Will Tigers Pony up for Skubal

[Sports_Freak]

13 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

Fair point. Which is why Harris is indeed stuck between a rock and a hard place.

What's even worse is not making a decision this off-season. If we're contending, the backlash at trading him at the trade deadline would be very loud. Hanging onto him, without an extension, would have a question mark hanging over the team all season. Not only that, but as the season goes on, his value drops. A decision really needs to be made before the season starts, one way or the other.

[chasfh]

17 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

I have no idea if Skubal will be traded or not but one thought keeps entering my mind and that is if Detroit has determined they can not or will not pay his Boras price, and I’m sure they have a good idea what that is, then what’s the difference if you lose him this year or next ! Your going to get hammered by fans and the press either way. 
 

 

To me, the difference is between having a chance to go deep in October with Skubal versus struggling to make the playoffs or to even hit the .500 mark without Skubal. I would rather hammer Harris after Skubal leaves next winter than after he leaves this winter.

[chasfh]

I don’t see Olney saying anything in his video that people here haven’t said over and over, and there are a lot of things he is not saying, such as the impact of trading Skubal on the resulting attractiveness of Detroit to free agents. I guess Olney foresees several non-contending rebuilding seasons for the Tigers instead, and obviously, that works just fine for him.

Not for nothing, I don’t see any stories from top writers like Olney about how the Braves should trade Ronald Acuna Jr for a huge prospect haul this winter before he leaves the Braves next winter and they get nothing but a comp pick which would be such a self-own and Alex Anthopoulos should get fired if he doesn’t make a trade this winter. Apparently, writers don’t want to help Acuna escape Atlanta the way they seem to want to help Skubal escape Detroit.

Speaking just for me, I’m caring less about keeping Skubal only to lose him after next year than I would be about losing the opportunity to make strides in the playoffs this year. I would rather we take our best swing at a ring this year with Skubal in house and take a chance on falling short, than I would be trading Skubal, going through another rebuild, and hoping it all pays out in 2029. If you agree with me, then I guess I’m speaking for you, too.

[Tiger337]

41 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Speaking just for me, I’m caring less about keeping Skubal only to lose him after next year than I would be about losing the opportunity to make strides in the playoffs this year. I would rather we take our best swing at a ring this year with Skubal in house and take a chance on falling short, than I would be trading Skubal, going through another rebuild, and hoping it all pays out in 2029. If you agree with me, then I guess I’m speaking for you, too.

This is how I feel.  Mid-market teams get limited opportunities to win championships.  When you've got a chance to do that, you've got to go for it.  We don't don't know how long that's going to take to happen again if they trade Skubal.  Collecting prospects so that you can get another chance in three years might not work.  We don't even know if the prospects they do receive will pan out. 

[gehringer_2]

54 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don’t see Olney saying anything...

Interesting that he did say the vibe was that there would not be a lot of big money thrown around. But then again, every owner would still want to salt the field with that sentiment if he *was* planning to spend big on a guy.

[Shelton]

56 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don’t see Olney saying anything in his video that people here haven’t said over and over, and there are a lot of things he is not saying, such as the impact of trading Skubal on the resulting attractiveness of Detroit to free agents. I guess Olney foresees several non-contending rebuilding seasons for the Tigers instead, and obviously, that works just fine for him.

Not for nothing, I don’t see any stories from top writers like Olney about how the Braves should trade Ronald Acuna Jr for a huge prospect haul this winter before he leaves the Braves next winter and they get nothing but a comp pick which would be such a self-own and Alex Anthopoulos should get fired if he doesn’t make a trade this winter. Apparently, writers don’t want to help Acuna escape Atlanta the way they seem to want to help Skubal escape Detroit.

Speaking just for me, I’m caring less about keeping Skubal only to lose him after next year than I would be about losing the opportunity to make strides in the playoffs this year. I would rather we take our best swing at a ring this year with Skubal in house and take a chance on falling short, than I would be trading Skubal, going through another rebuild, and hoping it all pays out in 2029. If you agree with me, then I guess I’m speaking for you, too.

Pretty much co-sign all of this, except for your ongoing (and well-established at this point!) concern over how trading Skubal will affect the ability to attract FAs. Not that it isn’t true to some extent, but mostly because if this team’s analysis is in line with a decision to trade Skubal, that almost surely means that their intent is to run the franchise like a rich man’s Rays, and they are unlikely to ever be in the position to attract a FA anyway.

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

This is how I feel.  Mid-market teams get limited opportunities to win championships.  When you've got a chance to do that, you've got to go for it.  We don't don't know how long that's going to take to happen again if they trade Skubal.  Collecting prospects so that you can get another chance in three years might not work.  We don't even know if the prospects they do receive will pan out. 

This could all come downs to Scott Harris' self-confidence level. How persuaded is he that he is smarter than the average GM? Is he confident enough that he can pick the return targets in a Skubal trade that with those '18 yrs of control' citing by Olney, he can build a mini-dynasty. Or is he in the "We can't blow this year's chance because the future is dark" camp? 

In the end, management personalities are often the difference.

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

This could all come downs to Scott Harris' self-confidence level. How persuaded is he that he is smarter than the average GM? Is he confident enough that he can pick the return targets in a Skubal trade that with those '18 yrs of control' citing by Olney, he can build a mini-dynasty. Or is he in the "We can't blow this year's chance because the future is dark" camp? 

In the end, management personalities are often the difference.

I don't doubt his self-confidence, but he hasn't made any really big moves since he's been in Detroit and I don't believe he did a lot of that before Detroit.  Making a big splash is not his style and we don't really know how good he would be at the negotiation part of trading.  Being smart about player evaluation doesn't necessarily mean you will be equally good at making a blockbuster deal happen.  

[gehringer_2]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

I don't doubt his self-confidence, but he hasn't made any really big moves since he's been in Detroit and I don't believe he did a lot of that before Detroit.  Making a big splash is not his style and we don't really know how good he would be at the negotiation part of trading.  Being smart about player evaluation doesn't necessarily mean you will be equally good at making a blockbuster deal happen.  

"A man's got to know his limitations"

[chasfh]

50 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

This could all come downs to Scott Harris' self-confidence level. How persuaded is he that he is smarter than the average GM? Is he confident enough that he can pick the return targets in a Skubal trade that with those '18 yrs of control' citing by Olney, he can build a mini-dynasty. Or is he in the "We can't blow this year's chance because the future is dark" camp? 

In the end, management personalities are often the difference.

I had to laugh at that "18 years of control" remark. We will not be in control of any player for 18 years running if we trade Skubal, trade anyone else, or do anything, frankly. There is no more reserve clause and you can't keep the same guy for eighteen years. It's a misleading remark at best, and just as likely an ignorant one.

I know, I know, that's not how Olney meant it. He meant, like, getting three guys back with six years of control left each. Three times six equals eighteen. I get it. But how does that make any sense? That's like a major law firm saying in an ad, "we have over 500 attorneys on staff with a combined 9,000 years of experience." Nine thousand years experience, huh? Practicing law going all the way back to the days of the Çatalhöyük? Yeah? You don't say.

I mean, come on, how much sense does that really make? 😂

[RatkoVarda]

it is perfectly rational to say: I am not signing Skubal to a 10/400 contract.

The risk is real that he gets injured at some point and that is a massive amount of dead money on the payroll, which could very well be crippling for the team.

The NYY got super lucky that Gerrit Cole (after making just 17 starts in 2024 due to injuries) opted out of his contract last winter, and the Yankees got to avoid the riskiest years of the contract, ages 34-38. Instead, NYY made the awful decision to let Cole undo the opt out when Boras found no market. The result: Cole had TJ surgery in March and is looking at a May 2026 return. 1.5 years of nothing, followed by ? level of performance at 35.

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I had to laugh at that "18 years of control" remark. We will not be in control of any player for 18 years running if we trade Skubal, trade anyone else, or do anything, frankly. There is no more reserve clause and you can't keep the same guy for eighteen years. It's a misleading remark at best, and just as likely an ignorant one.

I know, I know, that's not how Olney meant it. He meant, like, getting three guys back with six years of control left each. Three times six equals eighteen. I get it. But how does that make any sense? That's like a major law firm saying in an ad, "we have over 500 attorneys on staff with a combined 9,000 years of experience." Nine thousand years experience, huh? Practicing law going all the way back to the days of the Çatalhöyük? Yeah? You don't say.

I mean, come on, how much sense does that really make? 😂

If having one good player under control for 6 yrs is good, doesn't having 3 players under control for 6 years have to be better? I don't have that much of a problem logically with the '18yrs of control' statement. To my mind the larger logical fallacy is expecting there is any chance at that all three of the guys you putatively get back in the trade make or stay in the majors for through their arb years.

Edited 16 hours ago by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

If having one good player under control for 6 yrs is good, doesn't having 3 players under control for 6 years have to be better?

Not if they all suck. Then control doesn't mean anything.

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Not if they all suck. Then control doesn't mean anything.

Hey - Jake Rogers doesn't suck. He's solid back-up guy.

🫠

[SoCalTiger]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

To me, the difference is between having a chance to go deep in October with Skubal versus struggling to make the playoffs or to even hit the .500 mark without Skubal. I would rather hammer Harris after Skubal leaves next winter than after he leaves this winter.

Does that sentiment hold true even if they keep him and miss the playoffs and have only a draft pick instead of two or three  potential solid players for 2027 ?

[SoCalTiger]

5 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

What's even worse is not making a decision this off-season. If we're contending, the backlash at trading him at the trade deadline would be very loud. Hanging onto him, without an extension, would have a question mark hanging over the team all season. Not only that, but as the season goes on, his value drops. A decision really needs to be made before the season starts, one way or the other.

Indeed indecision is bad for all things in life. "He who hesitates is lost". 

[SoCalTiger]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

I don’t see Olney saying anything in his video that people here haven’t said over and over, and there are a lot of things he is not saying, such as the impact of trading Skubal on the resulting attractiveness of Detroit to free agents. I guess Olney foresees several non-contending rebuilding seasons for the Tigers instead, and obviously, that works just fine for him.

Not for nothing, I don’t see any stories from top writers like Olney about how the Braves should trade Ronald Acuna Jr for a huge prospect haul this winter before he leaves the Braves next winter and they get nothing but a comp pick which would be such a self-own and Alex Anthopoulos should get fired if he doesn’t make a trade this winter. Apparently, writers don’t want to help Acuna escape Atlanta the way they seem to want to help Skubal escape Detroit.

Speaking just for me, I’m caring less about keeping Skubal only to lose him after next year than I would be about losing the opportunity to make strides in the playoffs this year. I would rather we take our best swing at a ring this year with Skubal in house and take a chance on falling short, than I would be trading Skubal, going through another rebuild, and hoping it all pays out in 2029. If you agree with me, then I guess I’m speaking for you, too.

"Carpe diem "

[SoCalTiger]

Just the few pos't on this page show the "Harris Dilemma" regarding Skubal. It reminds me of the song by "I forgot " with the phrase "should I go or should I stay ". 

We will find out more about Captain Harris this off season than the past 3 years combined. Has it been 3 years already ?

[1984Echoes]

22 hours ago, AlaskanTigersFan said:

They'll be getting a ton back for him in players that are either just getting in the league ... or players in AAA (or in AA I would add...). The return will help them. If they took the money they'd sign Skubal and shift it to someone like Kyle Tucker, they could rebuild the team VERY quickly. Clark and McGonigle are STUDS. They have a very good chance to... 

... break with the Tigers right out of Spring Training.

Another thought: The Twins might POSSIBLY be open to trading Byron Buxton.

I would be perfectly fine with trading Meadows and an extra AAA middle IF'er or two, for him.

He's signed for 2026-28.

The perfect guy, IMO, to bridge until Clark is ready.

And when Clark does break into MLB... between the two of them they can slide around to create the best possible defensive OF. Greene can fit into whatever corner works best between those 3.

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by 1984Echoes

[1984Echoes]

50 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

... reminds me of the song by "I forgot " with the phrase "should I go or should I stay ". 

The Clash: "Should I Stay or Should I Go?"

 

50 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

... We will find out more about Captain Harris this off season than the past 3 years combined. Has it been 3 years already ?

Interesting and excellent point...!

[Tenacious D]

I guess I don't see trading Skubal as a surrender for '26.  There are only two elite pitchers in MLB--him and Skenes.  Other teams learn to win without generational talent (which there are currently few--maybe add Ohtani and Judge to that group).  Depending on who we would get in return, along with other moves, we might end up with a very competitive and sustainable team.  For example, if the Tigers (hypothetically) made the Jim Bowden proposed trade, we could end up with Tyler Glasnow and Emmet Sheehan for the rotation.  And potentially sign one of the free agent starters (i.e., King, Valdez, Suarez, etc...).  Are we really worse off than if we just had Skubal in '26?  Each of the replacement pitchers would be controllable for the next 3-5 seasons.

I'm not necessarily advocating trading Skubal, but I also don't think it has to be a setback for '26 and might be more advantageous beyond that.

[AlaskanTigersFan]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Not if they all suck. Then control doesn't mean anything.

I'm strictly playing devils advocate here........

If you were the GM of the Tigers, would you rather have one year of Skubal, or would you rather have the next 6-8 years of Clark, McGonigle and Rainer (assuming in this scenario they weren't already in the Tigers Farm system)? 

[1984Echoes]

1 minute ago, Tenacious D said:

I guess I don't see trading Skubal as a surrender for '26.  There are ...

I'm not necessarily advocating trading Skubal, but I also don't think it has to be a setback for '26 and might be more advantageous beyond that.

100%

I think the hyperventilating over what a terrible season in 2026 we'll have (ZERO chance at the playoffs!) if we trade Skubal...

Is quite a bit overdone.

And is severely myopic (to yours and several others' points, including mine... that OTHER moves ARE allowed by the Tigers) ... as if the Tigers aren't even allowed to make any other transactions once we trade Skubal because...? Because why? I don't know. Why aren't we allowed to make any other moves after we trade Skubal? I don't get it.

Myopia is the only thing I can think of.

And it shows a complete and absolute lack of faith in Scott Harris.

IMO.

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Not if they all suck. Then control doesn't mean anything.

So you believe Skubal should be traded for only players that suck?

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

Does that sentiment hold true even if they keep him and miss the playoffs and have only a draft pick instead of two or three  potential solid players for 2027 ?

I’d be frankly shocked if we missed the playoffs, but if we did, I would definitely blame something else besides not trading Skubal. I promise you I won’t go back on that one.