SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 17, 2019 9:10:48 GMT -5
Is it bad that I had no idea the Cardinals were leading that division? Also, we're on pace to have four 100-loss teams, and the Jays are going to make a run at being a fifth and setting a new record, breaking the one held by 2002. We might have double-digit 90-loss teams. Unless Texas makes a semi-decent run or the Cleveland collapse gets even more brutal the Red Sox are going to be the only AL team with a win total in the 80s. And as we know, these days being stuck in the middle doesn't do much for a franchise. You don't get to the playoffs in this case and you don't get a very good drafting position either. Guess the Sox were due for a middling type year. They haven't had that in awhile. It's either been first or last, juggernaut or doormat.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 17, 2019 9:29:57 GMT -5
Eh, the Cardinals won 86, 83, and 88 the last three years before getting better enough this year. The Brewers did a similar thing, regrouping without a full rebuild or a tanking scheme, though they did bottom out with a 94-loss season at one point.
Getting to be a broken record on this, but the perverse incentives for getting worse when you're an 83 team are a bigger issue than the difficulty in building an 83-win team into a 95-team.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 17, 2019 9:44:50 GMT -5
I find tanking for draft picks in baseball to be a strange plan. The difference between the top and middle of the first round is far smaller in baseball than in other sports. And it also seems like there is less frequently a clear #1 who will change a franchise.
Tanking still seems more like dumping... less a long term plan and more just a way to make your team cheaper. That seems understandable. If you are sucking anyway, often better to suck for less. But it may call for the aalary floor I think Janes mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 17, 2019 9:52:38 GMT -5
Tying the bonus pool money (rather than just the draft order) to reverse team performance has had a pretty clear effect on teams just deciding to try to lose. The difference between rebuilding and tanking has gotten stark since the 2012 season. I don't really care about a salary floor. I do think either the bonus pool system or the draft should be abolished. If a team gets a set amount of money they can spend, you don't need to pick in order - you can't sign "all of the top guys" any more, which is what the fear was. And draft pick compensation's gotta go.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 17, 2019 10:21:00 GMT -5
Eh, the Cardinals won 86, 83, and 88 the last three years before getting better enough this year. The Brewers did a similar thing, regrouping without a full rebuild or a tanking scheme, though they did bottom out with a 94-loss season at one point. Getting to be a broken record on this, but the perverse incentives for getting worse when you're an 83 team are a bigger issue than the difficulty in building an 83-win team into a 95-team. Yup, that's what I'm getting at. Being great is a reward in itself and stinking the joint up gets a reward too. Finishing with a middling record gets you nothing.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,067
|
Post by cdj on Sept 17, 2019 11:35:41 GMT -5
Felipe Vazquez-
Bad guy
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 17, 2019 11:39:36 GMT -5
Tying the bonus pool money (rather than just the draft order) to reverse team performance has had a pretty clear effect on teams just deciding to try to lose. The difference between rebuilding and tanking has gotten stark since the 2012 season. I don't really care about a salary floor. I do think either the bonus pool system or the draft should be abolished. If a team gets a set amount of money they can spend, you don't need to pick in order - you can't sign "all of the top guys" any more, which is what the fear was. And draft pick compensation's gotta go. I'm not sure. I mean, say the next generational talent - the next Bryce Harper or Ken Griffey Jr is up for grabs - the surefire Round 1, #1 pick that can alter a franchise, is available. In that scenario a team that does extremely well is more prone to get the player if they get more money for being rewarded for being the best than an also-ran. I get that the tanking gets ridiculous, but I'd hate to see a team being able to sustain a dynasty by always getting that top pick because of being able to outbid other teams based on top standings position. I mean, thinking back to the old days, what if the Yankees in 1965, coming off a position of having won the World Series like 20 times in 40 something years was awarded the first pick of the first round of the draft and got access to the most elite talent, the kind that help sustain them perpetually? I mean the whole point of the draft was to prevent that from happening. I'm not trying to poke holes in your argument as much as to say I really don't know what the best way to go about it is. At some point if too many teams tank and try to rebuild, they're not all going to be successful, are they? That is a risk they are taking. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe the NBA has the right idea of using the ping-pong balls for ranges of teams so that a team doesn't necessarily get rewarded for tanking.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 17, 2019 11:50:35 GMT -5
I mean, there's an underlying assumption that a bad team deserves the next generational talent just for happening to be bad the year that generational talent was draft eligible. And that, by extension, the generational talent shouldn't have the opportunity to choose his club, even in a situation where his bonus is limited by the available draft pool (meaning no rich team has a true advantage).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 17, 2019 11:52:52 GMT -5
Tying the bonus pool money (rather than just the draft order) to reverse team performance has had a pretty clear effect on teams just deciding to try to lose. The difference between rebuilding and tanking has gotten stark since the 2012 season. I don't really care about a salary floor. I do think either the bonus pool system or the draft should be abolished. If a team gets a set amount of money they can spend, you don't need to pick in order - you can't sign "all of the top guys" any more, which is what the fear was. And draft pick compensation's gotta go. I'm not sure. I mean, say the next generational talent - the next Bryce Harper or Ken Griffey Jr is up for grabs - the surefire Round 1, #1 pick that can alter a franchise, is available. In that scenario a team that does extremely well is more prone to get the player if they get more money for being rewarded for being the best than an also-ran. I get that the tanking gets ridiculous, but I'd hate to see a team being able to sustain a dynasty by always getting that top pick because of being able to outbid other teams based on top standings position. I mean, thinking back to the old days, what if the Yankees in 1965, coming off a position of having won the World Series like 20 times in 40 something years was awarded the first pick of the first round of the draft and got access to the most elite talent, the kind that help sustain them perpetually? I mean the whole point of the draft was to prevent that from happening. I'm not trying to poke holes in your argument as much as to say I really don't know what the best way to go about it is. At some point if too many teams tank and try to rebuild, they're not all going to be successful, are they? That is a risk they are taking. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe the NBA has the right idea of using the ping-pong balls for ranges of teams so that a team doesn't necessarily get rewarded for tanking. It also exacerbates other disparities. A player might take less to play in NY than Milwaukee knowing full well the difference will be made up endorsements etc. that come with bigger markets. I imagine the smaller market teams really struggling to lure guys. And it would require NCAA style oversight (blech): make sure there aren’t side deals with Nike etc.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 17, 2019 14:49:12 GMT -5
This escaped my attention and maybe yours, too, but we actually have a division race! The Cubs closed to within 3 of the Cardinals today. They play 4 games next weekend in Chicago and then in St. Louis the last 3 days of the season. Meanwhile, the W/C races remain worth checking out nightly. The Indians are fading as I expected (even before the Ramirez injury), which makes it suck that we went 2-5 against the Twins and Yankees when we needed to go 5 and 2.
Yes, and Nationals are in danger of missing the wildcard game. Lost again tonight. Combined with wins by MIL & Cubs. The four clubs are now separated by 3 games. The Nats have a tough schedule, including the current series with the Cards, and the crazy-hot Brewers (13-3 starting August 31) have a very easy one.
Given that the Cubs and Cardinals have 7 of their last 10 games against each other, it's a fascinating race. If one of those teams goes 5-2, the other is probably out. But of they split the series 4-3, then we're seeing if the Brewers can pick up 1.5 G on the Nats.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 17, 2019 14:49:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Sept 17, 2019 14:59:25 GMT -5
The Yankees are definitely getting him in November for 10 cents on the dollar, aren't they?
|
|
|
Post by soxfaninnj on Sept 17, 2019 15:14:33 GMT -5
Yeah his mlb career is over
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 17, 2019 15:22:54 GMT -5
Tying the bonus pool money (rather than just the draft order) to reverse team performance has had a pretty clear effect on teams just deciding to try to lose. The difference between rebuilding and tanking has gotten stark since the 2012 season. I don't really care about a salary floor. I do think either the bonus pool system or the draft should be abolished. If a team gets a set amount of money they can spend, you don't need to pick in order - you can't sign "all of the top guys" any more, which is what the fear was. And draft pick compensation's gotta go. Teams are overwhelmed just trying to construct a draft board. And they can't even manage signing the MLB free agents in a non-chaotic manner where most of the players wait too long to find a home.
So there's no way a free-for-all could work.
One thing that might help the tanking problem is to alternate the draft order starting with the second round. That would even up the slot money quite a bit. Meanwhile, given how much of an enormous crap shoot the draft is, it's not equalizing draft opportunity nearly as much. The team with the 10th worst record that has targeted a player with pick 10 in round 2 still has a very good chance of getting him at pick 20.
You could in fact experiment with other draft orders after the current first round. Maybe the second round is by market size, the third and fourth rounds are reversed, then they alternate again. Or create a smart formula based on W/L relative to payroll that better rewards teams that are aging, and genuinely need a transfusion, more than it rewads teams that aren't trying to win. Whatever. Be creative and find something that works better.
In fact, here's an idea for the basic (first-round) draft order:
Do a regression analysis that predicts W/L record in a given year based on the following factors for each of the previous two seasons:
Expected wins from raw stats, SOS adjusted
Win efficiency (probably not significant) Payroll Age of roster Market size (probably 2 measures, metropolitan and regional).
Draft in reverse order of projected wins.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 17, 2019 15:25:59 GMT -5
Yeah his mlb career is over I can never remember the name of the Sox prospect, a defensive-whiz SS, who got busted for a milder version of the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 17, 2019 15:33:19 GMT -5
Julio Valdez? There was also the Frankie Rodriguez statutory rape around 1992.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 17, 2019 16:00:51 GMT -5
Monster. I hope he gets the physical therapy he desperately needs in prison. Hope it was worth throwing away a promising, lucrative career.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 17, 2019 16:16:32 GMT -5
I think they should also squash the bonus amounts a little closer at the top. The gaps are far too big and whichever team gets the #1 pick, pretty much automatically gets an extra million to spend on the rest of the draft in addition to the top pick.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 17, 2019 17:20:50 GMT -5
Yeah his mlb career is over Plus the- Solicitation of a child and one count of providing obscene material to minors. 6 charges. I'm guessing 4 or 5 felony charges. This dude could get 25 years to life in prison, nevermind his MLB career being over.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 17, 2019 17:37:49 GMT -5
Yeah his mlb career is over Plus the- Solicitation of a child and one count of providing obscene material to minors. 6 charges. I'm guessing 4 or 5 felony charges. This dude could get 25 years to life in prison, nevermind his MLB career being over. If he's under contract, can the team get out of it or is he still owed? Like, if this was Chris Sale AS AN EXAMPLE, would the Red Sox still be on the hook for his 5 remaining years while he sits in a prison cell?
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,067
|
Post by cdj on Sept 17, 2019 18:33:18 GMT -5
Yeah the whole “sexual assault of a minor” charge will for sure shut things down permanently for Vazquez
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 18, 2019 1:19:59 GMT -5
Rays lose, and A's and Indians win. The Rays are now a full 2 games behind Oakland and just 0.5 ahead of the Tribe. We can totally spoil their season and give Tito another shot at the post-season.
Meanwhile, it seems reasonably possible that the Cubs and Cardinals could both finish 89-73. If that happens, can the Brewers go 8-3 to win the division? Well, they've now gone 14-3, including 8-3 against the Cubs, Cardinals, and Astros, and they play the Padres (2), Pirates (3), at the Reds (3), and at the Rockies (3). Since they lost to the Rangers on August 11th they've had just 3 games against non-contenders (sweeping Miami). They went 9-9 against contenders, which is holding your own, before the 8-3 run. It's very, very doable.
A Cubs / Cardinals game 163 for the second Wild Card would be epic.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 18, 2019 5:01:24 GMT -5
Plus the- Solicitation of a child and one count of providing obscene material to minors. 6 charges. I'm guessing 4 or 5 felony charges. This dude could get 25 years to life in prison, nevermind his MLB career being over. If he's under contract, can the team get out of it or is he still owed? Like, if this was Chris Sale AS AN EXAMPLE, would the Red Sox still be on the hook for his 5 remaining years while he sits in a prison cell? I think the Pirates have to honor the contract because it's guarenteed. I'm sure they're going to take it to court and make sure they save as much as they can due to the actions of Vazquez. Vazquez is owed money through 2021. There might be a clause in the CBA that voids contracts like this too, due to the new Domestic violence/child abuse rules in the CBA. All these questions I can't answer, and personally I don't tend to care too much about. The only thing I know is that none of his contract will count against the CBT, since he was placed on the restricted list. That doesn't matter much to a non spending team like the Pirates though. Vazquez is never going to see a dime of that money since it's looking like he could be in prison for the rest of his life (he's going to need a really good lawyer to get this to a non life sentence). This might be the worst human being to ever put on a MLB uniform, and I don't think I'm even slightly exaggerating here. Former Red Sox closer Ugueth Urbina might have something to say about that after attempting to murder 5 of his ranch workers (lol JESUS DUDE), but I don't know. I put this on par with that. Urbina was just a psycho path. Vazquez is a predator and jail was designed for people like him.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 18, 2019 18:27:41 GMT -5
There was a big issue in the draft before, because a team like the Red Sox could just spend big. Since then they have added competitive balance picks, give lower revenue teams higher picks losing free agents then tying the picks to a draft pool amount. Now they get first choice of the players, more picks, and can spend a ton more. Personally the pool makes the draft interesting, yet it isn't close to fair. Instead of just taking away the Red Sox advantage of spending big, they went one step too far. Now the crappy teams with higher picks, not only get first choice, but can also buy bigger end talent latter in the draft due to crazy large drat pools. Sure Red Sox can target one of two of these guys, other teams can target 4-5 or more depending how they do things.
Not an easy fix, flipping rounds isn't a bad idea, but like Jimed said those early first round picks are so high it won't truly fix everything. Use slots for first round, yet you can't carry over the savings. Then make the bonus pools even while rotating picks starting in round two. Lower revenue teams still get many extras like extra picks, yet they lose that massive advantage of being able to overpay so many prospects later in the draft.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,067
|
Post by cdj on Sept 18, 2019 19:48:49 GMT -5
If he's under contract, can the team get out of it or is he still owed? Like, if this was Chris Sale AS AN EXAMPLE, would the Red Sox still be on the hook for his 5 remaining years while he sits in a prison cell? I think the Pirates have to honor the contract because it's guarenteed. I'm sure they're going to take it to court and make sure they save as much as they can due to the actions of Vazquez. Vazquez is owed money through 2021. There might be a clause in the CBA that voids contracts like this too, due to the new Domestic violence/child abuse rules in the CBA. All these questions I can't answer, and personally I don't tend to care too much about. The only thing I know is that none of his contract will count against the CBT, since he was placed on the restricted list. That doesn't matter much to a non spending team like the Pirates though. Vazquez is never going to see a dime of that money since it's looking like he could be in prison for the rest of his life (he's going to need a really good lawyer to get this to a non life sentence). This might be the worst human being to ever put on a MLB uniform, and I don't think I'm even slightly exaggerating here. Former Red Sox closer Ugueth Urbina might have something to say about that after attempting to murder 5 of his ranch workers (lol JESUS DUDE), but I don't know. I put this on par with that. Urbina was just a psycho path. Vazquez is a predator and jail was designed for people like him. Chad Curtis and Milton Bradley are the only two that come close to me
|
|
|