Jump to content

Longgone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,032

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Longgone

  1. Longgone
    Hinch was a superb hire, but if you think he is highly responsible for scouting, drafting and player development, then you have no idea how clubs operate.
  2. Longgone
    So don't take a chance and get nothing? I don't think the Tigers were dumping salary, as much as they knew they weren't resigning him, so they took what they could get. Unfortunately, it sucked.
  3. Longgone
    1. Rebuilding teams would add payroll by taking on bloated contracts for prospects or flip anyone successful and continue to "tank". 2. Punishes weaker teams for bad luck or poor management, making it even less likely for them to improve. Do you really think some contrived carrot and stick approach is going to make any difference in an already highly competitive environment? 3. Defeats the whole purpose of a draft; to allow weaker teams the opportunity to gain ground. Face it, tanking is rebuilding, rebuilding may be painful, but it's not bad.
  4. Longgone
    TBF, Martinez was a free agent at the end of the year, so getting something for him was better than nothing. I don't have have any problem with the strategy or timing of the Detroit rebuild, however in my world the prospects would have all panned out and the short term free agents would all have been successful and flipped for viable prospects.
  5. Longgone
    I maintain that tanking is a perceived problem and not an actual one. The idea that all teams can be competitive every year is illogical. Teams, at times, need to rebuild, and to rebuild you need to exchange present assets for future ones. You can't get rid of assets and simultaneously remain competitive, it just doesn't make sense. If you sign a successful free agent, the logical thing to do is flip him for future assets to fulfil the rebuild, thereby reducing competitiveness. You can call that "tanking" but it is a reasonable strategy at times, and nothing that requires any punitive measures.
  6. Longgone
    Punishing someone for losing is the antithesis of a draft. Mixing the two concepts is absurd.
  7. Longgone
    Let's agree that it is. A lottery isn't going to help the situation in any way and may make it worse.
  8. Longgone
    Sure, but that doesn't mean it's intentional and you should be punished if it happens, major sports are extremely competitive and capricious.
  9. Longgone
    I believe it's generally a poor strategy to operate in the middle. If you are going to rebuild, rebuild and use current assets to reload and build a future competitive core. If you have a decent core then sure. Teams need to be able to make that judgement call.
  10. Longgone
    The whole purpose of a draft is to allow the worst teams an opportunity to improve. Why convolute that principle when it likely won't impact perceived behavior?
  11. Longgone
    Again, it's a faulty assumption that a) rebuilding is bad and everyone should strive to be mediocre while rebuilding, and b) a lottery is somehow going to change perceived behavior. If I were rebuilding, and I acquired an asset that made me more competitive, I'd flip him for future assets that fit more with a projected core.
  12. Longgone
    And you believe a lottery will have a positive effect on this?
  13. Longgone
    I believe it's a fallacy that teams are incentivized by draft picks. Teams do get in situations where they need to rebuild, and so they trade veteran talent for future assets. This causes them to lose games, which as a byproduct, gives them higher draft picks, which leads to better players and winning games. You can bemoan this cycle, but it is a part of sports, and really isn't a problem. I love watching a team gather young talent and rebuild, even if they struggle for a while. A greater threat, to me, would be the loss of revenue sharing and the competitive balance tax and penalties. Without those you're back to the Yankees and Dodgers being able to buy all the top talent and create a competitive imbalance. Giving weaker teams the opportunity to rebuild and preventing too much of an economic disparity among teams regarding access to talent are two key issues. I'm all for getting younger players more money, however, without shortening free agency.
  14. Longgone
    Lotteries stink. They don't work and somebody always gets screwed.
  15. Longgone
    It seems, in labor negotiations, it never appears close until up against the perceived deadline. Baseball, both sides, have a bad habit of negotiating in the press, but you can't tell anything from that.
  16. Longgone
    No, it's not. Look at what happened to Schoop, Mazara and Reyes who were delayed in the spring. They need all of it to get the timing down and for pitchers to build up arm strength. It's not just a matter of getting in shape, it's getting major league game ready.
  17. Longgone
    No, no one gets serious until they perceive it's the last minute. It's human nature.
  18. Longgone
    There's very little truth in these statements. Why you would want to pooh pooh a pandemic that has killed over 825,000 Americans, and is still killing over 1,200 per day, has hospitalised millions and left them with long term health issues, all despite worldwide mitigation efforts and the miraculous arrival of the vaccines, is beyond me. I get it, you're sick of it, we're all sick of it, but calling it, " a common cold", and distorting statistics to minimize it's impact is just odious.
  19. Longgone
    Easy there, big fella!
  20. Longgone
    Length and AAV, they've not been top of the market players. 10/300+ seems inconceivable for them.
  21. Longgone
    Not their style.
  22. Longgone
    It's not by popularity, it's the player most checked out on Baseball Reference in that state.
  23. Longgone
    The players want younger players paid more, they’ll increase starting salaries and maybe tie them to an index, maybe earlier arbitration. No one is proposing eliminating the luxury tax, players want higher ceilings and no penalties for exceeding, owners want lower, they’ll meet in the middle. Players want earlier free agency, probably get it for older players. Both sides have proposed “anti tanking “ measures. I don’t believe anyone seriously wants a floor. Nothing revolutionary here.
  24. Longgone
    Nah, they’ll settle, the differences aren’t that extreme.
  25. Longgone
    Ahh, it will end up at the last minute like most labor negotiations, with the owners making some concessions, and the players acting like they conceded because they didn't get everything they demanded.
×
×
  • Create New...