The 2020 Major League Baseball season is on indefinite hiatus because of the threat that is the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Spring training was shut down in March and Opening Day has been pushed back indefinitely. When will baseball return? No one knows for sure, though MLB hopes it will be early July.

Between now and Opening Day my fellow CBS Sports MLB scribes and I will bring you a weekly roundtable breaking down, well, pretty much anything. The latest news, a historical question, thoughts about the future of baseball, all sorts of stuff. Last week we pondered the legitimacy of a champion crowned during an 82-game season.

This week we're going to discuss two rule changes rumored for the 2020 season. Specifically, we're going to buy these rule changes as something we want to see made permanent, or sell them as something we only want as a one-year stopgap. Now to this week's questions.

Buy or sell: Universal DH

Katherine Acquavella: I'm very much buying the universal DH. A universal DH doesn't eliminate skill and strategy in the game of baseball, it just changes it. If we're able to have a 2020 season, I think it would be a good time to get the "trial run" in before players likely approve it permanently in the next CBA. 

R.J. Anderson: I think the universal DH will be a reality within the next decade no matter what. Adding it now creates 15 new starting jobs, and eliminates a lot of easy outs in the process. I get that people think the DH cheapens the game, or removes strategy; I don't share that opinion, and even if I did, I'd probably be resigned to the inevitable by now.

Mike Axisa: Easiest of buys. Did you know pitchers hit .128/.159/.163 in 5,098 plate appearances last season? 5,098! Pitchers are extremely bad at hitting and they're getting worse:

There aren't enough Bartolo Colon home run highlights in the world to make up for all those empty, non-competitive at-bats. It's not fair to ask pitchers to hit at this point -- it's hard enough to do one thing well, pitching or hitting, so I see no reason to ask pitchers to do both -- and the quality of the sport suffers. I'm also with Katherine in that the universal DH doesn't eliminate or reduce strategy, it just shifts it. The universal DH is long overdue and I would be stunned if we get through the entire 2020s with pitchers still hitting.

Dayn Perry: I'm buying. I can't stand watching pitchers hit because I typically do not enjoy watching people attempt something at which they are terrible. I also find sac bunts to be pretty dull (bunting for a hit, however, is excellent), and likewise I don't enjoy seeing No. 8 hitters pitched around or intentionally walked. No amount of low-grade, obvious "strategy" that's lost can make up for those things. Opinions will vary of course, but give me the DH. 

Matt Snyder: I buy the universal designated hitter. I still can't believe that we've all just accepted a reality that two leagues play with different rules and the champion is awarded with teams playing multiple games with a lineup structure they didn't use in the regular season or the playoffs leading to the World Series. It's bonkers. Further, pitchers are worse hitters than they've ever been. Even the "good" hitting pitchers are bad hitters. Someone always brings up Madison Bumgarner. He hit .127/.236/.222 last year. This is also a way to likely expand rosters and the players will be in favor of that, in addition to letting older sluggers hold on an extra year or two with the DH spot. 

Buy or sell: Expanded postseason

mlb-postseason.jpg
Will the 14-team postseason field be a one-year thing, or the new normal? USATSI

Katherine Acquavella: Buy. As it stands, an expanded postseason in baseball does seem inevitable. While I'm opposed to some of the gimmick-y aspects included in the original report/proposal, I'm not opposed to the idea of more teams, more playoff games and more competition overall. This season, if we get one, is already going to be unlike anything in MLB before, and if the expanded postseason gets approved to happen in 2020, this will be a good test run to see what works and what might still need improvement. 

R.J. Anderson: As with the universal DH, I think the expanded postseason is coming anyway. I'm not sure it's a wise decision. The current postseason format is logical enough, and it's not as though teams have responded to the additional playoff spot with verve. Adding more playoff teams could create more indolence and apathy, and while that's all right in most situations, it's not what you want here.

Mike Axisa: I'm selling an expanded postseason. My preference is a smaller, more exclusive postseason. The 162-game regular season is the greater separator between contenders and pretenders, and the more teams you let into the tournament, the more watered down it becomes. That all said, I fully expect each league to add teams to the postseason field fairly soon. There is too much money to be made for all involved.

Dayn Perry: I'm also cool with the expanded postseason. In part that's because it's inevitable, but also because the rumored structure confers a big advantage to the best team in each league (i.e., the first-round bye). I love that wrinkle, and I love the idea of the best teams most often not being able to let up in September because the stakes for the top seed are so high.  

Matt Snyder: Yes, I'm buying expanded postseason, too. I think the league floated the seven-playoff-teams-per-league idea to start getting fans into the idea. Everyone is going to want this. The players will like it because it gives more of them a chance to play in the playoffs and the owners will like it because there's more chances to reap the rewards of the huge postseason attendance gates. The only people against this are purist fans, and they don't get a seat at the table. Die-hard fans won't go away, so it doesn't matter that they oppose it.