2022 DETROIT TIGERS REGULAR SEASON THREAD

[Jim Cowan]

14 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

This was interesting.  One thing I noticed was how the list dramatically changed with each new generation, but has stayed the same since 1990 other than Cabrera.  The  Cabrera era had other great players, but they didn't stay in Detroit long enough to accumulate WAR.  

 

Yes, Chet Lemon and Lance Parrish arrived at the bottom of that list around 1990 and only Cabrera has joined it since.

The 68 Tigers had Kaline, Cash, Freehan, McAuliffe and Horton make appearances.  The 84 Tigers had Whitaker, Trammell, Parrish, and Lemon.

[BBFCFM]

7 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

Yes, Chet Lemon and Lance Parrish arrived at the bottom of that list around 1990 and only Cabrera has joined it since.

The 68 Tigers had Kaline, Cash, Freehan, McAuliffe and Horton make appearances.  The 84 Tigers had Whitaker, Trammell, Parrish, and Lemon.

Sad how the Tigers have not been able to add to that list except Miggy since the 80's.  Very telling.

[gehringer_2]

Torkelson has had 77 PA in May

1st 31: 039/194/039

last 46: 300/370/475

I think Cole Porter wrote a song about him.....

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

2 hours ago, BBFCFM said:

Sad how the Tigers have not been able to add to that list except Miggy since the 80's.  Very telling.

They had some players worthy of the top 15 like Verlander and Scherzer but they didn't play in Detroit long enough.  I wonder if other franchises have the same thing happening since star players move around more  than they used to.  

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

star players move around more  than they used to.  

And they really didn't do any thing to help in the new CBA, which is too bad for fans.

[Tiger337]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

And they really didn't do any thing to help in the new CBA, which is too bad for fans.

yeah, it's not not good for fans. When I look back even to the 70s and 80s after free agency started, I think of star players staying with the same team.  I associated Brett with the Royals, Schmidt with the Phillies, Aaron with the Braves, etc.  That doesn't happen so much now.  

[sabretooth]

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

yeah, it's not not good for fans. When I look back even to the 70s and 80s after free agency started, I think of star players staying with the same team.  I associated Brett with the Royals, Schmidt with the Phillies, Aaron with the Braves, etc.  That doesn't happen so much now.  

I agree....I associate players with my fantasy team moreso than with MLB teams.  This will continue as long as more $$ is associated with more player movement.

[Tigeraholic1]

I doubt you ever see a Tram/Lou type same team combo career ever again.

[BBFCFM]

17 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I doubt you ever see a Tram/Lou type same team combo career ever again.

Unfortunately no.

[Tiger337]

The 60s and 80s Tigers had cores which we will always associate with those teams.  The 2006-2013 era had some great players and it was fun, but when I think back on it, I think of players cycling in and out.  It's a different kind of memory.  Cabrera is the one that stayed the longest.  Verlander had a great run, but then he was traded to the Astros where he had arguably more success which makes it harder to claim him as a Tiger.  Same thing with Scherzer.  

[BBFCFM]

35 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

The 60s and 80s Tigers had cores which we will always associate with those teams.  The 2006-2013 era had some great players and it was fun, but when I think back on it, I think of players cycling in and out.  It's a different kind of memory.  Cabrera is the one that stayed the longest.  Verlander had a great run, but then he was traded to the Astros where he had arguably more success which makes it harder to claim him as a Tiger.  Same thing with Scherzer.  

Agree on Scherzer.  But Verlander having more success as an Astro?  You are going to have to sell that a bit harder before I buy that deal.

[BBFCFM]

On 5/29/2022 at 10:00 AM, BBFCFM said:

 

 

 

 

[Tiger337]

19 minutes ago, BBFCFM said:

Agree on Scherzer.  But Verlander having more success as an Astro?  You are going to have to sell that a bit harder before I buy that deal.

Yeah, he really hasn't had more.  I will just say that he has had enough success where he is now identified with two teams rather than just the Tigers.  

[BBFCFM]

4 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Yeah, he really hasn't had more.  I will just say that he has had enough success where he is now identified with two teams rather than just the Tigers.  

Copy that.

[StatikIEV]

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I doubt you ever see a Tram/Lou type same team combo career ever again.

Not so sure...at least when it comes to generational talent such as you mentioned playing on the same team long term.  Same for having new faces on that infographic in the future.

Seems to me like the analytics of things are now changing, and spreading into things not on field... notably risk/reward contractually on youth.

Specifically, leveraging control years, and a player's need for either instant gratification and/or security,for the (theoretically) club-friendly decade+ contracts when it comes to players that are large skill outliers to the norm.

The odds of two generational talents coming up together is what is ultra rare (and what we may not see again...or for a very long time anyway)...but I think the odds of two such youngsters ultimately having long careers together on one team is much more probable today then it was at any other point in the last 20 years or so.

/insert Franco, Tatis contracts here

Disclaimer:  I think it's important to not make the definition of 'star player' too broad here. Good to great players aren't likely to get this sort of treatment, they will still probably hop around to 2, 3, 4 teams over their careers in exchange for teams still fully enjoying their team friendly controlled years...but we likely will see 1 or 2 'monster' contracts given out every year to the young and uber-gifted (who arent pitchers)...IMO.

So, as a scenario, let's put on our make-believe hats, and say Tork stops 'sucking wind,' goes on a tear and hits 50 HRs this year and 60 next year...while Greene comes up in June and posts 5 WAR, then 8 next year.  I postulate that team would intensely focus on re-allocating the freed-up 'Cabrera money' to locking them both down for the next dozen years...as opposed to enjoying the cheap, controlled years of the duo, and deploying that saved cash elsewhere...as teams have been want to do the past few decades 

Sidenote:  Not sure if anyone recalls, but I had ~7000 or so posts before ~2010 at the 'old' forum...been lurking silently for a decade plus. So...'hey again', (=  /wave

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by StatikIEV
Added context

[chasfh]

17 hours ago, buddha said:

deadball eras, two teams not trying to win, and al avila's tigers.

You can never have too much pitching ...

[BBFCFM]

3 minutes ago, StatikIEV said:

Not so sure...at least when it comes to generational talent such as you mentioned.

Seems to me like the analytics of things are now spreading into things not on field... notably risk/reward contractually on youth.

Specifically, leveraging control years, and a player's need for either instant gratification and/or security,for the (theoretically) club-friendly decade+ contracts when it comes to players that are large skill outliers to the norm.

The odds of two generational talents coming up together is what is ultra rare (and what we may not see again...or for a very long time anyway)...but I think the odds of two such youngsters ultimately having long careers together on one team is much more probable today then it was at any other point in the last 20 years or so.

/insert Franco, Tatis contracts here

Disclaimer:  I think it's important to not make the definition of 'star player' too broad here. Good to great players aren't likely to get this sort of treatment, they will still probably hop around to 2, 3, 4 teams over their careers in exchange for teams still fully enjoying their team friendly controlled years...but we likely will see 1 or 2 'monster' contracts given out every year to the young and uber-gifted (who arent pitchers)...IMO.

So, as a scenario, let's put on our make-believe hats, and say Tork stops 'sucking wind,' goes on a tear and hits 50 HRs this year and 60 next year...while Greene comes up in June and posts 5 WAR, then 8 next year.  I postulate that team would intensely focus on re-allocating the freed-up 'Cabrera money' to locking them both down for the next dozen years...as opposed to enjoying the cheap, controlled years of the duo, and deploying that saved cash elsewhere...as teams have been want to do the past few decades 

Sidenote:  Not sure if anyone recalls, but I had ~7000 or so posts before ~2010 at the 'old' forum...been lurking silently for a decade plus. So...'hey again', (=  /wave

 

Great argument, makes plenty of sense

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, StatikIEV said:

Not so sure...at least when it comes to generational talent such as you mentioned.

Seems to me like the analytics of things are now spreading into things not on field... notably risk/reward contractually on youth.

Specifically, leveraging control years, and a player's need for either instant gratification and/or security,for the (theoretically) club-friendly decade+ contracts when it comes to players that are large skill outliers to the norm.

The odds of two generational talents coming up together is what is ultra rare (and what we may not see again...or for a very long time anyway)...but I think the odds of two such youngsters ultimately having long careers together on one team is much more probable today then it was at any other point in the last 20 years or so.

/insert Franco, Tatis contracts here

Disclaimer:  I think it's important to not make the definition of 'star player' too broad here. Good to great players aren't likely to get this sort of treatment, they will still probably hop around to 2, 3, 4 teams over their careers in exchange for teams still fully enjoying their team friendly controlled years...but we likely will see 1 or 2 'monster' contracts given out every year to the young and uber-gifted (who arent pitchers)...IMO.

So, as a scenario, let's put on our make-believe hats, and say Tork stops 'sucking wind,' goes on a tear and hits 50 HRs this year and 60 next year...while Greene comes up in June and posts 5 WAR, then 8 next year.  I postulate that team would intensely focus on re-allocating the freed-up 'Cabrera money' to locking them both down for the next dozen years...as opposed to enjoying the cheap, controlled years of the duo, and deploying that saved cash elsewhere...as teams have been want to do the past few decades 

Sidenote:  Not sure if anyone recalls, but I had ~7000 or so posts before ~2010 at the 'old' forum...been lurking silently for a decade plus. So...'hey again', (=  /wave

 

This was a good first post.  Did you have the same name at the old forum, because I don't remember you.  Even though it was a long time ago, I usually remember names.  

You made good points here:

(1) There probably won't be another Whitaker/Trammell because it is so rare to develop two generational talents at the same time.

(2) The new trend of players signing long-term contract very early.  I wouldn't go so far as saying that it makes it more likely they stay forthe long haul.  They can still be traded if ownership decides they are getting too expensive.  It is a different dynamic than the past couple of decades though and could cause a change in career trajectory.     

[chasfh]

29 minutes ago, StatikIEV said:

Not so sure...at least when it comes to generational talent such as you mentioned.

Seems to me like the analytics of things are now spreading into things not on field... notably risk/reward contractually on youth.

Specifically, leveraging control years, and a player's need for either instant gratification and/or security,for the (theoretically) club-friendly decade+ contracts when it comes to players that are large skill outliers to the norm.

The odds of two generational talents coming up together is what is ultra rare (and what we may not see again...or for a very long time anyway)...but I think the odds of two such youngsters ultimately having long careers together on one team is much more probable today then it was at any other point in the last 20 years or so.

/insert Franco, Tatis contracts here

Disclaimer:  I think it's important to not make the definition of 'star player' too broad here. Good to great players aren't likely to get this sort of treatment, they will still probably hop around to 2, 3, 4 teams over their careers in exchange for teams still fully enjoying their team friendly controlled years...but we likely will see 1 or 2 'monster' contracts given out every year to the young and uber-gifted (who arent pitchers)...IMO.

So, as a scenario, let's put on our make-believe hats, and say Tork stops 'sucking wind,' goes on a tear and hits 50 HRs this year and 60 next year...while Greene comes up in June and posts 5 WAR, then 8 next year.  I postulate that team would intensely focus on re-allocating the freed-up 'Cabrera money' to locking them both down for the next dozen years...as opposed to enjoying the cheap, controlled years of the duo, and deploying that saved cash elsewhere...as teams have been want to do the past few decades 

Sidenote:  Not sure if anyone recalls, but I had ~7000 or so posts before ~2010 at the 'old' forum...been lurking silently for a decade plus. So...'hey again', (=  /wave

 

Welcome "back", Statik.

Tram and Lou were a special case in that they were a double play combination that could also hit some:

(Divisional era, played 80%+ games at either 2B/SS, 7500+ plate appearances)

So they were historically special because they depended on each other on the field as well. Riley and TORK! do not and never will. So it is a little different on that front.

That said, I'm not sure a 2022-era DP-combination at the level of Tram and Lou is necessarily more likely to get the money and extensions to keep them in their first organization now than they would have 20 or 30 or 40 years ago.

For one thing, can you imagine the cost? Paying them their worth for even 15 years—let alone 19—would probably cost well over half a billion dollars just for those two. Sure, practically every team can afford that and more, but given the budgets teams impose on themselves in the interest of maximizing profit, such money would definitely come out of the rest of the team.

Secondly, they'd have to come up in an organization willing to pay two guys that kind of money to keep them long-term. That probably reduces the list of possible teams from 30 to a dozen tops, of which the Ilitch Tigers probably are not one, especially with the old man gone.

Lastly, both guys would have to want to stay with that organization and work out a deal with them, and all three entities might be so strong-willed they don't give an inch in negotiations. Typically speaking, the ballclub and player rarely agree on what the value of that player is, so to make this kind of thing work, one side or the other would probably have to give in some on their demands just in the interest of keeping the two guys together for those 15 or so years.

It seems like there are more barriers to making that happen in the 2020s and 2030s than there were in the 1970s through 1990s.

 

 

[StatikIEV]

41 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

This was a good first post.  Did you have the same name at the old forum, because I don't remember you.  Even though it was a long time ago, I usually remember names.  

You made good points here:

(1) There probably won't be another Whitaker/Trammell because it is so rare to develop two generational talents at the same time.

(2) The new trend of players signing long-term contract very early.  I wouldn't go so far as saying that it makes it more likely they stay forthe long haul.  They can still be traded if ownership decides they are getting too expensive.  It is a different dynamic than the past couple of decades though and could cause a change in career trajectory.     

Heya,

Yes same ID more or less...it was probably just Statik at the time (the IEV stands for shortform of InsideEVs.com...an electric car media company I founded back in the day).  I guess I was not-so memorable (was active betwen 2005 and 2010)...I'm back again, but I will try to pepper in the odd quip or profanity-laced tirade so that I am more notable, heeh.

Agree with all you have said here.

 

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, StatikIEV said:

Heya,

Yes same ID more or less...it was probably just Statik at the time (the IEV stands for shortform of InsideEVs.com...an electric car media company I founded back in the day).  I guess I was not-so memorable (was active betwen 2005 and 2010)...I'm back again, but I will try to pepper in the odd quip or profanity-laced tirade so that I am more notable, heeh.

Agree with all you have said here.

 

I do remember Statik without the IEV.  

[chasfh]

52 minutes ago, StatikIEV said:

Heya,

Yes same ID more or less...it was probably just Statik at the time (the IEV stands for shortform of InsideEVs.com...an electric car media company I founded back in the day).  I guess I was not-so memorable (was active betwen 2005 and 2010)...I'm back again, but I will try to pepper in the odd quip or profanity-laced tirade so that I am more notable, heeh.

Agree with all you have said here.

 

I’m intrigued by “electric car media”. What is that?

[StatikIEV]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Welcome "back", Statik.

Tram and Lou were a special case in that they were a double play combination that could also hit some:

(Divisional era, played 80%+ games at either 2B/SS, 7500+ plate appearances)

So they were historically special because they depended on each other on the field as well. Riley and TORK! do not and never will. So it is a little different on that front.

That said, I'm not sure a 2022-era DP-combination at the level of Tram and Lou is necessarily more likely to get the money and extensions to keep them in their first organization now than they would have 20 or 30 or 40 years ago.

For one thing, can you imagine the cost? Paying them their worth for even 15 years—let alone 19—would probably cost well over half a billion dollars just for those two. Sure, practically every team can afford that and more, but given the budgets teams impose on themselves in the interest of maximizing profit, such money would definitely come out of the rest of the team.

Secondly, they'd have to come up in an organization willing to pay two guys that kind of money to keep them long-term. That probably reduces the list of possible teams from 30 to a dozen tops, of which the Ilitch Tigers probably are not one, especially with the old man gone.

Lastly, both guys would have to want to stay with that organization and work out a deal with them, and all three entities might be so strong-willed they don't give an inch in negotiations. Typically speaking, the ballclub and player rarely agree on what the value of that player is, so to make this kind of thing work, one side or the other would probably have to give in some on their demands just in the interest of keeping the two guys together for those 15 or so years.

It seems like there are more barriers to making that happen in the 2020s and 2030s than there were in the 1970s through 1990s.

 

 

I think all this is a high probability too. 

The point I was attempting to make (perhaps not so eloquently) was more to the odds of a longer duration of a contract than we have seen, and thus then length of potential tenure with one team in the case of a new, young generational player today ...over the likelihood of a specific generational talent combination like Tram and Lou existing on the same team in their formative years.  That as you point out...is a very remote occurrence.

As others have mentioned, and is a very fair/unknown data point, is what will teams do with a generational asset when they have it locked into a favorable, ultra long contract?  Both in asset value and/or cost of the contract.  This we haven't seen played out.

Using a specific example, if Tatis continues to be Tatis when he returns, and he puts up Trout numbers next year and the year after, will the fact they still have him under contract for the next 10 years further, age 26 to 35 at an 29.9M AAV, eventually pressure the 'smart people' on the team to leverage their club advantage for an even potential greater return when opportunity presents?

To your second point on the 'cost', I don't think this comes into play for true generational talent...really for any of the clubs, save a handful.

The point of these contracts is to save money (potentially a monster pile of it) by opening up your team's future risk profile in exchange for the young player's need for security and/or greed (depending on your prospective I guess).  If the play pays off...the money is a non issue IMO.

Is paying Wander Franco $25 million in 2033, at 32 years old (especially if he is the yearly 5-8 WAR player as projected), a burden to a team when the 3rd lowest payroll in MLB today is almost $70 million?  10 years from now all teams will likely be north of 100 million.  25M for a phenom (or 50 for 2) seems very doable...especially when accounting for the additional indirect value of the 'franchise' player (merch, gate revenue and loyalty of fans).  What is the fair market value of a 32 year old elite player in 2033? 50 million a year? 60? 70?  

Again, I think this further underlines your point the potential for these types of contracts, if successful, to be used as trade leverage...although the inverse can also be true;  the reason for giving the contract in the first place (exchanging control for more cash), means that another re-up for more years could in exchange for a higher AAV could present itself again. Ie) if Franco is putting up an 8 war at 32 and has two years left at 25M...maybe it makes sense to add a couple years more at a higher number.

...but I digress.  Apologies for the long reply.

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by StatikIEV

[StatikIEV]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I’m intrigued by “electric car media”. What is that?

Basically it was just a blog with a single employee when I started it (before EVs were a thing/big).  But eventually it turned into a full 24/7 news outlet, analytics, live reviews/test drives, event coverage/debuts, etc outlet in 6 languages (~20M/visits month) with way too many people working at it. 

So I'm really not sure what to call it these days. I just say media so people don't think it's a blog I did in my PJs in my mother's basement. At its heart...it's just a fancy blog I guess, lol.

[Tigeraholic1]