- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
MLB owners take a look at issues involved with tanking
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:02 am
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:02 am
LINK
quote:
The question of whether some teams are intentionally building bad rosters in order to improve their standing in subsequent drafts -- tanking, to borrow the parlance of the NBA -- was raised at the most recent Major League Baseball owners meetings, according to sources.
quote:
The Houston Astros are often cited within the sport as the model of a team that has benefited from losing a lot. From 2011 through 2013, the Astros became the first team since the 1962-65 Mets to lose at least 106 games in three consecutive seasons, and as a result, they were positioned at the top of three straight drafts.
9
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:08 am to Rhino5
Draft picks are a lot bigger gamble in baseball. You could suck for years and not get many draft picks that contribute.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:11 am to Rhino5
I can see owners not liking this in MLB since the Astros were receiving revenue sharing the whole time. Maybe curb the amount of money they receive if they finish at the bottom too many times in a row.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:11 am to Rhino5
Yea I don't see how this would be that big of an issue. Obviously it helps to have a higher draft pick so that you have more selection, but there are so many draft picks that just don't pan out in baseball that it really isn't a big deal. At least not as big as basketball or football IMO
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:13 am to Rhino5
quote:
The Houston Astros are often cited within the sport as the model of a team that has benefited from losing a lot. From 2011 through 2013, the Astros became the first team since the 1962-65 Mets to lose at least 106 games in three consecutive seasons, and as a result, they were positioned at the top of three straight drafts.
And as a result, now has the youngest playoff roster in baseball.
It sucks for fans, but I can see the appeal from a GM's point of view if his market doesn't have NY, LA, or BOS money to spend in free agency.
Plus, there are a ton of early round picks that never pan out. With the NBA, teams have a much better idea of the potential of that draft pick.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:14 am to Master of Sinanju
The Astros had the #1 pick 3 years in a row. Correra looks like a franchise player. With the other 2 picks they took Appel who has a college senior was supposed to come up fast, but has yet to make the show and a HS kid show they didn't sign and because they didn't sign him they also couldn't sign 2 other kids.
I also fail to see how it is better if they had over paid for some mediocre player to a 6 year guaranteed deal so they could win 65 games instead of 55.
I also fail to see how it is better if they had over paid for some mediocre player to a 6 year guaranteed deal so they could win 65 games instead of 55.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:15 am to Rhino5
This is extremely stupid. MLB is the polar opposite of the NBA. One or two players won't turn a bad team into a good one. It takes a lot of work and a well-run organization to turn around a bad team. And the Astros in particular are a terrible example to use. Among their top 10 players in WAR, Carlos Correa was the only top 10 pick by the Astros. Dallas Keuchel was a 7th round pick. They got McHugh and Harris off waivers. Jose Altuve was signed as an amateur free agent. Colby Rasmus was signed as a free agent. Jake Marisnick was acquired in a trade. Their GM made a lot of good moves for the Astros to be where they are now. It had nothing to do with tanking.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:19 am to H-Town Tiger
They got Bregman with the Aiken pick, don't act like they were left empty handed.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:21 am to MSMHater
quote:
And as a result, now has the youngest playoff roster in baseball.
I don't really think the Astros benefitted that much from the tanking, at least they haven't yet. They look to have missed pretty badly on Appel and didn't sign Aiken. The 2015 draft that resulted from the Aiken pick might turn out really well but it hasn't had an impact on their ML roster yet
The 2012 draft contributed two big players to their core (Correa and McCullers) but Ed Wade was still the GM for the year they got those picks from. They were destined to be terrible that year from years of mismanagement, it wasn't by design
Pulling an ace out of thin air (Keuchel), getting a solid mid rotation arm off waivers (McHugh), good picks/signings by the previous regime (Springer and Altuve) and deals by Luhnow (Rasmus, Valbuena, Gomez, Fiers, Gattis, Feldman) make up the rest of the core.
Tl;dr tanking is not why the Astros are good now
This post was edited on 2/2/16 at 10:24 am
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:26 am to ShaneTheLegLechler
Fan Graphs has talked about this recently. I think it was Dave Cameron. He laid out some compelling reasons that it's not an issue in baseball like it is in basketball.
The biggest one, IMO, is that even if you do get an impact player from losing a few more games and ending up at the top of the draft, he's not an impact player for about 3 years for a position player and probably 2 years for an already far along college pitcher.
The biggest one, IMO, is that even if you do get an impact player from losing a few more games and ending up at the top of the draft, he's not an impact player for about 3 years for a position player and probably 2 years for an already far along college pitcher.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 10:45 am to Rhino5
I don't see the big deal with tanking in any sport.
Does it really make the NBA better if a bad team wins 27 games instead of 20?
Does it really make the NBA better if a bad team wins 27 games instead of 20?
Posted on 2/2/16 at 11:46 am to ShaneTheLegLechler
Didn't Houston pick at the beginning of every other round however? So tanking did help there
Posted on 2/2/16 at 11:56 am to ProjectP2294
Exactly.
Teams aren't "tanking" to get a high draft picks, teams are doing it because unless you are a filthy rich franchise, you have to develop talent internally and only 10 teams make the playoffs every in MLB v 16 in basketball. With really only 8 teams really making the playoffs in baseball.
You can scratch together some quality pieces and make the playoffs in basketball, its not happening in baseball. The astros took this to the extreme, but only because the previous ownership gave them no real alternatives.
Would you rather have teams like the Rockies cranking out 72 win teams every year?
Teams aren't "tanking" to get a high draft picks, teams are doing it because unless you are a filthy rich franchise, you have to develop talent internally and only 10 teams make the playoffs every in MLB v 16 in basketball. With really only 8 teams really making the playoffs in baseball.
You can scratch together some quality pieces and make the playoffs in basketball, its not happening in baseball. The astros took this to the extreme, but only because the previous ownership gave them no real alternatives.
Would you rather have teams like the Rockies cranking out 72 win teams every year?
Posted on 2/2/16 at 1:27 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
Didn't Houston pick at the beginning of every other round however? So tanking did help there
None of their top picks have appeared in the majors from the 13 and 14 drafts. They dealt Thurman in the Gattis deal and Mengden and Nottingham for Kazmir, so I guess you can say they benefitted from that, but that's pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
I'm sure those drafts will help them down the road, hopefully starting this year, but I feel like this is just a reaction to them having a good year.
Signing veterans to larger deals so you can win 70 games instead of 60 is just stupid. The gain doesn't come close to justifying the money spent. For the large majority of clubs in baseball you're going to contend by developing your own talent because they can't outspend the Dodgers, Red Sox, etc for the best players on the market
This post was edited on 2/2/16 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 2/2/16 at 2:57 pm to MSMHater
quote:
And as a result, now has the youngest playoff roster in baseball.
How many of those players were drafted vs acquired via trade? I don't know the answer, so that's why I asked.
The typical formula for a small market team is to trade away the 1 to 2 good players they have for multiple minor league players until they have enough quality players to form a playoff team.
High market teams like the Yankees get to be in the playoffs most years with very few home-grown players, while low market teams get to make a serious run once or twice a decade.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 3:00 pm to Rhino5
quote:
The Houston Astros are often cited within the sport as the model of a team that has benefited from losing a lot. From 2011 through 2013, the Astros became the first team since the 1962-65 Mets to lose at least 106 games in three consecutive seasons, and as a result, they were positioned at the top of three straight drafts.
so what? Stros ball now. The new MGMT had no choice but to do a complete rebuild on the farm system.
frick the other owners.
quote:
Signing veterans to larger deals so you can win 70 games instead of 60 is just stupid.
exactly
This post was edited on 2/2/16 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 2/2/16 at 3:01 pm to Rhino5
The Cubs and Astros are two really good tanking success stories in the MLB. I guess maybe the Royals before them, but I'm not so sure they did it intentionally.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 3:08 pm to The Sad Banana
I'd say the Rays, but they were legit awful.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 3:20 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
I'd say the Rays, but they were legit awful.
Astros would have been awful no matter what between 2010-2013.
what would have been the point to keep hunter pence and sign a few dead beat vets?
Posted on 2/2/16 at 3:27 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
Signing veterans to larger deals so you can win 70 games instead of 60 is just stupid. The gain doesn't come close to justifying the money spent
especially if you get stuck with 5-6 year deals
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News