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 pedrofanforever45 on Feb 2, 2018 16:49:57 GMT -5
I’m not sure it is fair to say teams are tanking, either. Marlins... always. But teams like the Pirates and Royals are likely taking better of two not great options, and they might not even be worse in the next year or two. It is not a bad time to bail on Moustakas, Hosmer, Cutch. The Cole trade might’ve been a bit harder to justify. Still, those don’t seem like moves made with the intention of being worse. They seem like easily justified best-case decisions. Padres, Reds, Phillies, Marlins, Tampa, Braves, Tigers, and White Sox are in fact tanking. The Phillies have in fact tried to sign short term relievers lately so they could trade them for prospects. The White Sox have been trading players under team control for prospects. Who knows what the Royals and Pirates are doing. I don't think they know which direction they are going.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 2, 2018 17:05:18 GMT -5
I’m not sure it is fair to say teams are tanking, either. Marlins... always. But teams like the Pirates and Royals are likely taking better of two not great options, and they might not even be worse in the next year or two. It is not a bad time to bail on Moustakas, Hosmer, Cutch. The Cole trade might’ve been a bit harder to justify. Still, those don’t seem like moves made with the intention of being worse. They seem like easily justified best-case decisions. Padres, Reds, Phillies, Marlins, Tampa, Braves, Tigers, and White Sox are in fact tanking. The Phillies have in fact tried to sign short term relievers lately so they could trade them for prospects. The White Sox have been trading players under team control for prospects. Who knows what the Royals and Pirates are doing. I don't think they know which direction they are going. I don't think it's fair to call what these teams are doing 'tanking' in the same manner as basketball where teams are actively trying to lose. These teams simply aren't working hard to win in the short term, which can suck for the fans but is also smart business which should help them win in future years. For example, the white Sox aren't pushing to win right now and are projected to win only 65 games. But if they accidentally win 90 games and make the playoffs, I believe they would be quite happy. (Conversely the 2013-2016 76ers would have been unhappy with this result)
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 2, 2018 17:53:05 GMT -5
Padres, Reds, Phillies, Marlins, Tampa, Braves, Tigers, and White Sox are in fact tanking. The Phillies have in fact tried to sign short term relievers lately so they could trade them for prospects. The White Sox have been trading players under team control for prospects. Who knows what the Royals and Pirates are doing. I don't think they know which direction they are going. I don't think it's fair to call what these teams are doing 'tanking' in the same manner as basketball where teams are actively trying to lose. These teams simply aren't working hard to win in the short term, which can suck for the fans but is also smart business which should help them win in future years. For example, the white Sox aren't pushing to win right now and are projected to win only 65 games. But if they accidentally win 90 games and make the playoffs, I believe they would be quite happy. (Conversely the 2013-2016 76ers would have been unhappy with this result) If you're not competing to win WCSox, then that is tanking in my book. None of these teams are actively trying to compete. I don't blame the teams for doing this. Some of them had no choice after winning for a long period, but it is tanking in my book. I think the highest paid contract handed out by these teams while they were "tanking" was the Nick Markakis contract by Atlanta in free agency. It's the number one thing Boras has pointed to blame when it's come to the lack of movement this off-season.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 2, 2018 18:18:26 GMT -5
Padres, Reds, Phillies, Marlins, Tampa, Braves, Tigers, and White Sox are in fact tanking. The Phillies have in fact tried to sign short term relievers lately so they could trade them for prospects. The White Sox have been trading players under team control for prospects. Who knows what the Royals and Pirates are doing. I don't think they know which direction they are going. I don't think it's fair to call what these teams are doing 'tanking' in the same manner as basketball where teams are actively trying to lose. These teams simply aren't working hard to win in the short term, which can suck for the fans but is also smart business which should help them win in future years. For example, the white Sox aren't pushing to win right now and are projected to win only 65 games. But if they accidentally win 90 games and make the playoffs, I believe they would be quite happy. (Conversely the 2013-2016 76ers would have been unhappy with this result) How are the Phillies tanking? They signed Carlos Santana -- I wish the Red Sox had tanked the off-season that hard! Didn't they also sign Pat Neshek? I mean, if you want to say that they didn't do enough to contend, well, that may be so -- but they made themselves better. The Padres have reportedly offered Eric Hosmer the biggest contract he's got on the table. Again -- not a difference maker, but you can't say a 9-figure deal for a big free agent is tanking. If it is ruse, ok. But they seem legitimately in the running. Marlins are Marlins. Tampa is Tampa (though, again, I'd say big picture the loss of Longoria might be the right time to cut ties). The interesting thing to me is to compare the Tigers to the Pirates, Royals, and White Sox: the Tigers held on to an aging team, hoping to squeeze out a run. They end up trading Verlander, but they still have Cabrera under big money. The Pirates traded Cutch at probably the right moment, and the Royals are likely going to let most or all of their core go rather than signing them for the back ends of their careers. The White Sox have been collecting top (and in some cases near-ready) prospects. I don't think that is "tanking" -- I think it is wise roster and payroll management. I don't think it would be fair to say, for example, the Sale trade was a "tanking" trade -- they got a guy who is ranked the top prospect in baseball and another very highly regarded arm for a guy that is, yes, under control, but for years they have no real chance of making noise in. So what is the point of holding on to him? I wish more teams knew when to pull the plug and get rid of players.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 2, 2018 18:22:19 GMT -5
I don't think it's fair to call what these teams are doing 'tanking' in the same manner as basketball where teams are actively trying to lose. These teams simply aren't working hard to win in the short term, which can suck for the fans but is also smart business which should help them win in future years. For example, the white Sox aren't pushing to win right now and are projected to win only 65 games. But if they accidentally win 90 games and make the playoffs, I believe they would be quite happy. (Conversely the 2013-2016 76ers would have been unhappy with this result) If you're not competing to win WCSox, then that is tanking in my book. None of these teams are actively trying to compete. I don't blame the teams for doing this. Some of them had no choice after winning for a long period, but it is tanking in my book. I think the highest paid contract handed out by these teams while they were "tanking" was the Nick Markakis contract by Atlanta in free agency. It's the number one thing Boras has pointed to blame when it's come to the lack of movement this off-season. Right. It's semantics, but if you're systematically selling off any and all players that have any value then it's tanking. If you're not actively trying to get better in the off-season then it's tanking.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 2, 2018 18:22:45 GMT -5
Sorry I forgot about the Santana signing. That is the highest contract handed out by any tanking teams during this time.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 2, 2018 18:43:47 GMT -5
If you're not competing to win WCSox, then that is tanking in my book. None of these teams are actively trying to compete. I don't blame the teams for doing this. Some of them had no choice after winning for a long period, but it is tanking in my book. I think the highest paid contract handed out by these teams while they were "tanking" was the Nick Markakis contract by Atlanta in free agency. It's the number one thing Boras has pointed to blame when it's come to the lack of movement this off-season. Right. It's semantics, but if you're systematically selling off any and all players that have any value then it's tanking. If you're not actively trying to get better in the off-season then it's tanking. I guess I think that is really short sighted -- I mean, if you look at an aging team that has players with value that are on the other end of their career -- is it better for them futilely to hold on to those guys, or to get what they can for them now? Was Detroit wrong to trade Verlander? Would they be wrong if they had a chance to trade Cabrera if they took it? To me, winning is about winning as soon as you can. Sometimes that is not this season -- and sometimes the most value a player has is in trades. It is not like the NBA where teams actually sit good players. If the Sox fell out of contention and stopped pitching Sale and Pom... that would definitely be tanking.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 2, 2018 18:47:27 GMT -5
Manfred, the point of the Santana signing was to give the young players a veteran presence to help teach their young players to get on base. Franco in particular is who they're trying to fix. They could also try and use Santana as a trade chip in the future.
The whole point of the Neshek signing was to trade him later, not to make them better.
Hosmer to the Padres is interesting. Still that signing is to give the young players a veteran presence that knows how to win in the future.
All in all, NONE of these moves were made to make their teams better NOW. That is the opposite of what they're trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 2, 2018 19:46:21 GMT -5
Right. It's semantics, but if you're systematically selling off any and all players that have any value then it's tanking. If you're not actively trying to get better in the off-season then it's tanking. I guess I think that is really short sighted -- I mean, if you look at an aging team that has players with value that are on the other end of their career -- is it better for them futilely to hold on to those guys, or to get what they can for them now? Was Detroit wrong to trade Verlander? Would they be wrong if they had a chance to trade Cabrera if they took it? To me, winning is about winning as soon as you can. Sometimes that is not this season -- and sometimes the most value a player has is in trades. It is not like the NBA where teams actually sit good players. If the Sox fell out of contention and stopped pitching Sale and Pom... that would definitely be tanking. Let me clarify: I don't think it's a bad thing that certain teams have decided to tank. Your example of Detroit was a great example of a team that needed to rid themselves of some bloat and take a better run at it in a few years. I just don't think a team has to do the exact same thing as an NBA for it to be considered tanking. If I have a problem with anything, it's how many teams have decided to not make an attempt to win for next season. In addition to teams like the Marlins selling off players, I saw a tweet today that said only 11 teams have signed a player to a contract of over 15 million so far this off-season. Every owner just got a check for $50MM thanks to BAMTech (and that's without getting into the normal revenue they make every year), yet there are 19 teams that couldn't find a single FA to give a fraction of that money to. THAT's a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Feb 2, 2018 20:37:33 GMT -5
Yeah. That's not tanking. There has never been a league in existence where every team is a "going all in" contender.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 2, 2018 20:40:29 GMT -5
Yeah. That's not tanking. There has never been a league in existence where every team is a "going all in" contender. There's a pretty big gap from going all in to basically not spending a dime, and teams are much closer to the latter right now.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 2, 2018 20:52:14 GMT -5
Yeah. That's not tanking. There has never been a league in existence where every team is a "going all in" contender. If you're not fully competing to win, what do you call it then?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 2, 2018 20:59:16 GMT -5
I'm all for teams being smarter, but if every team thinks that rebuilding all at the same is going to lead them to a world series in 5 years, then they're really wrong about this. This leads them to give the fan base a excuse why they aren't spending while pocketing money. I'm not for that either.
The whole system is just broken.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 2, 2018 21:30:50 GMT -5
By the way, I also think it is not fair to call it tanking when teams are not simply taking on salary. This is not that good a free agent class, and there are a ton of reasons not to pursue most of these guys. Spending does not mean bettering all the time. Were the Sox not "tanking" when they signed Pablo? Yet most of us thought that was an absurd deal.
The Phillies have spent, and I think they expect to be a stronger team now and even better in a few years. The Padres appear willing to spend. The Royals seem willing to spend selectively (they may well retain at least one of their big free agents), but would people have them outbid Milwaukee for Cain? Is that is "winning" move? I think that was a bad contract, so to me if the Royals had kept Cain at that price or more, they are hurting their chances of winning in the future.
Suppose the Tigers signed Darvish to a 7-year, $180 million contract (a bargain!) -- does that show a drive to win or a suicidal front office?
Truthfully, tanking makes so much less sense in baseball than it does in basketball or football. Lottery picks in basketball tend to be instant difference makers -- at the very least, they are on the main roster and getting minutes immediately. Football, top picks can be franchise players immediately or soon. In baseball, first-rounders are far more of a crap shoot and often cannot help a lick for years. Pulling a 76ers would be almost impossible in MLB.
I looked back, just as an example, at the Marlins, who finished 5th in 2011, 2012, 2013. For that, they had 2 first round picks: Colin Moran and Tyler Kolek. 6th pick and 2nd pick. That is not exactly the sort of thing that turns a franchise around.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 2, 2018 22:27:40 GMT -5
I hope all players see this issue as clearly as Moss. The complaining we have heard has come from agents who have likely been telling their clients they're going to get big paydays and now they're desperately trying to keep their jobs. The agents either failed to predict the market accurately it they're desperately trying to gain leverage (like JDM planning to sit out spring training). www.fangraphs.com/blogs/brandon-moss-and-the-players-flawed-bargain/
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Feb 2, 2018 23:59:30 GMT -5
Tanking is trying to lose. Most of these teams are just not really trying to win because they know they cant. For most teams it would be terrible business to spend assets to try and add to a team unless they've already got a young, affordable core.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 3, 2018 0:13:07 GMT -5
Why would it be a mistake for teams to spend high on a AAV for fewer years if they have a young affordable core?
Wouldn't that INCREASE the want to do that if you have a young affordable core?
I don't get the losing mentality totally either. Sure some teams have no choice but to lose because they need to do that to get back to winning. Say if the Braves could spend 60 million for 2 years for an Arrieta, Moustakas, or Cobb, they could actually compete for a wildcard. Same with the Phillies.
Teams with losing mentalities will continue to lose. I would hate to be a fan of those fan bases.
Sure the Pablo and Hanley contracts didn't exactly work, but at least the Sox tried. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose on deals but throwing in the towel because you don't think you're good enough is just bad for baseball in general too.
|
|
|
Post by avonbarksdale on Feb 3, 2018 1:14:42 GMT -5
Here’s my solution. Make players arbitration eligible after their rookie year.
The players can’t force the owners to give 30 year olds monster contracts now that we’ve all figured out such deals usually prove regrettable. We have the evidence. 6 years at $180M for Martinez will almost certainly be a disaster. 5 years at $125M has a good chance at working out. So you can’t solve the specific qualms of today’s free agents beyond showing them the data that supports the notion that players in their 30s almost never earn their monster contracts.
But you can improve the players’ lot in general by allowing them to earn what they’re worth in their early to mid 20s when the data suggests they’re more valuable to the team. Paying Betts less than a million for what he did his second year is unequivocally unfair. That’s where the injustice lies, not with 30 year old JD Martinez being offered “only” $125M for the decline phase of his career.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 3, 2018 8:39:36 GMT -5
Many good thoughts and arguments in this thread. As I was reading I would develop a thought to add to the conversation but then someone would beat me to it as I read on.
One thing the NBA has that could work in MLB is a minimum salary cap that if not met would be calculated into the salaries of the roster. Hey we all know that to be a member of ownership you need deep pockets and you will become a member of a group of people that are reaping the benefit of a win win situation. Annual profits are strong and appreciation of assets,the team value, is ridiculous. No reason why the league can't institute a minimum salary level to force teams not to just exist on the national tv and media deals.
This is a very difficult issue to get right. They need to find a way to balance the needs of the small market teams to be competitive and the free market system of capitalism. The desire to win and the need to be profitable. The players union and the owners need to work together to come up with a system that works for everyone, it is in their own best interests as a league. Just like in our country, if our politicians actually worked together to do what is best for the majority rather than specific special interests we would all be better off. Lawyers fight for their side not for what could be considered fair or the right thing.
Minimum salary caps, fair arbitration a year earlier and a way for teams to get out of these long term guaranteed contracts is what needs to be balanced out. Just like in the real world it should be about having a strong middle class, not an economy based on haves and have nots.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 3, 2018 9:41:20 GMT -5
Yeah. That's not tanking. There has never been a league in existence where every team is a "going all in" contender. If you're not fully competing to win, what do you call it then? They aren't trying to lose to get the #1 overall pick like in the NBA.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 3, 2018 10:00:46 GMT -5
If you're not fully competing to win, what do you call it then? They aren't trying to lose to get the #1 overall pick like in the NBA. Well they certainly aren't trying to win either.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 3, 2018 11:35:27 GMT -5
Here’s my solution. Make players arbitration eligible after their rookie year. The players can’t force the owners to give 30 year olds monster contracts now that we’ve all figured out such deals usually prove regrettable. We have the evidence. 6 years at $180M for Martinez will almost certainly be a disaster. 5 years at $125M has a good chance at working out. So you can’t solve the specific qualms of today’s free agents beyond showing them the data that supports the notion that players in their 30s almost never earn their monster contracts. But you can improve the players’ lot in general by allowing them to earn what they’re worth in their early to mid 20s when the data suggests they’re more valuable to the team. Paying Betts less than a million for what he did his second year is unequivocally unfair. That’s where the injustice lies, not with 30 year old JD Martinez being offered “only” $125M for the decline phase of his career. Starting arbitration 2 years earlier may be more fair, but it wouldn't solve the issues at hand. Players will still want monster contracts after the 6+ years of team control and teams still won't want to pay them. Additionally it could cripple the entire farm system setup we follow because teams may become unwilling to spend on the scouting, signing/drafting and development of young players if they aren't going to get major discounted rates on their early MLB years. The easiest fix is free agency one year earlier. So only 5 years of team control (min, min, min, arb1.5, arb2.5) which still provides the cheap years that teams crave, but also get the players to free agency 1 year earlier so they can get more years and dollars on the big free agent contract. (E.g. college player is drafter at 21 and has rookie season at 24 then reaches free agency at 29 instead of 30; the one year makes a big difference)
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 3, 2018 12:25:17 GMT -5
Many good thoughts and arguments in this thread. As I was reading I would develop a thought to add to the conversation but then someone would beat me to it as I read on. One thing the NBA has that could work in MLB is a minimum salary cap that if not met would be calculated into the salaries of the roster. Hey we all know that to be a member of ownership you need deep pockets and you will become a member of a group of people that are reaping the benefit of a win win situation. Annual profits are strong and appreciation of assets,the team value, is ridiculous. No reason why the league can't institute a minimum salary level to force teams not to just exist on the national tv and media deals. This is a very difficult issue to get right. They need to find a way to balance the needs of the small market teams to be competitive and the free market system of capitalism. The desire to win and the need to be profitable. The players union and the owners need to work together to come up with a system that works for everyone, it is in their own best interests as a league. Just like in our country, if our politicians actually worked together to do what is best for the majority rather than specific special interests we would all be better off. Lawyers fight for their side not for what could be considered fair or the right thing. Minimum salary caps, fair arbitration a year earlier and a way for teams to get out of these long term guaranteed contracts is what needs to be balanced out. Just like in the real world it should be about having a strong middle class, not an economy based on haves and have nots. I would recommend a salary floor closer to what the NFL does to allow teams to still rebuild how they do now: over a 4 year period each team has to reach the average salary floor for cash spending or pay the difference between their cash spending and the salary floor (100% tax on the amount short of the floor distributed to players as directed by the players Union). Since it's stretched over a 4 year period, teams would still be able to drop salary and rebuild, but this would only last a couple of years. The NFL salary floor is 89% of the salary cap, but I would recommend somewhere around 53% of the luxury tax for MLB to start with. Additionally a stretch from 4 to 5 years would ease the burden on rebuilds and it should be over ANY 5 year period and not a specific 5 year period. (E.g. 2018-2022, 2019-2023, 2020-2024, etc.) Any tax paid for being short would be distributed to the final of the 5 year period as it pertains to future 5 year periods. I'm going to use the Marlins as an example and base the salaries off of their 40-man payroll: 40-man total salaries 2013-2017 = $436,383,919 Luxury tax 2013-2017 * 0.53 = 498.2mil Floor tax to be paid to MLBPA = $61,816,081 Of course no team would be expected to pay this tax as they would be better off adding payroll instead - which is really the point. An added benefit is that it would help show fans if their team management has to pay the tax which would make their blatant negligence public.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 3, 2018 12:37:34 GMT -5
Yeah. That's not tanking. There has never been a league in existence where every team is a "going all in" contender. If you're not fully competing to win, what do you call it then?I would attempt a nuanced evaluation of team behavior that transcends the reductive tanking/not tanking dichotomy, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 3, 2018 12:39:01 GMT -5
I feel like there are multiple issues being discussed that are not entirely related (or perhaps stand in conflict). For example: if teams are tanking, how would moving the free agent year up help? Then you’ve got Boras demanding one more year of contract at an even higher rate. Does that get tankers to participate in the market?
To me, this off-season seems to represent the confluence of two factors: first, free agency is a less appealing way to grow a winner than it was. Teams have learned that it only makes sense if you are close to winner to go all in, because in too many instances you end up carrying deadweight. (I mean the high-end guys). At the same time, this is simply not an appealing class. There are real risks with Darvish and Arrieta that make them, to me, very poor signings. The Royals guys have big questions. And that is not to say what these guys will look like five years from now.
I am not sure, in short, what is “broken”? I was looking back at seasons of yesteryear... when have there not been terrible teams?
|
|
|