MLB looking at strategy of deliberate tanking

[bmags]

What's worse for the MLB:

Teams like the astros/cubs tanking for 3 years or the Marlins who are never explicitly tanking but are more concerned with revenue than winning.

[knightni]

This.

 

Just looking back at the last few HOF classes, the only player drafted #1 overall was Griffey Jr. The only other player drafted in the top 10 was Frank Thomas.

 

Looking through a handful of recent drafts, there are a ton of names in the top ten of each year that never made much of an impact in MLB.

Chipper Jones

ARod (If eligible)

Josh Hamilton (outside chance)

Adrian Gonzalez

Joe Mauer (outside chance)

David Price (outside)

Stephen Strasburg (outside)

Bryce Harper (outside)

[Iwritecode]

Chipper Jones

ARod (If eligible)

Josh Hamilton (outside chance)

Adrian Gonzalez

Joe Mauer (outside chance)

David Price (outside)

Stephen Strasburg (outside)

Bryce Harper (outside)

 

That's 8 (possibilities) in 20+ years.

[bmags]

You are talking about hall of famers though, not even all stars or really good players. Good players under control for 6 years is still very very valuable.

 

The Royals may not have a single hall of famer, and won the world series.

 

 

[Chisoxfn]

Tanking in MLB isn't like tanking in the NBA. One player doesn't impact a team like one player does in the NBA. I don't even see why MLB needs to bother this. Too many examples of awful teams who have been awful for forever or who it took 30 years of tanking to become relevant again (and I wouldn't argue they were strategically tanking).

[harfman77]

Tanking in MLB isn't like tanking in the NBA. One player doesn't impact a team like one player does in the NBA. I don't even see why MLB needs to bother this. Too many examples of awful teams who have been awful for forever or who it took 30 years of tanking to become relevant again (and I wouldn't argue they were strategically tanking).

 

Again, its not about the one player you get at 1.1 its the huge bonus pool you get to sign multiple high caliber players throughout the draft.

[Dick Allen]

Again, its not about the one player you get at 1.1 its the huge bonus pool you get to sign multiple high caliber players throughout the draft.

Yes, but technically you are giving most of that extra money to that one player, unless you want to Astro it and wind up with Appel and Aiken.

 

I don't think tanking is as big of an issue in baseball as it is in Philadelphia in the NBA, and it's pretty clear a draft lottery wouldn't stop it. The big issue is the players union will never go for a salary floor, because they know the next step would be a salary cap.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

You are coming off the Astros and Cubs both tanking during the most recent CBA, so I'm not sure its a non-issue. Obviously it has worked well for them to accumulate talent to either join their ML rosters or to be used as trade chips to acquire ML assets. It is obviously an issue, I was hoping the Sox could have taken advantage of the system in the impending rebuild after this rebuild fails. People focus on the number one pick, but it is about much more than that, it is about having the financial flexibility in the draft to select top talent in the later rounds of the draft.

 

When the Astros selected Correa and signed him to an underslot deal, they were able to select guys like Lance McCullers and Rio Ruiz later in the draft using the money banked on the Correa deal. Both guys were thought top 30 talents. Then when they selected Aiken, they had deals worked out with Jacob Nix and Mac Marshall, again two really highly thought of guys that were thought to be tough signs. Obviously Aiken not signing hurt that, but they came out ahead when they were able to sign three of the top 10 players in the draft this season re-allocating money from the Aiken pick again.

 

The circumstances that led to the tanking were well underway before the CBA. Neither team is poised to repeat the strategies that got them there. The fact that they nailed a couple draft picks over several years isn't evidence that tanking is a preferred strategy -- I'd argue the fact they have become good despite botching two drafts is actually evidence to the contrary. And that's because the speed of both teams' (and ESPECIALLY the Cubs) turnaround is as much or more due to shrewd trading and international signings (which are not benefits that are enabled by tanking) as it is due to high draft choices.

[southsider2k5]

Again, its not about the one player you get at 1.1 its the huge bonus pool you get to sign multiple high caliber players throughout the draft.

 

It is absolutely about getting the best player in the draft. The draft bonus pool is just a nice bonus.

[Y2Jimmy0]

The circumstances that led to the tanking were well underway before the CBA. Neither team is poised to repeat the strategies that got them there. The fact that they nailed a couple draft picks over several years isn't evidence that tanking is a preferred strategy -- I'd argue the fact they have become good despite botching two drafts is actually evidence to the contrary. And that's because the speed of both teams' (and ESPECIALLY the Cubs) turnaround is as much or more due to shrewd trading and international signings (which are not benefits that are enabled by tanking) as it is due to high draft choices.

 

 

It is though kind of. They spent a ton of money on the international market instead of spending it on the roster. They also signed a couple of free agents (Feldman, Hammel) with the intention of trading them. These are things that "rebuilding" teams do.

[southsider2k5]

I kind of get the problem with this in MLB. It isn't necessarily the action of intentionally losing, the problem is when the rest of major league baseball is forced to subsidize an intentionally substandard product. If they could figure out a way to take away revenue sharing in some amount from teams who were tanking, I'd be OK with that.

[Y2Jimmy0]

I kind of get the problem with this in MLB. It isn't necessarily the action of intentionally losing, the problem is when the rest of major league baseball is forced to subsidize an intentionally substandard product. If they could figure out a way to take away revenue sharing in some amount from teams who were tanking, I'd be OK with that.

 

 

I just hate the word tanking. There are 4 teams "rebuilding". People act like it's half the league or something. Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Philly, and Atlanta. They are doing what they need to do though. The only way that Cincy and Milwaukee can compete with Cubs, Cards, Pirates is if they bottom out and trade veterans for prospects, spend internationally, and draft well. The same goes for Philadelphia and Atlanta. San Diego and Colorado should be taking the same approach.

[knightni]

This all goes back to the Cubs holding back Bryant last season for that one week to guarantee the extra year of contract status.

[Y2Jimmy0]

This all goes back to the Cubs holding back Bryant last season for that one week to guarantee the extra year of contract status.

 

 

It does? Most teams do that. The Sox did it with Rodon. The Pirates and Astros have both done it. The Braves didn't do it with Heyward and because of that, he was a free agent this offseason.

[Eminor3rd]

It is though kind of. They spent a ton of money on the international market instead of spending it on the roster. They also signed a couple of free agents (Feldman, Hammel) with the intention of trading them. These are things that "rebuilding" teams do.

 

Yes, but those aren't things that you have to tank to be able to do. The Dodgers are doing those things, too.

[southsider2k5]

I just hate the word tanking. There are 4 teams "rebuilding". People act like it's half the league or something. Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Philly, and Atlanta. They are doing what they need to do though. The only way that Cincy and Milwaukee can compete with Cubs, Cards, Pirates is if they bottom out and trade veterans for prospects, spend internationally, and draft well. The same goes for Philadelphia and Atlanta. San Diego and Colorado should be taking the same approach.

 

I don't believe that the rest of MLB should have to subsidize teams who are intentionally bad.

[caulfield12]

But who determines which teams aren't competitive enough?

 

What if their spending/trading is clearly inefficient but not evidence of deliberate sabotage? For example, the Mariners, Padres or White Sox in the last couple of seasons. The Twins were over .500 but hardly spent a dime this offseason...or the Yankees.

 

The Marlins? They would counter with Stanton and Wei Yin Chen.

 

Can you blame the A's because ownership erred in letting SF take the territorial rights to San Jose?

 

What should or could the Reds or Brewers realistically do in the face of three superteams in their own division?

 

Can you force the Phillies to spend FA money a year or two earlier because of their new media rights deal payments already kicking in?

Edited February 5, 2016 by caulfield12

[Y2Jimmy0]

I don't believe that the rest of MLB should have to subsidize teams who are intentionally bad.

 

 

What about teams that are awful but aren't necessarily trying to be? They should be subsidized still even though they make terrible decisions? I get what you are saying. I just think a team's only objective is to put your team in the best possible situation to win a World Series. Sometimes that entails being really bad for a couple of years. I'd much rather win 63 games than 77-78 games if I'm one of these bad teams.

[knightni]

It does? Most teams do that. The Sox did it with Rodon. The Pirates and Astros have both done it. The Braves didn't do it with Heyward and because of that, he was a free agent this offseason.

Yeah, but it peeved the players' association and Boras.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Yeah, but it peeved the players' association and Boras.

 

 

Tough s***. Change the rules. The Cubs did exactly what they should have done. There's really not a logical argument in the other direction either.

[Bob Sacamano]

I too hate the word tanking. It makes it sound like the players are out there intentionally losing games even though they are playing their hardest for their own future and to have a job.

[bmags]

What about teams that are awful but aren't necessarily trying to be? They should be subsidized still even though they make terrible decisions? I get what you are saying. I just think a team's only objective is to put your team in the best possible situation to win a World Series. Sometimes that entails being really bad for a couple of years. I'd much rather win 63 games than 77-78 games if I'm one of these bad teams.

 

It really annoys me that Arizona gets comp balance picks.

[southsider2k5]

But who determines which teams aren't competitive enough?

 

What if their spending/trading is clearly inefficient but not evidence of deliberate sabotage? For example, the Mariners, Padres or White Sox in the last couple of seasons. The Twins were over .500 but hardly spent a dime this offseason...or the Yankees.

 

The Marlins? They would counter with Stanton and Wei Yin Chen.

 

Can you blame the A's because ownership erred in letting SF take the territorial rights to San Jose?

 

What should or could the Reds or Brewers realistically do in the face of three superteams in their own division?

 

Can you force the Phillies to spend FA money a year or two earlier because of their new media rights deal payments already kicking in?

 

You can't tell the difference between being intentionally bad, and being bad? If you are going to be intentionally bad, why should the rest of baseball have to subsidize you while you wait half a decade, or more, to maybe be good again?

[caulfield12]

You can't tell the difference between being intentionally bad, and being bad? If you are going to be intentionally bad, why should the rest of baseball have to subsidize you while you wait half a decade, or more, to maybe be good again?

 

 

But there are almost always shades of grey...which would you penalize of those six NL teams?

The Brewers, Reds, Rockies, Padres, Braves and Phillies?

 

What about the Marlins when they fired Guillen and traded half their expensive new acquisitions to Toronto?

 

The Cubs, Astros, Twins and Mets should be penalized as well when their efforts were largely successful?

 

Let's not forget the Red Sox in last place 3/4 years, the Padres, the Mariners, etc.

 

 

I imagine most here could never come close to an agreement...and, for as many fans who are discouraged by games against no-name lesser competition, just as many love it when the White Sox beat up on teams and put up huge offensive numbers in those games.

 

 

[caulfield12]

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/i...cubs-and-astros

 

Cubs and Astros success not a product of tanking