Jump to content
HeyAbbott

First Blush 2020 Win Prediction

Recommended Posts

Why do you guys care about smart business, at the expense of the player? So you think what happened to Kris Bryant is ok? 6 years is a long time to have team control. The way teams seem to try and handle this with stars is to stretch that out to 7 years. I will almost always fall on the side of the player. 

I'm not advocating to bring any top prospect up now. None have played at Toledo. But imho once they are ready they should come up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FanDuel Michigan Sports Betting

FanDuel Michigan $100 Launch Offer

Michigan online sports betting is launching shortly ( December 2020 or January 2021). Pre-register at FanDuel Sportsbook and get $50 free sports bets + $50 free online casino bets with no deposit necessary. Claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan Now

2 hours ago, leflore said:

Why do you guys care about smart business, at the expense of the player? So you think what happened to Kris Bryant is ok? 6 years is a long time to have team control. The way teams seem to try and handle this with stars is to stretch that out to 7 years. I will almost always fall on the side of the player. 

I'm not advocating to bring any top prospect up now. None have played at Toledo. But imho once they are ready they should come up

i think what happened to kris bryant is just fine within the rules.  if you dont like the rules, then change them.

and for every kris bryant there arw 10 jake rogers' who arent ready to be called up but are anyway.

kris bryant will make $18.6 million this year.  i think he'll be ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Player movement is good for players, it's not good for the fans. That is a conflict baked into the current system that won't change until the FA system changes.

I'd like to see them try to configure a system where players get a chance to move much sooner in their career but teams get some kind of matching right or cap exemption to sign their own players, maybe that in conjunction with with some other tricks that give older players incentive to stay put.  IOW I'd like them to move toward a system where the owners trade more money early in a player's career for a scheme that leads to less mobility of established players. Teams need to be able to hold onto their stars to build fan loyalty.

The thing that is dumb about the current system is that most players do not really care all that much about where they play, they move 90% for the money. As a group the owners end up paying out the same total as if all those players that moved stayed put - only the fans end up the losers. Maybe some one  needs to organize a league where the league pays all salaries. Let players who want to change teams do it but remove money as the reason and player mobility would probably drop a lot but players would still be "free". The trick would be how to give players fair bargaining power if all contracts come from the league?

Share this post


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

Player movement is good for players, it's not good for the fans. That is a conflict baked into the current system that won't change until the FA system changes.

I'd like to see them try to configure a system where players get a chance to move much sooner in their career but teams get some kind of matching right or cap exemption to sign their own players, maybe that in conjunction with with some other tricks that give older players incentive to stay put.  IOW I'd like them to move toward a system where the owners trade more money early in a player's career for a scheme that leads to less mobility of established players. Teams need to be able to hold onto their stars to build fan loyalty.

The thing that is dumb about the current system is that most players do not really care all that much about where they play, they move 90% for the money. As a group the owners end up paying out the same total as if all those players that moved stayed put - only the fans end up the losers. Maybe some one  needs to organize a league where the league pays all salaries. Let players who want to change teams do it but remove money as the reason and player mobility would probably drop a lot but players would still be "free". The trick would be how to give players fair bargaining power if all contracts come from the league?

Baseball is always been fairly unique in that because it doesn't have a salary cap, instead the luxury tax on the very high end of the salary scale.

This makes baseball function in a more traditionally American capitalistic way, even though its a closed plutocracy....like or not, thats also kind of weirdly American in an H. G. Pennypacker, wealthy industrialist sort of way. 

The draft is supposed to be the leveler, but all it really does is feed the top talent into the worst teams, who then keep them at cheap prices for 6 years and then have to barf them up to the richer cities.

I can see the "fair" logic behind what you're saying but I guess I kind of prefer baseball's herky-jerky traditional way of doing it, versus some clean anaseptic system run by the major league offices.   For one thing I don't really give a hoot about fairness towards players salaries, And secondly I like the fact that baseball is unique in the sense that smaller cities have to scrape to compete with the big boys.  It kinda sucks but it's our kinda suck. ?

All of the above is why I admire Tampa...they do some things I dont like, but they deliver a good product to their fans, even though the fans dont seem to care ?.  I wish Chris I and AA had half the brains and tilt towards quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imho holding a player in aaa who could help add wins with the big club is tantamount to deliberately under achieving as a team. Yes it is within the rules and yes it makes business sense for management. I hate it as a fan and I hate it for the players and I'm quite certain it will change with the next CBA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, leflore said:

Imho holding a player in aaa who could help add wins with the big club is tantamount to deliberately under achieving as a team. Yes it is within the rules and yes it makes business sense for management. I hate it as a fan and I hate it for the players and I'm quite certain it will change with the next CBA

 

How do you see it being enforced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with the upcoming CBA, the players union will look to shave a couple years off of the time for team control. Maybe push for 4 years, which the owners could stretch to near 5. Bryant played 151 games his rookie season. He's played 5 years, but still has to wait 2 more before he can become a FA. 

Share this post


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

Imho holding a player in aaa who could help add wins with the big club is tantamount to deliberately under achieving as a team. Yes it is within the rules and yes it makes business sense for management. I hate it as a fan and I hate it for the players and I'm quite certain it will change with the next CBA

I agree with you on this.

Share this post


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

It’s smart business.  The rewards far outweigh the risks.  

its smart business to bring a player up and trigger his clock, thus voiding one extra year of control so you can have that player for 7 more days that season?  those 7 days are more important than an extra year of control?  please.

smart business is to keep kris bryant in aaa camp for one more week and then bring him up.  to bring him up one week early and cost yourself an extra year of control is managerial malpractice.

again, change the rule if you dont like the rule.  but as long as the rule is in place teams should take advantage of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, leflore said:

Imho holding a player in aaa who could help add wins with the big club is tantamount to deliberately under achieving as a team. Yes it is within the rules and yes it makes business sense for management. I hate it as a fan and I hate it for the players and I'm quite certain it will change with the next CBA

 

depends on the player i guess.  in bryant's case, they kept him down for an extra 10 days or so and the cubs went 5-3.  the week they called him up they went 3-4.  

also, they still won 97 games and went to the nlcs and the next year won the world series.  so it turned out ok.

and kris bryant is currently being paid $18 million and will likely get around $30 million per year when he becomes a free agent.

but i agree with you that the rule seems a bit stupid and is unfair to the players.

Share this post


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

its smart business to bring a player up and trigger his clock, thus voiding one extra year of control so you can have that player for 7 more days that season?  those 7 days are more important than an extra year of control?  please.

smart business is to keep kris bryant in aaa camp for one more week and then bring him up.  to bring him up one week early and cost yourself an extra year of control is managerial malpractice.

again, change the rule if you dont like the rule.  but as long as the rule is in place teams should take advantage of it.

Agreed. The rule requires six full years to reach free agency. You don’t get seven years by holding a guy back. You get five years plus a partial season, and then get one more year. However, that one more year is not cheap. I feel like this fact gets lost in all of these discussions. A fourth arb salary for a star like Bryant is almost the same as what the guy would earn in free agency. He’s getting 18 million this year, right? So he’s going to get something like 25 million next year. 

Share this post


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

its smart business to bring a player up and trigger his clock, thus voiding one extra year of control so you can have that player for 7 more days that season?  those 7 days are more important than an extra year of control?  please.

smart business is to keep kris bryant in aaa camp for one more week and then bring him up.  to bring him up one week early and cost yourself an extra year of control is managerial malpractice.

again, change the rule if you dont like the rule.  but as long as the rule is in place teams should take advantage of it.

My comments had more to do with the current state of business in MLB than just the service time issue.   If you have rules in place but no punishment then you are essentially operating on the honor system.  We have seen that it simply won’t be followed as the stakes from both a competition and financial standpoint are just too large for some to avoid a win at all costs approach.    
 

Until they have a level of real accountability in place, teams and players can and probably should try to take advantage of whatever rules they can manipulate for their benefit.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 8:32 AM, chasfh said:

I don't care about the economics of service time. I care about being interested enough to want to watch Tiger baseball. Bring Manning and Mize up as soon as possible.

I don't care about ******* service time. I do care about winning. Anybody who comes out of spring training this year on this team is just cannon fodder. It makes no sense to bring up guys when the Tigers do not have enough position players on the parent team and in the entire minor league team to make a run at winning. We are not going to win in 2020, or in 2021, or most likely 2022. And yes, I know that no one knows that for sure.

 It is not about economics. It is about having enough quality players on the field together at one time to win. And as far as Manning, Mize, and the rest of the cast that is on its way, figure that 40% will blow up their arms in the first 2 years of MLB service, and of all the position players in the entire farm system today, only one or maybe 2 will be good enough to be a starter on most MLB clubs when they are ready.

The first step toward being competitive will be in spending money in 2021. At that point, folks like Manning and Mize will be ready to compete in the bigs, and after this year's debacle, any sensible thinking would spend money to improve the product. If their is anything salvageable out of the Verlander trade, in 2021 I would expect at least one of the trio of Perez, Rogers, and Cameron to at least to be a sub level player, which is about the best we can hope for.

By the same token, in 2021, given the supposed "quality" prospects we could promote, and spending some money, maybe that team could be a long shot to reach 76 to 78 wins. 2020 may be the biggest year for the Tigers organizationally since the late 70's when the minors leagues had some players in them.

Personally I don't give a damn if the Illitch family ends up homeless, or what other human malady that could befall them. This team is a very long way from being a modestly competitive team. I don't want to see people rushed and add ten years to the time frame when the team is respectable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply want to see Mize and Manning up as soon as possible, so that I have a good reason to tune into at least 40% of the games. I hope they both strike out 15+ per nine, walk fewer than one per nine, and have sub-0.50 ERAs this spring so that it forces the team to bring them north. I would find that delightfully entertaining.

Share this post


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

its smart business to bring a player up and trigger his clock, thus voiding one extra year of control so you can have that player for 7 more days that season?  those 7 days are more important than an extra year of control?  please.

smart business is to keep kris bryant in aaa camp for one more week and then bring him up.  to bring him up one week early and cost yourself an extra year of control is managerial malpractice.

again, change the rule if you dont like the rule.  but as long as the rule is in place teams should take advantage of it.

As within the rules as it is, it is not entirely without cost, as Bryant/Boras are likely to flee Chicago because of bad feelings generated by exactly this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

As within the rules as it is, it is not entirely without cost, as Bryant/Boras are likely to flee Chicago because of bad feelings generated by exactly this.

Probably true but I would guess that we agree that it's chicken bleep on the part of Chris Bryant to pretend that he has to leave a place because of something like this that's a common practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, leflore said:

Why do you guys care about smart business, at the expense of the player? So you think what happened to Kris Bryant is ok? 6 years is a long time to have team control. The way teams seem to try and handle this with stars is to stretch that out to 7 years. I will almost always fall on the side of the player. 

I'm not advocating to bring any top prospect up now. None have played at Toledo. But imho once they are ready they should come up

A lot of fans like to play amateur GM and their posts are written from the perspective of the GM.   I get that.  It is one approach to following a team.  I tend to look at things from a different perspective.  I want to see the Tigers put the best players out there regardless of cost.  I understand why team's don't always do that, but I have always figured that's their problem.  If I say a team or MLB made a bad move, it doesn't mean I think they are being stupid, it usually means  I don't like the move because it lessens the entertainment value (to me) of the team or baseball.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I simply want to see Mize and Manning up as soon as possible, so that I have a good reason to tune into at least 40% of the games. I hope they both strike out 15+ per nine, walk fewer than one per nine, and have sub-0.50 ERAs this spring so that it forces the team to bring them north. I would find that delightfully entertaining.

We aren't getting any younger.  I want to be entertained now!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I basically have 0 sympathy or loyalty towards either side as a group or individually.  If I think that a particular player or owner is trying hard and is sincerely making sacrifices for the game and for the fans, I will admire that and I'll love them for that.  But I think both sides *generally* chicken bleepers who make excuses to screw the game for their own personal reasons.   As a general rule I blame the owners for that sort of thing because to be a wealthy capitalist you basically have to be practiced in screwing people over and players have adopted that mentality in reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chili Mac Davis said:

How do you see it being enforced?

Several different ways. Have arbitration start when a player reaches a certain age instead of service time.  

Share this post


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

A lot of fans like to play amateur GM and their posts are written from the perspective of the GM.   I get that.  It is one approach to following a team.  I tend to look at things from a different perspective.  I want to see the Tigers put the best players out there regardless of cost.  I understand why team's don't always do that, but I have always figured that's their problem.  If I say a team or MLB made a bad move, it doesn't mean I think they are being stupid, it usually means  I don't like the move because it lessens the entertainment value (to me) of the team or baseball.   

 Perfectly represents my mentality as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

As within the rules as it is, it is not entirely without cost, as Bryant/Boras are likely to flee Chicago because of bad feelings generated by exactly this.

bryant is going to go to whatever team pays him the most money.  boras isnt going to direct a client to a team that will pay less money because that team "slighted" him in any way.  to do so would be malpractice.

conversely, boras DEFINITELY isnt going to tell bryant to sign with the cubs if they dont offer him the most money just because the cubs might have been good to him in the past.

ask max scherzer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, chasfh said:

As within the rules as it is, it is not entirely without cost, as Bryant/Boras are likely to flee Chicago because of bad feelings generated by exactly this.

I don't think this would have any impact on what he does in FA.  He'll go where the money is whether it's there or somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s funny but I’d actually like the team to do whatever they can to not win this season.  I think getting Rocker will do more for the future success of the franchise than most anything that can realistically happen on the field this year.   I think he’s that good and I don’t think he will need much time in the minors at all.  

Share this post


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

Agreed. The rule requires six full years to reach free agency. You don’t get seven years by holding a guy back. You get five years plus a partial season, and then get one more year. However, that one more year is not cheap. I feel like this fact gets lost in all of these discussions. A fourth arb salary for a star like Bryant is almost the same as what the guy would earn in free agency. He’s getting 18 million this year, right? So he’s going to get something like 25 million next year. 

That "partial season" for Bryant was 151 games played

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

FanDuel Sportsbook Michigan - Sports Betting is launching in Michigan shortly (December 2020 or January 2021). If you register before it launches you will recieve $50 dollars at their online sportsbook and online casino!

Click Here to claim the FanDuel Michigan for $50 at Online Sportsbook & Casino Pre-registration Bonus Now

Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...