Tiger337

55 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Very good post and it looks like a lot of work. The only thing I could possibly add it that the second round may not be right if any of those players were picked by the expansion teams.

And this would pretty much guarantee that Harris would lose his best prospects. A smart expansion team would take the youngest players with the longest team control they could find. I would think Harris may protect some of these young prospects over some veterans with only a couple/few years of team control. The bottom line is...I'm glad we dont have to go thru this...😅😅

The assumption is that the draft would only involve unprotected players on the 40-man roster which doesn't include any of their biggest prospects

20 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

well, judging from the abandonment of diamonds in MI, baseball is doing it's best to match that.

Pick up games are no longer popular, but organized baseball is still pretty popular.  I believe basketball and soccer are the top youth sports with baseball #3.   

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The TV market is apparently tiny. I find that ironic because the evolution of the hidef 16:9 format and the relatively few in game breaks has made hockey the best TV viewing sport of all.

I would guess it's because there are limited areas in the United States where it is played very much by kids growing up.  

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

I might not protect Torres. He's expensive and he's one and done, so he might not be that interesting to an expansion team - depending on how/what they are trying to build.

They could draft him and then trade him.  

18 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I went down a 1997 Expansion Draft rabbit hole this morning...

Anyways, you could protect 15 players in total... after both teams took turns picking one player combined from each team, you could protect 3 more, and again in the next round. Anybody in the organization with major league service, or who has reached Rule 5 eligibility was eligible to be drafted.

Let's say MLB very abruptly decides there are two expansion teams starting in April and you need to protect 15 eligible players*, who would they be? Which 4 would you protect in the next round (assuming 1 of your top 4 gets taken)? Which 4 would you protect in the next round (again, assuming 1 of your top 4 gets taken)?

*Safe to assume that any prospects who need to be protected were protected from the Rule 5 Draft, so you can likely just focus on the 40-Man Roster unless any of the minor league signings this year really catch your fancy.

I'll go:

Pitchers: Kyle Finnegan, Jack Flaherty, Kenley Jansen, Jackson Jobe, Troy Melton, Casey Mize, Reese Olson, Tarik Skubal, Will Vest

Catchers: Dillon Dingler

Infield: Colt Keith, Spencer Torkelson, Gleyber Torres

Outfield: Kerry Carpenter, Riley Greene, Wenceel Perez

Round 2: Tyler Holton, Kenley Jansen, Parker Meadows, Zach McKinstry

Round 3: Drew Anderson, Brant Hurter, Keider Montero, Matt Vierling

 

 

Pretty tricky, but I thought I'd put that out there.

I wish they had one of these every year - not an expansion draft, but more like a high level rule 5 draft.  There would  probably be some legal or contractual reasons why it wouldn't be liked by certain parties, but it would make the off-season so much fun.  

41 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

The Miggy decline years definitely saddled Avila and the Tiger managers of that era. They were in a no-win situation.

I think Harris, if he had been in control, would have cut him prior to 500 HR and 3K hits. He doesn’t strike me as anyone who cares about tradition or nostalgia.

He would have wanted to.  I just don't know if it would have been his call.  

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

And it took Dombrowski until his fifth full season to achieve his first winning record; his tenth full season to win his first division title and second playoff appearance; and his eleventh season to turn in his first consecutive playoff appearance.

Apples and Oranges.  When Dombrowski took over, they had no useful MLB ready players in the organization and very few future players.  He had to build from scratch.  I like Harris's long-term vision better than Dombrowski's short-term vision, but it's disingenuous to compare the two in terms of how quickly they had winning teams.  

9 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I believe over the next 2-3 years, possibly starting this year (depending on Clark & McGonigle), that that will start changing. And pick up momentum each year... 2026 offseason could see the loss of several Avila guys... IMO.

Yes, most will be gone.  If they are not, then something has gone horribly wrong.

37 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Just so I’m clear, are you saying Harris does care about the current roster and also does care to get the most he can out of those Avila leftovers he’s identified as salvageable?

Most of the team is comprised of Avila "leftovers".  

He definitely cares about this team winning.  It's just that I see a lack of urgency to take advantage of Skubal's final two years.  

46 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Jack Morris has among the softest career numbers among Hall of Fame pitchers. He is in because he won back to back rings with different teams, “proving” his impact on winning, and because of Game 7 in 1991.

I am fully aware of the weakness of his rate numbers.  I am just pointing out one area where he was superior to every pitcher in that period.  I am not saying he belongs in the Hall of Fame.  I have rallied against him for years.  However, his numbers may not be as bad as many of us have been saying.  I would bet that his rate numbers would have been significantly better had he not pitched so many complete games compared to his peers.  

43 minutes ago, chasfh said:

It would have cost the team revenue had they sat Miggy for ineffectiveness in his final seasons.

I can't imagine it would have been much.  How many fans want to watch an old washed up player playing for a 100 loss team?  Attendance was way down during his final years.  

19 minutes ago, chasfh said:

But Jack Morris does have big games, and rings attributed mainly to him, so despite his lackluster overall numbers he’s in, even though he is far more suited more for the Hall of Famous than the Hall of Fame.

I have softened my stance on Morris's Hall of Fame credientials is recent years.  I don't consider him a big-game pitcher (not after watching 1987), he didn't "pitch to the score" and I don't care about "most wins in the 80s", but he was the most durable pitcher of his era and was the last of the complete game pitchers.  Looking at 1980 forward, he had 165 CG.  The closest one to him is Roger Clemems with 118.  Even if you go back to 1975, he is still #1. although not by as much: Morris 175 Blyleven 165 Ryan 137 Tanana 129 Niekro 127 Carlton 123.  

https://www.sports-reference.com/stathead/baseball/player-pitching-season-finder.cgi?request=1&match=player_season_combined&order_by=p_cg&year_min=1980

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Also, casual fans might mutiny if the franchise superstar they identify the team with is being benched for ineffectiveness, which would cost the team revenue. I think that would have been the case with Miggy here.

I think casual tuned out during most of that period.  Losing 100 games a year will do that.  If anything, they got pissed off about losing three stars that were actually still great - Verlander, Scherzer and Martinez - for practically nothing.  

1 minute ago, Tenacious D said:

Might have helped his Hall chances.

It would still be filthy

31 minutes ago, casimir said:

Interesting.  I thought Baltimore had serious interest in Whitaker and Cleveland had serious interest in Trammell in their final years.  I don’t recall the Whitaker and Atlanta tango.

The Yankees were interested in Whitaker too.  What a tragedy that would have been.  

31 minutes ago, casimir said:

Vina.  That’s an awesome pull.

I think his fielding along with his facial hair, grit and ability to get stars to sign with the Tigers is enough to get him into the Hall of Fame.  

Riley Greene may be down to one tool in a couple of years.  

2 hours ago, oblong said:

Nice to see you post TTF.  It's been a long time, eh?

 

Do we know it's the same person?  

26 minutes ago, buddha said:

kent's peak was better than whitaker. 

His hitting peak was better.  There is a a lot of uncertainty in fielding statistcs, but Whitaker ranks way ahead of Kent on every advanced metric I've seen, so I've got to believe he's got a big edge defensively.   And Kent isn't that far ahead offensively overall (123 OPS+ vs 118).  I do understand why Whitaker is not in.  Leaving aside all the BS reasons, he never had an MVP type season which is pretty odd given how many really good sesons he had.   You would think that he would have randomly had one elite season in all that.   

49 minutes ago, oblong said:

Where was Alomar?

 

21 runs saved.  

I have been reading Michael Humphrey's book: Wizardry where he explains his Defensive Regression Analysis stat.  According to this statistic, the second basemen we have been talking about had the following runs saved:

Grich 133

Whitaker 101

Sandberg 79

Kent -11

Best second basemen ever:

Frisch 224

Gordon 191

Mazeroski 149

Hubbard 137

Whitaker was 9th.  

Other Tigers

Vina 51

Easley 38

Polanco 29

Gehringer 14

McAuliffe -4

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

He and Austin Jackson, two of the last great glove men who didn't dive to cover ground.

If Whitaker dove more, he'd be in the Hall of Fame!

There may actually be some truth to that

14 minutes ago, tiger2022 said:

Gold gloves are not that impressive.  Jeter won 5 of them.  He had about as much range as my deceased grandfather.

Whitaker was legitimate though.  I don't care about gold gloves, but Whitaker was an excellent fielder by any metric.  

Whitaker was better than Kent.  Kent hit a liitle better, but Whitaker's superior fielding more than made up for it. 

Sandberg was better, but Whitaker lasted longer.  

Grich was slighly better for a short period, but Whitaker had more good years.  Grich missed more time to injuries.  

Utley was better, but Whitaker had more good years.  

I'd put them all in expect maybe Kent.  I've always had Kent on the bubble.  

You talk about the end of Whitaker's career like it was nothing.  He hit a lot better than most platoon players and it wasn't a strict platoon.  He accumulated enough plate appearances to get 4.7, 4.1, 2.5, 1.5 WAR from age 35 to 38.  Lots of great hitters can't do what he did in the end.  He also could still handle middle infield capably up until age 37 which is rare.  His consistency and endurance was pretty special and I'm not just saying that as a fan boy. 

2 hours ago, buddha said:

its why bobby grich isnt in.  voters tend to go with narrative and counting stats and peak value over guys who were consistently "very good" over their whole careers.

why is jack morris in the hall of fame and dave steib isnt?  or mark beuhrle?  narrative.  big game performances on the biggest stage.  not a steady accumulation of stats over a long period. 

whitaker gets in if there's a massive movement publicly to do it.  his peers have rejected him multiple times, they just dont consider him a star.

i like lou.  i want lou in, but he's still borderline for me because i'm more of a peak voter than a "compiler" voter.

Lou was a a compiler, but he was the best compiler in the history of the game!  Seriously, 17 years with an OPS over 100 for a middle infielder without ever having without ever having an MVP type season.  Nobody else has done that.