Tiger337 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 18 minutes ago, chasfh said: Because they went outside of Avila’s system and helped themselves. So, the guys that were hired by Avila made good picks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 6 minutes ago, chasfh said: I also prefer it when people who criticize picks or trades or signings as being wrong then follow up with what they would have done instead. It gives us a sense of what those fans think is important, which makes debating them more fun, and they might even give us something to think about if they come up with a good alternative. Although, to be fair, many if not most fans are strictly emotional, so they shouldn’t be expected to debate such moves on intellectual terms. They can be simply reactive if they want, and that’s totally fine. It’s just that we don’t have to take their emotional ranting seriously, and we shouldn’t. agreed. And I don't expect, and don't agree, that fans are generally smarter or know was much. They have access to data that we do not. Doesn't mean they are always right of course. You can and should criticize the Tigers for their lack of development overall the last 40 years but to me the Tork pick is immune from that because of the potential top 5-10 picks from that draft... they're all "busts". So it wasn't a case of bad scouting or bad development in this situation. If a few of the other picks were doing ok then it's fair to criticize because they should have at least been able to match the other organizations in that situation and it's fair to expect that Fans don't have to know which one to take in order to criticize. That's not what I am suggesting. But at minimum you can throw out "They should have taken one of the other guys". That's fair. In 2020 there were no other guys. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 Just now, Tiger337 said: So, the guys that were hired by Avila made good picks? Meaning what? Picking them in the draft, or picking who outside the organization they should see to fix themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 6 minutes ago, chasfh said: The problem with the idea was that there were cutting edge organizations that actually succeeded through tanking because they were the first to do it, and then the me-too orgs followed it like it was a plug-and-play formula they could just order off the shelf. I think "tanking" is largely something that teams do to save money. It can work if done right, but it's not necessary and not generally the best way back to contention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 3 minutes ago, chasfh said: Meaning what? Picking them in the draft, or picking who outside the organization they should see to fix themselves? We are talking draft picks. 9th and 19th rounders generally need to improve themselves a lot, but if they don't have innate talent they won't make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 8 minutes ago, chasfh said: I missed that story, do you have a link, or else a source? pure speculation. He PH Jake Rogers in the 10th during the rally. Jake has not been hitting almost as badly as Tork has not been hitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 Just now, oblong said: agreed. And I don't expect, and don't agree, that fans are generally smarter or know was much. They have access to data that we do not. Doesn't mean they are always right of course. You can and should criticize the Tigers for their lack of development overall the last 40 years but to me the Tork pick is immune from that because of the potential top 5-10 picks from that draft... they're all "busts". So it wasn't a case of bad scouting or bad development in this situation. If a few of the other picks were doing ok then it's fair to criticize because they should have at least been able to match the other organizations in that situation and it's fair to expect that Fans don't have to know which one to take in order to criticize. That's not what I am suggesting. But at minimum you can throw out "They should have taken one of the other guys". That's fair. In 2020 there were no other guys. Not only that, but every website with any scouting-based focus, from Pipeline to FanGraphs to BP to everyone in-between, had Spencer Torkelson as THE default 1/1 of that draft. Whether they all, to a man, swung and missed on his potential is irrelevant. What they were looking at was, who was the strongest candidate of that particular draft at that particular time (which, remember, was almost four years ago), and unanimously, it was Spork. So, really, it’s not fair cricket that four years later, or even 20 years later, see who retired with the best WAR, and say Avila 100% screwed the pooch in that draft because he didn’t pick [whoever that #1 WAR guy ends up being]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 hours ago, casimir said: Let’s go back to the beginning of the season and consider just the offense. If you knew Torkleson and Meadows were demoted and Vierling and Perez were two of the better hitters on the team, what would be the expected team record right now? 29-30 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: We are talking draft picks. 9th and 19th rounders generally need to improve themselves a lot, but if they don't have innate talent they won't make it. I already posted a link from a few years ago in another thread proving that Avila and Chadd took a flyer on Skubal not because their scouting told them anything special about him, but because Scott Boras suggested they do so. I wouldn’t imagine they put any more thought into picking Carpenter. I think they saw him as a decent-enough-looking guy on that board who had already been passed on 561 times, including 18 times by Avila himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I think "tanking" is largely something that teams do to save money... I think "tanking" is 99% NOT about the money... I think "tanking" is largely something that teams do when they have a barren farm system and an aged-out no-longer-competitive MLB team. In other words, they screwed up. So now they need to get rid of all their old no-longer-good players, trade the 1 or 2 guys that might have some trade value, and completely rebuild their farm system. In other words, there's no such thing as tanking in baseball or hockey. The developmental period is TOO LONG. In basketball, and possibly football (I don't think it exists in the NFL either), yes. Because in basketball, 1 player can completely change the future of a team, and make an almost immediate impact. The rest of the Org still needs to be run well in order for it to succeed... but that's another discussion. In baseball, with a barren farm system, eventually, the piper has to be paid, and that means losing seasons, most likely multiple. There's no such thing as tanking in baseball. Only rebuilding. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermojo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 8 minutes ago, romad1 said: pure speculation. He PH Jake Rogers in the 10th during the rally. Jake has not been hitting almost as badly as Tork has not been hitting. Rogers has been one of the best hitters on the team the last two weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: I think "tanking" is 99% NOT about the money... I think "tanking" is largely something that teams do when they have a barren farm system and an aged-out no-longer-competitive MLB team. In other words, they screwed up. So now they need to get rid of all their old no-longer-good players, trade the 1 or 2 guys that might have some trade value, and completely rebuild their farm system. In other words, there's no such thing as tanking in baseball or hockey. The developmental period is TOO LONG. In basketball, and possibly football (I don't think it exists in the NFL either), yes. Because in basketball, 1 player can completely change the future of a team, and make an almost immediate impact. The rest of the Org still needs to be run well in order for it to succeed... but that's another discussion. In baseball, with a barren farm system, eventually, the piper has to be paid, and that means losing seasons, most likely multiple. There's no such thing as tanking in baseball. Only rebuilding. Teams can have good farm systems without "tanking". It is not necessary for an organization to have multiple 100 loss seasons in a row in order to get back into contention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 minute ago, Tiger337 said: Teams can have good farm systems without "tanking". It is not necessary for an organization to have multiple 100 loss seasons in a row in order to get back into contention. I don't think so either, especially given how you build organizations. Drafting early is just one piece. I know there's slot money and all of that which goes into it but when you look at a macro level the top orgs over the last 15-20 years you see very few if any sustained losing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 10 minutes ago, chasfh said: I already posted a link from a few years ago in another thread proving that Avila and Chadd took a flyer on Skubal not because their scouting told them anything special about him, but because Scott Boras suggested they do so. I wouldn’t imagine they put any more thought into picking Carpenter. I think they saw him as a decent-enough-looking guy on that board who had already been passed on 561 times, including 18 times by Avila himself. That sounds unlikely. Am I supposed to believe they knew nothing about Skubal and selected him just bcause Boras suggested him? Edited June 3 by Tiger337 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: Teams can have good farm systems without "tanking". It is not necessary for an organization to have multiple 100 loss seasons in a row in order to get back into contention. You just made my point. If a team has a good farm system they won't have losing seasons. If a team has a BAD farm system than they ****ed up. Whether it's bad drafting, bad development, or traded away ANY and ALL decent prospects, or a multiple of the above... Once a system is barren, AND all your good players age out... there is NO CHOICE except to lose lots of games. If it's a good Org maybe they can reload the minors quickly, and the MLB team quickly, and turn things around quickly to keep the losing to a minimum. If it's a BAD Org (Dombrowski did NOT create a strong developmental team, drafted college kids who would rise quickly for the most part, and traded most of them away, and did not do ANY analytics), then it will take LOTS of losing to fix the draft & development team, and refill the minors. It might not be "necessary" to have multiple 100 loss seasons in a row, but it will be REALITY until a bad draft and developmental team FIXES all of their problems. NOT just drafts better. Case in point: Detroit Tigers under Al Avila. He got us maybe halfway there, was slow in doing so, wasn't good enough in multiple aspects of being a GM, wasn't he right guy to bring the process to 100% (hopefully Harris is that guy) and it's taken a crapload of bad seasons to get where we are. But he did point us in the right direction. For all of his faults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 8 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: That sounds unlikely. Am I supposed to believe they knew nothing about Skubal and selected him just bcause Boras suggested him? Right. Boras says "Draft him" and an Org just bends the knee and says "Yes Your Majesty". What an asinine take (not you Lee). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 15 minutes ago, Tigermojo said: Rogers has been one of the best hitters on the team the last two weeks. Ok, then. The last 7 games does confirm you are correct. BA//OBP/SLG 350 .409 .450 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 3 minutes ago, romad1 said: Ok, then. The last 7 games does confirm you are correct. BA//OBP/SLG 350 .409 .450 Comparing to Tork over last 7 days .115 .179 .269 OOOFFF...that's hot garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 5 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: You just made my point. If a team has a good farm system they won't have losing seasons. If a team has a BAD farm system than they ****ed up. Whether it's bad drafting, bad development, or traded away ANY and ALL decent prospects, or a multiple of the above... Once a system is barren, AND all your good players age out... there is NO CHOICE except to lose lots of games. If it's a good Org maybe they can reload the minors quickly, and the MLB team quickly, and turn things around quickly to keep the losing to a minimum. If it's a BAD Org (Dombrowski did NOT create a strong developmental team, drafted college kids who would rise quickly for the most part, and traded most of them away, and did not do ANY analytics), then it will take LOTS of losing to fix the draft & development team, and refill the minors. It might not be "necessary" to have multiple 100 loss seasons in a row, but it will be REALITY until a bad draft and developmental team FIXES all of their problems. NOT just drafts better. Case in point: Detroit Tigers under Al Avila. He got us maybe halfway there, was slow in doing so, wasn't good enough in multiple aspects of being a GM, wasn't he right guy to bring the process to 100% (hopefully Harris is that guy) and it's taken a crapload of bad seasons to get where we are. But he did point us in the right direction. For all of his faults. If a team doesn't draft well or develop well, then they'll end end up with a bad farm system whether they tank or not. If they do things right, they can have a good farm system without tanking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 17 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: That sounds unlikely. Am I supposed to believe they knew nothing about Skubal and selected him just bcause Boras suggested him? https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/mlb/tigers/2019/08/14/how-unlikely-alliance-helped-steer-detroit-tigers-toward-prospect-tarik-skubal/2007574001/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 There is a McCosky article from 2019 that allegedly shows the thinking. According to this Team Boras pushed them over the edge in making the selection but the Tigers certainly knew of him and had him around that position "along with a lot of other people". When you get to that point in the draft who knows what goes into it. Agents certainly have an interest in selling their guys and clubs know that.... I split this up into two posts because the site was giving me fits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1776 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Regarding Tork, and Green to some extent, I have ALWAYS believed they were rushed through the system. Avila was not a good GM and really never had a plan to bring the team back to respectability. Being perennial losers afforded him top draft picks. I said it then as now, I believe Avila believed he could draft his way back to respectability. The fan base, rightfully so, were making a lot of noise about how crappy the product on the field was. I believe Avila was feeling the heat of not showing progress on the field and in an effort to throw a bone to the howling wolves at the door (fans and press) he allowed Tork and Riley to move up before they really had enough time to season in the minors. I believe he was fearful of losing his job. Promoting Tork and Green would be his way of quieting the restless natives for a while. When Illitch said that the rebuild was 100% complete, I have to believe that Avila fed him that line in one fashion or another. Clearly that line hasn’t aged well. As good as Jackson Holliday was in the minors he fell flat on his face in Baltimore. Lastly, from my readings I am of the impression that Tork is resisting changes to his approach at the plate. I guess/hope they have someone in Toledo that he can trust enough to convince him to act on the changes necessary to get him back to Motown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 34 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: That sounds unlikely. Am I supposed to believe they knew nothing about Skubal and selected him just bcause Boras suggested him? i think teams do this a lot more than we think, especially in a sport like baseball that drafts so many players. teams do favors for agents all the time. basketball is notorious for it. did they know NOTHING about skubal? i doubt it. but boras might have nudged them in that direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAbbott Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 It seems to me that it can't be all hit or miss with respect to acquiring players. The Rays, the Dodgers, and until recently the Cardinals seem to be able to find ,draft,develop, and retain the correct players to be successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 36 minutes ago, oblong said: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/mlb/tigers/2019/08/14/how-unlikely-alliance-helped-steer-detroit-tigers-toward-prospect-tarik-skubal/2007574001/ A team STILL has to do "Due Diligence" and "Pull the Trigger". Just because a scout, or Boras, makes a suggestion, does NOT mean that the Org just rolls over and does as directed by... Boras? Boras ORDERED the Tigers to draft Skiubal? No... he didn't. He made a suggestion, the team looked at it and did their due diligence. In fact, they had ALREADY done their due diligence. So here are a couple interesting/ key quotes from the article you posted: It was Boras who encouraged the Tigers to take a hard look at a 19-year-old New Jersey high school pitcher named Rick Porcello. Oh wait, wrong pitcher! But Boras gets ALL the credit because he suggested the Tigers look at Porcello, right? Using someone's F'd up logic. Skubal was on the Tigers’ board, as Pleis said, but there were red flags... “Actually, where we had him was right around when we took him,” Orr said. Oh. Did that just F-up chas's narrative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.