LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[Tiger337]

 

 

40 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I also think there's a very good chance we will all look back on the day AJ Hinch was hired and say, "that was the day that everything changed."

I think it's more likely that we look back and say things changed the day they signed whatever players become their stars.  

[Stanley70]

The  small market strategy is to time prospect surges. When they have a nice set of prospects ready to promote they do so in a short period of time, stretch the payroll out and go go for it. Once those prospects start to get expensive they trade them off.

If they are Tampa Bay and they are constantly churning out prospects they can reload. But for the Pittsburgh's and KC's size markets that aren't as prolific at development they bottom out after they have to move the guys that are getting paid. 

The options are to sign a couple of guys before they hit free agency and prop up a declining roster until it inevitably fails. Or trade them off and start building for the next surge.

 

[Stanley70]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

The Tigers rebuild was stuck in neutral for four years until AJ Hinch came on board, 

This isn't true. The Tigers rebuild has taken so long because they were so far underwater to begin with. They had a piss poor farm system and a bunch of bad contracts. They just have a few prospects ready to contribute now since they have been drafting near the top for a few years. Hinch had nothing to do with the timing of that.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Stanley70 said:

This isn't true. The Tigers rebuild has taken so long because they were so far underwater to begin with. They had a piss poor farm system and a bunch of bad contracts. They just have a few prospects ready to contribute now since they have been drafting near the top for a few years. Hinch had nothing to do with the timing of that.

The Tigers still have a fairly shallow system, with very little below the top few guys. I’m hoping that the hires they have made can deepen the system substantially and give us both contributing regulars to our roster and good depth to deal from so we can fill immediate holes.

I would bet Hinch has a lot more informal responsibility for the organization’s success than the chart stipulates. I wouldn’t doubt her set that as a condition for accepting the job.

[Longgone]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The Tigers still have a fairly shallow system, with very little below the top few guys. I’m hoping that the hires they have made can deepen the system substantially and give us both contributing regulars to our roster and good depth to deal from so we can fill immediate holes.

I would bet Hinch has a lot more informal responsibility for the organization’s success than the chart stipulates. I wouldn’t doubt her set that as a condition for accepting the job.

Atta boy, keep chewing that rubber bone

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

I have to ding him as being an incompetent agent of that desire.

this is too harsh Chas - Avila was doing a lot things like bringing in UM kinesiology people and installing pitching analysis equipment up and down the system before Hinch got here. They hired a caretaker in Gardenhire when they were going to be terrible and the players on the roster were not going to be part of the future anyway - they probably couldn't have gotten an AJ Hinch quality guy to take that job if they had tried at that time, and as noted, they might not have gotten Hinch  last year either regardless of how well prepped the system was or wasn't if not for his missteps, so I don't see Gardenhire as much of a marker on where Avila was trying to take the team. 

I will grant everything you want to posit about how good Hinch has been, but if Avila hadn't already put in place the basis for the kinds of tools and direction Hinch wanted to use, he wouldn't have come here.

Edited February 4, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

this is too harsh Chas - Avila was doing a lot things like bringing in UM kinesiology people and installing pitching analysis equipment up and down the system before Hinch got here. They hired a caretaker in Gardenhire when they were going to be terrible and the players on the roster were not going to be part of the future anyway - they probably couldn't have gotten an AJ Hinch quality guy to take that job if they had tried at that time, and as noted, they might not have gotten Hinch  last year either regardless of how well prepped the system was or wasn't if not for his missteps, so I don't see Gardenhire as much of a marker on where Avila was trying to take the team. 

I will grant everything you want to posit about how good Hinch has been, but if Avila hadn't already put in place the basis for the kinds of tools and direction Hinch wanted to use, he wouldn't have come here.

Fair enough on the pitching analysis equipment such as Rapsodo, even if we were late adopters by the time we got it in 2019. Better late than never.

The kinesiology part I hadn't heard and I can't find anything on it, but I'll take your word for that. True as that may be, I still maintain that because the Tigers lagged behind so much in the analytics arms race, that as far as Avila is concerned, he either got religion too late to do anything but try to play catch up to all the other clubs, or he got religion early and would like to have implemented it sooner but couldn't figure out how to get buy-in from the other key stakeholders in the organization. I would bet it took AJ Hinch to come in during the interview process and sell his vision, probably to Chris Ilitch, to finally accelerate the process of dramatic change in scouting, development, and performance science that we are seeing today.

[buddha]

the tigers needed to tank so they could draft high enough that not even avila could fuck it up.

[Tiger337]

The MLBPA rejected the federal mediator.  Tony Clark got off to a slow start, but now he's ready for business.  I hope it's not too late.  

[Jim Cowan]

I'm a long way from anointing Hinch with any special powers whatsoever.  I still think of him as damaged goods who accepted the only job he was offered.  He has 2 jobs: (a) manage the clubhouse and (b) manage the pitching staff.  So far it looks like he can do (a) on a losing team with a lot of no name players, but he couldn't do it on a winning team with a lot of stars.  So, we'll see, the jury is still out.  As for (b), I don't have the expertise to evaluate it but there were times last year when no one in here was very happy with the choices being made.  I don't see that he's much better or worse than anyone else there.

Thanks to Al Avila, the manager gets to have a lot of input.  That's a good thing.  But if theTigers get back to winning 90 games a year it will be because of the players Avila and his scouting and analysis teams acquired, not because of the manager.

[buddha]

in the most titanic battle of grudges, who will win?

chas and his hatred of al avila?

or cowan and his hatred of aj hinch?

 

[SoCalTiger]

11 hours ago, Longgone said:

1. Rebuilding teams would add payroll by taking on bloated contracts for prospects or flip anyone successful and continue to "tank". 

2. Punishes weaker teams for bad luck or poor management, making it even less likely for them to improve. Do you really think some contrived carrot and stick approach is going to make any difference in an already highly competitive environment?

3. Defeats the whole purpose of a draft; to allow weaker teams the opportunity to gain ground.

Face it, tanking is rebuilding, rebuilding may be painful, but it's not bad.

1. I think tanking is more acceptable to ownership when they can have a much lower payroll. Forced to pay they might actually put a respectable team on the field.

2. Well so be it. If the management is poor nothing will ever help them. Maybe hire some talent instead. Yes I do or at least its worth to incentivize teams  to try because some teams are not trying to be competitive. Just the opposite.

3. Or rewards teams that actually are trying to win. They still have the main draft to help weaker teams.

There are only 30 teams in a world full of Billionaires. If you don't want to compete year in and year out just sell your damn team to someone who will. 

Tanking is purposeful suck and it's a disgrace and insult to the fans and game of baseball. It's not rebuilding its sucking.

[Tiger337]

7 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

I'm a long way from anointing Hinch with any special powers whatsoever.  I still think of him as damaged goods who accepted the only job he was offered.  He has 2 jobs: (a) manage the clubhouse and (b) manage the pitching staff.  So far it looks like he can do (a) on a losing team with a lot of no name players, but he couldn't do it on a winning team with a lot of stars.  So, we'll see, the jury is still out.  As for (b), I don't have the expertise to evaluate it but there were times last year when no one in here was very happy with the choices being made.  I don't see that he's much better or worse than anyone else there.

Thanks to Al Avila, the manager gets to have a lot of input.  That's a good thing.  But if theTigers get back to winning 90 games a year it will be because of the players Avila and his scouting and analysis teams acquired, not because of the manager.

It's all about the players.  

[HeyAbbott]

I have read, (I think it was CBS Sports) the the MLBPA has filed, but unresolved grievances against Miami , Pittsburgh, and I believe Tampa Bay. These formal actions were filed before the CBA expired. Can anyone clarify or expound?

[Jim Cowan]

8 hours ago, buddha said:

in the most titanic battle of grudges, who will win?

chas and his hatred of al avila?

or cowan and his hatred of aj hinch?

 

Ha ha, I seek to balance the narrative 🙂

[1984Echoes]

9 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

... There are only 30 teams in a world full of Billionaires. If you don't want to compete year in and year out just sell your damn team to someone who will...

So on this basis... quit trying to institute a lottery.

How about... instead: "Licensing" MLB ownership? 

MLB can "License", or ALLOW an owner to own an MLB team. If over a 10-year period a team is not competitive at all, then MLB can revoke the license and force an owner to sell, or MLB can take over that team in a conservatorship, pay off the owner at an appraised value, and resell to a group that they believe will try to be competitive. Let's say anything over .400 for the decade is a "minimum standard" of competitiveness (some good years, some sub-par, a rebuild...). Anything below that is subject to review by an MLB "Licensing" Board, consisting of NOT-Owners (who may be competitive and love having "losing Orgs" in their division... But instead, HOF'ers, outside legal council, head of MLBPA, the Commissioner, etc... "In the best interests of baseball...".

Every 10-year period is a License, and subject to renewal by Board approval. Same thing with non-renewal. The Board can force a rejection of a teams' ownership renewal and force a sale.

That will fix each and every single teams competitiveness really, really, fast. And MLB will become even MORE competitive then it is now... and there will be MAX incentive to SPEND money on a competitive team.

Amirite? (Not gonna happen but... amirite?)

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

So on this basis... quit trying to institute a lottery.

How about... instead: "Licensing" MLB ownership? 

MLB can "License", or ALLOW an owner to own an MLB team. If over a 10-year period a team is not competitive at all, then MLB can revoke the license and force an owner to sell, or MLB can take over that team in a conservatorship, pay off the owner at an appraised value, and resell to a group that they believe will try to be competitive. Let's say anything over .400 for the decade is a "minimum standard" of competitiveness (some good years, some sub-par, a rebuild...). Anything below that is subject to review by an MLB "Licensing" Board, consisting of NOT-Owners (who may be competitive and love having "losing Orgs" in their division... But instead, HOF'ers, outside legal council, head of MLBPA, the Commissioner, etc... "In the best interests of baseball...".

Every 10-year period is a License, and subject to renewal by Board approval. Same thing with non-renewal. The Board can force a rejection of a teams' ownership renewal and force a sale.

That will fix each and every single teams competitiveness really, really, fast. And MLB will become even MORE competitive then it is now... and there will be MAX incentive to SPEND money on a competitive team.

Amirite? (Not gonna happen but... amirite?)

Or you organize a league as a single big corporation or trust with each team’s management group subject to fan retention vote every so many years. 
 

that would also let you put all players on the same performance based pay scale. And if all funds went first to a single league org, market size advantages would also be eliminated. 

[Longgone]

10 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

1. I think tanking is more acceptable to ownership when they can have a much lower payroll. Forced to pay they might actually put a respectable team on the field.

2. Well so be it. If the management is poor nothing will ever help them. Maybe hire some talent instead. Yes I do or at least its worth to incentivize teams  to try because some teams are not trying to be competitive. Just the opposite.

3. Or rewards teams that actually are trying to win. They still have the main draft to help weaker teams.

There are only 30 teams in a world full of Billionaires. If you don't want to compete year in and year out just sell your damn team to someone who will. 

Tanking is purposeful suck and it's a disgrace and insult to the fans and game of baseball. It's not rebuilding its sucking.

That's a perception. They are all trying to be successful. You may not like it, you may not, as a fan, have the patience for it, but that doesn't make wrong or unnecessary. The idea that all teams can compete at all times every year is just absurd. Rebuilding is a reality in every major sport, to deny that is naive. To punish that, or believe some incentive will prevent it is equally absurd.

[Tiger337]

The idea that teams have to completely tear down in order to get good again is also absurd.  There are many different avenues to success.  

[SoCalTiger]

34 minutes ago, Longgone said:

That's a perception. They are all trying to be successful. You may not like it, you may not, as a fan, have the patience for it, but that doesn't make wrong or unnecessary. The idea that all teams can compete at all times every year is just absurd. Rebuilding is a reality in every major sport, to deny that is naive. To punish that, or believe some incentive will prevent it is equally absurd.

I agree with your point that sometimes teams try and injuries etc prevents them from being successful but that and pure tanking is a big difference. Why are some teams low in the standings almost every year ? 

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

So on this basis... quit trying to institute a lottery.

How about... instead: "Licensing" MLB ownership? 

MLB can "License", or ALLOW an owner to own an MLB team. If over a 10-year period a team is not competitive at all, then MLB can revoke the license and force an owner to sell, or MLB can take over that team in a conservatorship, pay off the owner at an appraised value, and resell to a group that they believe will try to be competitive. Let's say anything over .400 for the decade is a "minimum standard" of competitiveness (some good years, some sub-par, a rebuild...). Anything below that is subject to review by an MLB "Licensing" Board, consisting of NOT-Owners (who may be competitive and love having "losing Orgs" in their division... But instead, HOF'ers, outside legal council, head of MLBPA, the Commissioner, etc... "In the best interests of baseball...".

Every 10-year period is a License, and subject to renewal by Board approval. Same thing with non-renewal. The Board can force a rejection of a teams' ownership renewal and force a sale.

That will fix each and every single teams competitiveness really, really, fast. And MLB will become even MORE competitive then it is now... and there will be MAX incentive to SPEND money on a competitive team.

Amirite? (Not gonna happen but... amirite?)

That is not a bad idea.  Not as cool as relegation, but better than having teams deliberastely sucking for five years with the hopes of getting good again some time.  

[SoCalTiger]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

So on this basis... quit trying to institute a lottery.

How about... instead: "Licensing" MLB ownership? 

MLB can "License", or ALLOW an owner to own an MLB team. If over a 10-year period a team is not competitive at all, then MLB can revoke the license and force an owner to sell, or MLB can take over that team in a conservatorship, pay off the owner at an appraised value, and resell to a group that they believe will try to be competitive. Let's say anything over .400 for the decade is a "minimum standard" of competitiveness (some good years, some sub-par, a rebuild...). Anything below that is subject to review by an MLB "Licensing" Board, consisting of NOT-Owners (who may be competitive and love having "losing Orgs" in their division... But instead, HOF'ers, outside legal council, head of MLBPA, the Commissioner, etc... "In the best interests of baseball...".

Every 10-year period is a License, and subject to renewal by Board approval. Same thing with non-renewal. The Board can force a rejection of a teams' ownership renewal and force a sale.

That will fix each and every single teams competitiveness really, really, fast. And MLB will become even MORE competitive then it is now... and there will be MAX incentive to SPEND money on a competitive team.

Amirite? (Not gonna happen but... amirite?)

Interesting idea. I also think Lotteries are silly but teams should not be allowed to pick low year after year without penalty or    ownership change. Your idea will fix that.

[SoCalTiger]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Or you organize a league as a single big corporation or trust with each team’s management group subject to fan retention vote every so many years. 
 

that would also let you put all players on the same performance based pay scale. And if all funds went first to a single league org, market size advantages would also be eliminated. 

Perhaps even better.

[chasfh]

46 minutes ago, Longgone said:

That's a perception. They are all trying to be successful. You may not like it, you may not, as a fan, have the patience for it, but that doesn't make wrong or unnecessary. The idea that all teams can compete at all times every year is just absurd. Rebuilding is a reality in every major sport, to deny that is naive. To punish that, or believe some incentive will prevent it is equally absurd.

For many organizations, success is measured by profits on the business which is why so many orgs field shit teams year after year. It may be marginally more profitable to win than to lose, but the difference doesn’t appear to be enough to dissuade the perpetual tankers from perpetually tanking. 

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, chasfh said:

For many organizations, success is measured by profits on the business which is why so many orgs field shit teams year after year. It may be marginally more profitable to win than to lose, but the difference doesn’t appear to be enough to dissuade the perpetual tankers from perpetually tanking. 

right. 1st, you probably have some teams whose management does want to win but are just incompetent. The Tigers under Randy Smith probably fit that bill. Then you have the teams you cite for whom profits are more important than wins, and there is no question that doing the most you can to win is probably not the most profitable strategy, or worse, you have a team in the situation where losing a lot is actually the most predictable and financially lowest risk strategy. Clearly those teams should be moved or their ownership replaced, but there is no easy mechanism to get to those decisions.

Edited February 5, 2022 by gehringer_2