LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, Longgone said:

The whole purpose of a draft is to allow the worst teams an opportunity to improve. Why convolute that principle when it likely won't impact perceived behavior?

this. The draft order does what it's supposed to do, which is to help cycle teams and the league toward greater parity. If teams are abusing the system find another way to dis-incentivize the behavior instead of throwing out something that actually does what it's supposed to.

Edited February 3, 2022 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

5 hours ago, Longgone said:

Lotteries stink. They don't work and somebody always gets screwed.

Yeah I'm on board with that.

Screw all these lotteries.

I don't like them. 

[Tiger337]

36 minutes ago, Longgone said:

Again, it's a faulty assumption that a) rebuilding is bad and everyone should strive to be mediocre while rebuilding

 

I think teams should strive to be competitive every year.  Every year there are surprise teams that are supposed to be mediocre and things break right for them and they do better than expected.  

[Longgone]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I think teams should strive to be competitive every year.  Every year there are surprise teams that are supposed to be mediocre and things break right for them and they do better than expected.  

I believe it's generally a poor strategy to operate in the middle. If you are going to rebuild, rebuild and use current assets to reload and build a future competitive core. If you have a decent core then sure. Teams need to be able to make that judgement call.

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, Longgone said:

I believe it's generally a poor strategy to operate in the middle. If you are going to rebuild, rebuild and use current assets to reload and build a future competitive core. If you have a decent core then sure. Teams need to be able to make that judgement call.

Teams need to be ALLOWED to make that judgement call and not have to listen to a stream of "you're tanking" and other criticism. I don't care if it takes 5 years to do it.

If your team is falling apart or going nowhere tear it down and build it up the right way. No matter the length of time it takes.

Edited February 4, 2022 by 1984Echoes

[Tiger337]

Five years is a long time and those five years are just as valid as the next five years. If your team sucks for five years you have failed as an organization.  

[CMRivdogs]

I was basing my proposal based on 20 or so years in a card/dice/computer league. In a 12 team league with 4 playoff teams. (APBA)

You would find yourself with a couple of owners who would go thru the tank and thrive mode every couple of years while owners who played well enough to finish in the middle of the pack found themselves stuck there forever.

I realize MLB is a completely animal from fantasy baseball. If we're experimenting with the current status quo.... 

[1984Echoes]

No. Not necessarily.

An organization could be so bereft of talent due to a prior administration that is takes 5 years to recover.

A new administration may make some initial mistakes but gets better as the years accumulate and shows serious promise and a serious pipeline of talent by the time we get to 5 years.

Baseball prospects take longer to develop than basketball prospects and a team needs more of them to build a competitive team.

These are all valid reasons that a team/ administration is NOT a failure simply because it took 5 years to get a team back on track.

In other words, if the Tigers are a serious competitive team this year, with a bright future, does that mean that this administration is a failure?

Because... it took them 5 years to get here.

[Longgone]

12 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Five years is a long time and those five years are just as valid as the next five years. If your team sucks for five years you have failed as an organization.  

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's intentional and you should be punished if it happens, major sports are extremely competitive and capricious. 

[Tiger337]

45 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

No. Not necessarily.

An organization could be so bereft of talent due to a prior administration that is takes 5 years to recover.

A new administration may make some initial mistakes but gets better as the years accumulate and shows serious promise and a serious pipeline of talent by the time we get to 5 years.

Baseball prospects take longer to develop than basketball prospects and a team needs more of them to build a competitive team.

These are all valid reasons that a team/ administration is NOT a failure simply because it took 5 years to get a team back on track.

In other words, if the Tigers are a serious competitive team this year, with a bright future, does that mean that this administration is a failure?

Because... it took them 5 years to get here.

Those five years which they were bad were a failure.  The reason for the failure might have occurred prior to that, but when a sports team sucks for five years that is a failure.  

[Longgone]

45 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Those five years which they were bad were a failure.  The reason for the failure might have occurred prior to that, but when a sports team sucks for five years that is a failure.  

Let's agree that it is. A lottery isn't going to help the situation in any way and may make it worse.

[Tiger337]

28 minutes ago, Longgone said:

Let's agree that it is. A lottery isn't going to help the situation in any way and may make it worse.

Well. if the Tigers finish with the 8th worst record and then win the loittery, that will help! 🙂

[buddha]

lotteries do not eliminate tanking: see the nba.  only getting rid of the draft entirely or having a true system that punishes teams for failure (like relegation) will do that.

if your goal is to end tanking - or reduce it - in a fashion in keeping with the traditions of american sport and politically possible with themz then increase the number of teams who can make the playoffs.

[Tiger337]

Too much emphasis on playoffs ruins sports.  I vote for relegation.  Or maybe financially reward teams for number of wins. 

I still like having a lottery based on principle, so as not to reward teams for losing. 

At the very least, I won't have to see fans rooting for their teams to lose!      

Edited February 4, 2022 by Tiger337

[casimir]

19 hours ago, Longgone said:

Lotteries stink. They don't work and somebody always gets screwed.

My wife won the lottery and everybody else got screwed (but not by me, I'm married).

Edited February 4, 2022 by casimir

[casimir]

14 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

I would almost prefer to see a reverse type draft of bottom teams. Reward teams that try to be competitive but fall short. Playoff teams would then draft in the usual fashion.

I kind of like this for baseball.

[Longgone]

30 minutes ago, casimir said:

I kind of like this for baseball.

Punishing someone for losing is the antithesis of a draft. Mixing the two concepts is absurd.

[oblong]

56 minutes ago, casimir said:

I kind of like this for baseball.

Me too.

You'd have to study the records and come up with an idea on which teams were 'competitive', where's the cutoff point? Over .500?  75 wins?   Then you put those teams into a lottery.  Even if it's just 5 teams.   You could do the lottery for picks 1-3. then after that business as usual.

 

[buddha]

the purpose of the draft is to make bad teams better, you destroy that with lotteries and giving better teams the top picks because they "tried to compete."

sometimes teams are just bad for a while.  it happens.  

[Longgone]

I maintain that tanking is a perceived problem and not an actual one. The idea that all teams can be competitive every year is illogical. Teams, at times, need to rebuild, and to rebuild you need to exchange present assets for future ones. You can't get rid of assets and simultaneously remain competitive, it just doesn't make sense.

If you sign a successful free agent, the logical thing to do is flip him for future assets to fulfil the rebuild, thereby reducing competitiveness. You can call that "tanking" but it is a reasonable strategy at times, and nothing that requires any punitive measures.

[Cruzer1]

15 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I think teams should strive to be competitive every year.  Every year there are surprise teams that are supposed to be mediocre and things break right for them and they do better than expected.  

It's very difficult for a team like Baltimore to compete with both the Yankees and the Rays at the same time, especially when the Rays get extra picks every draft, and the Yankees get the top international player almost every year.

[1776]

MLB is requesting a federal mediator be involved in negotiations. I was wondering the other day why one of the parties hadn’t done this already. 

[1776]

4 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Too much emphasis on playoffs ruins sports.  

I couldn’t agree more, especially where baseball is concerned. For example, last year the Giants had an incredible year, totally unexpected. They lost out in their first playoff series to the Dodgers. In hindsight, losing to LA in the playoffs was a just a footnote on a fantastic season. The conversation in SF is about how successful last season was, not the playoff loss. The length of the baseball season with its ups and downs, good and bad, are what makes a season entertaining. If the Tigers are competitive more years than not and still don’t make the playoffs, I can still be a happy camper. 

 

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, Cruzer1 said:

It's very difficult for a team like Baltimore to compete with both the Yankees and the Rays at the same time, especially when the Rays get extra picks every draft, and the Yankees get the top international player almost every year.

If they can't compete with the Rays, that is their own fault.  The Rays are a great example of a team getting better without being wealthy and without tanking.  

Edited February 4, 2022 by Tiger337

[chasfh]

14 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

No. Not necessarily.

An organization could be so bereft of talent due to a prior administration that is takes 5 years to recover.

A new administration may make some initial mistakes but gets better as the years accumulate and shows serious promise and a serious pipeline of talent by the time we get to 5 years.

Baseball prospects take longer to develop than basketball prospects and a team needs more of them to build a competitive team.

These are all valid reasons that a team/ administration is NOT a failure simply because it took 5 years to get a team back on track.

In other words, if the Tigers are a serious competitive team this year, with a bright future, does that mean that this administration is a failure?

Because... it took them 5 years to get here.

The difference with the Tigers is that there was no talentless prior administration anyone was taking over from. It was the same talentless administration that was in place for the early 2000s tanking period as well. Front office, scouting, minor leagues, international--all the same. The only practical difference was the guy at the top of the org chart. When he left, the next guy down Peter Principled his way into the top job, bringing the exact same way of doing things that we'd had over a decade before.