2021-22 Tigers Hot Stove League

[theroundsquare]

36 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

He's Chet Kelly from "Emergency!"

I was thinking he's like an extra from Starsky & Hutch.  Guy in a bar, guy behind the counter in a store, something like that.  Alternatively, starring alongside Ron Jeremy.

[RedRamage]

14 hours ago, chasfh said:

Tanking is not necessarily only about draft picks.

It's probably more accurate to say tanking for draft picks doesn't really happen in baseball.  A team won't try to deliberately lose in order to draft that star player.  Instead I think MLB teams are just more likely to not spend much on payroll to make more money for the owners.  This is why I think a draft lottery is a silly way to address the problem.

[Timmitch55]

Reds or Athletics. We aren't done yet. One starter away from The Show

[Archie]

43 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

He's Chet Kelly from "Emergency!"

I remember Chet Kelly aka Tim Donnelly.  He died a few months ago.

[Longgone]

25 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

It's probably more accurate to say tanking for draft picks doesn't really happen in baseball.  A team won't try to deliberately lose in order to draft that star player.  Instead I think MLB teams are just more likely to not spend much on payroll to make more money for the owners.  This is why I think a draft lottery is a silly way to address the problem.

I believe every owner will spend more when they have a competitive core. Until then, they are going to continue to trade veterans for future assets. Expecting them to spend before they have a foundation in place is just naive. This whole current chant of "every team should spend every year because they can afford it!" Is just goofy. 

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, theroundsquare said:

Chafin kinda seems like he might be my new favorite Tiger 

 

He definitely looks like a relief pitcher.  He'll be pretty solid for a long stretch and say some funny stuff and everyone will like him.  Then he'll blow a couple of leads and we'll all be arguing about whether he is good or not.  

[mtutiger]

 

[Sports_Freak]

Stretch Fulmer out to be a SP again. At least use him as a set-up man. Or not...😄

[Sports_Freak]

2 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

See, that's a signing that won't hurt.............More starting depth.   Still need that #5, thought.   He could be in that #6-10 range with Alexander, Hutchison, Olson, Wentz, Garcia.    Might need every one of those guys at some point this season.  

With the addition of Chafin in the BP, it may pave the way to make Alexander a SP.

[SoCalTiger]

10 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

With the addition of Chafin in the BP, it may pave the way to make Alexander a SP.

Or package in trade for a starter ?

[mtutiger]

I don't know if they'll get him, but I'm glad that they are at least trying for Grienke.... makes a ton of sense for a 4/5 starter and someone for the younger pitchers to spend time with. Could be a Kenny Rogers-esque situation.

Edited March 16, 2022 by mtutiger

[oblong]

And he can bat in NL parks. 

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, RedRamage said:

It's probably more accurate to say tanking for draft picks doesn't really happen in baseball.  A team won't try to deliberately lose in order to draft that star player.  Instead I think MLB teams are just more likely to not spend much on payroll to make more money for the owners.  This is why I think a draft lottery is a silly way to address the problem.

The owners must think draft lottery is an OK way to address that problem, because the alternative would be to enforce the spending of revenue share dollars on improving the product on the field, and that would just be a fridge too far for them.

[Timmitch55]

35 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

Or package in trade for a starter ?

Long relief. Where he belongs.

[buddha]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The owners must think draft lottery is an OK way to address that problem, because the alternative would be to enforce the spending of revenue share dollars on improving the product on the field, and that would just be a fridge too far for them.

i thought the lottery was the union's idea and the owners agreed to it as a concession?  maybe it was just the amount of teams in the lottery?

regardless, its a way to keep mlb in the news and generate interest and content.  

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, Longgone said:

I believe every owner will spend more when they have a competitive core. Until then, they are going to continue to trade veterans for future assets. Expecting them to spend before they have a foundation in place is just naive. This whole current chant of "every team should spend every year because they can afford it!" Is just goofy. 

This.

[RatkoVarda]

Starters:

Mize, ERod, Skubal, Manning, Grienke

with Peralta, RGarcia, Wentz, Brieske, Olson, Hill, Shore, Boyd? in reserve

Bullpen:

Soto, Chafin, Alexander, Fulmer, Cisnero, Lange, Funk, Jimenez

with Foley, BGarcia, Vest, Del Pozo, DeJesus, Carlton, Faedo? in reserve

[bobrob2004]

37 minutes ago, oblong said:

And he can bat in NL parks. 

Not anymore. 

[RedRamage]

15 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The owners must think draft lottery is an OK way to address that problem, because the alternative would be to enforce the spending of revenue share dollars on improving the product on the field, and that would just be a fridge too far for them.

Yeah... the owners see it as an ok way... and obviously the players do as well because they wanted it and fought for it to be bigger.  I just don't see it as a decent want to address the problem because I don't think MLB teams regularly tank for a higher pick.

I'm sure a team isn't going to be unhappy getting a higher draft pick, but I just don't see teams deciding to be bad so they'll get the #1 pick the following year.  Draftees generally take a while to move up to the majors so it's not an instant boon like in football or basketball.  I'm not sure when the last time... if ever... a rookie draftee was on the opening day roster of the major league club.

Add in the timing of the draft and it's even less likely. What I mean is if there's college football star teams are seeing that during that year, seeing the hype, seeing the production and can tank that year to get a better pick.  In baseball if there's a college or highschool guy who's lighting it up during this spring... well, draft order is already set from last fall.

Obviously I'm just some sport fan on the interwebs so maybe I'm completely wrong. I just can't see a team tanking primarily for a draft pick slot. At best the it's the 3rd biggest drive imho.

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Yeah... the owners see it as an ok way... and obviously the players do as well because they wanted it and fought for it to be bigger.  I just don't see it as a decent want to address the problem because I don't think MLB teams regularly tank for a higher pick.

I'm sure a team isn't going to be unhappy getting a higher draft pick, but I just don't see teams deciding to be bad so they'll get the #1 pick the following year.  Draftees generally take a while to move up to the majors so it's not an instant boon like in football or basketball.  I'm not sure when the last time... if ever... a rookie draftee was on the opening day roster of the major league club.

Add in the timing of the draft and it's even less likely. What I mean is if there's college football star teams are seeing that during that year, seeing the hype, seeing the production and can tank that year to get a better pick.  In baseball if there's a college or highschool guy who's lighting it up during this spring... well, draft order is already set from last fall.

Obviously I'm just some sport fan on the interwebs so maybe I'm completely wrong. I just can't see a team tanking primarily for a draft pick slot. At best the it's the 3rd biggest drive imho.

You'll get no argument from me that teams are not tanking just for the draft pick. I think there are other reasons that can't be addressed with tweaks to the draft. I think there's a systemic problem of too many organizations skimping on operating costs over the long haul that experience both great profits and capital appreciation, and Baseball, i.e., the owners, who benefit directly from that part of the equation, have no interest to addressing that.

[sabretooth]

4 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

You must be following a different saber crowd than me.  All I see is them trashing owners on twitter and other places.  While I generally agree with them politically, I think politics and sabermetrics should not be mixed.  

I agree with the need for separating sabr analysis and politics.  I'm a conservative guy, so I dont agree with the leftwing stuff, but as you know I have also opposed fans adopting the owners perspective regarding cost avoidance and low cost approaches to guaranteeing profits. 

As you also know, I would rather listen to fans be fans rather than to hear them scold me for failing to embrace lower payrolls, because somehow that helps teams sustain winning (yeah, if you are one of the handful of orgs that are usually very good at player selection, development, and deployment, which the Tigers under AA have not been).

As for sabrs out there, I dont really follow sabr individuals... nowadays I read articles about specific topics that I am already researching.  If an article that I come across seems off-topic I move on.  I havent noticed the leftward shift out there but it doesnt surprise me.

[Longgone]

51 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The owners must think draft lottery is an OK way to address that problem, because the alternative would be to enforce the spending of revenue share dollars on improving the product on the field, and that would just be a fridge too far for them.

It was an easy token to concede to the players. No thinking person ever believed it would have any impact on behavior. 

[casimir]

3 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

He's Chet Kelly from "Emergency!"

That's good, I kind of remember that show.

[Motor City Sonics]

16 minutes ago, casimir said:

That's good, I kind of remember that show.

Its on every single morning on COZI.  

I remember watching that as in kid in 1972, 1973 and I never imagined I would watch the episodes again at the age of 57 and I actually remember scenes.     Terrible acting.  Women were almost always portrayed as histrionic or helpless, it was the 70s.   But the two paramedics did a lot of their own stunts.    

[Motor City Sonics]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

He definitely looks like a relief pitcher.  He'll be pretty solid for a long stretch and say some funny stuff and everyone will like him.  Then he'll blow a couple of leads and we'll all be arguing about whether he is good or not.  

He's not a relief pitcher, he's a failed starter............HE'S TELLING YOU THAT !