MLBTR: Tanking, to Get Real Good

[weams]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/quick-hits-tanking-rangers-maeda-dbacks.html

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/astros/article/Baseball-clubs-walk-competitive-tightrope-when-6633176.php?t=054a0745ab438d9cbb&cmpid=twitter-premium

The recent successes of the Cubs and Astros might ensure the team-building strategy of "tanking" (that is, intentionally fielding a series of non-competitive teams) will continue to remain popular in the near future, as Evan Drellich of the Houston Chronicle writes in a long feature story. The Braves, for example, appear to be employing a variation of the Astros extreme-rebuilding approach, the Phillies are doing something somewhat similar, and the Brewers could conceivably do the same. But "tanking" isn't without its downfalls. "[Y]ou risk losing the fan base and alienating a fan base and in some cases they come back and in some cases they don?t come back," says Pirates GM Neal Huntington, who traded many of his team's key players beginning in 2008, after he had been on the job for about a year. "I don't know, I mean, we're a copycat society, let alone industry, so I think it's worked remarkably well on a couple of fronts. I think once it doesn't work well, then it probably won't be a thing to do anymore."

Part of the "tanking" strategy simply involves trading assets to acquire and clear playing time for younger talent, but another part of it is potentially more controversial ? losing teams receive higher draft picks, so in some cases, it might be sound strategy for a franchise to structure itself in such a way that it's very unlikely to play well. The results can be hard to watch, as the Astros frequently were before this season. And for some markets, tanking might be difficult or impossible. The Astros and Cubs "were losing for a long time and a lot of markets can't do that," says Reds president Walt Jocketty. "We can't do that in our market."

[weams]

"The messaging was always hard," Cubs general manager Jed Hoyer said. "Because once you got past that point where it was clear it was going to be a dismal season, and then we started trading guys away, you just tried to be transparent, like, 'We're trying to build for the future, we're trying to draft well, we're trying to stockpile good players through our trades.'

"I think from an executive standpoint the losing part is awful, but I think the intellectual (understanding is there about), 'This is what we need to do to rebuild and get back to where we want to be.' I think it's harder on the fans. … You're not going to follow it with that same fervor in August; you're just going to go to the beach and listen to something else."

Just how far to fall

Even if it's reasonable to accept losing for a time, there's a notion that teams can go too far. Yet the hypothetical line that separates an acceptable effort is blurry.

For example, the three consecutive 100-loss seasons the Astros endured are too much, said one GM who likely has some losing in front of him and didn't want to be named.

But what is the cut-off? Are three straight 90-loss seasons acceptable, and why would that be?

It's a measured decline.

[weams]

The Agent speaks.

"It's a very valued move to go get a top one or two or three draft picks by making sure your major league team is out of the (free-agent) market," Boras said at the recent general managers' meetings in Florida. "So now we have a 22-team league instead of a 30-team league, and if organizations do that and they do it consistently, they've been rewarded for it.

"The model is to be non-competitive for 40 percent of a decade. And if that's the case, I don't think we want our fan bases in all the markets to know that. I think we want a different system.

"While we want parity certainly, we don't want a system where it is functionally beneficial for franchises to lose continually for a long period of time."

[DocJJ]

Advantages of this strategy:

The top 5 MLB draft picks are considerably more likely to become stars than any taken thereafter in each year's draft.

The O's only seem to find success with top 5 draft picks. (Wieters, Machado, possibly Gaussman).

Stockpiling 4-5 years worth of these players is a sound strategy. Either you're in the playoffs or you're rebuilding to get there.

It's better than the Orioles current strategy: sign a bunch of Travis Snyders, trade for a bunch of Gerrardo Paras, hope to catch "lightning in a bottle", while being stingy, cheap, frugal. Win enough games to ensure you're drafting out of the top 15 and continue with teams that consistently lose, and aren't getting any better for the future.

[gmelson26]

Put an NFL-esque salary cap in place and this won't really be a thing.

[weams]

Put an NFL-esque salary cap in place and this won't really be a thing.

How many years do you want the strike for?

[Dark Helmet]

This strategy only works if you can scout and develop well. The Orioles haven't done that. A good organization doesn't need to tank to develop young guys.

[O's84]

Put an NFL-esque salary cap in place and this won't really be a thing.

How many years do you want the strike for?

3, then their out.

[weams]

3' date=' then their out. [/quote']

Kevin Millar would come back to play.

[O's84]

Kevin Millar would come back to play.

[Nevermore]

Advantages of this strategy:

The top 5 MLB draft picks are considerably more likely to become stars than any taken thereafter in each year's draft.

The O's only seem to find success with top 5 draft picks. (Wieters, Machado, possibly Gaussman).

Stockpiling 4-5 years worth of these players is a sound strategy. Either you're in the playoffs or you're rebuilding to get there.

It's better than the Orioles current strategy: sign a bunch of Travis Snyders, trade for a bunch of Gerrardo Paras, hope to catch "lightning in a bottle", while being stingy, cheap, frugal. Win enough games to ensure you're drafting out of the top 15 and continue with teams that consistently lose, and aren't getting any better for the future.

The O's tanked for 14 years. I'm sure that they got great draft picks during that time. Still didn't help them become a winning team.

[$Greatness$]

The O's tanked for 14 years. I'm sure that they got great draft picks during that time. Still didn't help them become a winning team.

You sir are a winner. Thank you.

[weams]

The O's tanked for 14 years. I'm sure that they got great draft picks during that time. Still didn't help them become a winning team.

Actually, they never did. They always spent too much to tank and tried to play to a level that made them never the worst. In five seasons, the Orioles had top five picks. They got Matt Wieters, Dylan Bundy, Manny Machado. Kevin Gausman, and Matt Hobgood.

[weams]

You sir are a winner. Thank you.

They actually didn't. There was never a plan to trade off all the stars. It was piecemeal at best and never really happened at all until Andy MacPhail showed us how ridiculous we were.

[utvolzac]

How many years do you want the strike for?

As many as it takes. I'd be fine living without baseball for a year it meant a salary cap gets put into place. The disparity in baseball is rediculous between the haves and have nots. Yes teams like KC can put together a good run, but long term sustainability is highly unlikely for small market teams.