Jump to content
RatkoVarda

2020-21 Off season

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

They can backfire and it's not a bad thing the Tigers haven't had one in a while. Craig and the rest of BP (except @Microline133 ) are just shills for the MLPBA now.

If they are not signing players to multi-year deals because they are afraid they will backfire, then it might be time for a new GM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

19 hours ago, Oblong said:

Wow. Ron Cameron. There’s a blast from the past.  He used to own a greasy spoon in Dearborn on Telegraph. A friend of mine ran into him and he was trying to recruit sports fans to work there.  He wanted to make it into a joint like the Lindell AC.  He gave him his number and wanted me to call him so I could work there in college. 

And amazingly,  Cameron, Page and Eli Zaret are still doing shows together. 
http://www.nofiltersportspodcast.com/tag/ron-cameron/

 

Share this post


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

If they are not signing players to multi-year deals because they are afraid they will backfire, then it might be time for a new GM. 

I would agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tiger337 said:

If they are not signing players to multi-year deals because they are afraid they will backfire, then it might be time for a new GM. 

I would guess that in recent years every GM knows that big multiyear deals are generally counterproductive to franchise health overall. I doubt if Detroit was unique - I'd guess it's owners that ultimately motivate big deals as much as GMs. And likewise other owners that shy away from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

I would guess that in recent years every GM knows that big multiyear deals are generally counterproductive to franchise health overall. I doubt if Detroit was unique - I'd guess it's owners that ultimately motivate big deals as much as GMs. And likewise other owners that shy away from them.

Is there any team that makes the playoffs regularly that havent relied on the production of players acquired by multi-year deals?

I admit that I have not researched this yet...but Id be surprised if the above example is more than an outlier case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

Is there any team that makes the playoffs regularly that havent relied on the production of players acquired by multi-year deals?

I admit that I have not researched this yet...but Id be surprised if the above example is more than an outlier case.

The point is more along the line that I think GMs take the heat for what are basically ownership decisions either way (to spend or not). I don't think too many GMs are making the call solo on 9 figure deals, which is pretty much what anything over 4-5 yrs totals for an upper tier player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sabretooth said:

Is there any team that makes the playoffs regularly that havent relied on the production of players acquired by multi-year deals?

I admit that I have not researched this yet...but Id be surprised if the above example is more than an outlier case.

Tampa. The exception to the rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with multi-year deals is almost all of them are for the purpose of getting player Year 1, maybe Year 2, but beyond that they become albatrosses. For a team that is in pure rebuilding mode, do you really want the albatross around your neck when you are getting good. Do those extra years create trade value? If anything, they reduce it. It's more than money. Would Miguel Cabrera be locked into this year's lineup if not for his contract? Zimmerman in the rotation the last few years?

I don't view not signing multi-year free agents as a bad thing. It's only bad if you think spending money on free agents is the only way to win. And you only think that if the union is orchestrating your website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's good for fans or the sport to have a team in pure re-building mode where they are totally non-competitive for years and years.  When you lose close to 100 games four or five years in a row, that means your team is a failure for a long time.  In sports, when you lose a whole bunch of games, you failed in those seasons.    So, I will never applaud "tanking".  I am also not convinced that is the best or only way to build a winning team.   Sometimes it does eventually work though and if an organization does decide it is their best strategy, then you are right it doesn't make sense to sign older players to long term deals. 

I am not really interested in the business part of the game like a lot of sabers.   There have always been teams that spend and teams that don't.  It's not different today.  Overall, there is a lot of money being made and spent in the game and everybody wants the biggest piece they can get just like any other business.  I do not really support either side.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I am not really interested in the business part of the game

I'm generally in the same boat. My only interest in that end is that I think the CBA can have a lot to do with the quality of the game as the fan experiences it, both in terms of player mobility and the degree to which it's the economic structure created by the CBA that contributes to the boom/bust cycle so many teams seem to get stuck in today.  Not that as fans we can do anything about it, all we get is the catharsis of bitc_hing about it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Edman85 said:

My issue with multi-year deals is almost all of them are for the purpose of getting player Year 1, maybe Year 2, but beyond that they become albatrosses. For a team that is in pure rebuilding mode, do you really want the albatross around your neck when you are getting good...

Ditto on this part.

The key to me is bidding on the "right" guy at the "right" time that helps put the team over the top (into World Series contending mode...). And then if money is wasted at the back end at least it was worth it.

Unless you can get a high-end player entering their prime (say 27-28), almost all multi-years are sucking wind on the back end. I don't mind, so long as it's for a good cause...

Unless we get lucky and a prime athlete wants to play for Detroit starting in 2022...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 7:02 PM, lordstanley said:

And amazingly,  Cameron, Page and Eli Zaret are still doing shows together. 
http://www.nofiltersportspodcast.com/tag/ron-cameron/

 

I think they quit a short while ago. I follow Page on twitter. Eli crapped out. I think Denny was involved too. 
I heard Ron on the radio about 10 years ago on a Sunday evening.  I think it was one of those things where he bought the time.  He had Northrop on. They bitched the whole time about today’s players being spoiled and lazy.  Was sad to listen to. Bitter old guys complaining about how things were not like they used to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Oblong said:

I think they quit a short while ago. I follow Page on twitter. Eli crapped out. I think Denny was involved too. 
I heard Ron on the radio about 10 years ago on a Sunday evening.  I think it was one of those things where he bought the time.  He had Northrop on. They bitched the whole time about today’s players being spoiled and lazy.  Was sad to listen to. Bitter old guys complaining about how things were not like they used to be. 

I heard some of their shows.  I disliked their chit chat and I didn't like that McLain was involved, but they had some really good interviews.  They even got Lou Whitaker to open up.  It was his best interview ever.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tiger337 said:

I heard some of their shows.  I disliked their chit chat and I didn't like that McLain was involved, but they had some really good interviews.  They even got Lou Whitaker to open up.  It was his best interview ever.  

yes, I do remember that one.  I was in Lowe's parking lot listening before going in.  It was one of his more expansive interviews, you are right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2021 at 3:52 PM, tiger337 said:

I don't think it's good for fans or the sport to have a team in pure re-building mode where they are totally non-competitive for years and years.  When you lose close to 100 games four or five years in a row, that means your team is a failure for a long time.  In sports, when you lose a whole bunch of games, you failed in those seasons.    So, I will never applaud "tanking".  I am also not convinced that is the best or only way to build a winning team.   Sometimes it does eventually work though and if an organization does decide it is their best strategy, then you are right it doesn't make sense to sign older players to long term deals. 

I am not really interested in the business part of the game like a lot of sabers.   There have always been teams that spend and teams that don't.  It's not different today.  Overall, there is a lot of money being made and spent in the game and everybody wants the biggest piece they can get just like any other business.  I do not really support either side.  

Yeah, tanking gets a good rep because of the Royals, Astros and Cubs, as if they tanked for a few seasons and then magically emerged as well rounded and sustainably winning organizations.

The real magic is that the above teams also developed players well, including many players drafted with picks that were completely unassociated with tanking, and acquired important players through trades and costly (but valuable) multi year FA signings.

Tanking is just another mode of player acquisition, one that owners feel empowered to use because I think they feel a sufficient amount of writers and fans accept and promote it as some kind of enlightened strategy, and the owners can skimp by on the national TV contracts without having to spend $$ and risk losses trying to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that for awhile there, maybe 10 years or so ago, some fans of the saber bent got as much satisfaction at cost per win as they did for actually winning games... as if the most efficient team meant something.  Congratulations, you won 898games, had a payroll of $50M, no bad contracts, and a highly ranked farm system.  What's trophy do they give out for that?

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2021 at 7:46 PM, Oblong said:

It seems that for awhile there, maybe 10 years or so ago, some fans of the saber bent got as much satisfaction at cost per win as they did for actually winning games... as if the most efficient team meant something.  Congratulations, you won 898games, had a payroll of $50M, no bad contracts, and a highly ranked farm system.  What's trophy do they give out for that?

 

 

Yes I remember getting into a debate with Dave Cameron formerly of Fangraphs about this.   It was after we signed Prince and he talked about how much of an overpay it was and how inefficient the Tigers were.  While I acknowledged that he may be right in what he says ultimately all that matters is if they win. 

 I believe I actually used that trophy line in the debate as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

Yes I remember getting into a debate with Dave Cameron formerly of Fangraphs about this.   It was after we signed Prince and he talked about how much of an overpay it was and how insufficient the Tigers were.  While I acknowledged that he may be right in what he says ultimately all that matters is if they win. 

 I believe I actually used that trophy line in the debate as well.

dave cameron is one of those stats guys from that era who was a complete *** hole.  who mocked anyone who disagreed with him and called all major league teams who signed any free agent to a long term deal to be stupid idiots.

and now that those guys' theories have made their way into the mainstream all they do is complain that players make less money and no one signs long term deals anymore.

its the same group that said there was no proof bonds used steroids and even if there was, there was no proof steroids helped players at all.  the same group that blamed everything from long running games to global warming on bid selig (and now rob manfred).

they'll blame everything on ownership and if they dare criticize a player for anything, its not really his fault because the owners incentivized him to break the rules or cheat or whatever.

shills for the players and contrarians to anything the league tries to do.  thats all they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Buddha said:

dave cameron is one of those stats guys from that era who was a complete *** hole.  who mocked anyone who disagreed with him and called all major league teams who signed any free agent to a long term deal to be stupid idiots.

and now that those guys' theories have made their way into the mainstream all they do is complain that players make less money and no one signs long term deals anymore.

its the same group that said there was no proof bonds used steroids and even if there was, there was no proof steroids helped players at all.  the same group that blamed everything from long running games to global warming on bid selig (and now rob manfred).

they'll blame everything on ownership and if they dare criticize a player for anything, its not really his fault because the owners incentivized him to break the rules or cheat or whatever.

shills for the players and contrarians to anything the league tries to do.  thats all they are.

Cameron was a pompous *** and not one of the smarter sabers.  That group is right about one thing though.  Manfred does suck.  When I hear him talk, he seems to not like or understand the game at all.  I think most commissioners suck, but I think they at least understood the game.  Manfred is a pure businessman and I doubt he was ever a serious fan.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tiger337 said:

Cameron was a pompous *** and not one of the smarter sabers.  That group is right about one thing though.  Manfred does suck.  When I hear him talk, he seems to not like or understand the game at all.  I think most commissioners suck, but I think they at least understood the game.  Manfred is a pure businessman and I doubt he was ever a serious fan.  

The cult of the MBA ruins a lot of things.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Buddha said:

dave cameron is one of those stats guys from that era who was a complete *** hole.  who mocked anyone who disagreed with him and called all major league teams who signed any free agent to a long term deal to be stupid idiots.

and now that those guys' theories have made their way into the mainstream all they do is complain that players make less money and no one signs long term deals anymore.

its the same group that said there was no proof bonds used steroids and even if there was, there was no proof steroids helped players at all.  the same group that blamed everything from long running games to global warming on bid selig (and now rob manfred).

they'll blame everything on ownership and if they dare criticize a player for anything, its not really his fault because the owners incentivized him to break the rules or cheat or whatever.

shills for the players and contrarians to anything the league tries to do.  thats all they are.

Yeah, the above mentality on the part of the wanna-be Billy Beane saber-dudes created the dreaded Salary Scold and pro-tanking crowd.

Win efficiency my ***.  I will care about that crap the day some team is paying me to care.

Bottom line is that winning efficiently is incidental and temporary, rather than intentional, at least for everybody not named the Cardinals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tiger337 said:

Manfred does suck.  When I hear him talk, he seems to not like or understand the game at all.  I think most commissioners suck, but I think they at least understood the game.  Manfred is a pure businessman and I doubt he was ever a serious fan.  

I don't know if its that he doesn't like/understand the game or if he's just over his skis as a commissioner.  Or maybe its a bit of both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sabretooth said:

Bottom line is that winning efficiently is incidental and temporary, rather than intentional, at least for everybody not named the Cardinals.

That's the model franchise in my mind, at least in terms of being competitive year in and year out over the long term.  You mentioned not that long ago (same thread?), and I'm paraphrasing it a bit, that the higher draft picks are nice, but if you can't develop them (if you've correctly identified them to begin with), than so what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Casimir said:

That's the model franchise in my mind, at least in terms of being competitive year in and year out over the long term.  You mentioned not that long ago (same thread?), and I'm paraphrasing it a bit, that the higher draft picks are nice, but if you can't develop them (if you've correctly identified them to begin with), than so what.

dodgers.  i know they spend money, but they have developed their own players better than anyone for as long as i can remember.

rays are becoming a model organization at the other end of the spectrum.  never spending anything but trying new forms of management in an attempt to work the margins of a labor system heavily weighted in favor of smart ownership.

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.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


×
×
  • Create New...