Jump to content

84 Lives!!!

2021 MLB Draft (FUBAR for KUMAR)

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I just like to add is there any real evidence that teams are tanking for better picks or just the fact that they won't want to spend money/waste service time only to be mediocre?  

If there was a correlation in attendance figures or fan interest between being terrible or merely just bad then perhaps teams would operate differently but evidently there isn't. 

Here is what I think:

The value of players is well enough understood that if a team has a poor base of talent, like the Tigers, there is no perceived benefit to spending excess funds on available free agents to go from really bad to merely bad.

Getting into, as well as going an extra round deep into, the play-offs does provide financial benefit, so teams with a good talent base or better have a financial incentive to spend discretionary funds to add talent because that might be the guy to push 'em over the top, so to say.

Getting the top pick is ancillary consideration for a bad team at best.  As someone pointed out early, getting the larger pool of money to sign picks may be, or actually is, the bigger benefit. 

In any event, we have a situation where the haves are actively spending to improve and the have nots have little incentive to spend causing the gap to widen.

For me, the ideal scenario for the largest number of fans is for a larger proportion of teams to have an incentive to spend.  That tends to spread out free agents more, lessens the possibility of a team winning or losing 110+ games, should get a larger mix of teams to experience the post season over say any given 5-year period.

From my perspective, the better draft pick / larger spending pool on picks helps get the league to that improved state.  Better than a draft lottery would, I'd suggest.

I might expand the money pool on draft picks and/or international FA a little more for bad teams.  At least then they would be spending money and spending it in a way that has a chance for more sustainable long-term growth.

In summary, we need to create more of an incentive for bad teams to invest in their team.  They are smart enough to know they can't be good now even if they drop a bunch of money on established MLB talent.  It seems logical, to me at least, that the incentive to spend has to be towards the future for them to do it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am not angry.  A lot of stuff we talk about here can not be argued logically and is just personal preference.  MLB's main goal is always to make money.  Everything they do is to that end.  So, the only logical argument is whether or not their decisions lead to making more money.  Since I am not concerned about how much money they make, how can I make a logical argument if I don't like their decision?  I use logical arguments for situations where we have a common goal.  Which player is better? Does this trade make the Tigers better? etc.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Here is what I think:

The value of players is well enough understood that if a team has a poor base of talent, like the Tigers, there is no perceived benefit to spending excess funds on available free agents to go from really bad to merely bad.

Getting into, as well as going an extra round deep into, the play-offs does provide financial benefit, so teams with a good talent base or better have a financial incentive to spend discretionary funds to add talent because that might be the guy to push 'em over the top, so to say.

Getting the top pick is ancillary consideration for a bad team at best.  As someone pointed out early, getting the larger pool of money to sign picks may be or actually is the bigger benefit. 

In any event, we have a situation where the haves are actively spending to improve and the have nots have little incentive to spend causing the gap to widen.

For me, the ideal scenario for the largest number of fans is for a larger proportion of teams to have an incentive to spend.  That tends to spread out free agents more, lessens the possibility of a team winning or losing 110+ games, should get a larger mix of teams to experience the post season over say a 5-year period.

Honestly, the draft pick / larger spending pool on picks helps get to that state.  Better than a draft lottery at least.  I might expand the money pool on draft picks a little more for bad teams.  At least then they would be spending money and probably spending it in a way that has a chance for more sustainable long-term growth.

I would attack the other end as well. I believe one of the reasons teams in contention overspend to win and end up tied to devastatingly bad contracts (which then drives them  to lose more later) is is the knowledge that you only have a small window before free agency destroys any team you manage to cobble together. I think the boom and bust cycle is driven as much or more by the motivations for counterproductive long term behavior of the teams at the winning end than tanking behavior of those at the losing end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just spitballing here - but If I were King? How about you have a salary cap based on a division of revenue as per basketball, and then have much higher minimum salaries so that the the amount of money left to top players was a much a smaller piece of the total? And absolutely do away with whole team control concept. You sign a rookie deal and when it's over it's over. Again, force the money to younger guys in the present tense. Guys should get paid when they are productive, not ten years later.

You could also just cap contract lengths or ban some of the crazier deferred comp schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cabrera contract was unnecessarily bad from the start.  I didn't particularly care at the time because I wanted them to keep him and Mike Ilitch seemed to have an unlimited payroll. I also don't think his contract is preventing them from being good now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Here is what I think:

.....a text wall maybe 3 people read....

I should also add that I have no doubt there are really smart and motivated people within the league and players union that have thought about all these things and we are at where we are at because it represented the best compromise of maintaining the groups' best interests and the growth of the sport.

I think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking the owners or players are greedy, and they are missing obvious solutions due to their greed.  It is possible that is so, but I'd suggest it is probable these decisions were carefully considered and what we have is the result of measured negotiation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I should also add that I have no doubt there are really smart and motivated people within the league and players union that have thought about all these things and we are at where we are at because it represented the best compromise of maintaining the groups' best interests and the growth of the sport.

I think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking the owners or players are greedy, and they are missing obvious solutions due to their greed.  It is possible that is so, but I'd suggest it is probable these decisions were carefully considered and what we have is the result of measured negotiation.

 

However I would note that the fans are not at the table in the negotiation. So they are not done in the interest of game or the fans, they are done in the interests of the parties, so I don't see that it necessarily follows to assume that even a perfect negotiation would result in a better system from the fan's perspective.

And of course the long term./short preference issues apply to the imperfection of the negotiation process as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

The Cabrera contract was unnecessarily bad from the start.  I didn't particularly care at the time because I wanted them to keep him and Mike Ilitch seemed to have an unlimited payroll. I also don't think his contract is preventing them from being good now.  

Most of the bad contracts were unnecessarily bad from the start.  The player may turn into a pumpkin a little sooner than expected, but LTD for anyone much north of 30 usually becomes a bad deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gehringer_2 said:

However I would note that the fans are not at the table in the negotiation. So there are not done in the interest of game or the fans, they are done in the interests of the parties, so I don't see any reason to assume that even a perfect negotiation would result in a better system from the fan's perspective.

Of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gehringer_2 said:

However I would note that the fans are not at the table in the negotiation. So there are not done in the interest of game or the fans, they are done in the interests of the parties, so I don't see that it necessarily follows to assume that even a perfect negotiation would result in a better system from the fan's perspective.

Yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate tanking but am also a bit of a hypocrite - last year at a certain point I mostly cared about them getting the #1 pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that tanking makes any sense in baseball and I don't think that anyone actively does it.  The draft picks in baseball just aren't that valuable, compared for example to the value of an NBA pick.  If you have a bad team in the NBA, you have to tank, you're out of your mind if you don't.  That 1-1 pick is immediately 20% of your starting lineup, sells a whole bunch of merchandise, and possibly makes the All-Star team.  There is no value that is remotely close to that in a baseball pick.  I agree that bad teams don't aggressively try to get just a little bit better...they'd rather just stay bad.  But no one in baseball actively tries to get worse.  The picks just aren't that valuable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Charles Liston said:

I don't think that tanking makes any sense in baseball and I don't think that anyone actively does it.  The draft picks in baseball just aren't that valuable, compared for example to the value of an NBA pick.  If you have a bad team in the NBA, you have to tank, you're out of your mind if you don't.  That 1-1 pick is immediately 20% of your starting lineup, sells a whole bunch of merchandise, and possibly makes the All-Star team.  There is no value that is remotely close to that in a baseball pick.  I agree that bad teams don't aggressively try to get just a little bit better...they'd rather just stay bad.  But no one in baseball actively tries to get worse.  The picks just aren't that valuable.

I agree with this. There is little value in a bad team getting marginally better. You have set up a rehab plan and ignore diversions even it some fans or media agitate for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long a losing streak would it take to get Al fired? 12? 15? All of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2020 at 1:32 AM, leflore said:

Tigers now tied with Nats for 7th worst record

The defending World Series Nats?  Wow, the Tigers really aren't that far from the top after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So on a one year basis we are where we should be.

If they go to using two years' records we get the #1 again.

If they decide on some sort of lottery then... noone knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 84 Lives!!! said:

So on a one year basis we are where we should be.

If they go to using two years' records we get the #1 again.

If they decide on some sort of lottery then... noone knows...

detroit's sports teams have only moved up in the lottery once.  and joe dumars so offended the sports gods that we are cursed never to move up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buddha said:

detroit's sports teams have only moved up in the lottery once.  and joe dumars so offended the sports gods that we are cursed never to move up again.

So... **** lotteries.

I hate them all anyways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten days ago it didn't seem possible but the Tigers are now only 3 back of the worst record in the league.  The FUBAR for KUMAR dream is still alive and well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're sitting in the 8th spot based on this year's record with 12 games to go. Not certain we'll get in all those games....?

If we add last year's record to this year's (I didn't do the calculation, but...) pretty certain we're back at #1 or at least top 3.

Just an update...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...