2023 Early Look Top Prospects

[Sports Guy]

Great..you don’t have to tank for that many years to be good.  

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, DocJJ said:

Houston tanked from 2009 to 2014.  That's 5 years.

Cubs tanked from 2010-2014.  That's 4 years.

 

Houston

2009- 74-88

2010- 76-86

2014- 70-92

Cubs

2010- 75-87

2011- 71-91

2014- 73-89

 

I don't consider the above years tanking.   Those teams were not playing for draft position.

By your definition the 2017 Orioles (75-87) were tanking.

[DocJJ]

I think there's a distinction between "intentionally losing" and "being indifferent to your win/loss record".   I don't think any of these teams, including the Orioles, have intentionally lost games.   But I think all of these clubs were indifferent to their win-loss record during those seasons- and I consider being completely indifferent to your win-loss record to be a form of tanking.

 

Then there are seasons where you thought you might be competitive, but weren't for whatever reason and ended up with a lousy record.    That would be the 2017 Orioles.  

[Can_of_corn]

17 minutes ago, DocJJ said:

I think there's a distinction between "intentionally losing" and "being indifferent to your win/loss record".   I don't think any of these teams, including the Orioles, have intentionally lost games.   But I think all of these clubs were indifferent to their win-loss record during those seasons- and I consider being completely indifferent to your win-loss record to be a form of tanking.

 

Then there are seasons where you thought you might be competitive, but weren't for whatever reason and ended up with a lousy record.    That would be the 2017 Orioles.  

No one is suggesting that any of those teams ever went out onto the field with the intent to lose a game.

To me a tanking team is a team that is put together with the goal that the team, at the end of the season, drafts very highly.

I do not think any of the teams I referenced above qualify, I think they are just run of the mill bad teams.

[Philip]

58 minutes ago, DocJJ said:

I think there's a distinction between "intentionally losing" and "being indifferent to your win/loss record".   I don't think any of these teams, including the Orioles, have intentionally lost games.   But I think all of these clubs were indifferent to their win-loss record during those seasons- and I consider being completely indifferent to your win-loss record to be a form of tanking.

 

Then there are seasons where you thought you might be competitive, but weren't for whatever reason and ended up with a lousy record.    That would be the 2017 Orioles.  

Yes you are correct about the distinction, but I think it’s very fine line between, “if we call this guy up, we might win a few extra games and we don’t want that, so we will not call him up and instead continue to play this below replacement player, and let the chips fall where they may.”

Management decisions about calling up/sending down guys, and  managing choices choices regarding pitching were almost constantly not made with a view to winning the game.

 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Houston

2009- 74-88

2010- 76-86

2014- 70-92

Cubs

2010- 75-87

2011- 71-91

2014- 73-89

 

I don't consider the above years tanking.   Those teams were not playing for draft position.

By your definition the 2017 Orioles (75-87) were tanking.

I agree with you.   Being bad by accident isn’t tanking.   The 2018 O’s were not tanking, they just sucked.   

 

[joelala]

17 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

No one is suggesting that any of those teams ever went out onto the field with the intent to lose a game.

To me a tanking team is a team that is put together with the goal that the team, at the end of the season, drafts very highly.

I do not think any of the teams I referenced above qualify, I think they are just run of the mill bad teams.

Is the ultimate goal the high draft pick, or the money saving? Which one is a nice by-product of the other? In our case I think it may be that the money saving has been the primary goal while we build out the system. 

[Can_of_corn]

24 minutes ago, joelala said:

Is the ultimate goal the high draft pick, or the money saving? Which one is a nice by-product of the other? In our case I think it may be that the money saving has been the primary goal while we build out the system. 

I'm sure it's framed as we can do this while doing this. 

I don't think tanking for draft position would be as prevalent if there wasn't a payroll savings attached.

[Frobby]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm sure it's framed as we can do this while doing this. 

I don't think tanking for draft position would be as prevalent if there wasn't a payroll savings attached.

Of course that gets back to the question, are they using the savings to line the owners’ pockets, never to be seen again, or will they put that money to use when the team is competitive?

[joelala]

46 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm sure it's framed as we can do this while doing this. 

I don't think tanking for draft position would be as prevalent if there wasn't a payroll savings attached.

Agreed, I don’t think anyone would engage in it without the savings. 

[Can_of_corn]

15 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Of course that gets back to the question, are they using the savings to line the owners’ pockets, never to be seen again, or will they put that money to use when the team is competitive?

If the team ever becomes competitive we will find out.

[Sports Guy]

54 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Of course that gets back to the question, are they using the savings to line the owners’ pockets, never to be seen again, or will they put that money to use when the team is competitive?

This is an honest question for you.

Do you believe the Os have some kind of a bank account (or whatever wording you want to use) that they are storing money in to use later?

Like, they saved a lot of money in player contracts in 2020.  Do you think they took that money and put it “under a mattress”?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

This is an honest question for you.

Do you believe the Os have some kind of a bank account (or whatever wording you want to use) that they are storing money in to use later?

Like, they saved a lot of money in player contracts in 2020.  Do you think they took that money and put it “under a mattress”?

They put it with the money they owe the Nationals.

[Frobby]

16 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

This is an honest question for you.

Do you believe the Os have some kind of a bank account (or whatever wording you want to use) that they are storing money in to use later?

Like, they saved a lot of money in player contracts in 2020.  Do you think they took that money and put it “under a mattress”?

The short answer: I don’t know what they do.

The long answer: If you look at how large corporations behave, they don’t pay out all their profits in dividends.   They retain a good bit for their corporate purposes.   How much varies widely depending on the nature of the business and its plans for the future.   If they think they are going to need cash to fund expansion, they pay less to the shareholders.

So how much of the profits are being paid to the owners, and how much are being kept in reserve?    I do not know, but I would expect a team with a rebuilding plan like the Orioles to keep a good bit in reserve to be spent when the time is right.

[Sports Guy]

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The short answer: I don’t know what they do.

The long answer: If you look at how large corporations behave, they don’t pay out all their profits in dividends.   They retain a good bit for their corporate purposes.   How much varies widely depending on the nature of the business and its plans for the future.   If they think they are going to need cash to fund expansion, they pay less to the shareholders.

So how much of the profits are being paid to the owners, and how much are being kept in reserve?    I do not know, but I would expect a team with a rebuilding plan like the Orioles to keep a good bit in reserve to be spent when the time is right.

Here is what I think.  In any business, you have money in reserve for expenses.  Those expenses vary across the board.  
 

So, do the Os have a bank account with money in it for expenses?  I’m sure they do.  They have plenty of them that have nothing to do with players salaries.  
 

I think where we differ is that you seem to think 30M saved today means that’s 30M they will spend tomorrow.

To me, the money that you don’t spend long term isn’t necessarily being saved for the long term but it allows them to spend it long term.

For example, let’s say they have earmarked the budget in 2026 to be 130 million.  If they sign 2 players to long term deals and those 2 are making 40 million combined in 2026, that means they will only have an additional 90M to spend. 
 

So, if they don’t spend that money, then they have that 40M to do something else with.  It’s not that they are saving it up now, it’s just that it will be available then.  There is a difference.

Now, I don’t think they are budgeting out payroll this far in advance but I’m just using it for number purposes.

Under this ownership, the payroll will go up as players see arbitration raises go up.  They aren’t going to make the major FA splashes,  they may do the deals like Ubaldo or Cobb but that’s probably the high end, at least for outside FA.

Its the same thing that happened in the mid 2010s.  That payroll kept increasing largely because of arb raises.