays because pitchers are so damn good, making the hit tool that much more valuable. Smaller ballparks and the ostensibly juiced baseball artificially inflate power numbers, and research has shown hitters with warning track power have benefited most from the current home run environment. You don’t need to be Aaron Judge or Giancarlo Stanton to hit the ball out of the park these days.

Two things to keep in mind. One, there are still some physical limitations. LeMahieu has an above-average hit tool, but unless he starts hitting more balls in the air, he’s not going to hit for power. Some guys just don’t have the swing to generate the loft necessary to take advantage of that extra carry. And two, the league-wide increase in power is at least partial the result of outside factors. As recently as 2014 we were all wondering where the home runs and offense went. If the ball changes again and suddenly those warning track power guys go back to being true warning track power guys, power hitters like Judge and Stanton become that much more valuable. Given the current state of baseball, the hit tool is much more valuable than the power tool. The pendulum could swing back in the other direction at any moment though.

Corey asks: I know Paxton threw one last year, but curious to year y’alls take on which Yankee is most likely (or capable to do so) to throw a no hitter or perfect game this year?

Any pitcher could throw a no-hitter on any given day. You’ve got your good stuff working and your defense makes some plays? You could make history. Mike Fiers, Chris Heston, Phil Humber, and countless others are a testament to that. Among current Yankees, Luis Severino is the obvious pick to throw a no-hitter because he has the ability to dominate and overwhelm hitters. Run good Severino out there against the Orioles or Royals and something special could happen. James Paxton is similar to Severino in that regard.

CC Sabathia has close to zero chance to throw a no-hitter at this point because he allows too many balls in play and so prone to infield singles and bloops. J.A. Happ is somewhat similar. Masahiro Tanaka is definitely a dark horse no-hitter candidate. When he’s at his best, he can cut through any lineup, and Tanaka at his best equals strikeouts and lazy fly balls, and lazy fly balls are easy outs. The Yankees have not had a no-hitter since David Cone’s perfect game in 1999. My hunch is, if we see one this year, it’ll be a combined perfect game because the Yankees don’t let their starters pitch deep into games and because the bullpen is so good.

Alberto asks: As we all know, Troy is still being paid $38+MM by the Blue Jays & NYY will pay minimum MLB salary. So, what if a team wants to pay more than that? Say, “SFG” offered $2MM to play for them just to snag him from other teams or NYY could that ever happened or he has to be minimum $$ & choose team?

It wouldn’t matter. Once Tulowitzki was released, whatever his next team pays him is subtracted from what the Blue Jays owe him, which is $20M in 2019. The Yankees will pay him $555,000 this year and Toronto the remaining $19.45M. If the Giants offered him $2M, they’d pay him $2M and the Blue Jays the remaining $18M. Another team could offer him, say, $22M, which would take the Blue Jays off the hook and increase Tulowitzki’s salary, but that’ll never happen. In cases like this, salary offered is irrelevant. Tulowitzki is getting his $20M. It doesn’t matter to him how teams are divvying that up. It’s still $20M at the end of the day. When players are released, where they go next comes down to preference and/or opportunity, not money.

John asks: I was reading your thoughts a week before spring training today and was curious where Chad Green fell on the perceived velocity list. I know he was lauded in 2017 for having a fastball that played up higher than it registered. Did that fall last year? Was it ever a measured thing?

The perceived velocity gain list is a giant bell curve. There are a few elites like Adam Ottavino, guys whose fastball looks 1+ mph faster than the radar gun reading on average because they get great extension and release the ball closer to the plate. There are also a handful of laggers, guys whose fastball plays down quite a bit because they don’t get good extension. The guys at the bottom of list are junkballers like Clayton Richard and Bartolo Colon.

Then there is a giant blob in the middle, which is where you find most pitchers. They neither add nor gain much through perceived velocity. Green and every Yankee other than Ottavino resides in said blob, so they’re neither helped nor hurt by perceived velocity. Their velocity it what it is. Here’s Green the last two years:

• 2017: +0.0 mph (95.8 mph actual vs. 95.8 mph perceived)
• 2018: -0.2 mph (96.1 mph actual vs. 95.9 mph perceived)

No change, for all intents and purposes. Green’s fastball last year was the same as his fastball the year before in terms of velocity and spin rate. To me, the biggest reason he went from otherworldly in 2017 to merely very good in 2018 is that the book is out on him now, and teams are better prepared for all those fastballs. Green could really use a reliable second pitch. I doesn’t need to be an Ottavino slider or a David Robertson curveball. Just something a little better than what he has now to keep hitters honest.

Pete asks: What do you make of Judge’s comments from yesterday about voluntarily moving to CF to accommodate Harper in RF? Is that a bit of a slight towards Hicks? Thinks Hicks cares?

Aaron Hicks won’t care because a) I imagine he feels the same way, and b) Aaron Judge didn’t actually say he’d move to center to accommodate Bryce Harper. “Anytime you can add an MVP to a team, it’s going to make them better … Wherever he wants to play, wherever he wants to play — we’ll make it work,” is what Judge said to TMZ. That’s it. A completely innocuous statement that applies to every possible free agent signing or trade addition or minor league call-up ever. Judge gave the tabloids a nice little headline for a day or so and that’s about it. Nothing more to it.

Bhavin asks: Provided Yankees are absolutely not signing Harper, do you think any of the remaining left handed bat is an option: Carlos Gonzalez, Derek Dietrich, Lucas Duda, Logan Morrison or Matt Joyce?

I think Dietrich is, pretty clearly, the best fit for the Yankees among that group of players, and the longer he sits in free agency, the more likely it is he winds up in pinstripes. They Yankees have had some interest in him in the past and he’d slot into the final bench spot nicely as a versatile (albeit not very good defensively) lefty bat with a knack for getting on base. Duda and Morrison don’t do much for me at this point as first base/DH only guys, and I feel like CarGo and Joyce would give you Dietrich level offense without the ability to play the infield. Dietrich definitely has some “OMG it’s February 8th they need to sign him he’s perfect for the bench … OMG it’s June 1st they need to release him he’s hitting .214” potential. Looking at the list of available free agents, he strikes me as the best candidate to be literally the 12th position player on a roster with 12 position players. I don’t expect much offense from the other guys in a part-time role and they’re not nearly as versatile. (The Yankees should just sign Bryce Harper and put Brett Gardner on the bench.)

Will asks: Would it be possible for the roster to expand to 26 players but for tanking (or plain cheap) teams to not use that roster spot? Obviously that would really be sticking it to the union and they would have to explain it to their fans but nothing would surprise me at this point.

Nah. It’s in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that the 25-man active big league roster has to be full and I assume the same would apply to the 26-man roster. There is a little leeway — there were a few instances last season in which the Yankees sent a player down following a game, had a 24-man roster during an off-day, then called someone up before their next game — but not much. Certainly not enough to play an entire season a man short. It seems to me the MLBPA would be on solid legal ground to file and win a grievance in that case.

Jeff asks (short version): I’d like to know if you think my theory holds water. The Yankees, by letting their veterans go in 2016 and giving increased time to their young’uns dramatically changed the nature of rebuilding — given that they were a .500-ish team at the time — and perhaps provided a new model for rebuilding that too many other teams have taken. Did this attitude exist prior to the Yankees of 2016? Did .500-ish teams ‘rebuild’ before that?

Interesting! I do think that a prominent team like the Yankees throwing in the towel on a season like they did in 2016 — they were 50-48 and 4.5 games out of a postseason spot on the day of the Aroldis Chapman trade, which kicked off their mini-fire sale — could lead to other teams doing the same. “If the Yankees are doing it, why shouldn’t we?” That kinda thing.

Looking back at the few years prior to 2016, the only instance I can find of a legitimately good team deciding to rebuild is the Braves. They went 96-66 in 2013 and averaged 92.5 wins from 2010-13, then lost the 2013 NLDS (that was this series), went 79-93 in 2014, and tore it down. Instead of trying to bounce back and get peak Justin Upton, Jason Heyward, Craig Kimbrel, and Andrelton Simmons some help, Atlanta started a rebuild. Four great years, one tough year, great young core? Time to rebuild! Yuck. Now here are a few post-2016 examples:

• Marlins: 79-82 in 2016 and 77-85 in 2017 with that outfield, then they blew it up
• Diamondbacks: 93-69 in 2017 and 82-80 in 2018, then a rebuild begins
• Mariners: 89-73 in 2018, then a rebuild

Teams aren’t even trying to get better. At first sign of adversity it’s “ah well, time to start over” these days. I don’t think we can solely blame the 2016 Yankees for that — I think the primary culprit are the owners who’ve concluded it’s more profitable to field a cheap bad team than an expensive good team — but they did trade away veterans while not yet completely out of the race, so they probably contributed to it to some extent. When a huge market team like the Yankees says it’s okay to take a step back and get younger, other teams will inevitably follow suit.

Spring Training is a week away and that means we’re now in rule change season. Or, more accurately, rule change proposal season. Each year around this time MLB and the MLBPA propose ways to theoretically improve the game, and every so often rule changes are implemented. Last year mound visits were limited for the first time.

Over the last 24 hours or so multiple reports say MLB and the MLBPA are discussing a variety of rule changes that could take effect as soon as this season. Some are minor tweaks. Some are major alterations that would change the way teams build their rosters and use their players. Will we see any changes in 2019? Who knows. All we know is they are being discussed.

Jeff Passan, Joel Sherman, and Ken Rosenthal (subs. req’d) have reported on the various rule change proposals over the last day or so. Let’s go through them and see how they will impact the Yankees, if at all. Just to be clear: These are all proposed rule changes. Nothing has been made official yet. The side that made the proposal is in parenthesis.

Little-to-no impact on the Yankees

• Universal DH (MLBPA)
• 20-second pitch clock (MLB)
• Draft penalties for tanking (MLBPA)
• Two-sport players can sign Major League contracts out of the draft (MLBPA)
• End all Spring Training games after ten innings (MLB)
• Put a runner at second to begin extra innings in the All-Star Game (MLB)
• More players are miked up during games (MLBPA)
• Shorten commercial breaks by 30 seconds and add split screen ads to compensate (MLB)

Hooray for a universal DH! Pitchers are terrible hitters — they hit .115/.144/.148 (-25 wRC+) in over 5,100 (!) plate appearances in 2018 — so let’s get real hitters in there. A universal DH doesn’t do much for the Yankees though. They play ten or so interleague road games each year and at most four road games in the World Series. The union wants a universal DH this coming season but it seems likely to wait until 2020. They can’t just drop this on National League teams days before camp opens, you know?

I am pro-pitch clock and 20 seconds is a good number. Aroldis Chapman (averaged 28.4 seconds between pitches last year) and Masahiro Tanaka (26.1 seconds) are by far the worst offenders among current Yankees. They’ll have to adjust and pick up the pace a bit. Otherwise a 20-second pitch clock will require minimal adjustment for current Yankees and most pitchers around the league. Remember, there’s a pitch clock in Double-A and Triple-A, so lots of pitchers have experience with them already.

As for the draft penalties for tanking, it sounds as though the plan is to punish teams that don’t win a certain number of games. Lose this many games and your first round pick moves back a few spots. Lose that many games again the next year and the pick moves back even further, so on and so forth. The Yankees are (probably) never going to intentionally tank so this has little impact on them. If they lose enough games to get hit with the penalties, it’ll be because everything goes wrong.

The two-sport player thing might as well be called the Kyler Murray Rule. Murray, the ninth overall pick in last year’s draft, is a legitimate first round NFL prospect and he’s trying to leverage that into more money from the Athletics. Good for him. MLBPA wants better contracts for draftees but they also don’t want to lose high-end talent to other sports. The thing is players like Murray, who have a chance to go pro in two sports, are very rare, so this won’t come up often. There is some potential for abuse here though. (“Sign me or I’ll become a professional bowler!”)

End spring games after ten innings? Use the tiebreaker rule in the All-Star Game? Who cares, do it. Those games are meaningless. Miking up more players would be fun and I am pro-fun. Let’s hear some Didi Gregorius banter during games. Shortening commercial breaks is cool with me. We already have split screen advertisements during mound visits and even between pitches. Replacing 30 seconds of commercial break with 30 seconds of split screen ads is fine with me. Thirty fewer seconds between half-innings shaves at least 16 minutes off the time of game.

Some impact on the Yankees

• Three-batter minimum for pitchers (MLB)
• Mound visit limit reduced to four in 2019 and three in 2020 (MLB)

MLB proposed the three-batter minimum for pitchers, and while the MLBPA is reportedly open to the idea, they want it tested in the minors in 2019 before being implemented in the big leagues in 2020. The league wants it right away. The minors are for development. You don’t see many one or two-batter matchup relief appearances down there. Testing it in the minors is a way to push it off a year more than anything, which I think is necessary because teams already have 2019 roster spots earmarked for matchup relievers. Can’t drop this on clubs with this little warning.

Do you know how many pitching appearances of one or two batters the Yankees had last year? Thirty-seven, the fewest in baseball. (The Phillies led the way with 128.) In 2017 the Yankees had 52 such relief appearances, the fourth fewest in baseball. It’s been a while since the Yankees employed true matchup relievers like Clay Rapada. Those guys are already fading away. This rule change would make them extinct. (It also increases the chances of a big inning because if a reliever comes in and gives up back-to-back dingers or throws eight straight balls, etc., he has to stay in to face a third batter.)

I don’t like the three-batter minimum because I think teams should be able to use their players however they want. Both sides seem to support this though, so I guess that means it’s inevitable. The Yankees have steered clear of matchup relievers for a few years now so the rule would not drastically change the way they build their roster or the way they manage their bullpen. It will require some level of adjustment. Just not a huge one, I don’t think.

The mound visit rule worked quite well last year — I can count on one hand the number of times I saw a team run out of mound visits — and reducing the limit from six to four is probably doable. Going down to three in 2020? That seems to be pushing it. The MLBPA, for what it’s worth, reportedly countered MLB’s proposal with five mound visits in 2019 and four in 2020. They’re on board with the idea, just not at the same pace.

The Yankees were among the worst mound visit offenders prior to the rule change last year. Last season though, they left multiple mound visits on the board most nights, so they’ve already made the adjustment. Take away one or two more and it seems like they’ll be largely okay. There will definitely be times the Yankees want to conference on the mound but can’t throughout the season. By and large, a mount visit reduction wouldn’t change a whole lot.

A lot of impact on the Yankees

Several proposed rule changes look like they will have considerable impact on the Yankees (and all teams, really), so lets go through them bit by bit.

• Addition of a 26th roster spot (MLB)
• 12-pitcher roster limit outside September (MLB)
• 28-man roster limit in September (MLB)
• 15-day minimum stay for disabled list and optional assignments (MLBPA)

There’s a lot going on here. MLB is open to adding a 26th roster spot, which means 30 more big league jobs, but they also want to limit teams to 12 pitchers on their 26-man roster? What started out as a good idea turned into a terrible idea. We’re talking five-man rotation, seven-man bullpen, five-man bench. I don’t like the eight-man bullpen/three-man bench roster construction that has become so popular. A five-man bench seems like overkill though.

Adding a 26th roster spot is great. Let’s do that. Limiting teams to 12 pitchers is the problem. It eliminates the possibility of a six-man rotation — my guess is more than a few teams would use their 26th roster spot to implement a six-man rotation — and it’s also kinda dangerous, no? You risk overworking pitchers with a 12-pitcher limit. At the very least, you’re encouraging teams to make more shuttle transactions to ensure they have fresh arms in the bullpen. A 12-man pitching staff is a step too far in an attempt to reduce pitching changes and improve pace-of-play.

If MLB adds a 26th roster spot, the Yankees would be able to use a spot sixth starter more often, which is something they like to do. Would they commit to a full-time six-man rotation? Eh, I’m not sure. Taking starts away from Luis Severino and James Paxton and giving them to Domingo German seems not great, you know? The 26th roster spot would give the Yankees (and every other team) greater flexibility. Spot starters, a revolving door for the bench and bullpen, you name it. Would be great for flexibility.

Now, if MLB were to limit teams to 12-man pitching staffs, even without the 26th roster spot, it would change quite a bit. The Yankees usually don’t let their starters pitch deep into games and that means they’d probably need two true multi-inning relievers in their seven-man bullpen. Guys who could give you two or three innings regularly, not once in a while. (Maybe that’s where German and Jonathan Loaisiga come in?) The 12-man pitching staff puts a lot of strain on the bullpen and would have a big impact on roster construction and reliever usage for the Yankees and every other team.

The 28-man September roster limit is so dumb and I’m not surprised MLB proposed it. They want fewer September call-ups because it means less money spent on players. The league minimum salary will be $2,983 per day in 2019, give or take. Limiting September rosters to 28 players means 12 40-man roster players don’t get called up. Twelve players at the league minimum times 30 days in September equals roughly $1.07M less a team is spending on payroll. That’s MLB’s goal here. Not competitive balance.

The Yankees are fairly aggressive with September call-ups. They had 36 players on their active roster by time the regular season ended last year. That’s eleven extra players. Being limited to three September call-ups means what, two pitchers and a utility guy? The Yankees wouldn’t get to use their depth — three September call-ups means two of German, Loaisiga, Clint Frazier, Stephen Tarpley, and Tyler Wade would not get called up based on the current roster — to lighten the load on their regulars late in the season. I hate this proposed rule change. September call-ups forever.

MLBPA proposed extending the minimum stint on the disabled list and optional assignments from ten days to 15 days. That doesn’t jibe well with the whole “12-pitcher limit” idea, but MLB proposed that, not the MLBPA. Anyway, the union wants teams to stop manipulating their roster and jerking players around. Adding five days to the minimum stints means teams will think twice about sending a player down or putting him on the DL. The Yankees are a fairly aggressive bullpen shuttle team and this proposed rule change would throw a wrench into the way they usually do business. It would make life a little more complicated.

• Revenue sharing tied to team record (MLBPA)

The exact details of this proposal are unknown. The union has been pushing for anti-tanking measures and my guess is their proposal focuses on taking revenue sharing money away from tanking teams more than anything. Does that mean winning teams that into pay revenue sharing, like the Yankees, pay less or get some sort of rebate? It’s unclear. This is potentially huge for the Yankees, financially. It could also make no difference whatsoever. It could be that revenue sharing money taken away from a tanking team is redistributed to the other teams that receive revenue sharing rather than given back to the Yankees. Shrug.

• Service time bonuses based on awards finishes (MLBPA)

Specifically, the union wants rookies who finish in the top three of the Rookie of the Year, Cy Young, or MVP voting to receive credit for a full year of service time no matter when they were called up. The same applies to winning the Reliever of the Year award, LCS MVP, World Series MVP, or leading the league in WAR. This, obviously, is an attempt to eliminate (or at least reduce) service time manipulation.

Under this proposal Gleyber Torres (third place in Rookie of the Year voting) would’ve received credit for a full year of service time last season, and thus been eligible for free agency during the 2023-24 offseason rather than the 2024-25 offseason. Gary Sanchez (Rookie of the Year runner-up) would’ve received a full year of service time rather than two months in 2016, moving his free agency up. Ronald Acuna, Juan Soto, Cody Bellinger, Kris Bryant, Carlos Correa, Francisco Lindor, and countless others would’ve benefited from this proposal.

Props to the union for coming up with a creative way to combat service time manipulation. Will it work? Or will teams be even more shameless about it and keep prospects in the minors for an entire extra season if they’re not ready to contend? Who knows. (Imagine the Blue Jays keeping Vlad Guerrero Jr. down until 2020. Oy vey.) The Yankees will never admit it but they manipulated Gleyber’s service time last year and Severino’s service time in 2016 (his Triple-A stint was juuust long enough to push back his free agency), so this would ding them.

• Single trade deadline sometime before the All-Star break (MLBPA)

This is the union’s attempt to revive free agency (fix your problems now because you won’t get the chance later) and perhaps cut down on tanking because teams that are out of it won’t be able to dump players in July and August. July 31st is roughly two-thirds of the way through the season and that seems like a good time for the trade deadline to me. I feel like teams should be given the opportunity to react to injuries and make deals in late July (and August).

Anyway, the Yankees have been active at the trade deadline in recent years and I mean right at the trade deadline. Sonny Gray, Jaime Garcia, J.A. Happ, Lance Lynn, and Luke Voit all came over in the days leading up to July 31st. The big David Robertson trade with the White Sox was made in mid-July and of course Andrew McCutchen came over in late-August. The Yankees, like most teams, have concentrated their moves in mid-to-late-July.

I get what the MLBPA is going for here but I think moving the deadline up would be bad for baseball overall. It would extend the dog days of summer and give fans one less thing (trades) to talk about after the All-Star break. Are we really sure this would result in more free agent signings and early trades? Moving the trade deadline up would have a big impact on every team, especially contenders like the Yankees, who will have less time to survey the market and address weaknesses.

* * *

MLB also proposed conducting a study on lowering the mound, presumably to help cut down on strikeouts and give hitters a chance to keep up with the game’s continually increasing velocity. The league would look into it — the MLBPA would presumably look into increased injury risk on their own — and then the two sides would discuss the results and figure out what to do, if anything. There is no rule change proposal on the table right now though.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement allows commissioner Rob Manfred to unilaterally implement rule changes one year after a proposal. This year he can unilaterally implement a 20-second pitch clock, reducing mound visits from six to five, and the Spring Training/All-Star Game extra innings rules. It’s unclear whether he will actually do it at this point. The two sides are at the table discussing changes, so that’s good, and agreeing to rule changes is preferred to implementing them unilaterally.

Any rule change approval, unilateral or otherwise, will almost certainly happen before Cactus League and Grapefruit League games begin in two weeks. That way players (and teams) can use Spring Training to adjust. I think there’s a pretty good chance we’ll see a pitch clock and fewer mound visits in 2019. More substantial changes like a universal DH and roster changes (26th man, 12-pitcher limit, September call-up limit, etc.) are probably at least a year away.