For The Times they are a'Changin

[emmett16]

FA, service time, & service time manipulation will be a huge point of contention at next CBA.  If the Owners/GMs are skewing towards younger/cheaper players then the union needs to figure a way to get younger guys, 40 man guys, & MiLB players paid better.  Going Uber cheap and working the system isn’t a good look.  Especially when there is talent at the lower levels that could be showcased for everyone’s gain. 
 

With that said, the talent is at its peak @24-30 y/o right when, the talent hits FA market.  I think the FA deals are going to be there for only the greats.  Making sure you have a guys 27-30 y/o season for the players that debuted at 20/21/22 is where the money will be spent.  I don’t think the top spending clubs will be missing out on those deals.   The trend might be a year or two, or three but the spenders will catch on and still have an advantage. 

Edited April 24, 2023 by emmett16

[owknows]

7 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

But the Mets are paying for most of McCann. He didn’t really add much salary to the orioles. 

Neither Frazier nor McCann were big adders as far as salary goes. They were cheap free agents.

But on a team with an otherwise bottom of the league payroll, they were significant salary additions.

And additions that seemed to be really unnecessary, and somewhat of a head-scratcher.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

FA, service time, & service time manipulation will be a huge point of contention at next CBA.  If the Owners/GMs are skewing towards younger/cheaper players then the union needs to figure a way to get younger guys, 40 man guys, & MiLB players paid better.  Going Uber cheap and working the system isn’t a good look.  Especially when there is talent at the lower levels that could be showcased for everyone’s gain. 

Hard to say.

Most of the main Union guys are vets, are they going to look out for the younger guys or not?  It was interesting they killed the International draft.

[Bahama O's Fan]

Having a high payroll doesn't guarantee championships, but it definitely puts those teams in contention almost every season.

[owknows]

2 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

FA, service time, & service time manipulation will be a huge point of contention at next CBA.  If the Owners/GMs are skewing towards younger/cheaper players then the union needs to figure a way to get younger guys, 40 man guys, & MiLB players paid better.  Going Uber cheap and working the system isn’t a good look.  Especially when there is talent at the lower levels that could be showcased for everyone’s gain. 

The player's union doesn't think it's a good look.

And teams with lots of money don't think it's a good look.

And the league office doesn't think it's a good look.

But is it a potentially winning strategy?  That's the question.

Tank for 5... bottom feed the wire and Rule 5 with your selection advantage... Draft well... stock your farm at all levels. Come out the other side with the best farm in baseball, and a conveyor belt that is full at all levels. Graduate top tier talent to the majors...  Sell off late arbitration pricey talent to restock the farm.

 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, owknows said:

The player's union doesn't think it's a good look.

And teams with lots of money don't think it's a good look.

And the league office doesn't think it's a good look.

But is it a potentially winning strategy?  That's the question.

Tank for 5... bottom feed the wire and Rule 5 with your selection advantage... Draft well... stock your farm at all levels. Come out the other side with the best farm in baseball, and a conveyor belt that is full at all levels. Graduate top tier talent to the majors...  Sell off late arbitration pricey talent to restock the farm.

 

The changes to the draft de-incentivize tanking.

It's going to be a lot more difiuclt to sell tanking to the fanbase when you don't get those fat draft picks.

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

The changes to the draft de-incentivize tanking.

It's going to be a lot more difiuclt to sell tanking to the fanbase when you don't get those fat draft picks.

You could argue that the Oriole were the last-best beneficiary of what used to be tanking's heyday.

But there are still benefits... Significant ones.

Being first in line at the waiver dumpster...

Rule 5...

Competitive Balance picks....

And the seeding of the MiLB resources (once established) should offer a team a decade or more of cheap MLB talent if they play their cards right

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

You could argue that the Oriole were the last-best beneficiary of what used to be tanking's heyday.

But there are still benefits... Significant ones.

Being first in line at the waiver dumpster...

Rule 5...

Competitive Balance picks....

And the seeding of the MiLB resources (once established) should offer a team a decade or more of cheap MLB talent if they play their cards right

Competitive Balance picks are awarded by market size and revenue.  Record isn't a direct factor.

I'd say the other stuff is more in the line of marginal benefits.  The real benefit is to the owner's profits.

[owknows]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Competitive Balance picks are awarded by market size and revenue.  Record isn't a direct factor.

I'd say the other stuff is more in the line of marginal benefits.  The real benefit is to the owner's profits.

I would have thought the correlation between market size, revenue, and trying to build a winning team on a budget to be somewhat self-evident.

As for the real benefit of being first in line at the dumpster... I'd say the Orioles have made some pretty good use of that particular option.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, owknows said:

I would have thought the correlation between market size, revenue, and trying to build a winning team on a budget to be somewhat self-evident.

As for the real benefit of being first in line at the dumpster... I'd say the Orioles have made some pretty good use of that particular option.

Cubs and Astros tanked.

They aren't small market.

 

The O's have hit on some guys, and missed on a lot of others.  Guys like Pearce jumped from team to team only to have a huge breakout season for one of them. 

Does the top pick in the Rule V draft have better odds of being a successful major league players than the guy picked fourth?  No idea, but if I had to guess I'd say there isn't much difference.

Remember Wells was picked in the second round of the Rule V draft, anyone remember who was picked by the O's before him?

Spoiler

Mac Sceroler

 

[Sports Guy]

18 minutes ago, owknows said:

You could argue that the Oriole were the last-best beneficiary of what used to be tanking's heyday.

But there are still benefits... Significant ones.

Being first in line at the waiver dumpster...

Rule 5...

Competitive Balance picks....

And the seeding of the MiLB resources (once established) should offer a team a decade or more of cheap MLB talent if they play their cards right

None of these things mean anything in the grand scheme.  You don’t win because of those things.

Tanking is fine for a few years to jump start things.

It’s stupid to do it for much longer than that.

[owknows]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

None of these things mean anything in the grand scheme.  You don’t win because of those things.

Tanking is fine for a few years to jump start things.

It’s stupid to do it for much longer than that.

Seems like the O's have maximized the value of that decision to me.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, owknows said:

Seems like the O's have maximized the value of that decision to me.

Before they changed the rules.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, owknows said:

Seems like the O's have maximized the value of that decision to me.

The Os are not in this position because of rebuilding/tanking for several years and they didn’t need to do it for that long to build a top notch system.

[owknows]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Cubs and Astros tanked.

They aren't small market.

 

 

For what it's worth... I didn't say anything about correlations between tanking and small markets.

I talked about correlation between building a team on a budget and small markets.

There's nothing that stopped bigger market teams from tanking.

They do however, being bigger market teams, tend to come out of their rebuild cycle by gobbling up high priced FAs. Often causing their own pain a few years down the road.

What we're discussing here is something different.

An intentional strategy of staying in a small budget perpetually while remaining competitive.