Thoughts on the draft lottery?

[Mr-splash]

Thoughts on this guys? Adley and Holliday were 1 overall. We likely dont acquire them with a lottery. Kjerstad was 2 overall. Cowser was 5 overall. We may not have gotten those guys either with a lottery. Rodriguez was 11 overall so decent chance he would have still been available with a lottery pick. Granted Gunnar was a 2nd rounder. Mullins was a 6th rounder if I'm not mistaken. You don't have to draft in the top 5 to get a franchise player. But I tell you, it's easier to draft 1 overall that's for sure.

 

I understand that the lottery is being put in place to deter tanking. But if you're a smaller market team like the Os in a division with larger markets tanking for 4 or 5 years is a genuinely smart move for an organization that is lacking talent.

 

We simply cannot compete in terms of payroll. Even if we had a generous owner. Our media market is just too small to sign all of our core and to out and compete in free agency. 

 

At least we got the tank in before the lottery. Those were the darkest years in franchise history, but it worked. 

[Can_of_corn]

Tanking is only good for the owner's bottom line.

It's not good for the fans, it's not good for the sport, it's not good for the players, it's not good for the owners actually trying to win.

Makes me miss the old days in which attendance was actually important.

[Mr-splash]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Tanking is only good for the owner's bottom line.

It's not good for the fans, it's not good for the sport, it's not good for the players, it's not good for the owners actually trying to win.

Makes me miss the old days in which attendance was actually important.

Do you think there is value in drafting 1 overall? There must be. I guess it depends on how much value you put into it.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Mr-splash said:

Do you think there is value in drafting 1 overall? There must be. I guess it depends on how much value you put into it.

Of course there is value in it.

But is the value worth the overall cost?

It is for the owner, but for everyone else?

I'm fine with not rewarding a team that is making no effort at all to be competitive.

[Mr-splash]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Of course there is value in it.

But is the value worth the overall cost?

It is for the owner, but for everyone else?

I'm fine with not rewarding a team that is making no effort at all to be competitive.

Understood. The way I see it, tanking is justifiable in a league with no salary cap. Now with the lottery it makes less sense. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Mr-splash

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Mr-splash said:

Understood. The way I see it, tanking is justifiable in a league with no salary cap. Now with the lottery it makes less sense. 

Now to me tanking is more justifiable in a league with a salary cap.  The players still get paid and the owner isn't rewarded financially for intentionally putting a non-competitive team out there.

 

[Mr-splash]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Now to me tanking is more justifiable in a league with a salary cap.  The players still get paid and the owner isn't rewarded financially for intentionally putting a non-competitive team out there.

 

You may be right. I see tanking as a strategy used by small market teams to level an uneven playing field. No salary cap? Fine, I'll tank for 5 years and flood the organization with talent. Hell, I can't go out and sign the best talent. So I'll draft the best talent.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Mr-splash

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Mr-splash said:

You may be right. I see tanking as a strategy used by small market teams to level an uneven playing field. No salary cap? Fine, I'll tank for 5 years and flood the organization with talent. Hell, I can't go out and sign the best talent. So I'll draft the best talent.

Nice chatting with you.

[Mr-splash]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Nice chatting with you.

Thank you. Same to you 

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, Mr-splash said:

Understood. The way I see it, tanking is justifiable in a league with no salary cap. Now with the lottery it makes less sense. 

I don’t have any issues with tanking for a year or 2. Hitting the massive organizational reset button is fine to do imo.

I have issues if you do it longer than that and the strategy becomes harder to pull off if several teams are also tanking, which is something we have seen a lot recently.

As for the lottery..I don’t really like it but also don’t care that much about it, especially since I don’t believe the Os will be impacted by it for quite some time.

[Mr-splash]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t have any issues with tanking for a year or 2. Hitting the massive organizational reset button is fine to do imo.

I have issues if you do it longer than that and the strategy becomes harder to pull off if several teams are also tanking, which is something we have seen a lot recently.

As for the lottery..I don’t really like it but also don’t care that much about it, especially since I don’t believe the Os will be impacted by it for quite some time.

Good points. You are so right about the decreasing effectiveness of the strategy when it becomes popular and more teams do it. 

[ArtVanDelay]

Mullins was a 13th rounder. 

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't see why they need a draft at all if they have bonus pools and slots. If the last place team gets five times as much to spend as the first, then the talent will naturally go to the last place team.

My guess is two reasons:

1) Every other sport in North America has a draft and MLB isn't going to be creative/weird. Ooh look, the draft is on ESPN and dozens of people are tuning in!

2) It's easier to "negotiate", if you want to call it that, with your 20-odd draftees than with everyone. It's less work.

People will say things like all the good players will end up with the Yanks or Dodgers, but prior to the draft and way before pools and slots the Orioles signed Brooks, Palmer, Boog, and most of the core of the 1966 champs. Players go where they have opportunity. 

[AlbNYfan]

The AL Central tanks as a division annually. At present they are near 40 games under .500 a couple years ago they were 120+ games under .500 as the end of the year, yet one of the teams makes the playoffs. Even when the O's "tanked" they had a tough schedule with 40% being played in division. Baseball has some serious issues. The union will never allow salary caps, the owners will never allow salary minimum. 

[DrungoHazewood]

29 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Of course there is value in it.

But is the value worth the overall cost?

It is for the owner, but for everyone else?

I'm fine with not rewarding a team that is making no effort at all to be competitive.

There is a predictable relationship between draft slot and career value over many picks. The #1 overall pick is very clearly the most valuable pick, and each draft position after that steps down in value a little bit.

But individual draftees, rounds, and years are very noisy. Pick a random year... 2009.  The most valuable first rounders were #25, #1, #6, #17, and #7.  But if you total all picks ever, the highest value is (or is very close to) overall picks #1, 2, 3, 4, 5.