2021-22 Tigers Hot Stove League

[Tigermojo]

46 minutes ago, TheWordIsBird said:

 

Red Sox have offered him a multi year contract. No details on mlbtraderumors yet 

[1776]

AA loves him some Mexicans.

[KL2]

16 hours ago, bobrob2004 said:

But I bet their fans are happier with their performance.

Sure in a vacuum compared to us, but I think if you told them they signed pujols one one title and then sucked the other 9 years they'd be ok with that too.

The point, which you just ignored, is that letting pujols go didn't make them win more. So to argue its somehow the right decision is just conjecture.

[gehringer_2]

15 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Sure in a vacuum compared to us, but I think if you told them they signed pujols one one title and then sucked the other 9 years they'd be ok with that too.

The point, which you just ignored, is that letting pujols go didn't make them win more. So to argue its somehow the right decision is just conjecture.

FWIW, it's also true that StL missed much more performance from Pujols by letting him go than we got from Cabrera by giving him the extension.

[bobrob2004]

1 hour ago, KL2 said:

Sure in a vacuum compared to us, but I think if you told them they signed pujols one one title and then sucked the other 9 years they'd be ok with that too.

The point, which you just ignored, is that letting pujols go didn't make them win more. So to argue its somehow the right decision is just conjecture.

There's no way to tell if the Cards would have won a World Series in that timeframe with Pujols. 

So what measures are we supposed to use if it was the "right" or "wrong" decision?  

[Useful Idiot]

On 11/9/2021 at 4:39 PM, bobrob2004 said:

When Victor Martinez gets injured and misses a whole year, the only solution is to sign Prince Fielder to a 9-year, $214 MM deal.  

If the kid had big Mike's ballz, I'd concede that you have a point, but I'm reasonably confident that the golden age has passed.

You know? I can't believe this topic has persisted this long (an existing big contract being a deterrent to owners willingness to take on additional large contracts)  Remember when we signed the first deal with Cabrera?  Like 8 years @ $152M......2008 I think it was. The following off season Dombrowski was saying publicly that with the recent large commitments the Tigers had made, that we were highly unlikely to be significant buyers.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Useful Idiot

[casimir]

3 hours ago, KL2 said:

Sure in a vacuum compared to us, but I think if you told them they signed pujols one one title and then sucked the other 9 years they'd be ok with that too.

The point, which you just ignored, is that letting pujols go didn't make them win more. So to argue its somehow the right decision is just conjecture.

For whatever it’s worth, Pujols signed a 10 year deal with the Angels.  Just scrolling through the Cardinals’ 1B over most of those years, without question the Cardinals had better production from their 1B than the Angels did from Pujols.

As far as the playoffs and World Series are concerned, the playoffs are pretty much a crapshoot.  Any team can win a single game / 5 game series / 7 game series.  I think in general a team’s goal should be to win the division (avoiding the 1 game playoff) and then hope that their roster is healthy enough to perform.

[Useful Idiot]

Anyway, I'll go as far as to say that due to the kid's aforementioned lack of ballz, we will not sign any other $30+ million/year contracts so long as we have a $32M/yr player  dependably making  outs 3 of every 4 times he has an at bat.

If I'm wrong about that, I'll gladly eat humble pie. But I just don't think they are motivated to the point they are willing  to spend big with such a built-in handicap on the roster.

[Useful Idiot]

7 minutes ago, casimir said:

 I think in general a team’s goal should be to win the division (avoiding the 1 game playoff) and then hope that their roster is healthy enough to perform.

[bobrob2004]

17 minutes ago, casimir said:

As far as the playoffs and World Series are concerned, the playoffs are pretty much a crapshoot.  Any team can win a single game / 5 game series / 7 game series.  I think in general a team’s goal should be to win the division (avoiding the 1 game playoff) and then hope that their roster is healthy enough to perform.

Just look at 2021.  The Braves had the lowest number of wins of any playoff team, including the wild card spots.  Heck, they didn't even get over .500 until August 8th. 

[Jim Cowan]

Yes, we saw that first hand in 2006, the Cardinals won 83 games.

[Sports_Freak]

And now for....." Remember This?"

When Leyland was still manager, there was a guy in the stands who looked exactly like him. They showed him on TV and it was funny.

Carry on.....

[casimir]

11 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

Yes, we saw that first hand in 2006, the Cardinals won 83 games.

The only thing that explains it was Jose Oquendo saved his best 3B coaching for when it counted.

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, Useful Idiot said:

If the kid had big Mike's ballz, I'd concede that you have a point, but I'm reasonably confident that the golden age has passed.

You know? I can't believe this topic has persisted this long (an existing big contract being a deterrent to owners willingness to take on additional large contracts)  Remember when we signed the first deal with Cabrera?  Like 8 years @ $152M......2008 I think it was. The following off season Dombrowski was saying publicly that with the recent large commitments the Tigers had made, that we were highly unlikely to be significant buyers.

Yeah, 2008. Those were the days, huh?

[Jim Cowan]

2 hours ago, casimir said:

The only thing that explains it was Jose Oquendo saved his best 3B coaching for when it counted.

Yes, and the World Series MVP?  Why, David Eckstein of course.

[chasfh]

14 hours ago, Useful Idiot said:

Anyway, I'll go as far as to say that due to the kid's aforementioned lack of ballz, we will not sign any other $30+ million/year contracts so long as we have a $32M/yr player  dependably making  outs 3 of every 4 times he has an at bat.

If I'm wrong about that, I'll gladly eat humble pie. But I just don't think they are motivated to the point they are willing  to spend big with such a built-in handicap on the roster.

Trying to “buck-buck-buckawwww-chicken” Mike Ilitch into offering $30M/year contracts. I like your style.

[chasfh]

18 hours ago, KL2 said:

Sure in a vacuum compared to us, but I think if you told them they signed pujols one one title and then sucked the other 9 years they'd be ok with that too.

This raises an interesting question: if we sign Correa and keep him for the next ten years, from a fan standpoint, would we be happier if we won one title and sucked for the other nine years, or would we be happier making the playoffs most of those years and never winning even one title?

I suppose the closest analogous comparison I can think of is the 2010s Royals, who were mostly under .500 but won one ring, versus the 1996-2005 Braves, who went to the playoffs every year for ten years but didn’t win any rings during that time. Or, if we want to keep the comparisons to the 2010s, how about the Yankees, who went to seven playoffs without winning a ring. Which circumstance would I be happier with during a Correa decade?

I think I’d be happier overall with the playoffs every year even without a ring, versus sitting on Ring Island surrounded by the Under Five Hundred Sea. Sure, it would be a little sad never converting the playoffs to a championship, but at least I’d have fun during the ten regular seasons instead of wailing and gnashing my teeth in despair the other nine.

[Tiger337]

I would be happier with the 96-05 Braves than the 2010s Royals and it's not even close.  Having a good team to follow every summer is what it's all about.  Winning the post-season tournament is fun but that's only a few weeks versus ten fun summers.  

[1984Echoes]

Can I get the 96-05 Braves PLUS the 2010 Royals?

10 competitive playoff-type years plus one Ring?

[KL2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

This raises an interesting question: if we sign Correa and keep him for the next ten years, from a fan standpoint, would we be happier if we won one title and sucked for the other nine years, or would we be happier making the playoffs most of those years and never winning even one title?

I suppose the closest analogous comparison I can think of is the 2010s Royals, who were mostly under .500 but won one ring, versus the 1996-2005 Braves, who went to the playoffs every year for ten years but didn’t win any rings during that time. Or, if we want to keep the comparisons to the 2010s, how about the Yankees, who went to seven playoffs without winning a ring. Which circumstance would I be happier with during a Correa decade?

I think I’d be happier overall with the playoffs every year even without a ring, versus sitting on Ring Island surrounded by the Under Five Hundred Sea. Sure, it would be a little sad never converting the playoffs to a championship, but at least I’d have fun during the ten regular seasons instead of wailing and gnashing my teeth in despair the other nine.

We've had this discussion before people like Tiger337 just want something fun to watch. Me -- the correct group-- wants championships because that's the goal. Nobody remembers the really good teams.

[theroundsquare]

Maybe just the '95 to '05 Braves would be okay 

[casimir]

13 minutes ago, KL2 said:

We've had this discussion before people like Tiger337 just want something fun to watch. Me -- the correct group-- wants championships because that's the goal. Nobody remembers the really good teams.

You spared some time from polishing off your softball league batting championship trophies to post this nugget of knowledge to rest of us?

#blessed

[sabretooth]

16 hours ago, casimir said:

For whatever it’s worth, Pujols signed a 10 year deal with the Angels.  Just scrolling through the Cardinals’ 1B over most of those years, without question the Cardinals had better production from their 1B than the Angels did from Pujols.

As far as the playoffs and World Series are concerned, the playoffs are pretty much a crapshoot.  Any team can win a single game / 5 game series / 7 game series.  I think in general a team’s goal should be to win the division (avoiding the 1 game playoff) and then hope that their roster is healthy enough to perform.

For some people, the only real point to watching a team is to see it win the championship. 

Everything else is failure. 

Let's take two kind of realistic examples of teams that mostly win (Model #1), and teams that mostly lose (Model #2):

- Model #1: team that wins 90-100 games for 7 out of 10 years, does so-so for two years, and has one bad season out of 10, and wins zero championships in 10 years is actually worse than

- Model #2: a team that loses 90-110 games every year for 7 years out of 10 years, then does so-so for two years, then in the 10th year, makes the playoffs and wins the championship.

Furthermore, the guy that prefers Model #2 is convinced that Model #2 is "more successful" than Model #1 BECAUSE the 100+ loss seasons supposedly set up the championship season by providing relatively cheap high-1st-round-tanking pick talent.....and thus Model #2 teams avoid signing Free Agents who might require larger multi-year contracts in their late 20's/early 30's.....Model #2 owners spend less money, and that's the second most important metric, behind championship rings.

The poor unfortunate fans of Model #1 teams have marginally fewer championship seasons, and suffer the indignity of having teams with league-average (or higher!) payrolls.

I know which one I prefer. 

[sabretooth]

I remember the 2006 Tigers.

I remember the 2012 Tigers.

I have great and fond memories of these teams.

I even remember the 1975 Red Sox....I didn't watch a single game, since I was only 5 years old, but I remember them because everybody else remembers them.

I can go on and on with very memorable teams that didn't win a ring.

It would be a miserable universe where winning the ring is the only point of playing or following a sport.

[Tiger337]

28 minutes ago, KL2 said:

We've had this discussion before people like Tiger337 just want something fun to watch. Me -- the correct group-- wants championships because that's the goal. Nobody remembers the really good teams.

I remember the really good teams that lasted a long time.  I barely even remember that Royals team other than they had a bunch of good relief pitchers and got lucky in the tournament.  I remember the Braves vividly.  Maddox, Glavine and Smoltz were one of the most dominant pitching trios ever.