Longgone

2 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

Manning's lack of swings and misses concerns me. Its just so hard to be a successful pitcher in this league nowadays with a bad K and whiff rate.

I think you've only seen the diminished version of himself, unfortunately. 

11 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

As for you other point, I think all teams should try to be competitive every year.  Constant tear downs and re-building are not good for the game.  I don't even think they are more effective for individual teams long-term.    

And the issues that drive that are not the draft.

11 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

That would be better, but if the goal is to have a competitive league, there shouldn't be 4 100+ win teams and 4 100+ loss teams.  

The draft is only one aspect that promotes competitive balance, but baseball is the only major US sport that contains a gross economic disparity among members that continues to be an issue. 

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

It's true, which I can attest to from professional experience. The difference here is that one side had established, in public, a minimum amount he would sign for, $330 million, and the other side made the first offer of any team, an offer that was $55 million short of the public minimum demand. The only reasonable response from the one side to the other side would have been, you need to bring it up to $330 million, because other teams were going to make an offer that hadn't yet, so why would the one side accept the lowball out of the gate? If that Tigers would have responded by raising it up to $330MM, that would have been serious. But even had they raised it to $329MM before another team made an offer, Correa still could not have accepted it until getting other offers. So, if anything, $275MM might have been a bet that Correa had no market beyond that, and I don't recall anyone believing that at the time—although, if we recall, there was no "at the time" at all. As it was, we didn't even hear about the offer until after Javier Baez was already safely signed and in-house, so in the end, the Tigers never had to put their 10/275 money where our mouth was.

The only way $275 million would have ended up being serious is if no other team matched that with their offer, or even made an offer. That's basically what happened with Pudge back in 2003-04: he'd made a public demand of $40 million at minimum, and the Tigers were the only team to offer that much, so Pudge had to take the deal. He almost certainly didn't want to have to sign with a 119-loss team, but he was on record and the Tigers matched it, so he was duty-bound to take the offer. Turned out OK, after all.

Public minimum demand means nothing, it's just a ploy in which you are placing way too much stock.

14 hours ago, chasfh said:

Correa didn't demand a billion dollars. He set his floor as 330 million, and the Tigers as the first team to make an offer lowballed him by 55 million. Either they made the offer knowing upfront Correa was going to reject it—which makes sense because everyone knew he would—or they made the offer dreaming that he would accept it without fielding another offer, which would happen only in a fantasy. Either way, theirs was an unserious approach.

It's a negotiation, one side usually starts high, the other low, both are serious, neither are reflective of the actual worth, the market dictates that.

41 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

Good because Sorsdal is not ready for prime time. 

He'd be fine on the right side. He has very little experience on the left and it should be expected that side will take some time.

19 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I generally let the team worry whether they want to deal with a prick.  If it's OK with them, then it's OK with me.  I just want talented players.  There are some exceptions like wife beaters or child molestors, but Bauer doesn't fall in that category as far as I know.  

He gets off by committing acts of violence against women, whether consensual or not, that is a deal breaker for me.

7 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

Would anybody kick the tires on Trevor Bauer? Given his off the field incidents it wouldn't look good from a PR standpoint but from an on the field standpoint it could be a good get. 

He apparently dominated in Japan down the stretch and his FB is reportedly back up to topping at over 99mph so the stuff is all the way back.

Im guessing he could be had for a lot less than some of the top guys but could end up giving you similar results. 

Hell no

1 hour ago, NYLion said:

You still haven't told me who was the #2 receiver on the Lions. We keep going in circles and still haven't told me who has been the #2 for the Lions. IF he's the #3, who has been ahead of him besides ASRB? I'm talking receivers, not the star rookie TE.

There is no 1,2 or 3 wide receiver, there are roles in an offense based on the types of routes generally run. Jamo is a Y, Reynolds is a Y. Chark was an ideal X. DPJ will probably fill the X role, which has been sorely lacking.

11 hours ago, holygoat said:

I'm bummed they didn't get D-line help because I don't think the Lions are that far away from Philly or SF, and their schedule has them set up to compete for the 1 seed this season. The thing with Sweat or Chase is that, as rentals, the cost is cheaper than the pick you give up, because you can let them walk after the season and get a comp pick. So you're basically trading back in the draft for a half season and playoffs of Pro Bowl D-end help.

You only get a comp pick if you don’t sign anyone else decent and I believe they plan on signing free agents, and i think the depth on the dline is fine, but if Jacobs or Sutton goes down, they are in trouble.

23 minutes ago, microline133 said:

All things he hasn't had since high school. At what point is it fair to suggest he's not capable of those things?

Its fair now, it's just that you can't judge a player's potential based on stats incurred when they are performing at less than 100% of capability.

4 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

Yes and I think that his value is not going to improve, he just can't strike people out, his K/9 is from the 1970's.

We won't know what they have in him until he has a stretch where he is fully healthy, able to get in shape physically and and is able to get into a good routine, all things he hasn't had so far.

On 10/1/2023 at 9:44 AM, MIguy said:

I literally spelled out the reasons for my thinking, but sure, no basis. 

A rational, factual basis and forming assumptions based on a few anecdotes are two completely different things.

10 hours ago, MIguy said:

He's barely played, I am making a prediction about future behavior, lets give it a chance to play out. 

An obtuse prediction with no basis.

55 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Some positives from yesterday:

LaPorta looked like a beast.  Love the toughness.  He’s in a different mold than Hockenson.   I can’t wait to see more of him.

Josh Reynolds was awesome.  Not sure he can keep that level of play but he was a weapon. 

Cam Sutton looked like the top corner than we brought him into become.  Once 
Moseley gets back this will be a great duo.

David Montgomery was also as advertised.  The fumble was bad but everything else he did was tough running.  The offense showed for a while without him in there.  

ASB continues to be such a stud.   The definition of grit and toughness on the team.  

Tough game to lose but this is what Pete  Carroll does.  He’s been making in game adjustments and out coaching people going on 40 years now.  He doesn’t get enough credit for how good he is in game.  He just knows how to flip the switch at halftime and get his team going in the right direction.

Also, and no one seems to want to give him credit, but Geno Smith played his ass off, and while their oline is dinged up, they have a lot of weapons.

15 hours ago, TP_Fan said:

It’s that the lions keep losing the same way. Horrible defense. Poor execution. This was the most same ole lions game of all time. 

Nope, they played a very good team and played well enough to win, it's disappointing that they didn't, but it's not all bad. They lost the turnover battle, and that was it. 

52 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Don't have access to all PFF grades but saw the 5 highest and lowest and I couldn't believe that McNeil was our highest graded defender and 2nd only to Vaitai overall. I remember him making a stop in the backfield sometime in the 2nd half and that was the only time I recalled hearing his name called. 

 

Because a dt who is doing his job is stacking blockers, filling gaps, penetrating, etc., not necessarily making splash plays.

Trades-C

Free agents, waivers, etc. -C

Staffing-B

Player development -B

Draft-A

International -Inc.

6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

In 1964, they had already used up all the other ways.  It's not subterfuge.  They clearly eliminated competition for players with a draft.  That is a really big deal and it's the first thing I think about when I think of sports drafts.  I don't deny that this suppression of payment has the additional benefit (for some teams) of more competitive balance. 

 

They had not used up all the other ways, that's ludicrous and you're assuming what they had wasn't working. They wanted a draft for obvious reasons. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one, you don't have to conjure up any conspiracies. 

Every major and most minor sports leagues successfully have drafts, and if you believe it's for bonus suppression and not competitive balance, then there's no point for any further discussion.

40 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That was the situation in the 50s when the Cardinals and Brooklyn Dodgers had more teams than anyone else.  It worked out so well for the Dodgers that they had to move to Los Angeles.   By 1964, the last year prior to the first draft, it was less extreme:    

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/affiliate.cgi?year=1964

The teams with the most clubs were: Minnesota, Los Angeles, New York Yankees and San Francisco with 9, Baltimore, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh with 8.  So, it was a mix of small markets and large markets.  

There were thousands of easier, simpler ways they could have suppressed bonuses, from caps on. They wanted a draft for what a draft logically provides. They didn't need subterfuge.

18 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Bonuses were skyrocketing after WWII, and owners implemented various bonus rules to reign them in. Bonus babies were a result of that, e.g. Al Kaline. So yes, the Yankees and Cardinals were hoarding but it was mostly money because this limited the amount those rich teams could spend. Once the Bonus Baby system fell apart, the draft came in, again completely stripping leverage from the players. Its main goal was to suppress bonuses.

I agree they, probably unanimously, wanted to suppress bonuses, but you are completely ignoring the motivating factor for the majority of the owners and the actual function of a draft, it distributes talent in an equitable manner. 

50 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

What do you know about systems that predated the draft and how amateurs were signed then?

They went to the highest bidder, for the top talent that was almost always to the few biggest markets who hoarded them on a plethora of farm clubs. There was a definite class structure, much resented, that was greatly improved with the draft.

42 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

The MLB draft was introduced in the 60s when the owners completely controlled the players under the reserve clause, so they did have a nefarious plot going at the time.  The players had to take whatever amount of money the owners gave them and if it was up to the owners, they would still operate that way today.  The only time there was any free market for players was when they first signed with a team.  The draft took that away. 

The players, of course, have a lot more leverage today with free agency and arbitration.  None of what the players have gained since the 60s was granted because the owners (or players for that matter) wanted to make the league more competitive or better in any way.  It all happened as a result of bitter battles between the owners and the players union.  Those battles still exist today even with the obscene amount of money in the game for both owners and players.  

There was no problem with competitive balance in the game in 2011 when slot values and bonus pools were introduced into the CBA.  That was done strictly to limit the amount of money young players could get which has always been the primary purpose of the draft.   The difference between today and the 60s is that the player's union also benefits to an extent from limiting the amount of money young players can get.  It means more money for the veterans.   

 

None of this very trite, tired, jaded rant about greedy owners changes the historical fact that deep unrest within owners of mid to smaller market franchises, who were not granted a level playing field and could not compete with the big market clubs for talent, led them to pursue a draft. This disparity and rift amongst owners has been addressed in various ways yet still remains today, and will remain until revenues are shared as per other major sports. 
 

Do owners want to control costs? Of course! Are they greedy? Some, probably. Does a draft inhibit amateur bonuses? Absolutely. Still, the prime purpose of a draft is to equitably distribute talent. Sometimes face value is face value.

Just now, Tiger337 said:

I am cynical and you are idealistic.  😀

4 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I am cynical and you are idealistic.  😀

You speak of controlling costs as if it were a nefarious plot. You own a business you have to control costs to survive. But the actual business of a sports league is competitive balance.

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That is what they tell us!  The only reason they would want competitive balance is if it helps them economically which is probably the case for some owners.  Containing costs helps all owners.  It looks to me like the whole draft is about limiting bonuses now more than ever.   

I kind of admire your cynicism. However, the essence, the essential quality of any sports league is the ability of each member to be able to compete. No one wants a league of perennial haves and have nots, and no teams should be granted inherent competitive advantages. The idea is to win, not balance spreadsheets. You have to cost control to remain viable, but you have to have competitive balance to maintain a healthy interest in the league itself. The motivating, historical issue for the draft was competitive balance. Sure, it also controls costs, but parity was the issue.