Jump to content

MLBTR: Tanking, to Get Real Good


weams

Recommended Posts

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • emmett16 is right. Uppercut swings produce a lot of groundouts because the bat is not on the same plane as the ball for very long. The best swing stays on the same plane as the ball for a longer time. This will produce contact that creates backspin on the ball which makes it carry. That Ted Williams book is one of the best hitting books ever written.
    • I have to admit. I'm an addict. I'm an addict not of booze or drugs. I'm an addict for baseball .... It's still THE game for me and I love almost any team sport. But for me, when it's great, it's still the greatest game of them all. I hate to say it, but when my team wins ...it's like a hit of crack or coke and I have never and will never try those drugs. This one is a better high anyway. It's an adrenaline rush for me. It comes from my heart and soul. Like the other night in Anaheim I sat transfixed on the game. I dont need to look at the silly shell games on a scoreboard, nor hear what the players favorite singer is.. or eat a lot of junk, but I DO have to have my bag of peanuts. The Orioles were clinging to a one run lead, when, with the bases loaded, Mike Trout stepped up to the plate...a single and the game is tied...an extra base hit and the Orioles lose. Our pitcher Craig Kimbrel had to throw a strike to one of the all time greats, and somehow, someway, Trout looked at a third strike and the Orioles won. I lept into the air as if I had a million dollars on the game. I never bet on sports, but this was a better high than winning any bet anyway. Because it is pure and it comes from my deep place of caring when the 'Birds' win. Today in Anaheim, another nail biter, the game was in the ninth with two out and a runner on first. Suddenly the runner broke for second and catcher James McCann threw a strike to second base. Gunnar Henderson covering, made the tag and the ump called the runner out. And the game ended that way. Bang Bang. Personally I thought it was a blown call, but after review the call was upheld and the Orioles won another nail biter. I dont watch many other games, but every night I hit the crack pipe" of baseball. It's my addiction. I also love watching fantastic performers. Mookie Betts is an electric ballplayer . can do anything at the plate and in the field. The Orioles' Henderson is a must see ballplayer like Betts is. On Wednesday he hit a home run, a double, a single, drove in 3 runs got hit by a pitch , stole a base and made two game saving plays in the field. Baseball is a team sport but it's also watching the brilliant, mesmerizing individual performances. It's watching the best players in the world do what I think is the most difficult thing in sports , hit a baseball, throw a baseball, and field a baseball. It's hard to do. Anyway,it's still just April and it's a long, long season. Bryant Gumble once had a great line about the difference between football and baseball. He said "Baseball, is a never ending romance, but football is a one night stand." Yep, I'm an addict, a baseball junkie, and I make no apologies for it. I'll never go to rehab for my baseball addiction. I don't NEED to be cured. And I never will be. Jim Bouton said it best in "Ball Four" his great book. "In all the years you grip a baseball...you suddenly remember, it's really the other way around" Exactly.
    • Especially when you factor in the DL Hall trade too.  Suarez and Wells get bumped to the pen only if Bradish and Means are effective starters a decent part of the season.  Would the O's promote Povich or McDermott to pitch relief?  My guess is not anytime soon, but I dunno. A trade would for one or two arms would be best, but trading for good relief pitching is only harder now because so many teams can make the playoffs.  
    • But O'Hearn's numbers are inflated because he never bats against lefties, plus he's trash in the outfield.  If Santander's hitting does not improve this season of course you don't give him a QO, but that's unlikely.  He'll probably pick it up as the weather heats up.  Plus Tony plays at least a decent RF and can play first base too.   Like others have said, should the O's offer Santander a QO?  Maybe -- it depends on how he performs and how Kjerstad and Stowers perform.  
    • Wait, since when is money no object? It remains to be seen what the budget constraints are going to be with the new ownership, but if Santander is projected to put up 3.0 WAR for $20 million and his replacement (Kjerstad/Cowser/Stowers...) can put up 2.5 WAR for less than a million then that will be factored in.  The goal will never be about being better than the other 29 teams in a payroll vacuum.
    • I think you have a good understanding and I assume you’ve read Ted Williams Science of Hitting.  It’s all about lining up planes of pitch and bat.  Historically with sinkers and low strikes a higher attack angle played and was more in alignment with pitch plane.  In today’s game of spin and high zone fastball an uppercut swing gives you minimal chance and results in top spin grounders and swing & miss. 
    • I'll bow to your expertise even if it seems unlikely to my laymen understanding. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...