Longgone Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 17 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I always assumed one of the main reasons for the draft (which started before the players had any power) was to cut costs by eliminating competition between teams for players. You are such a cynic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 10 minutes ago, Longgone said: You are such a cynic I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 33 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I always assumed one of the main reasons for the draft (which started before the players had any power) was to cut costs by eliminating competition between teams for players. I don't know about that.. maybe? I've never hear of that though. What I do know is that the St. Louis Cardinals (Branch Rickey) had basically developed a modern farm system ahead of any other team and boat-loaded their minor league teams with signed prospects that no one else had thought to put under direct contract to his major league team. Every one before that had tried to buy out a contract from independent minor league teams (they were ALL independent... until Branch Rickey came along...); and of course the Yankees could buy almost any minor leaguer they wanted to so... In order of fairness to all other teams, the draft was instituted and all (most) minor league teams were bough out by major league teams, creating our modern minor leagues. I don't know about reducing competition/ money to minor league players... it may have had that effect on the best minor leaguers but I don't believe that for 99% of them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 15 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: I don't know about that.. maybe? I've never hear of that though. What I do know is that the St. Louis Cardinals (Branch Rickey) had basically developed a modern farm system ahead of any other team and boat-loaded their minor league teams with signed prospects that no one else had thought to put under direct contract to his major league team. Every one before that had tried to buy out a contract from independent minor league teams (they were ALL independent... until Branch Rickey came along...); and of course the Yankees could buy almost any minor leaguer they wanted to so... In order of fairness to all other teams, the draft was instituted and all (most) minor league teams were bough out by major league teams, creating our modern minor leagues. I don't know about reducing competition/ money to minor league players... it may have had that effect on the best minor leaguers but I don't believe that for 99% of them... Reducing competition for draft picks, not minor leaguers. Prior to the draft, they could sign with any team. With the draft, they can of course only sign with the team that drafts them. I am too cynical to believe that MLB does anything out of fairness. They've been tinkering with the draft all along closing loopholes and changing signing rules to keep down salaries and bonuses down. Sure, the draft also helps competitive balance to an extent, but keeping down salaries is an important purpose of the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 Here is a SABR article talking about the dual purpose of the draft. https://sabr.org/journal/article/the-history-and-future-of-the-amateur-draft/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 The real reason for drafts is to reign in costs. There's no cynicism about it. That's the straight up history of the draft and the reason it exists. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 11 hours ago, Jim Cowan said: Tanking for a basketball pick makes sense. Tanking for a baseball pick is stupid. That's why no one does it. The Tigers just spent five years doing it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 It's also less tanking for a pick... tanking for pool money is more like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 And there is tanking to save money for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 40 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: And there is tanking to save money for themselves. One could say that, but it isn't like draft money goes unspent. Revenue sharing (and tying draft picks to revenue sharing) does create some f'ed up incentives though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 18 minutes ago, Edman85 said: One could say that, but it isn't like draft money goes unspent. Revenue sharing (and tying draft picks to revenue sharing) does create some f'ed up incentives though. I meant that unloading salaries and not trying to be competitive in down years saves them money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Cowan Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 1 hour ago, Edman85 said: The Tigers just spent five years doing it. You think they lost on purpose? I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Cowan Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: And there is tanking to save money for themselves. I don't think that that is tanking, I think that the normal usage of "tanking" implies losing on purpose to get better draft picks. Losing is the method, not the outcome - better draft picks is the outcome. If you are just saving money, losing is a byproduct, but it isn't the strategy. Saving money is its own outcome. Cheap owners often end up losing, not always but often. But in baseball they don't do it for better draft picks. They just save money to save money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 10 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said: I don't think that that is tanking, I think that the normal usage of "tanking" implies losing on purpose... Yeah, The word-usage of "tanking" has become abusive and no longer has any realistic meaning anymore. If a team loses more games than it wins nowadays it's "tanking". I'm sick of all the contempt heaped upon any organization that is legitimately trying to rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Cowan Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: Yeah, The word-usage of "tanking" has become abusive and no longer has any realistic meaning anymore. If a team loses more games than it wins nowadays it's "tanking". I'm sick of all the contempt heaped upon any organization that is legitimately trying to rebuild. Yes and to me the most important point here is that Chris Ilitch, who took over the business in early 2017, runs a very large business and most of us don't, and so you have to ask yourself how in the world he would think that having 5 losing seasons - it isnt 5 by the way, it's 4 - would improve profitability. Clearly he would not think that. He did it for the draft picks? That's preposterous. There was never a Bryce Harper available during that 4 year period. Having 4 losing seasons makes him less profitable. Lower gate revenue, lower merch sales and, most importantly, less leverage in negotiating broadcasting rights. That's what he cares about, money, nothing else. And I don't judge him at all for that, I am just stating an obvious fact. He isn't the frustrated minor leaguer that his dad was. He wanted a more sensible approach to payroll, no more Zimmerman or Upton contracts. No more using free agency as the path to success. Put the organization on a more stable long term footing. The results weren't good. The results were bad. That was an unintended outcome of a smaller payroll. Predictable perhaps, but unintended. To suggest that Chris Ilitch wanted to deliberately lose games though is to not understand the motivation of a business owner. And finally, if Chris Ilitch wanted to lose deliberately during the 2017 season, why did he fire Brad Ausmus at the end of it. So no, the Tigers did not tank "for 5 years" for draft picks. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 19 hours ago, Longgone said: Tanking is a perception, not a reality. Teams are going to rebuild, and to do so, they need to be able to trade present assets for future ones. You can dislike the losing that results from that, but it is a legitimate strategy, not to mention a lottery has absolutely no impact on the behavior, except to distort the function of the draft. I'm not sure that I agree that tanking is a perception. It has definitely gotten a lot more notoriety lately, and I think a lot of that has to do with the recent "Follow the Process" that the Philly 76ers employed. I think that the Astros of the early 2010s employed. I think there are some losing teams that have lost because of different reasons, and tanking could be one of the variables. I guess what do we mean we say tank? I consider it to be putting the best draft choice possible as the top priority for a pro sport season. If a team engages with that as the primary goal, that's tanking (in my opinion). There could be numerous other reasons for a team performing poorly. The 2014 Red Sox (71-91) fell 26 Ws short of their 2013 regular season record and didn't look anything at all like a defending World Series champion. It wasn't at all tanking, not a chance. The Pirates? Are they tanking or just a badly run organization? And I suppose while I am punching at them, let's be honest, the Tigers were trash for a good while before Dombrowski/Leyland and I don't think it can be called tanking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 9 hours ago, Edman85 said: It's also less tanking for a pick... tanking for pool money is more like it. That's a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 7 hours ago, Jim Cowan said: You think they lost on purpose? I don't. I don't think winning was at the forefront of what they were trying to accomplish. Do you? I don't think a case can be made for that theory at all. I think a better case can be made for losing on purpose. Or, at the very least, they put forth a half assed effort to win. Look at all of the FA deals that they made for a few offseasons. All short term and flippable. Look at the "talent" that they chased down. How were they going to build a winner with that flotsam and jetsam? The Tigers' front office priority over the past few seasons was to build up the farm system, both in terms of talent and in terms of systemic development, and also to build up the analytics. I don't think it can be argued that it was necessary. I don't like my team being associated with tanking, but what they do is out of my control. They tanked. It probably sucks to admit it for some because there seems to be a certain element of cheating the system attached to it. Hey, I'd much rather see them emulate the success that the Cardinals have had the last 3 decades. Put a winning product out there more often than not and be competitive almost every season. Have a reasonable expectation to make the playoffs when heading up from Lakeland, and any team in the playoffs has a shot at the crown. That's the goal. Hopefully we can see that going forward with the front office reorganization that they've gone through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 7 hours ago, 1984Echoes said: The word-usage of "tanking" has become abusive and no longer has any realistic meaning anymore. If a team loses more games than it wins nowadays it's "tanking". Is that how most people view it now? I don't. The Angels fall into the losing record category the last few seasons, but I don't think that can be called tanking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gilmore Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 I may be wrong but I think there are currently all three of these: Base Floor for Org player payroll League revenue sharing to help some Orgs Draft/Intl pool money allocations What if there was a tie in between these that incentivized clubs to spend more. It would need to be crafted to avoid problems, establishing limits on amounts. Possibles: Raise floor amount, reduce revenue sharing for teams that stay at the minimum floor level for three out of five years, add matching revenue share dollars to team to expand pool money. The basic idea would be that you can spend more on players (and be more competitive) while not taking much of a hit budgetwise. And conversely, if you don’t spend much year after year, you get dinged in the revenue share. The amounts would need to be balanced. High enough to justify I team spending more for player(s), but not so much that it’s subsidizing a large part of the overall payroll. I may not have thought that through very well, but I trust you fellow morans will poke any needed holes in the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 10 hours ago, Jim Cowan said: I don't think that that is tanking, I think that the normal usage of "tanking" implies losing on purpose to get better draft picks. Losing is the method, not the outcome - better draft picks is the outcome. If you are just saving money, losing is a byproduct, but it isn't the strategy. Saving money is its own outcome. Cheap owners often end up losing, not always but often. But in baseball they don't do it for better draft picks. They just save money to save money. I think of tanking as giving up or not trying to win (not necessarily trying to lose). In the more specific usage, I don't think teams spend the whole season trying to lose, but I think it is tempting to not put the best product on the field at the end of the season to improve draft position or for international pool money. That's why I would like to see these things determined on July 31 rather than at the end of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted February 12, 2022 Author Share Posted February 12, 2022 2 hours ago, casimir said: Is that how most people view it now? I don't. The Angels fall into the losing record category the last few seasons, but I don't think that can be called tanking. Angels strike me as another management stuck on “stars and scrubs” and the scrub part mostly around their pitching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 11 hours ago, Jim Cowan said: You think they lost on purpose? I don't. I don't know what more they could have done to lose games. They put a team on the field that wasn't even a good AAA team. I understand the aspects of a rebuild but the Tigers didn't have to completely destroy the team to rebuild. They could have kept a few "building blocks" and added to it. They got very little for the trades they made of the veterans. An expansion team could have started better than the rebuilding Tigers did. Its not a good look for a team and horrible for the loyal fans. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious D Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 7 minutes ago, Archie said: I don't know what more they could have done to lose games. They put a team on the field that wasn't even a good AAA team. I understand the aspects of a rebuild but the Tigers didn't have to completely destroy the team to rebuild. They could have kept a few "building blocks" and added to it. They got very little for the trades they made of the veterans. An expansion team could have started better than the rebuilding Tigers did. Its not a good look for a team and horrible for the loyal fans. Agree. They didn’t have to go the nuclear route. I say, No Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longgone Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 13 hours ago, Edman85 said: The Tigers just spent five years doing it. I wouldn’t have done a thing differently, except the prospects I traded for would all have panned out. 1 1 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.