Major League Baseball Noobs
I noticed that within a division, teams will play each other four times each over the course of the regular season, but an NL-East team might play an AL-Central team only once. Why is that? How are these things determined?
I was just looking into trade clauses earlier after getting sucked down a wikipedia rabbit hole and found out about 10-and-5 rights for the first time. I was immediately curious about if there are any historical examples of this rule having the adverse effect of pressuring teams to trade a player they would've otherwise preferred to keep another season or two, simply because they knew getting locked into 10-and-5 rights with them might be problematic for the near future. It seemed like an obvious ramification in my mind, but I don't know much about trade theory when it comes to baseball so I figured someone here might have some knowledge on why this wouldn't happen, or if it ever does.
As a side note, I'm also quite curious about if there was a specific trade that sparked the creation of this rule back in the 70s. It really sounds like a rule that was written in blood; something like a homegrown legend having a great and loyal career with their team and then getting the unceremonious boot straight to the rival team.
I was watching the Dodger's game today and their much-hyped rookie Josue De Paula hit a 3-run homer. He was just brought up from AA, and this is his first big league home run.
We don't know the future so can't predict if he'll be a great player or fizzle out. It's a gamble whether the ball will be worth anything. We know it's worth a lot to the player and his family today.
Security went to the couple that caught the ball and negotiated with them for it. Eventually they traded it for a signed bat and ball. But what if they wanted to keep it instead? What if they were banking on Josue De Paula becoming a great player? What if they were hoping that the ball would increase in monetary value?
I have heard that if they refuse to trade the ball, MLB will not authenticate it, thus making it a worthless ball. Which strikes me as very unfair to the fan who caught it. Say Josue De Paula eventually becomes one of the best. The ball, his first big league home run, could potentially be worth thousands of dollars. But if it's not authenticated, no auction house would honor it.
The MLB has stacked the circumstances in their favour. Sure, they give you a "choice" but it's a bullshit one. Keep the ball but it's worthless now, or trade it for these signed items that may be worth something one day but never as much as the home run ball.
Which brings me to my "solution" which is problematic in its own way, but it's the only one I could come up with because I hate the way the house has rigged the game against the fan in this particular way.
After the ball is caught, they start filming on their phones. They know there's likely footage of them catching it on TV, so they have that as evidence already. They film themselves in possession of the ball, they film people giving them high fives. Then they start asking people sitting around them to be witnesses to them catching the ball, taking names and emails, saying that they might reach out to them as witnesses one day. Then the person who catches the ball actually signs the ball themselves, giving their phones a real good look at this signature. If the issue is authenticating it, I feel this would be irrefutable. They keep filming until security comes over to them and asks them to negotiate for it, at which point they can refuse, and stop filming.
Even though the ball is signed by themselves, it doesn't stop the ball being the first homer Josue De Paula hit. It actually proves it to an auction house.
Do you think this is a viable workaround to the MLB refusing to authenticate a ball they no longer own?