“Get all 30 teams to compete every season”

[wildcard]

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And?

The O's are going through are rebuild to collect talented players.  If those players get expensive faster that means they have to be traded faster.   That cuts the O's window to be competitive way down. 

Signing players to long term contracts sooner does not help the O's because they are still competing with rich teams who they are going to be able to afford bigger payrolls.

I just don't see any of that benefiting the O's.

[HowAboutThat]

9 minutes ago, wildcard said:

After the  Davis contract I don't see that as the O's preferred strategy.

Please God no more of those.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

The O's are going through are rebuild to collect talented players.  If those players get expensive faster that means they have to be traded faster.   That cuts the O's window to be competitive way down. 

Signing players to long term contracts sooner does not help the O's because they are still competing with rich teams who they are going to be able to afford bigger payrolls.

I just don't see any of that benefiting the O's.

How does the idea that they would have to cycle through players faster lead to the window being smaller?

[Sports Guy]

13 minutes ago, wildcard said:

After the  Davis contract I don't see that as the O's preferred strategy.

Actually, the Davis contract is the exact reason you do these types of extensions.

You keep the player when they are younger and let them go when they get older.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

How does the idea that they would have to cycle through players faster lead to the window being smaller?

It doesn’t.

[HowAboutThat]

The only way to discourage openly tanking is to disincentive it.

Someone suggested this in a chat online and I think it’s a great idea.

Award the first draft pick to the best of the worst 6. You got six divisions and you got 6 Last Place finishers. Instead of praying that Texas wins so that we will be worse than them, work to be better than Texas, or Arizona or whomever so we get that number one pick. That would actually be better from a player standpoint because mediocre free agents would be desirable, And winning 62 games instead of 57 games WOULD be meaningful. 
 

The free agency question will definitely be addressed. The two solutions that I saw that are both worthwhile are starting the free agent clock when a player is signed, and not when a player is promoted to the Bigs, or going by age, So a player hits free agency when he’s seven years in, or, say, 26for HS kids, 28 for college kids, which ever comes first.

 

[wildcard]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Actually, the Davis contract is the exact reason you do these types of extensions.

You keep the player when they are younger and let them go when they get older.

That ia one way to look at.  But  the O's could also decide they don't want to give 4 or 5 year contract to anyone because of the risk.

[Moose Milligan]

I think the draft reversal is interesting, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

I'm opposed to the salary cap, that's pretty much like socialism.  It also most likely wouldn't allow a player like Trout to stay in Anaheim for the entirety of his career.  The players union is too strong, it'll never happen anyway.

I don't know what's worse...what the Orioles are doing right now (which is painful but necessary) or what they did in like 2004 or 2005 when we signed Miggy, Raffy and Javy Lopez and allowed the team to make their fans think "we're really going for it this year!"

For the longest time this team didn't have a plan.  And now it does...those of us who log into the OH know what's going on, we're aware.  We quibble back and forth on how long its taking and how long it should take but everyone here knows whats going on.  From a national perspective, no one really cares, they just see the "tanking" and don't bother to understand what's going on at a deeper level.  

[maybenxtyr]

23 minutes ago, wildcard said:

After the  Davis contract I don't see that as the O's preferred strategy.

If that's is the case, they should sell the team. There's is not magical pipeline where you can have a roster of players earning the minimum, or somewhere just above that.

[eddie83]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's tough.

On one hand a team like the 2019 Orioles shouldn't be signing players in an attempt to compete when the overall talent level is such that competitiveness would be impossible.

On the other hand owners shouldn't be rewarded for having non-competitive teams with higher profits.

The presence of revenue sharing means that teams don't have a real incentive to put a winning product on the field in a lot of situations.

Folks say the Rays teams in the early 2000's were tanking, I think they were just not trying to win.  Just collecting checks.  They knew attendance was going to be poor either way so why bother?

30 teams can’t be good at once. 
 

If everyone finishes between 68-94 wins instead of a handful winning 100 and a handful losing 100 what does that accomplish?

[Tony-OH]

This article sounded like it was written by the players union. Very player friendly stuff in there. Most was non sense except the part about paying players earlier and allowing them to become free agents in their prime. This seems like a no brainer.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, wildcard said:

That ia one way to look at.  But  the O's could also decide they don't want to give 4 or 5 year contract to anyone because of the risk.

The Davis contract has nothing to do with this.

If this is what they decide, it’s out of pure stupidity.  

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

This article sounded like it was written by the players union. Very player friendly stuff in there. Most was non sense except the part about paying players earlier and allowing them to become free agents in their prime. This seems like a no brainer.

A no brainer for both sides.  Why would you WANT to pay for declining years?  This should be welcomed by ownership as well.

I do suppose you have the worry of the younger athlete getting paid and then they stop caring but I think that’s just a risk you take either way.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

30 teams can’t be good at once. 
 

If everyone finishes between 68-94 wins instead of a handful winning 100 and a handful losing 100 what does that accomplish?

Parity..more competition…more fan bases engaded through the end of the year.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

30 teams can’t be good at once. 
 

If everyone finishes between 68-94 wins instead of a handful winning 100 and a handful losing 100 what does that accomplish?

Why quote me?  Did I say that all 30 teams should be good at once?

I was discussing how owners, in some markets, are rewarded financially by fielding intentionally non-competitive teams.

The Astros, when tanking, were the most profitable team in the league.  That isn't healthy.