I think we are better than the Tigers

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

If the Orioles lose this series it will be your fault for posting this thread.

 

[LA2]

On 5/29/2019 at 12:26 AM, atomic said:

Look at their rosters.  They have their own versions of Mike Elias I assume. 

Well, the point is they're all preparing to throw Wild Card positions to the highest bidders for their best worthless players. Mariners, Jays, Nats, and White Sox (it's their tradition) are also in the evil race to the bottom / top.

[sportsfan8703]

We have Alberto hitting leadoff and Severino hitting 5th. Two guys that were viewed as all glove and put on waivers this offseason. We’re terrible. 

[atomic]

3 hours ago, LA2 said:

Well, the point is they're all preparing to throw WIld Card positions to the highest bidders for their best worthless players. Mariners, Jays, Nats, and White Sox (it's their tradition) are also in the evil race to the bottom / top.

With everyone tanking it wouldn’t take much effort to make the playoff this year.  Right now 3 games over .500 is the second wild card.  With so many teams tanking not every team is going to get better.  Some will just continue to be bad for many years.

[Aristotelian]

We need a Firestone reverse jinx to cancel out this thread.

[Going Underground]

May have to say this about the next opponent. Giants losers of their last six.Lost yesterday to the Marlins 11-3. 3 of the last four games lost by scores of 18-2,10-4 and 11-3. Run differential during losing streak is -41. 

[UpstateNYfan]

It is a sad state for baseball when over 50% of teams are looking for a 2-3 year window of opportunity to make playoffs every decade. IMO, MLB needs a major reorganization of some sort for competitive balance. IIRC the AL Central, as a division, was over 100 games below .500 last year. Considering that division play always comes out at .500, to be that many games under .500 is remarkable (the AL East was still over .500 despite the O's). To encourage competitive balance they might consider shortening season to 150 games or so and expanding playoffs. I know purists (and I am among them) are likely to revolt, but the current system is out of wack. Teams use to at least pretend to try to be competitive, now they openly admit to being in a rebuild, fighting more for a high draft position versus a high position finish. 

[Moose Milligan]

16 minutes ago, UpstateNYfan said:

It is a sad state for baseball when over 50% of teams are looking for a 2-3 year window of opportunity to make playoffs every decade. IMO, MLB needs a major reorganization of some sort for competitive balance. IIRC the AL Central, as a division, was over 100 games below .500 last year. Considering that division play always comes out at .500, to be that many games under .500 is remarkable (the AL East was still over .500 despite the O's). To encourage competitive balance they might consider shortening season to 150 games or so and expanding playoffs. I know purists (and I am among them) are likely to revolt, but the current system is out of wack. Teams use to at least pretend to try to be competitive, now they openly admit to being in a rebuild, fighting more for a high draft position versus a high position finish. 

I understand where you're coming from, but IMO the worst place to be is in the middle of the pack.

If you're not contending, you're figuring out how you can get there.  What are the alternatives?  And even if you're a team that does suck, you've gotta have a plan.  Pretending to be competitive doesn't do anyone any favors.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, UpstateNYfan said:

To encourage competitive balance they might consider shortening season to 150 games or so and expanding playoffs. I know purists (and I am among them) are likely to revolt, but the current system is out of wack. Teams use to at least pretend to try to be competitive, now they openly admit to being in a rebuild, fighting more for a high draft position versus a high position finish. 

MLB has already substituted expanded playoffs for true competitive balance.  I don't know if this was really their goal (it was probably just seeing visions of cash) but more playoffs randomizes things, and makes it less likely that the team with the $225M payroll is in the World Series every year.

In the 1920-65 era the Yanks were in the World Series nearly half the time.  That can't happen today, no matter how good they get or how many resources they have because they have to get through multiple short series.  But they still win 90+ games more-or-less every year for 25+ years.  Baseball fans are split into two camps - those who only care about Championships, and those who mostly care about good, competitive baseball for six months a year.  The expanded playoffs help with the Championship people.  But it does little for the people who want to watch good baseball all summer.

There's a natural sticking point with any competitive balance argument - the teams with all the money and resources and huge population bases will have to give up some or all of that to make the sport more competitive.  And that will impact the franchise value and revenue/profit generating ability of those teams, whose owners bought in at values expecting to have a dominant market position.  You're never going to get the Sox and Dodgers and Yanks and Cubs to voluntarily agree to give $100M or $200M a year to the rest of the league so the other teams can beat them more often.  Random playoffs may be the best workable solution, so we'll never get to a situation where the Orioles/Pirates/Rockies/Mariners/Tigers/etc are truly as strong as the Yanks.

Here... I'll throw out one crazy idea that'll never happen.  Realign the Majors into four eight-team leagues based on market size and geography.  They don't play each other except in the playoffs.  The O's are in the, say, Continental League with the Reds, Brewers, Rays, Pirates, Royals, Tigers, and Indians.  That would be a very competitive league, and teams wouldn't feel like they have to tank and then build up a superteam to try to compete with the Sox/Yanks/Dodgers.  The playoffs are still a sequence of short series, so there's a legitimate chance the Continental League champ beats the rich teams.

[Just Regular]

The Tigers are certainly one of the first teams we could pass in overall outlook.  Really, watching them this summer with Casey Mize could be a comp for us and Rutschman (presuming he is the pick) next summer.  

Competitively, I'm sure the Tigers would be content to do the Vlad thing with Mize next spring.  By the end of May, Mize is doing everything he can to put the club in an almost impossible position to justify that.  He's basically earning a near Strasburg-level mania for each AA start by now.

Mize breaking in for them will be about how I'll feel when Rutschman breaks in for us, or if we are very lucky, Hall or Rodriguez after another 13-14 scintillating months.

Castellanos is sort of a better Mancini, Miggy a better Davis.  Christin Stewart and Candelario are guys they can hope to still be around as supporting cogs around Mize and this year's high pick in a couple years.  Daz Cameron should probably be chasing flies in CF for them in the second half, though his bat could flop like Mullins's too.  Paredes for Yusniel or Mountcastle could be an interesting challenge trade.

If one of Manning, Perez or Burrows pops for them as a SP4, Mize, Boyd, Turnbull and the 4th guy could be a rotation we won't be able to equal for a good bit.

[UpstateNYfan]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

MLB has already substituted expanded playoffs for true competitive balance.  I don't know if this was really their goal (it was probably just seeing visions of cash) but more playoffs randomizes things, and makes it less likely that the team with the $225M payroll is in the World Series every year.

In the 1920-65 era the Yanks were in the World Series nearly half the time.  That can't happen today, no matter how good they get or how many resources they have because they have to get through multiple short series.  But they still win 90+ games more-or-less every year for 25+ years.  Baseball fans are split into two camps - those who only care about Championships, and those who mostly care about good, competitive baseball for six months a year.  The expanded playoffs help with the Championship people.  But it does little for the people who want to watch good baseball all summer.

There's a natural sticking point with any competitive balance argument - the teams with all the money and resources and huge population bases will have to give up some or all of that to make the sport more competitive.  And that will impact the franchise value and revenue/profit generating ability of those teams, whose owners bought in at values expecting to have a dominant market position.  You're never going to get the Sox and Dodgers and Yanks and Cubs to voluntarily agree to give $100M or $200M a year to the rest of the league so the other teams can beat them more often.  Random playoffs may be the best workable solution, so we'll never get to a situation where the Orioles/Pirates/Rockies/Mariners/Tigers/etc are truly as strong as the Yanks.

Here... I'll throw out one crazy idea that'll never happen.  Realign the Majors into four eight-team leagues based on market size and geography.  They don't play each other except in the playoffs.  The O's are in the, say, Continental League with the Reds, Brewers, Rays, Pirates, Royals, Tigers, and Indians.  That would be a very competitive league, and teams wouldn't feel like they have to tank and then build up a superteam to try to compete with the Sox/Yanks/Dodgers.  The playoffs are still a sequence of short series, so there's a legitimate chance the Continental League champ beats the rich teams.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. In '55 there were 16 teams, '65-20. There are now 30. I have been a Yankee "hater" since the '50's, because of their constant winning, despite being from and currently living in the state. With 30 teams, the difference between the haves and have nots have expanded. I agree with a realignment similar to yours and get rid of interleague play, it has run its course and would make playoffs more interesting. There are not easy solutions but the status quo is unacceptable to me. I love the game, but every year I become more disinterested because of the disparity between teams.

[atomic]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

MLB has already substituted expanded playoffs for true competitive balance.  I don't know if this was really their goal (it was probably just seeing visions of cash) but more playoffs randomizes things, and makes it less likely that the team with the $225M payroll is in the World Series every year.

 In the 1920-65 era the Yanks were in the World Series nearly half the time.  That can't happen today, no matter how good they get or how many resources they have because they have to get through multiple short series.  But they still win 90+ games more-or-less every year for 25+ years.  Baseball fans are split into two camps - those who only care about Championships, and those who mostly care about good, competitive baseball for six months a year.  The expanded playoffs help with the Championship people.  But it does little for the people who want to watch good baseball all summer.

 There's a natural sticking point with any competitive balance argument - the teams with all the money and resources and huge population bases will have to give up some or all of that to make the sport more competitive.  And that will impact the franchise value and revenue/profit generating ability of those teams, whose owners bought in at values expecting to have a dominant market position.  You're never going to get the Sox and Dodgers and Yanks and Cubs to voluntarily agree to give $100M or $200M a year to the rest of the league so the other teams can beat them more often.  Random playoffs may be the best workable solution, so we'll never get to a situation where the Orioles/Pirates/Rockies/Mariners/Tigers/etc are truly as strong as the Yanks.

Here... I'll throw out one crazy idea that'll never happen.  Realign the Majors into four eight-team leagues based on market size and geography.  They don't play each other except in the playoffs.  The O's are in the, say, Continental League with the Reds, Brewers, Rays, Pirates, Royals, Tigers, and Indians.  That would be a very competitive league, and teams wouldn't feel like they have to tank and then build up a superteam to try to compete with the Sox/Yanks/Dodgers.  The playoffs are still a sequence of short series, so there's a legitimate chance the Continental League champ beats the rich teams.

The big market teams have been spending less money.  There are a lot of things that are given to small market teams. Revenue sharing. More draft picks and more international slots.  

I think we should eliminate the wild card and go back to 4 teams in the playoffs.  The season is so long.  Teams that aren't that good should be rewarded with a playoff birth.  The season has some meaning.  Premier League doesn't even have playoffs and people watch that in huge numbers.  

I don't see anything wrong with having teams that are winning repeatedly.  No one stops watching the NFL because the Patriots are in the Super Bowl almost every year.  A salary cap is probably needed along with a salary floor.   

Kick teams out of the league if they aren't willing to compete.  

[Tx Oriole]

3 hours ago, UpstateNYfan said:

It is a sad state for baseball when over 50% of teams are looking for a 2-3 year window of opportunity to make playoffs every decade. IMO, MLB needs a major reorganization of some sort for competitive balance. IIRC the AL Central, as a division, was over 100 games below .500 last year. Considering that division play always comes out at .500, to be that many games under .500 is remarkable (the AL East was still over .500 despite the O's). To encourage competitive balance they might consider shortening season to 150 games or so and expanding playoffs. I know purists (and I am among them) are likely to revolt, but the current system is out of wack. Teams use to at least pretend to try to be competitive, now they openly admit to being in a rebuild, fighting more for a high draft position versus a high position finish. 

There are too many teams. The talent is way watered down. 

[LA2]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

The big market teams have been spending less money.  There are a lot of things that are given to small market teams. Revenue sharing. More draft picks and more international slots.  

I think we should eliminate the wild card and go back to 4 teams in the playoffs.  The season is so long.  Teams that aren't that good should be rewarded with a playoff birth.  The season has some meaning.  Premier League doesn't even have playoffs and people watch that in huge numbers.  

I don't see anything wrong with having teams that are winning repeatedly.  No one stops watching the NFL because the Patriots are in the Super Bowl almost every year.  A salary cap is probably needed along with a salary floor.   

Kick teams out of the league if they aren't willing to compete.  

There are a lot of people who don't watch any game that has the Pats in it.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, atomic said:

The big market teams have been spending less money.  There are a lot of things that are given to small market teams. Revenue sharing. More draft picks and more international slots.  

I think we should eliminate the wild card and go back to 4 teams in the playoffs.  The season is so long.  Teams that aren't that good should be rewarded with a playoff birth.  The season has some meaning.  Premier League doesn't even have playoffs and people watch that in huge numbers.  

I don't see anything wrong with having teams that are winning repeatedly.  No one stops watching the NFL because the Patriots are in the Super Bowl almost every year.  A salary cap is probably needed along with a salary floor.   

Kick teams out of the league if they aren't willing to compete.  

They're not going to give up the expanded revenues and interest generated by expanded playoffs.  Four teams in the playoffs is a complete non-starter.  Zero chance.

The Premier League has other things to root for besides winning the league.  Champions League.  FA Cup.  League Cup.  Promotion/Relegation battles.  MLB has winning the World Series, and that's it.  Without playoffs involving a significant number of teams more than half the league will look up on opening day and hope next year is better, but it probably won't be.  You have to give people something to root for beyond a 1-in-50 or 1-in-100 chance of winning the Series.

You say there is nothing wrong with a small handful of teams winning repeatedly.  I strongly disagree.  When ESPN became the Boston/NY channel I stopped watching.  When Boston and NY come to town, I don't go to games.  When the Pats are in the Super Bowl, I care even less than I would otherwise.  When the Yanks were in the World Series almost every year from 1947-57 attendance fell from 20M to 16M.  

"willing to compete" really means "willing to spend with teams who have five times the population base".  Baseball needs to structure itself so that Milwaukee and Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Baltimore can regularly compete, not contract everyone that can't spend with the Cubs and Dodgers and Yanks and Sox.  Baseball's fatal flaw with expansion wasn't that they expanded, but that they didn't put five teams in NY, four in LA, three in Chicago and two or three in Boston.  Things would probably be improved if the PCL went major in the 1920s, and the Giants, Dodgers, Braves, A's and others were still in their original cities.