The MLB lockout is lifted!

[Harold's Leg Lift]

35 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I'm not a fan of this. Something needs to be done (no top five in successive years, lottery, etc) but this is too far. A team like the Diamondbacks wasn't taking last year. They're just bad. They deserve the #2 overall pick. 

I absolutely love this idea.   If a team is bad spend more money or hire better people to spend the money.  It will be impossible to differentiate the teams that are losing on purpose and the ones who are just bad at their job so if you're bad at your job you pay the consequesnses. Punish teams for being bad instead of rewarding them. There should be no participation trophies in professional sports.  . 

[poppysox]

59 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I don't think there's any way a salary floor is going in. 23 owners will never agree to something like that. The players want less revenue sharing for the small markets which has been a non-starter so far. They should aim for the number at the top end to go higher so the big market clubs can spend more and they should be pushing to significantly raise the major league minimum salary. They just have given up too much in previous negotiations to win very much back here unless they're willing to miss a season and history says that they aren't willing to do that. 

I'm not a fan of this. Something needs to be done (no top five in successive years, lottery, etc) but this is too far. A team like the Diamondbacks wasn't taking last year. They're just bad. They deserve the #2 overall pick. 

I agree that the players are not in a good position to win much by way of concessions.  However, I am sympathetic to the non-competitiveness of teams having 5 X the payroll of some of the competition.  

[Texsox]

2 hours ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

 

I'm not a fan of this. Something needs to be done (no top five in successive years, lottery, etc) but this is too far. A team like the Diamondbacks wasn't taking last year. They're just bad. They deserve the #2 overall pick. 

That's the point. Organizational tanking isn't players not trying, or worse, throwing games.  It's organizations purposefully not trying to put together a competitive team this year to help with two or three years down the road. The Diamondbacks weren't looking to sign any free agents to help win games last year. They benefited from creating and maintaining a bad team. 

This proposal causes teams to try and win games every year. The Diamondbacks will have to jump into the free agent market and compete if they want a top pick. Under the current system they need to avoid signing anyone and keep any breakout MiLB players off the MLB roster to get that high pick.

 

[Chicago White Sox]

1 hour ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

I absolutely love this idea.   If a team is bad spend more money or hire better people to spend the money.  It will be impossible to differentiate the teams that are losing on purpose and the ones who are just bad at their job so if you're bad at your job you pay the consequesnses. Punish teams for being bad instead of rewarding them. There should be no participation trophies in professional sports.  . 

And this is why you don’t let scouts make important economic decisions that impact the well-being of the entire league.  Just a horrible idea if parity is what you’re actually seeking.

[poppysox]

20 minutes ago, Texsox said:

That's the point. Organizational tanking isn't players not trying, or worse, throwing games.  It's organizations purposefully not trying to put together a competitive team this year to help with two or three years down the road. The Diamondbacks weren't looking to sign any free agents to help win games last year. They benefited from creating and maintaining a bad team. 

This proposal causes teams to try and win games every year. The Diamondbacks will have to jump into the free agent market and compete if they want a top pick. Under the current system they need to avoid signing anyone and keep any breakout MiLB players off the MLB roster to get that high pick.

 

Neither side would go for it... but a system that had very little range (something like 20M) between the lowest payroll of $180 million & the highest $200million without the ability to pay a penalty would be great by me.  It would be fun to watch teams actually think twice about how to handle payroll instead of just having more money than the opposition.  Tanking would have no purpose and the vast majority of teams would be spending appreciably more than today.  Attendance would increase dramatically since every game would matter in theory.  A last-place team would indicate poor management and winning would indicate some talent on the part of FO and scouting staff.

[Balta1701]

31 minutes ago, Texsox said:

That's the point. Organizational tanking isn't players not trying, or worse, throwing games.  It's organizations purposefully not trying to put together a competitive team this year to help with two or three years down the road. The Diamondbacks weren't looking to sign any free agents to help win games last year. They benefited from creating and maintaining a bad team. 

This proposal causes teams to try and win games every year. The Diamondbacks will have to jump into the free agent market and compete if they want a top pick. Under the current system they need to avoid signing anyone and keep any breakout MiLB players off the MLB roster to get that high pick.

 

While I agree with parts of this, there is a flaw in this - with revenue sharing, there’s no reason why a team can’t be perpetually bad and profitable. Especially the DBacks, Rockies, Orioles - who have the Yankees and Dodgers in their divisions, and the Pirates and Marlins would probably do that too. It is not good for baseball to have cities where the teams are never competitive, because those fan bases will wither and lose interest over time if they never have a winner to cheer for. So, some strategy has to exist to avoid teams becoming nothing but parasites.

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

While I agree with parts of this, there is a flaw in this - with revenue sharing, there’s no reason why a team can’t be perpetually bad and profitable. Especially the DBacks, Rockies, Orioles - who have the Yankees and Dodgers in their divisions, and the Pirates and Marlins would probably do that too. It is not good for baseball to have cities where the teams are never competitive, because those fan bases will wither and lose interest over time if they never have a winner to cheer for. So, some strategy has to exist to avoid teams becoming nothing but parasites.

How does the current system avoid teams becoming parasites?

[Texsox]

32 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

And this is why you don’t let scouts make important economic decisions that impact the well-being of the entire league.  Just a horrible idea if parity is what you’re actually seeking.

How does a system that rewards the losing teams help parity? Wouldn't a system that rewards teams for trying to at least reach the half way point encourage parity?

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, Texsox said:

How does the current system avoid teams becoming parasites?

It does give those teams enough draft picks that it overcomes their own incompetence sometimes. 

[Texsox]

26 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

It does give those teams enough draft picks that it overcomes their own incompetence sometimes. 

The even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while theory. 

What is the worst record drafted 5th after the four teams closest to making the playoffs?

[Chicago White Sox]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

How does a system that rewards the losing teams help parity? Wouldn't a system that rewards teams for trying to at least reach the half way point encourage parity?

Because a system that penalizes teams for sucking creates a trap that is difficult to get out of.  The NFL probably has the best parity in all of major sports and they don’t require such an aggressive draft pick system to achieve it.

The reality is that a simple lottery is likely the best solution here.  Make it less attractive to tank without creating a potential death sentence to small market teams that suck and dig themselves a hole.

[Texsox]

20 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Because a system that penalizes teams for sucking creates a trap that is difficult to get out of.  The NFL probably has the best parity in all of major sports and they don’t require such an aggressive draft pick system to achieve it.

The reality is that a simple lottery is likely the best solution here.  Make it less attractive to tank without creating a potential death sentence to small market teams that suck and dig themselves a hole.

Free agents make a bigger impact in baseball than the NFL. 

The plans I've read have the worst record drafting fifth to eight. I don't believe it's too big of a hole to dig out of instead of first to fourth.

[Sarava]

23 hours ago, pcq said:

I like the notion where the best non-playoff records draft first. That would help keep it fair. 

I'm not a fan of this.

My idea all along has been to randomize all non playoff teams in a lottery and where you come up, you come up. The worst team could pick 1st, 9th, 14th, 2nd, etc....same with the best team to miss the playoffs. That takes the incentive away from trying to be bad.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

4 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

And this is why you don’t let scouts make important economic decisions that impact the well-being of the entire league.  Just a horrible idea if parity is what you’re actually seeking.

[bmags]

Reading these replies makes it seem like the 2011-2016 white sox were like this golden child of baseball competitiveness and entertainment by their consistently signing 2nd contract vets to be competitive.

I think it’s very likely that baseball could make no changes and have a much more competitive 2020s than (esp back half) 2010s.

In the 2000s, the lower spend teams like the As and Rays modernized, but the higher revenue teams could just outspend them to out talent them. But then Theo to the Red Sox, and Friedman to the dodgers and etc etc soon the big market teams began deploying these same talent strategies and my take is that by 2016 SO many other teams in the league realized they were way behind and would not be able to compete with their strategies anymore and could also not compete with mere money advantages (they didn’t have any).

So I don’t think it was just fetishizing tanking to win, it was a ton of teams throwing their seasons as they overhauled their orgs. Player development technology, further integrating track an, etc, there may have been a lot more start up costs into the org that weren’t going into players hands.

But that’s over now. There is what, one? “Old school” organization (the rox), and I guess the Royals maybe.

When Dick friggen Williams hired Driveline, you could tell there was no actual debate anymore on what was needed to compete (and I’m sure Boddy was expensive).

But anyway, that’s over now, changes will occur but I’m not sure anything like what just happened the last 5 years will happen for quite a while. So with teams operating much more similarly, the margins of improvement will probably shift back to free agency for the edge.

Long story short, I don’t think dramatic changes are necessary for parity or anti-tanking measures. It was just a kinda shitty competitive era. Wouldn’t be the first time in baseball, but it’s not everlasting.

[Texsox]

@bmags Excellent points. I still like the idea of teams trying to win to secure a better draft pick than lose, but keeping it the same isn't quite as bad sounding after reading your post.

[Jack Parkman]

2 hours ago, Texsox said:

@bmags Excellent points. I still like the idea of teams trying to win to secure a better draft pick than lose, but keeping it the same isn't quite as bad sounding after reading your post.

I've always liked the idea of an unweighted lottery for the top 5 picks and the rest go by record. 

You have the same likelihood of getting a top 5 pick regardless of whether your team finishes last or just misses the playoffs. 

In my opinion an unweighted lottery disincentivizes tanking. The reason why you do the top 5 is that the game changing talent is usually found there. 

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Jack Parkman

[Sarava]

I think there's more to tanking that just draft position. I hate to sound cynical - but does anyone think a lightbulb went off in some owner's heads when they saw some teams starting to tank, and the fans not only accepted it, but in many cases (like here in Chicago for both teams) actually embraced it?

They literally can have their cake and eat it to. They still collect the big tv dollars, and they drop 50+ mil off their payroll. Or more. Who wouldn't want a free 50 million dollars?

[Jack Parkman]

19 minutes ago, Sarava said:

I think there's more to tanking that just draft position. I hate to sound cynical - but does anyone think a lightbulb went off in some owner's heads when they saw some teams starting to tank, and the fans not only accepted it, but in many cases (like here in Chicago for both teams) actually embraced it?

They literally can have their cake and eat it to. They still collect the big tv dollars, and they drop 50+ mil off their payroll. Or more. Who wouldn't want a free 50 million dollars?

If tanking didn't work,  fans wouldn't embrace it. There are a lot of teams that were really bad, drafted highly and won championships in the last decade. Astros, Cubs, Braves, Royals.....just off the top of my head.

Meanwhile, the teams like the Yankees, Sawx and Dodgers saw regular season success but not as much postseason success.  

Edited January 3, 2022 by Jack Parkman

[Sarava]

8 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

If tanking didn't work as well fans wouldn't embrace it. There are a lot of teams that were really bad, drafted highly and won championships in the last decade. Astros, Cubs, Braves, Royals.....just off the top of my head.

Meanwhile, the teams like the Yankees, Sawx and Dodgers saw regular season success but not as much postseason success.  

I think the Astros and Cubs were blatant tankers that clearly worked. I'm not sure I would include the Braves or Royals in there. And there's many others where it hasn't worked out obviously.

But I'll put it another way to show the money that is pocketed or saved. Let's go back to Rick Hahn's famous quote: "The money will be spent."

Now, he actually has some Sox fans tricked in to thinking they did spend that money. Obviously they didn't. They haven't even brought their payroll up to where a Chicago payroll should be, let me alone spend the money that was hoarded over the last 5-6 years. 

I just went through the team payroll since 2016 - the year they officially started to tank/rebuild.

What would one say is a fair expectation for the Sox payroll - 10th in baseball? Despite how they are often operated as a small market, this is one of the premier markets in baseball and the payroll ideally could reflect that.

Here's 2016 and onward, comparing the Sox payroll to the 10th payroll in baseball, and highlighting the net difference in each season:

2016 - Sox payroll 115.9 mil, 10th team payroll 147.9 mil. Savings of 32 mil

2017 - Sox payroll 109.5 mil, 10th team payroll 162.3 mil. Savings of 52.8 mil

2018 - Sox payroll 72.1 mil, 10th team payroll 161.0 mil. Savings of 89.9 mil

2019 - Sox payroll 91.3 mil, 10th team payroll 159.6 mil. Savings of 68.3 mil

2020 - Sox payroll 53.6 mil, 10th team payroll 73.2 mil. Savings of 19.6 mil

2021 - Sox payroll 140.9 mil, 10th team payroll 171.4 mil. Savings of 30.5 mil

Numbers were gathered from sites I googles for team payrolls. The Sox payroll over these years has come to a difference of - 293.1 million from the 10th payrolls in baseball. That's a pretty big incentive to tank/rebuild and draft positioning isn't going to stop that. At least from owners driven more by profits than winning a World Series.

[Jack Parkman]

23 minutes ago, Sarava said:

I think the Astros and Cubs were blatant tankers that clearly worked. I'm not sure I would include the Braves or Royals in there. And there's many others where it hasn't worked out obviously.

But I'll put it another way to show the money that is pocketed or saved. Let's go back to Rick Hahn's famous quote: "The money will be spent."

Now, he actually has some Sox fans tricked in to thinking they did spend that money. Obviously they didn't. They haven't even brought their payroll up to where a Chicago payroll should be, let me alone spend the money that was hoarded over the last 5-6 years. 

I just went through the team payroll since 2016 - the year they officially started to tank/rebuild.

What would one say is a fair expectation for the Sox payroll - 10th in baseball? Despite how they are often operated as a small market, this is one of the premier markets in baseball and the payroll ideally could reflect that.

Here's 2016 and onward, comparing the Sox payroll to the 10th payroll in baseball, and highlighting the net difference in each season:

2016 - Sox payroll 115.9 mil, 10th team payroll 147.9 mil. Savings of 32 mil

2017 - Sox payroll 109.5 mil, 10th team payroll 162.3 mil. Savings of 52.8 mil

2018 - Sox payroll 72.1 mil, 10th team payroll 161.0 mil. Savings of 89.9 mil

2019 - Sox payroll 91.3 mil, 10th team payroll 159.6 mil. Savings of 68.3 mil

2020 - Sox payroll 53.6 mil, 10th team payroll 73.2 mil. Savings of 19.6 mil

2021 - Sox payroll 140.9 mil, 10th team payroll 171.4 mil. Savings of 30.5 mil

Numbers were gathered from sites I googles for team payrolls. The Sox payroll over these years has come to a difference of - 293.1 million from the 10th payrolls in baseball. That's a pretty big incentive to tank/rebuild and draft positioning isn't going to stop that. At least from owners driven more by profits than winning a World Series.

The Braves were the worst team in baseball or close for a couple years. They were blatant tankers. 

[Sarava]

18 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

The Braves were the worst team in baseball or close for a couple years. They were blatant tankers. 

Eh, you had a better argument with the Royals actually. But they're a small market team. The Braves only had 3 down years and never loss more than 95 games. They weren't even close to what the Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Tigers and others did.

[Eminor3rd]

I would just add that there’s a difference between tanking to save money/collect draft picks and tanking to let new, younger talent develop. I think bmags’ point is a good one — the Sox we’re great example of a team that kept throwing good money into a bad team and accomplishing nothing but stopping that team from being allowed to develop a sorely needed new core. As long as there is enough pressure for teams to continue to develop and overcome new versions of a metagame, the competitive landscape will be healthy (even if there are some hiccups in some places).

Its up to the labor unions and the administration to ensure that the current metagame isn’t blatantly exploitative for the lives of the players involved. It’s probably unrealistic to expect there to be any sort of perfect equilibrium on that front — but as long as there’s always action and movement and conversation, it’ll remain a mutually beneficial situation on average, like it’s been for the past several decades. 

[ron883]

On 1/1/2022 at 11:37 AM, Chicago White Sox said:

And this is why you don’t let scouts make important economic decisions that impact the well-being of the entire league.  Just a horrible idea if parity is what you’re actually seeking.

The Mariners barely missed the playoffs last year. He just wants the Mariners to load up on high picks so the future GOAT Jared Kelenic will have plenty of talent around him. 

[caulfield12]

5 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

The Braves were the worst team in baseball or close for a couple years. They were blatant tankers. 

The Royals were bad for thirty years but finally hired the right talent evaluators....but Ewing Kauffman ran huge payrolls in the 1980s considering that market size.  Then David Glass of Wal-Mart fame tried to apply the same philosophies to a pro sports team and it took them decades to fix it.   So not tanking, just a small are the team with worst first round draft picks than the White Sox from the 90's until around 2010-11.