Jump to content
southsider2k5

The MLB lockout is lifted!

Recommended Posts

This sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see tanking gong away. It isn't all about the draft pick, and it also isn't like owners lose their shirts not trying to win. Some actually make more money. They could do it where they have mini lotteries say 1-8. 9-16...and a formula could be developed where the ranking isn't by record only. You could add an element based on where a team's payroll is vs. where it had been the previous 5 seasons. If it's much lower, they move down. If it's higher, you move up.

But until there is total revenue sharing, the Pirates, Marlins, A;s, are never going to be in for the big name free agents, and they are at a total disadvantage. Theo Epstein is no doubt a future HOF executive. But could you imagine if he ran the Pirates? He would just be a guy. He always had money to throw at his mistakes. He's probably has agreed to more bad money than any other executive during his time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

I don't see tanking gong away. It isn't all about the draft pick, and it also isn't like owners lose their shirts not trying to win. Some actually make more money. They could do it where they have mini lotteries say 1-8. 9-16...and a formula could be developed where the ranking isn't by record only. You could add an element based on where a team's payroll is vs. where it had been the previous 5 seasons. If it's much lower, they move down. If it's higher, you move up.

But until there is total revenue sharing, the Pirates, Marlins, A;s, are never going to be in for the big name free agents, and they are at a total disadvantage. Theo Epstein is no doubt a future HOF executive. But could you imagine if he ran the Pirates? He would just be a guy. He always had money to throw at his mistakes. He's probably has agreed to more bad money than any other executive during his time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

Good point.

Message board for "what he said"

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanking for draft picks is the excuse teams use to appease the fanbase.  Sure Owners love their cheap talent none more so than Jerry Reinsdorf but they love the bottom line from years of running low major league payrolls and rat holing obscene amounts of money a hell of a lot more. There's not a perfect solution to prevent tanking because there will always be owners who care more about making money than putting a quality product on the field but at least they can make it more difficult for them and shit canning a system that rewards losing is a great place to start.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something I'd be open to which achieves something similar. In leagues with relegation, obviously big help of moving up a league is getting more money and budget and resources, as well as prestige, etc.

What if you kept the slotting of draft picks by record, but gave draft pool bonuses and intl FA bonuses to teams that make playoffs or finish top 10 in their league. The team with the #1 overall draft pick still has the ability to get the rights for a year to an elite prospect, but wouldn't be able to hoard a huge draft draft class as well because the money is more equalized across the draft class.

The reason this won't work is it will be complicated at hell for what happens to the overall draft pool for the first year (do you grow it for the bonus money, or reduce recommended slot?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bmags said:

Here's something I'd be open to which achieves something similar. In leagues with relegation, obviously big help of moving up a league is getting more money and budget and resources, as well as prestige, etc.

What if you kept the slotting of draft picks by record, but gave draft pool bonuses and intl FA bonuses to teams that make playoffs or finish top 10 in their league. The team with the #1 overall draft pick still has the ability to get the rights for a year to an elite prospect, but wouldn't be able to hoard a huge draft draft class as well because the money is more equalized across the draft class.

The reason this won't work is it will be complicated at hell for what happens to the overall draft pool for the first year (do you grow it for the bonus money, or reduce recommended slot?).

To build off this, something you and I would love:

Rename the "competitive balance picks" to "didn't tank picks"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

I don't see tanking gong away. It isn't all about the draft pick, and it also isn't like owners lose their shirts not trying to win. Some actually make more money. They could do it where they have mini lotteries say 1-8. 9-16...and a formula could be developed where the ranking isn't by record only. You could add an element based on where a team's payroll is vs. where it had been the previous 5 seasons. If it's much lower, they move down. If it's higher, you move up.

But until there is total revenue sharing, the Pirates, Marlins, A;s, are never going to be in for the big name free agents, and they are at a total disadvantage. Theo Epstein is no doubt a future HOF executive. But could you imagine if he ran the Pirates? He would just be a guy. He always had money to throw at his mistakes. He's probably has agreed to more bad money than any other executive during his time.

Tanking probably won't go away, and I, for one, am not buying into the next Sox tank job when there is one. I've been a fan for decades and seen plenty of losing already. I will not go watch the team lose on purpose again. It's one thing to rebuild; it's quite another to have to tank because a team has been run into the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bmags said:

Here's something I'd be open to which achieves something similar. In leagues with relegation, obviously big help of moving up a league is getting more money and budget and resources, as well as prestige, etc.

What if you kept the slotting of draft picks by record, but gave draft pool bonuses and intl FA bonuses to teams that make playoffs or finish top 10 in their league. The team with the #1 overall draft pick still has the ability to get the rights for a year to an elite prospect, but wouldn't be able to hoard a huge draft draft class as well because the money is more equalized across the draft class.

The reason this won't work is it will be complicated at hell for what happens to the overall draft pool for the first year (do you grow it for the bonus money, or reduce recommended slot?).

Give money to Yanks and Dodgers?

Having a $100,000,000 floor solves a lot of problems, tanking included.  If this thing gets too complicated, greed and anger take over and it might not get fixed until mid-summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldsox said:

Give money to Yanks and Dodgers?

Having a $100,000,000 floor solves a lot of problems, tanking included.  If this thing gets too complicated, greed and anger take over and it might not get fixed until mid-summer.

It's not money, it's giving the opportunity to spend more on the draft to teams that win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Quin said:

To build off this, something you and I would love:

Rename the "competitive balance picks" to "didn't tank picks"

yeah I won't hold my breath. Jerry has prioritized the players losing instead of fighting the competitive balance arguments. But for all the finger wagging at the sox for their drafts, and they deserve it, they are the only team in the ALC without competitive balance picks. We get less intl spending money than every other team. So yeah, their freakin "bigger budgets" better work in getting free agents because the other teams in the division get a whole lot of handouts when it comes to competing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmags said:

It's not money, it's giving the opportunity to spend more on the draft to teams that win.

Devil's advocate position.

Won't the Dodgers just lock up their division in perpetuity if they get a few extra international signings? Or the Astros? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Devil's advocate position.

Won't the Dodgers just lock up their division in perpetuity if they get a few extra international signings? Or the Astros? 

No I think it would be a big boost to Giants, Mariners, Angels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Theo Epstein is no doubt a future HOF executive. But could you imagine if he ran the Pirates? He would just be a guy. He always had money to throw at his mistakes. He's probably has agreed to more bad money than any other executive during his time.

I can imagine if Theo ran the Pirates. He'd probably be just like Friedman, who made the Rays punch well above their weight class, before being picked up by the Dodgers. In the end, smart FO people get picked up by smart baseball organizations, who then curbstomp the mouthbreather orgs in MLB. Theo would have been no different if he ran the Pirates for a few years before a richer/smarter org scooped him up.

For all the whining about shittburg and other teams that supposedly "can't compete," smarter orgs like Tampa and Milwaukee make dumbass orgs look like fools. And yes, while money is "AN advantage," it is no longer "THE SOLE advantage" it used to be. Or else, Cashman and the yankmees would simply buy championships.

 

Nowadays, yes, money helps, but intellect in the FOs make the difference between an absolute buzzsaw like the Dodgers, and just another competitor in the Yankmees. On the other end of the economic scale, intellect is the difference between Tampa and shittburg/cincy/baltimore/other random loser orgs in MLB...

Edited by Two-Gun Pete
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Nowadays, yes, money helps, but intellect in the FOs make the difference between an absolute buzzsaw like the Dodgers, and just another competitor in the Yankmees. On the other end of the economic scale, intellect is the difference between Tampa and shittburg/cincy/baltimore/other random loser orgs in MLB...

Where would you rank the White Sox Organization?

Basically middle of both economic and intellect?

I'd kinda say middle of economic and low on intellect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Where would you rank the White Sox Organization?

Basically middle of both economic and intellect?

I'd kinda say middle of economic and low on intellect. 

The White Sox are in this screwy economic zone where they have way more limits on their resources than a team like the Cubs or Phillies (whether those limits are justified or just ownership taking profits is a matter for discussion)...but they don't get the extra draft benefits that the Cardinals, Tigers, and Padres get.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The White Sox are in this screwy economic zone where they have way more limits on their resources than a team like the Cubs or Phillies (whether those limits are justified or just ownership taking profits is a matter for discussion)...but they don't get the extra draft benefits that the Cardinals, Tigers, and Padres get.

This is 100% correct and it has huge issues. It's really hard for sox to maintain a top farm (it was hard for cubs to maintain top farm, it was hard for phillies to maintain top farm) with those constraints, but yes obviously the dodgers have been able to. But the Dodgers also have a massive front office and I imagine it's foreign operations run much hotter, so it runs back to point 1 Balta mentioned.

I'd say there is ample Reinsdorf ammo there. Either you can point to point 1, or that as an owner he has tried hard to get owners in a united front against the players, and has not been as concerned with the constant gifts being given to smaller organizations because they "can't compete" despite the last decade of getting league wide spoils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Where would you rank the White Sox Organization?

Basically middle of both economic and intellect?

I'd kinda say middle of economic and low on intellect. 

I'd also rank the SOX as a "mid-major" economic power, but on academic probation for repeat violations of the "Don't Do Stupid Shit" Rule. 

55 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The White Sox are in this screwy economic zone where they have way more limits on their resources than a team like the Cubs or Phillies (whether those limits are justified or just ownership taking profits is a matter for discussion)...but they don't get the extra draft benefits that the Cardinals, Tigers, and Padres get.

This is true, but OTOH, the SOX have more economic might than their divisional enemies; there really isn't a true "WHALE" of an economic opponent to fight in the ALC. There also isn't a super FO that causes Detroit/Cleveland/KC/Minn to punch far above their weight, like Tampa or Oakland or Milwaukee in the ALC, either, IMO. [As I think about it, the ALC is the only division in MLB that has neither an economic WHALE, nor a super FO in it, is there?]

Really, with better FO management, this org should RULE over the ALC like a fucking tyrant. Instead, through their self-inflicted wounds, they go through mostly bust cycles, with the ~once-a-decade or so return to relevance. Yay!

29 minutes ago, bmags said:

This is 100% correct and it has huge issues. It's really hard for sox to maintain a top farm (it was hard for cubs to maintain top farm, it was hard for phillies to maintain top farm) with those constraints, but yes obviously the dodgers have been able to. But the Dodgers also have a massive front office and I imagine it's foreign operations run much hotter, so it runs back to point 1 Balta mentioned.

I'd say there is ample Reinsdorf ammo there. Either you can point to point 1, or that as an owner he has tried hard to get owners in a united front against the players, and has not been as concerned with the constant gifts being given to smaller organizations because they "can't compete" despite the last decade of getting league wide spoils.

I dunno, how do Tampa always seem to have a guy to call up? I mean, its not like they shit money.

Or Oakland? Yes, they're going through a rebuild right now, but they're much more relevant more often than the SOX are. They don't seem to be scraping the bottom ~10 or so MiLB systems most years, despite not having an ocean of cash.

Edited by Two-Gun Pete
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

I'd also rank the SOX as a "mid-major" economic power, but on academic probation for repeat violations of the "Don't Do Stupid Shit" Rule. 

This is true, but OTOH, the SOX have more economic might than their divisional enemies; there really isn't a true "WHALE" of an economic opponent to fight in the ALC. There also isn't a super FO that causes Detroit/Cleveland/KC/Minn to punch far above their weight, like Tampa or Oakland or Milwaukee in the ALC, either, IMO. [As I think about it, the ALC is the only division in MLB that has neither an economic WHALE, nor a super FO in it, is there?]

Really, with better FO management, this org should RULE over the ALC like a fucking tyrant. Instead, through their self-inflicted wounds, they go through mostly bust cycles, with the ~once-a-decade or so return to relevance. Yay!

I dunno, how do Tampa always seem to have a guy to call up? I mean, its not like they shit money.

Or Oakland? Yes, they're going through a rebuild right now, but they're much more relevant more often than the SOX are. They don't seem to be scraping the bottom ~10 or so MiLB systems most years, despite not having an ocean of cash.

Tampa receives an extra top 40 draft pick every year ($2M more to spend) and an additional million in the INTL free agency market. Oakland had that same deal for years, only ending in 2020, so we will see how it affects them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, bmags said:

Tampa receives an extra top 40 draft pick every year ($2M more to spend) and an additional million in the INTL free agency market. Oakland had that same deal for years, only ending in 2020, so we will see how it affects them.

Yeah, this is true with respect to Tampa and Oakland.

 

OTOH, imagine if the SOX kept/used all their INTL FA cash, instead of giving it away... Or in the example of the scrubs, if they had only developed a pitcher or two of their own, they wouldn't have "HAD TO" give away Cease/Jimenez, and thus, kept their MiLB system in better standing 

To me, the ability to maintain a MiLB system, AND to compete at the MLB level comes down to FO intellect FIRST, and then financial might second.

Edited by Two-Gun Pete
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MLB Network fired Ken Rosenthal.  He just seems like the kind of guy that doesn’t get fired from anywhere.  Haven’t seen the details, but I know it’s over comments about Manfred, assuming from an Athletic article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×