O's discussing blockbuster with the Padres for Upton?

[Can_of_corn]

So the Astros made it abundantly clear that they were intentionally losing games in order to improve their draft position? I missed that part.

I guess you did. The 24 million dollar payroll in 2013 wasn't a clue?

[Can_of_corn]

Big difference between players tanking and the front office tanking. The players didn't tank (I hope). The front office did in a way.

Exactly. I have never heard of a case, in any sport, where the players sent out to win games were not trying to win.

[Phantom]

There is a difference between not trying to win from a personnel view and intentionally trying to lose. Where tanking lies on that spectrum is a matter of opinion.

[DrungoHazewood]

I guess any rebuild could be called deliberately tanking. Hurting your short term chances as a team for the long term benefits to your franchise is an acceptable strategy.

It's within the rules, sure. But if I were king for a day I'd put things in place that heavily disincentivized that. Not necessarily promotion/relegation, that can't work in closed league structure, but teams never tank a season on purpose in promotion/relegation leagues. One thing you could do is a draft lottery. Everyone below .500 goes into the lottery, so there's really no advantage to having 50 wins instead of 78.

[DrungoHazewood]

Big difference between players tanking and the front office tanking. The players didn't tank (I hope). The front office did in a way.

The players don't try to lose. Even in the minors when they're 28 games out of a first place that no one cares about. The front office has other motivations.

[Can_of_corn]

It's within the rules, sure. But if I were king for a day I'd put things in place that heavily disincentivized that. Not necessarily promotion/relegation, that can't work in closed league structure, but teams never tank a season on purpose in promotion/relegation leagues. One thing you could do is a draft lottery. Everyone below .500 goes into the lottery, so there's really no advantage to having 50 wins instead of 78.

That certainly helped with tanking in the NBA.

[Redskins Rick]

That certainly helped with tanking in the NBA.

Yeah, look at those 76ers.

[24fps]

I guess you did. The 24 million dollar payroll in 2013 wasn't a clue?

You obviously didn't read the post you initially responded to. It's #171 if you want to try again. Nobody but you in this conversation is talking about rebuilding by any conventional definition of term. I was talking about intentionally tanking the remainder of a season in order to gain a higher draft pick the following year. Something a few posters during those years actually thought was worthwhile, even "smart".

[backwardsk]

Exactly. I have never heard of a case, in any sport, where the players sent out to win games were not trying to win.

1919 White Sox?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

You obviously didn't read the post you initially responded to. It's #171 if you want to try again. Nobody but you in this conversation is talking about rebuilding by any conventional definition of term. I was talking about intentionally tanking the remainder of a season in order to gain a higher draft pick the following year. Something a few posters during those years actually thought was worthwhile, even "smart".

And it can be "smart" as in a viable strategy used by teams in all four major sports.

Yea it's distasteful.

So is employing drunk drivers, folks that commit hate crimes and folks that abuse their spouses. The O's have done all that too.

Odds are good that if the O's had been worse they wouldn't have been bad for as long.

[Can_of_corn]

1919 White Sox?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty obviously talking about the regular season here.

[24fps]

And it can be "smart" as in a viable strategy used by teams in all four major sports.

Yea it's distasteful.

So is employing drunk drivers, folks that commit hate crimes and folks that abuse their spouses. The O's have done all that too.

Odds are good that if the O's had been worse they wouldn't have been bad for as long.

Red herring is also distasteful. My point has always been narrow and I can't clarify it any further. Have a great rest of the day.

[weams]

You obviously didn't read the post you initially responded to. It's #171 if you want to try again. Nobody but you in this conversation is talking about rebuilding by any conventional definition of term. I was talking about intentionally tanking the remainder of a season in order to gain a higher draft pick the following year. Something a few posters during those years actually thought was worthwhile, even "smart".

I did not care for those "smart"posters. I want to win every game. Even when you have 69 wins on the last game of the season.

[weams]

And it can be "smart" as in a viable strategy used by teams in all four major sports.

Yea it's distasteful.

So is employing drunk drivers, folks that commit hate crimes and folks that abuse their spouses. The O's have done all that too.

Odds are good that if the O's had been worse they wouldn't have been bad for as long.

I think it was all about the intellect of the front office types that we employed during those horrible years. And the interference of the ownership in what they attempted.

[Can_of_corn]

I think it was all about the intellect of the front office types that we employed during those horrible years. And the interference of the ownership in what they attempted.

Yep.

I am just stating that in some cases, the tank strategy is a completely valid strategy to take.

Then of course someone mentioned that it was "distasteful" then when I mentioned other distasteful things done by teams to win I get accused of fishing.

Trading Tulo without asking him first, when that goes against your word, that's distasteful, yet the Rockies did it.