Craig Breslow hired as Head Of Baseball Operations

[mvp 78]

Did the Cubs and Astros tank or not?

 

Teams were being bad for multiple years on purpose. That's not the same as "tanking" in one specific year for a certain draft pick. It's not "tanking" it's just being a really horrible team for a long stretch.

[Bellhorn04]

Teams were being bad for multiple years on purpose. That's not the same as "tanking" in one specific year for a certain draft pick. It's not "tanking" it's just being a really horrible team for a long stretch.

 

So you're saying tanking for multiple years is not tanking.

[Hugh2]

The MLB draft, despite not being anywhere nearly as marketable as the NBA or NFL draft is so much more complicated and comprehensive than any of the major sports.

 

Some will say that you draft for BPA over need in baseball more than any other sport, yet teams will cut deals with guys at the top all the time so they can spread the money around.

 

Literally, this is how we ended up with Marcelo Mayer. The Pirates literally drafted Henry Davis at #1, Davis was in everyone's top 5 but almost no one had him going #1 until it was rumored the Pirates were looking to cut a deal at the top. Then teams below often stay with their predetermined Picks, Texas likes pitching and stuck with what was largely considered the best pitcher in the draft in Jack Leiter, and the Tigers effectively already had a deal in place with Jackson Jobe, then Marcelo was right there for us.

 

It's not very uncommon for the player who is highly regarded as the #1 player in a draft to go somewhere else in the top 3 or 4.

 

Sometimes you end up making that decision and the guy you spent less money on ends up being the better pick as well. In the 2012 draft, Bryon Buxton was unanimously considered the top talent in the draft. That didn't stop the Astros from taking Carlos Correa and saving 1.2 million dollars.

[Hugh2]

Teams were being bad for multiple years on purpose. That's not the same as "tanking" in one specific year for a certain draft pick. It's not "tanking" it's just being a really horrible team for a long stretch.

 

I don't disagree, but I will say how much is by design and how much is by function.

 

Take the Red Sox for example, do they really need to go out and spend around $15-$20 million to bring a RH bat in for two years to platoon or plug up 2B/CF/RF (rotate those positions as you wish)???? no they don't it would be the easiest thing in the world to just roll with Yoshida/Duran/Verdugo if you have zero expectations of competing. Are you trying to tank? or do you just not want to spend $20 dollars if you know you're probably not going to win?

 

Big market teams will always make that move and hope to get lucky even during bridge years, sometimes even in suboptimal conditions you see just that, E.G. the 2021 season. But small market teams who do not pull in the same amount of revenue do not have that luxury. Not every team is just trying to not spend money, but then again.......some are.

[Hugh2]

To add to my comment above, a concept I've seen brought up time and time again is a salary floor. It can be reasonable, I think something around 100 million is fair. That's going to force the bottom 1/3 to 1/4 of teams to make decisions a little differently, I'm not so sure a financial penalty makes sense. I think it draft pick penalty makes more, yet taking away a top pick for a s***** club seems unfair.

 

I think they can find a happy medium e.g. if you dip below you lose 25% of your bonus pool OR you become ineligible for any competitive balance picks. So, you're the A's and you have the #1 pick, you don't lose that pick.....but you shouldn't be getting extra picks in between the top rounds just because you don't make any money. I'm for the reverse ranking system of drafting across all sports. Parity helps build the brand, but giving compensatory picks for being a horrible franchise feels like moving the needle past even and too far in the other direction for me.

 

A fair way to not completely get rid of that system is to remove those extra picks for teams that can't spend at least 80-100 million a year.

[moonslav59]

The motives depend a lot on the size of the market and who the owner is.

 

Indeed, and there may be several reasons to not try to win.

 

To me, the biggest reason is to not spend on the player salary budget, so they can make more money.

 

Some teams do seem to want to do that but also compete, so they may value higher draft picks and signing pools more highly that those who don't seem to ever try to make the playoffs. Oak & TBR might be the best examples of the this.

 

Some posters were suggesting we "tank" the end of the season to just move up a few slots in the draft, so it's not like the idea that it is not just about getting the top pick or 2 is not something new.

[Hugh2]

OR maybe it makes more sense that teams should receive none, or a reduced portion of revenue sharing if they dip below a certain threshold.

[moonslav59]

Sure they tanked. But the Astros showed the downside but nothing 67% of the top picks…

 

Again, you chose just a 3 year stretch, when their tank was for longer than that, and having a higher pick in each round helped them get better.

 

Also, I think getting a guy like Correa with your top pick, every 3 years, is not something I'd call a downside.

 

Getting constant picks in the 10-20 slots don't even do that well.

[Bellhorn04]

Some posters were suggesting we "tank" the end of the season to just move up a few slots in the draft, so it's not like the idea that it is not just about getting the top pick or 2 is not something new.

 

Yeah, there's not much difference between not trying to win and trying not to win.

[moonslav59]

Teams were being bad for multiple years on purpose. That's not the same as "tanking" in one specific year for a certain draft pick. It's not "tanking" it's just being a really horrible team for a long stretch.

 

The Astros admitted to their fans they were waiting to stockpile young players and would spend big in a few years. That is "tanking."

 

Then, they did what they promised.

[Bellhorn04]

The Astros admitted to their fans they were waiting to stockpile young players and would spend big in a few years. That is "tanking."

 

Then, they did what they promised.

 

Theo's Cubs did the same. It was blatant in both cases and it worked.

[moonslav59]

To add to my comment above, a concept I've seen brought up time and time again is a salary floor. It can be reasonable, I think something around 100 million is fair. That's going to force the bottom 1/3 to 1/4 of teams to make decisions a little differently, I'm not so sure a financial penalty makes sense. I think it draft pick penalty makes more, yet taking away a top pick for a s***** club seems unfair.

 

I think they can find a happy medium e.g. if you dip below you lose 25% of your bonus pool OR you become ineligible for any competitive balance picks. So, you're the A's and you have the #1 pick, you don't lose that pick.....but you shouldn't be getting extra picks in between the top rounds just because you don't make any money. I'm for the reverse ranking system of drafting across all sports. Parity helps build the brand, but giving compensatory picks for being a horrible franchise feels like moving the needle past even and too far in the other direction for me.

 

A fair way to not completely get rid of that system is to remove those extra picks for teams that can't spend at least 80-100 million a year.

 

They should have forced a team minimum budget that increased every year. If teams do not meet the rule, they could lose their revenue sharing, which to me, would "incentivize" those owners more than taking away draft picks or reducing pool money.

 

I like the idea of trying to give worse teams a better chance to catch up, but only if they are legitimately trying to do so.

[moonslav59]

Theo's Cubs did the same. It was blatant in both cases and it worked.

 

I agree, but I know more about the specifics of the Astros "tank," due to living here and hearing what top brass was saying to fan through the "lean years."

 

The Rays did it for a while, but it's harder to know if it was mostly about getting top draft picks, because they barely spent more, after they started winning. Their strategy is just spend as little as possible, but still try to win.

 

It's hard to imagine teams like PIT and KC telling themselves, "let's not try to win." I'm sure they all look at OAK and TBR and think, let's be like them, but it's not easy to win without spending more.

 

One thing to think about, if MLB imposed a min team budget of $100M, it would likely make it much harder for big spending teams to win, without going to absurd spending lengths, like the Mets tried.

 

The Sox haven't been able to win with a constant budget over $200M.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Yeah, there's not much difference between not trying to win and trying not to win.

 

Tied up in nots. I like trying not to lose.

 

Breslow may not be able to sign a top free agent pitcher, but he should be determined to make sure a Bearclaw game never happens again in Red Sox history.

 

And no excuses -- injuries, Covid, record (the Dbacks had 61 wins on August 16 when they claimed Ryan Thompson, DFAed by Tampa; Boston had 63 wins)...

 

Stockpile legitimate depth -- and reshape it (already on oft-repeated description of Breslow's pitching instruction). Let's go.

[Dipre]

So you're saying tanking for multiple years is not tanking.

 

He's saying there's a difference between tanking and sucking.

[notin]

The Astros admitted to their fans they were waiting to stockpile young players and would spend big in a few years. That is "tanking."

 

Then, they did what they promised.

 

But it’s not so much a question of whether or not they were tanking. They really just didn’t spend anything. But you tank to get your best first round pick, because after that, things start looking more fungible. That McCullers was passed over 40 times was not part of their tanking strategy.

 

I’m just saying they’re a cautionary tale for tanking because their first overall picks proved to be an unsuccessful strategy. It worked great for Washington when Strasburg, Harper and Rendon were out there for them. But those tor of talents aren’t present in every draft.

 

The bust rate of first round picks is just so much higher in MLB that tanking isn’ta good strategy. There are plenty of teams that dial back the spending and wait for their farm. Arguably including Boston the past couple seasons…

Edited October 27, 2023 by notin

[moonslav59]

Breslow may not be able to sign a top free agent pitcher, but he should be determined to make sure a Bearclaw game never happens again in Red Sox history.

 

.

 

Just as bad was the Dermody start.

 

BTW, by my count, we had 16 "pen games: started.

 

We also had 23 GS by Crawford, who was not really on anyone's radar as a top 7-8 starter back in March.

 

I think our rotation depth chart, last December, was...

 

1. Sale

2. Kluber

3. Paxton

4. Bello

5. Pivetta

6. Houck

7. Whitlock

8. Maybe even Mata and Walter before Crawford.

 

16 pen starts + 23 Crawford GS= 39 GS. That is close to 25% of starts from pitchers below our 7 slot in the depth chart.

 

[moonslav59]

But it’s not so much a question of whether or not they were tanking. They really just didn’t spend anything. But you tank to get your best first round pick, because after that, things start looking more fungible. That McCullers was passed over 40 times was not part of their tanking strategy.

 

I’m just saying they’re a cautionary tale for tanking because their first overall picks proved to be an unsuccessful strategy. It worked great for Washington when Strasburg, Harper and Rendon were out there for them. But those tor of talents aren’t present in every draft.

 

The bust rate of first round picks is just so much higher in MLB that tanking isn’ta good strategy. There are plenty of teams that dial back the spending and wait for their farm. Arguably including Boston the past couple seasons…

 

Getting the top pick was part of their strategy. I'm pretty sure of that.

 

I do also think they viewed getting the 1st pick in the following rounds as a plus, too. It certainly was not a major reason they tanked, but it was a plus they valued when making the choice to tank.

 

They clearly and purposely held back spending, so they could get better picks for more than 3 years. I think this statement is closer to the truth than saying they tanked for 3 first picks in the draft.

[sk7326]

To add to my comment above, a concept I've seen brought up time and time again is a salary floor. It can be reasonable, I think something around 100 million is fair. That's going to force the bottom 1/3 to 1/4 of teams to make decisions a little differently, I'm not so sure a financial penalty makes sense. I think it draft pick penalty makes more, yet taking away a top pick for a s***** club seems unfair.

 

I think they can find a happy medium e.g. if you dip below you lose 25% of your bonus pool OR you become ineligible for any competitive balance picks. So, you're the A's and you have the #1 pick, you don't lose that pick.....but you shouldn't be getting extra picks in between the top rounds just because you don't make any money. I'm for the reverse ranking system of drafting across all sports. Parity helps build the brand, but giving compensatory picks for being a horrible franchise feels like moving the needle past even and too far in the other direction for me.

 

A fair way to not completely get rid of that system is to remove those extra picks for teams that can't spend at least 80-100 million a year.

 

Something like this would be fair. Now - ideally it would be a percentage of revenue, but the players did not get that visibility in the most recent negotiation. (so the players are likely getting less of the pie than their peers in other sports) But that train has left the station.

 

Looking at 2023 payroll figures $100M would have been 23rd ... 25th percentile or so. I'd go to more like $120M but whatever. I also think teams need room to rebuild and go young, so you could use a 3 year window. If a team falls below the $120M line in 2 of 3 seasons, they give up competitive balance picks.

[sk7326]

They should have forced a team minimum budget that increased every year. If teams do not meet the rule, they could lose their revenue sharing, which to me, would "incentivize" those owners more than taking away draft picks or reducing pool money.

 

I like the idea of trying to give worse teams a better chance to catch up, but only if they are legitimately trying to do so.

 

One of the real ironies is that implementing a salary cap would have forced those teams to spend more. Like, a salary cap would - assuming 50% of baseball revenue from what has been published before, would be something like $160M. ($160M coincidentally is the mean 2023 payroll number) And you could tie that to revenue sharing.

[moonslav59]

Something like this would be fair. Now - ideally it would be a percentage of revenue, but the players did not get that visibility in the most recent negotiation. (so the players are likely getting less of the pie than their peers in other sports) But that train has left the station.

 

Looking at 2023 payroll figures $100M would have been 23rd ... 25th percentile or so. I'd go to more like $120M but whatever. I also think teams need room to rebuild and go young, so you could use a 3 year window. If a team falls below the $120M line in 2 of 3 seasons, they give up competitive balance picks.

 

I think starting with $100M gives some teams some slack and planning headstart. Go to $110M year 2 and $120M year 3.

[Bellhorn04]

He's saying there's a difference between tanking and sucking.

 

Not always - it can be both.

[Bellhorn04]

But it’s not so much a question of whether or not they were tanking. They really just didn’t spend anything. But you tank to get your best first round pick, because after that, things start looking more fungible. That McCullers was passed over 40 times was not part of their tanking strategy.

 

So you're going to keep omitting #2 pick Bregman?

 

"Not spending" can certainly be an integral part of tanking...

[Dipre]

Not always - it can be both.

 

Tanking has a purpose, sucking does not.

 

In one case, you lose because you're tanking. In the other, you lose because you've failed at building a competitive baseball team.

 

Tanking: First half of 2010's Astros.

 

Sucking: Anaheim Angels, last 5-10 years.

[Bellhorn04]

Tanking has a purpose, sucking does not.

 

In one case, you lose because you're tanking. In the other, you lose because you've failed at building a competitive baseball team.

 

Tanking: First half of 2010's Astros.

 

Sucking: Anaheim Angels, last 5-10 years.

 

Agreed, those 2 are perfect examples.

 

But mvp seems to be denying that the Astros tanked.

[Dipre]

Agreed, those 2 are perfect examples.

 

But mvp seems to be denying that the Astros tanked.

 

Of course they f***ing tanked. They tanked hard.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Of course they f***ing tanked. They tanked hard.

 

According to Moon, at least they were honest to their fans (cue Astros jokes) about it.

 

And no one can say Houston, once it was good again, didn't continue to make trades or signings to upgrade holes when free agents left for bigger paydays.

 

Meanwhile, there is another team that tanked and is now loaded with young talent -- the Orioles. However, ownership has still not shown Baltimore fans it is willing to spend big to maximize a new window of winning...

[notin]

Not always - it can be both.

 

That doesn’t change that there is a difference.

 

Really, tanking is a subset of sucking…

[notin]

So you're going to keep omitting #2 pick Bregman?

 

"Not spending" can certainly be an integral part of tanking...

 

They did win nearly 20 more games than the previous years prior to drafting Bregman. 70-92 isn’t good, but considering they were coming off there straight years of about 110 losses, is it still tanking?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

That doesn’t change that there is a difference.

 

Really, tanking is a subset of sucking…

 

Giving up is the epitome of suckitude.

 

It's like admitting you were dumb enough to build a crap roster, or worse, a system without the depth to maintain competitive aspirations... and then attempting to salvage futility by trying to make it look smart -- which make take years to prove, depending on the progress of those top draft picks.