Jump to content

IdahoBert

The Official 2017-2018 Detroit Tigers Off-season Thread

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I have said many times this board needs more boldness.

The trades they made this summer DID pertain to the fans.  They completely changed the team.  JD and Upton were traded because they wanted to get something for them before they left as free agents.  Verlander was traded because he was the only remaining piece that could bring back some potentially impactful prospects.  They were not simply made to save money.  If they were, I would expect fans to hate the trades.  

Upton was basically a salary dump. The prospects they got were meh. Maybin was a salary dump.

And of course the reason why prospects are valuable? $$$. If Fulmer was making $10M a year he'd have been dealt.

I think the vast majority people, and all MLB FO types, that look at roster building look at the situation the Tigers are going through and see 2 current goals: trim payroll (since we're not contending) and acquire talent that will be good and cheap a few years from now. The ultimate goal is of course to have a lot of talent and a small payroll at the same time. Then you can spend money and get more talent that helps a playoff or world series push.

.

If you want to say that *today*, money doesn't matter as much....well that is truer today than it has been other days, but only because Victor, Miggy, and Znn can't functionally be moved, and JV and JUp have already been moved. Ian Kinsler will be moved largely because of his contract, both term and value, and we will not get as much back because he's going to make $11M vs. $5M.

Today, Victor and Znn probably wouldn't get $5M combined. Their contracts *are* irrelevant as far as making trades. But not because money is irrelevant, because they're irrelevant players.

I can tell you the hope/plan for Znn, and it looks pretty similar to the plan for Upton a year ago: hope he pitches well enough that you can trade him and not have to eat the entire salary. That's it. The best-case scenario is you deal him and $10M per season and the team gives you a meh prospect so the Tigers PR department can lie that it's not a salary dump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Who is the Drizzle? said:

Upton was basically a salary dump. The prospects they got were meh. Maybin was a salary dump.

And of course the reason why prospects are valuable? $$$. If Fulmer was making $10M a year he'd have been dealt.

I think the vast majority people, and all MLB FO types, that look at roster building look at the situation the Tigers are going through and see 2 current goals: trim payroll (since we're not contending) and acquire talent that will be good and cheap a few years from now. The ultimate goal is of course to have a lot of talent and a small payroll at the same time. Then you can spend money and get more talent that helps a playoff or world series push.

.

If you want to say that *today*, money doesn't matter as much....well that is truer today than it has been other days, but only because Victor, Miggy, and Znn can't functionally be moved, and JV and JUp have already been moved.

Today, Victor and Znn probably wouldn't get $5M combined. Their contracts *are* irrelevant as far as making trades. But not because money is irrelevant, because they're irrelevant players.

I can tell you the hope/plan for Znn, and it looks pretty similar to the plan for Upton a year ago: hope he pitches well enough that you can trade him and not have to eat the entire salary. That's it. The best-case scenario is you deal him and $10M per season and the team gives you a meh prospect so the Tigers PR department can lie that it's not a salary dump.

We are talking about different things.  Of course money matters in baseball.  It's just that every little move they make to save money is not relevant to fans.  My original point was that trading Zimm to save money is not going to help fans.  That triggered you because it reminded you of other times I talked about saving money not being important.  Then I got annoyed because I didn't like you telling me how to post.  I should have just let it go.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tiger337 said:

We are talking about different things.  Of course money matters in baseball.  It's just that every little move they make to save money is not relevant to fans.  My original point was that trading Zimm to save money is not going to help fans.  That triggered you because it reminded you of other times I talked about saving money not being important.  Then I got annoyed because I didn't like you telling me how to post.  I should have just let it go.  

 

If you want to get down to it, what pisses me off is when you willingly dumb down your argument to that of a 'fan.'

You're basically not using all the data available, and it makes your argument less intelligent, while also belittling fans in general.

Furthermore, 'fans' with the attitude you describe aren't around right now, so you're missing your audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel badly for the post-JV Tigers.  The season ended too quickly, before they had a chance to establish their credentials as the worst Tigers team ever.  They are certainly contenders but the sample size is a bit small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Who is the Drizzle? said:

If you want to get down to it, what pisses me off is when you willingly dumb down your argument to that of a 'fan.'

You're basically not using all the data available, and it makes your argument less intelligent, while also belittling fans in general.

Furthermore, 'fans' with the attitude you describe aren't around right now, so you're missing your audience.

I am not dumbing down to a fan boy argument. I certainly would not belittle Shelton because he's smarter than me about this stuff.  I wasn't belittling Loose Goose either (it's not the political forum!), but I think he was missing my point.  I am saying I look at things from a fan perspective as opposed to a front office perspective.   I am not saying: "I HATE ALL THE TALK ABOUT MONEY WE ARE RUINING GAME PLAYERS USED TO PLAY FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME WHEN I WAS A KID".  I just think every off-season discussion always comes down to contracts and I think sometimes it gets over done by modern fans.  

What attitude did I describe and how do you know what types of fans are around?

Audience?  I am not looking for an audience.  I'm just here to talk Tigers baseball!

Sorry, if I pissed you off, because I know you would never do that to anyone.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I have said many times this board needs more boldness.

The trades they made this summer DID pertain to the fans.  They completely changed the team.  JD and Upton were traded because they wanted to get something for them before they left as free agents.  Verlander was traded because he was the only remaining piece that could bring back some potentially impactful prospects.  They were not simply made to save money.  If they were, I would expect fans to hate the trades.  

I think the counter argument is that if they had been more fiscally responsible leading up to last year, they could have extended JD, and/or supplemented the roster with other players.

the reason they had to trade JD was because they had gone too far and exceeded the luxury tax, preventing them from being able to get a draft pick after he left. 

The trades weren’t made to save money, but they basically had to be made because they had too much money being wasted on other players that they couldn’t be kept. If zimmermann and victor weren’t killing the payroll and the on field performance, 2016 or 2017 maybe works out better. Or there could have been a path to being competitive in 2018 such that you don’t have to trade JV and you could have extended JD last year. 

Either way, if you can make deals now that save money without hurting the 2020 team, do it. 

We didn’t have the ability to make money saving in the past because they were too good and couldn’t afford to give up any marginal wins. Different situations. 

But as a fan, I want the team to be in the best shape possible to win for extended period starting at some point within the next five years, and the better off financially that we are, the more able we will be to sign good players (as free agents or extensions to our own guys that pan out). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am not dumbing down to a fan boy argument. I certainly would not belittle Shelton because he's smarter than me about this stuff.  I wasn't belittling Loose Goose either (it's not the political forum!), but I think he was missing my point.  I am saying I look at things from a fan perspective as opposed to a front office perspective.   I am not saying: "I HATE ALL THE TALK ABOUT MONEY WE ARE RUINING GAME PLAYERS USED TO PLAY FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME WHEN I WAS A KID".  I just think every off-season discussion always comes down to contracts and I think sometimes it gets over done by modern fans.  

What attitude did I describe and how do you know what types of fans are around?

Audience?  I am not looking for an audience.  I'm just here to talk Tigers baseball!

Sorry, if I pissed you off, because I know you would never do that to anyone.  :)

Don't pick a perspective. When I or Shelton or anyone say finances should be considered with player X, saying you are coming from a fan's perspective does nothing to further the discussion. Maybe argue why money wouldn't or shouldn't matter instead of saying you don't like it and it's your opinion and that's that. I don't think you can argue beyond that, other than 'it's not my money lol.' That argument always reminds me of the analogy of a bratty little kid demanding the latest gaming system from their parents for Christmas. It seems entitled.

If you want to get in a general discussion about the impact of money on MLB, that's great. It impacts all 30 teams and is a form of competitive balance. Should there be no luxury tax? I mean after all, how is it fair that Steinbrenner can't sign who he wants without getting taxed? Are the Dodgers PSG-lite? How do some other AL central fans feel about the Tigers free-spending ways in recent years. Was that fair?

As far as fan attitude, you often describe a fan's (your) perspective as one who wants to win every single game, wants the owner to spend unlimited monies, etc. That's a pretty unrealistic attitude to have, and I don't think too many fans have that attitude. Why should we care if we only win 63 games instead of 70? Especially when winning 63 games means we could get better players to help us win 90 instead of 83 down the road. Most of us realize the team and the owner and the franchise situation is different than it was a few years ago. None of us care how much money Ilitch makes, but there's general reality about how owners run their teams financially, and our expectations fall in line with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Who is the Drizzle? said:
Quote

Don't pick a perspective.

Why not?  Everybody has a perspective.  

Quote

When I or Shelton or anyone say finances should be considered with player X, saying you are coming from a fan's perspective does nothing to further the discussion. Maybe argue why money wouldn't or shouldn't matter instead of saying you don't like it and it's your opinion and that's that. I don't think you can argue beyond that, other than 'it's not my money lol.' That argument always reminds me of the analogy of a bratty little kid demanding the latest gaming system from their parents for Christmas. It seems entitled.

I hope they get certain players.  I don't ever remember complaining when they didn't get players I wanted.  Who they ultimately get is their own business.  For years I saw posters say the Tigers couldn't get this player or that player because they can't go over the luxury tax, yet they did so multiple times.  I always felt that if the Tigers were willing to spend that was a good thing for fans. The fact that it went against what other teams were doing didn't bother me.  

Right now, I think they are going to be bad for a few years, so I don't really care what direction they go in with payroll. 

When they get to be good again, I would root for them to have a high payroll and if they made moves to cut payroll I would not applaud it.  I wouldn't get upset if they kept the payroll lower though. It just that if I don't know what their budget is, I would root for a higher one.   

If knew what their exact budget was, it would be easier to get into these discussions.  It seemed like some people made assumptions about what the budget would be but With Mike Ilitch, it was really hard to know. So, I generally hope they spend a lot.  Why not? 

I don't think people REALLY care how much money the owners make, but sometimes their arguments sound like they do.  I think some people like to play GM.  That is their perspective and I get why it's fun for them.  

I do not intend to belittle anyone.  I just say stuff in response to a perspective that sometimes seems too rigid for me.   

People can do what they want...except root for the Tigers to lose games and user pitcher wins to evaluate pitchers. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody was saying they couldn't go over the luxury tax, just that it would have been out of line with market/owner expectations, and that it'd probably come back to bite them. Which it has.

As far as the budget goes, whatever bad salary they can get rid of means they have that much more to spend under budget. Just because we don't or didn't know the budget, or don't care about budgets, doesn't make that less true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It came back to bite them because they chose the wrong players, not because they went over a line.  

Share this post


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

It came back to bite them because they chose the wrong players, not because they went over a line.  

It's not that they chose the wrong players (other than Zimmermann), it's that they gave them too much money for too long.

Like it or not, money matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Who is the Drizzle? said:

It's not that they chose the wrong players (other than Zimmermann), it's that they gave them too much money for too long.

Like it or not, money matters.

The year they got Zimmermann and Lowe, they would have made the playoffs if any of them had panned out.  Better than that though, If they had been able to sign Scherzer and cancelled out a bunch of other moves things would have been different too.  And I  believe they would be going in a different direction now in that case.

Share this post


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

The year they got Zimmermann and Lowe, they would have made the playoffs if any of them had panned out.  Better than that though, If they had been able to sign Scherzer and cancelled out a bunch of other moves things would have been different too.  And I  believe they would be going in a different direction now in that case.

If they hadn't signed Prince they probably extend Max. Probably would have signed Cespedes too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Who is the Drizzle? said:

If they hadn't signed Prince they probably re-sign Max. Probably would have signed Cespedes too.

I was not a big fan of the Fielder signing, but I don't think it prevented them from signing Scherzer.  They apparently made a lucrative offer to Scherzer, but he turned it down and never countered.  I don't believe he was out of their price range.  I think he wasn't a favorite of Ilitch the way some others were.

Share this post


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

I was not a big fan of the Fielder signing, but I don't think it prevented them from signing Scherzer.  They apparently made a lucrative offer to Scherzer, but he turned it down and never countered.  I don't believe he was out of their price range.  I think he wasn't a favorite of Ilitch the way some others were.

I think that money would have been spent somewhere and Max was the most likely candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, getting rid of zimmermann and saving money in the process is a thing that everyone should support. 

But it’s not going to happen. 

But if it did everyone should celebrate. 

Share this post


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

 I understand that Shelton has an interest in contractual matters beyond the typical fan.  That makes him valuable to the board. 

You're getting pretty free with the praise in your old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LooseGoose said:

You're getting pretty free with the praise in your old age.

I don't praise people very often, but when I do I praise Shelton.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that pyro's take on the financial angle of major league baseball is the most accurate.

Basically teams are toys of the uber-rich; when they feel confident enough to spend $$ they will spend it.  When they don't they won't.  

Putting aside the owner or anyone directly paid by the owner, nobody else should basically give a **** about a team's payroll or financial flexibility or any of that stuff, because none of us really have any idea how to relate the owner's finances to the owner's desire to spend or the owner's desire to spend to the team's payroll.

Even if someone has a pretty good theory about how the owner approached a particular season in the present or past, predicting future payroll is a crapshoot, at least at the margins of getting this free agent or not getting that free agent or paying a guy $15 million vs. $10 million or whatever.

Sometimes it seems to me that even the GM doesn't really know when the owner is going to call and say "go get Damon!" or "go get Prince!" or "Go get Upton!"....or when the owner is going to give up the ghost and say "get to Wilson and tell him to sell!".....so how the **** are we supposed to know?

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.


×
×
  • Create New...