Jump to content

2021-22 Tigers Hot Stove League


RatkoVarda

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Apparently Forbes was out with numbers about team economics. Somebody quoted them saying the Tigers made a "record" 30 million profit. If that is true, then we all need to beg the Ilitch's pardon for all the things we have said about them because that would be a stupid small ROI on an operation the size of an MLB team. It just shows that too many people don't know enough about what they are talking about.

That was operating income. There are other things such as interest expense that would need to be pulled from it to get to a true profit. The Tigers most likely have interest expense as Mike I put up a good chunk of money to build Comerica Park. On the other hand, Parking is probably not in that number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

without looking it's the Cardinals and the Giants  (the 107 wins gives that away).  

Those teams have a huge advantage over the Tigers............

Why do they have a huge advantage over the Tigers?  The Cardinals are not in a big market.  They consistently get good attendance because they have been a smart franchise for a long time.  The Giants are in a bigger market area, but they share that with the Athletics.  The Tigers are not the Yankees, but they aren't the Marlins either.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Why do they have a huge advantage over the Tigers?  The Cardinals are not in a big market.  They consistently get good attendance because they have been a smart franchise for a long time.  The Giants are in a bigger market area, but they share that with the Athletics.  The Tigers are not the Yankees, but they aren't the Marlins either.  

Well, now that they've engaged in dredging the basement for 5 seasons and restarted the farm system with the kick start that they claimed was necessary, its just a matter of maintaining it going forward, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Why do they have a huge advantage over the Tigers?  The Cardinals are not in a big market.  They consistently get good attendance because they have been a smart franchise for a long time.  The Giants are in a bigger market area, but they share that with the Athletics.  The Tigers are not the Yankees, but they aren't the Marlins either.  

The advantage is not having a limp noodle, empty suit as an owner.      

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Why do they have a huge advantage over the Tigers?  The Cardinals are not in a big market.  They consistently get good attendance because they have been a smart franchise for a long time.  The Giants are in a bigger market area, but they share that with the Athletics.  The Tigers are not the Yankees, but they aren't the Marlins either.  

If one looks over the last 90 years of sports management, I would rate the Cards at the top of the heap. They are a substantially smaller market than the Tigers. They have had a knack to identify, attract, train, and retain talent, with some innovation thrown in for good measure. When taken market size into consideration, one would not be awed by the Tiger's way. Hopefully, this era changes that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HeyAbbott said:

If one looks over the last 90 years of sports management, I would rate the Cards at the top of the heap. They are a substantially smaller market than the Tigers. They have had a knack to identify, attract, train, and retain talent, with some innovation thrown in for good measure. When taken market size into consideration, one would not be awed by the Tiger's way. Hopefully, this era changes that.

I sure hope they've turned the page to consistently trying as a minimum. I see the current investment in payroll and staff as indications that may be the case, time will tell. Obviously, if those investments, plus recent draft picks, payoff we can probably expect to watch relevant baseball year in and year out. On the other hand, if they don't payoff, or further reinvestments aren't made, I'm worried Chris I may throw his hands in the air and re-commit to another rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, oblong said:

Aside from the #1 picks are the Tigers deep?  
 

Organizations sustain success by development.  Being handed can’t miss talent by virtue of losing is not necessarily development. 

Well.  We hear a lot about Roberto Campos, a lot of people like him.     The other guys are all really really young like him, but it seems like the transition to a more sabermetric approach should really be across the whole organization by now, so maybe that helps in development.     

After Torklegreene it seems like the next batch isn't that close.  We've got Ryan Kreidler and hope he shows what he did last year and maybe we get another guy like him that we didn't see coming,  Kody Clemens and Daz Cameron are potential bench guys and both still have a chance to improve.    Still need to see more of Dirk Diggler, Izaac Pachecho, Gage Workman and Colt Keith.    But after the two big guys, there is a massive drop off.   Have heard much lately about Reed Rothchild.  

Edited by Motor City Sonics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, KL2 said:

Like usual its all or nothing for you and spending guarentees you a good team. And fans before .500 ball in 2018 and .500 ball in 2024. Instead of .300 ball in 2018 and WS in 2024. None of those are true

Actually your stated objective has always been very extreme, "all or nothing".  Either win a championship or lose as many games as possible and get the top pick, that's been your mantra.

My mantra is simple and middle-of-the-road - don't tank, spend at least an average amount of money, draft and develop, trade effectively, and try to win and make the playoffs at least on a fairly consistent basis.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Apparently Forbes was out with numbers about team economics. Somebody quoted them saying the Tigers made a "record" 30 million profit. If that is true, then we all need to beg the Ilitch's pardon for all the things we have said about them because that would be a stupid small ROI on an operation the size of an MLB team. It just shows that too many people don't know enough about what they are talking about.

Actually, this fits perfectly with what I have heard and understood, AND is consistent with my basic complaint about Chris I's handling of the Tigers - low risk, low reward.  We get a shitty product that *might* eek into decent/good territory but he's not going to dedicate the resources necessary to make it a consistent winner.  

And as KL2 just said to Lee a few posts ago, it's inevitable that the Tigers will go through a bust cycle again.  Note that he did NOT say that it's inevitable that the Tigers will go through a "boom" cycle after all of the tanking that KL2 has supported.

So basically, the idea seems to be "enjoy .500+ baseball (maybe!) and *maybe* you'll be lucky enough to see the playoffs (or not!) before they inevitably crash and burn and go through another 5-year tanking cycle".

Wow, I'm pumped!!

Edited by sabretooth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oblong said:

Aside from the #1 picks are the Tigers deep?  
 

Organizations sustain success by development.  Being handed can’t miss talent by virtue of losing is not necessarily development. 

so what is 'development'. At one extreme you have what the Tigers used to do, which was draft guys, let them play games in the minors and see if anyone rose to the top. IOW, passive. What they are moving to now is maximal interventionist - teaching the mechanics of pitching grips, measuring everything they can about a hitters kinesiology with an aim toward fixing mechanical weakness, etc., etc. We know the 1st approach didn't work, the $64 dollar question is whether the second approach will actually make any difference or if the key remains 95% in the initial scouting and picking. If the latter is true is the system isn't going to matter, it's all in the personnel and you can only hope you find, pay and keep the best scouts. Or probably some mix.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

It has been 45 years since the Tigers consistently added good young talent to the organization, year after year.  Maybe these last 2 drafts will prove to be different

 

yeah - If a Kreidler, Dingler, Workman, Madden or one of the recent international signings make it it will be a welcome step forward. If your 1st rounders make it, you need about 50% on your 2nd rounders and internationals and you aren't in half bad shape as an ongoing system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

yeah - If a Kreidler, Dingler, Workman, Madden or one of the recent international signings make it it will be a welcome step forward. If your 1st rounders make it, you need about 50% on your 2nd rounders and internationals and you aren't in half bad shape as an ongoing system.

Agreed. I kinda want to see where the last couple of drafts pan out, but while the system seems kinda top heavy, I don't think it's barren either at the moment. Particularly pitching wise, especially if guys like Wentz, Brieske, Olson, Faedo can become contributors, Madden and Jobe turn out, etc.

We've talked about it some within the context of them bringing in Pineda, but one can sort of see viable depth in the Minors to shore up the big club this year... that's not a small thing considering how last year went, let alone the rest of the rebuild years 

Its definitely a little more touch and go position wise tho... Campos, Santana and Sequera all look intriguing, but along with Pacheco, Keith, Workman, etc., they seem a ways away. Plus guys like Meadows and Cabrera who haven't lived up to potential - them turning it around would help.

I'm cautiously optimistic with some of the new changes, but we'll see

Edited by mtutiger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

so what is 'development'. At one extreme you have what the Tigers used to do, which was draft guys, let them play games in the minors and see if anyone rose to the top. IOW, passive. What they are moving to now is maximal interventionist - teaching the mechanics of pitching grips, measuring everything they can about a hitters kinesiology with an aim toward fixing mechanical weakness, etc., etc. We know the 1st approach didn't work, the $64 dollar question is whether the second approach will actually make any difference or if the key remains 95% in the initial scouting and picking. If the latter is true is the system isn't going to matter, it's all in the personnel and you can only hope you find, pay and keep the best scouts. Or probably some mix.

To me development is different from talent acquisition. I don’t think players are finished products.  The skill isn’t finding the diamond in the rough. It’s creating it from what you acquired. It’s being good enough to have 3-4 guys in your lineup that are slightly above league average at any given time. Then you use your free agent guys to build around them rather than building around the free agents. Some orgs are consistently better at that and it’s not because they tank and fall into high draft picks.  The tigers didn’t suffer during the recent “golden era” because they sacrificed some high picks for signings. It’s because they didn’t develop average players from the lower rounds.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...