Simple Change to Fix Drafting/Tanking of All Major Sports

[MrTPlush]

Scott Boras just wants more money spent.

[And That]

We traded our closer and our middle of the order 1B for nothing that can help in 2016 or 2017 but we arent tanking in 2016

Correct. I'd say many people's idea of tanking would be something closer to fielding an noncompetitive team. The 2016 Brewers will be competitive, albeit not competitive enough to be in playoff contention. It's not like they're sending a team of Andy Wilkinsses out there.

[MilwaukeesBest]

I've never thought of taking in the MLB until that article was published a few weeks ago essentially calling out franchises for being bad. What all of those franchises have in common is they don't have the revenue streams to purchase a new 40 man roster at year end if they want to. They didn't have a legitimate shot at winning and until recently they didn't have a clear path to success. Veteran players clogging the roster and payroll as executives hoped that one more playoff run was in the cards.

 

It wasn't. Something had to be done.

 

If teams like KC, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Cincinnati were the LA's, New York's, and Boston's, GM's would have no problem purchasing free agents and international players during the offseason with unlimited pools of money, restocking their systems, rosters, and hopes of fans. The problem is they're not, and it's easy for fans of these teams to say there's a problem with the lesser fortunate cities when their team has the assets to do what they please.

 

My real point comes here, where NBA and NFL teams can immediately upgrade their roster through the draft at the year's end. "Tanking" I've always thought of as trying to be the worst to help improve your club through the draft. These NFL and NBA teams come the next year can immediately see the fruits of their labor from the year's past in seeing their newly drafted rookies on the field. In baseball, maybe 3-5 years down the road a team would start to see their homegrown players on the big league field, and that's assuming they've developed according to plan. Of course, you need to draft well in any league in order to maximize.

 

If the idea of "tanking" is selling off veterans for prospects in order to strengthen the overall farm and have a wave of players make the bigs together to maximize potential, so be it. If "tanking" to some is purposely losing in hopes of picking a player in the draft that maybe they make the bigs in 3-5 years, then LOL. It's like thinking of this as instead of the Dodgers having a perennial competitor, the small market teams must strategically plan for pockets of their most competitive windows and plan accordingly.

[stoutdude04]

Maybe if the rules didn't favor large pockets this wouldn't be an issue.

[lukevan]

Sometimes its better to accept that your current team as constructed is likely not a contender going forward and to best use your resources to get another shot in the nearest future possible. Especially for a franchise that cannot afford to compete, both financially and in the attractiveness of the market, for the best free agents and international talent, nor is it wise to do so without potentially crippling the organization into many years of losing. This strategy of trading assets for younger, controllable talent is an inevitable strategy for small market baseball, not a tank.

[nodakfan17]

This strategy of trading assets for younger, controllable talent is an inevitable strategy for small market baseball, not a tank.

In MLB, fans accept this plan as "strategy" because it is a very calculated approach. Even though the parent-club may not be fielding a competitive team, there are a lot of little victories for fans along the way as prospects progress through the minor leagues.

 

In the NBA, it's almost exclusively luck. You either need to hit on your high pick or totally whiff. If you draft an above-average starter (gasp), you're back on the mediocrity treadmill. I think we're less tolerant of the NBA-approach because it just looks / feels desperate and its not much fun watching most lottery picks look out of place against legitimate professional basketball players (your team tanked for THAT?).

[FVBrewerFan]

Tanking is a really negative word, but yea that's what the Brewers are doing. But that would mean any team that is rebuilding is tanking. Odd that this is a big topic suddenly, when teams have been doing this forever.

 

That Olney article is a joke. All those proposals being floated about the draft would have zero effect on what the Brewers are trying to do. Having a high (or even the 1st) pick in the draft is a benefit that comes from a rebuild year, it's not the reason you do it.

 

If they went to a draft lottery, do you really think Stearns changes his mind and says "It's just not worth it, I guess we'll try to compete this year." Of course not.

[MadScientist]

This strategy of trading assets for younger, controllable talent is an inevitable strategy for small market baseball, not a tank.

In MLB, fans accept this plan as "strategy" because it is a very calculated approach. Even though the parent-club may not be fielding a competitive team, there are a lot of little victories for fans along the way as prospects progress through the minor leagues.

 

In the NBA, it's almost exclusively luck. You either need to hit on your high pick or totally whiff. If you draft an above-average starter (gasp), you're back on the mediocrity treadmill. I think we're less tolerant of the NBA-approach because it just looks / feels desperate and its not much fun watching most lottery picks look out of place against legitimate professional basketball players (your team tanked for THAT?).

 

In the NBA the top 1 or 2 picks can make a huge difference, right away. In football, the top picks are usually good, but only rarely do they change a franchise. In baseball they are probably good, and may help the MLB team in 3-4 years. Tanking makes sense in the NBA which is why they have a lottery, and the other sports don't.

 

The issue described in the article above can be best handled by ignoring Scott Bora$.

[nodakfan17]

In the NBA the top 1 or 2 picks can make a huge difference, right away. In football, the top picks are usually good, but only rarely do they change a franchise. In baseball they are probably good, and may help the MLB team in 3-4 years. Tanking makes sense in the NBA which is why they have a lottery, and the other sports don't.

 

The issue described in the article above can be best handled by ignoring Scott Bora$.

Agreed that it's a non-issue for the NFL/NBA.

 

With the NBA, the top 1 or 2 picks CAN make a huge difference, but in reality, only 1 in 4 will become an All-Star. Even then, there's a big difference between drafting John Wall or LeBron James. The same teams keep returning to the well because in order to win a title, you need a Top 5 NBA player. It really makes the NBA unwatchable for all but 5 NBA cities each year. I don't think it can be fixed - that's just how the game works. I find more reason for optimism in the MLB-style rebuild and that's why my fan dollars go to the Brewers / Timber Rattlers and a few college basketball teams.

 

Edit: Back to the original post, I would be in favor of a ban on consecutive #1 or Top 3 overall picks in all leagues (especially the NBA). It was hard to watch the Cavs get 3 of 4 #1 overall picks (2011, 2013, 2014). They were compensated with Kyrie Irving after LeBron James left. Then, through the grace of some ping pong balls, they had the ammunition to trade for Kevin Love? C'mon. Still, this instance is somewhat of an anomaly. The current systems have served their leagues pretty well.

[Boomer5]

We traded our closer and our middle of the order 1B for nothing that can help in 2016 or 2017 but we arent tanking in 2016

Correct. I'd say many people's idea of tanking would be something closer to fielding an noncompetitive team. The 2016 Brewers will be competitive, albeit not competitive enough to be in playoff contention. It's not like they're sending a team of Andy Wilkinsses out there.

 

I should have typed my comment in blue. Sorry about that.

 

The Brewers are absolutely fielding a non competitive team in 2016 which should be apparent already, but will become more so when the Luc and Davis trades happen.

[rickh150]

http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=12222

 

Glad to hear that others are concerned about team management's aim at purposeful losing to gain an advantage. I'm all for rebuilding and getting a strong group of minor leaguers to come up together at the same time, and I guess I don't blame the Astros and Cubs (now Brewers, possibly) for the route they took to get back to glory. Yet, something is wrong with the system when teams (not players/managers, who are working their butts off to get paid, stay in the bigs) are positioning themselves to lose enough/more games to gain an advantage with high draft picks and a larger pool of money to sign picks.

[jerichoholicninja]

http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=12222

 

Glad to hear that others are concerned about team management's aim at purposeful losing to gain an advantage. I'm all for rebuilding and getting a strong group of minor leaguers to come up together at the same time, and I guess I don't blame the Astros and Cubs (now Brewers, possibly) for the route they took to get back to glory. Yet, something is wrong with the system when teams (not players/managers, who are working their butts off to get paid, stay in the bigs) are positioning themselves to lose enough/more games to gain an advantage with high draft picks and a larger pool of money to sign picks.

 

People, it's not about making a bad major league team to get higher draft picks. It's about using your resources to get lots of young, cheap, controllable talent. If Melvin and Stearns wouldn't have made the trades they've made, the major league team would still be mediocre and the minor league system would still be crap. Relying on the draft alone to build your team just doesn't work.

[rickh150]

http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=12222

 

Glad to hear that others are concerned about team management's aim at purposeful losing to gain an advantage. I'm all for rebuilding and getting a strong group of minor leaguers to come up together at the same time, and I guess I don't blame the Astros and Cubs (now Brewers, possibly) for the route they took to get back to glory. Yet, something is wrong with the system when teams (not players/managers, who are working their butts off to get paid, stay in the bigs) are positioning themselves to lose enough/more games to gain an advantage with high draft picks and a larger pool of money to sign picks.

 

People, it's not about making a bad major league team to get higher draft picks. It's about using your resources to get lots of young, cheap, controllable talent. If Melvin and Stearns wouldn't have made the trades they've made, the major league team would still be mediocre and the minor league system would still be crap. Relying on the draft alone to build your team just doesn't work.

 

 

I agree with you, but getting the high draft picks and larger allotted pool of $ is part of the strategy.

[Eye Black]

From his Fangraphs chat today, I found Dave Cameron's comments regarding tanking to be some of the best I've seen. I think the notion that tanking is a sudden epidemic threating America's past-time is comical, and Cameron hits on the motivations of those crying foul...

 

Question: Why did “rebuilding” suddenly become “tanking”?

 

Dave Cameron: Because the CBA is up in a few months, and there’s a deep divide between big-revenue owners and small-revenue owners. The teams with money are using the media to try and steer the message, and they’re aiming their sights on changes that would benefit themselves.

 

Question: Now that Olney has upped the stakes with you in your feud over the industry view of tanking, do you have your own insiders to call the secret anti-tanking conclave a load of malarkey?

 

Dave Cameron: Yeah, I’ve talked with a bunch of people in the game who don’t believe anyone is tanking, or that it’s a real problem. The idea that there’s a clear consensus within MLB that this is a huge problem is wrong.

 

Question: In a time of parity, would it make any sense at all for a team to tank? It would seem that at least in the AL, there’s some logic to holding out with a mediocre team, as with sequencing/breakout luck a 75-win team could win 85-90 games and make the playoffs.

 

Dave Cameron: That’s the weirdest thing about this tanking narrative getting pushed right now; we’re literally in the time of the greatest parity in baseball history. It’s so clearly agenda-driven, and not fact-driven, as to be humorous.

[DuWayne Steurer]

http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=12222

 

Glad to hear that others are concerned about team management's aim at purposeful losing to gain an advantage. I'm all for rebuilding and getting a strong group of minor leaguers to come up together at the same time, and I guess I don't blame the Astros and Cubs (now Brewers, possibly) for the route they took to get back to glory. Yet, something is wrong with the system when teams (not players/managers, who are working their butts off to get paid, stay in the bigs) are positioning themselves to lose enough/more games to gain an advantage with high draft picks and a larger pool of money to sign picks.

 

People, it's not about making a bad major league team to get higher draft picks. It's about using your resources to get lots of young, cheap, controllable talent. If Melvin and Stearns wouldn't have made the trades they've made, the major league team would still be mediocre and the minor league system would still be crap. Relying on the draft alone to build your team just doesn't work.

 

 

No matter how many times it's explained, there's going to be a segment of the fan base that feels like rebuilding is "losing on purpose". There's simply no explanation that will suffice to remove that stigma from the rebuild process.

[Point Beer Is Best]

From his Fangraphs chat today, I found Dave Cameron's comments regarding tanking to be some of the best I've seen. I think the notion that tanking is a sudden epidemic threating America's past-time is comical, and Cameron hits on the motivations of those crying foul...

 

Question: Why did “rebuilding” suddenly become “tanking”?

 

Dave Cameron: Because the CBA is up in a few months, and there’s a deep divide between big-revenue owners and small-revenue owners. The teams with money are using the media to try and steer the message, and they’re aiming their sights on changes that would benefit themselves.

 

Question: Now that Olney has upped the stakes with you in your feud over the industry view of tanking, do you have your own insiders to call the secret anti-tanking conclave a load of malarkey?

 

Dave Cameron: Yeah, I’ve talked with a bunch of people in the game who don’t believe anyone is tanking, or that it’s a real problem. The idea that there’s a clear consensus within MLB that this is a huge problem is wrong.

 

Question: In a time of parity, would it make any sense at all for a team to tank? It would seem that at least in the AL, there’s some logic to holding out with a mediocre team, as with sequencing/breakout luck a 75-win team could win 85-90 games and make the playoffs.

 

Dave Cameron: That’s the weirdest thing about this tanking narrative getting pushed right now; we’re literally in the time of the greatest parity in baseball history. It’s so clearly agenda-driven, and not fact-driven, as to be humorous.

 

Cameron nails it on the head, and Olney comes off looking like a puppet for owners who are on the "pay in" side of the revenue sharing process.

 

What irked me most after reading Olney's article was that nobody seemed to have a problem when the Cubs & Astros (both top-10 or so media markets) went through a similar rebuild.

 

Attanasio should show up to the owners meetings and say:

 

"I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few trades and a couple front office moves. Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, the Cubs or Astros tell the press that they're going to go through a rebuild, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that my club is going through a rebuild, well then everyone loses their minds!"

 

[rickh150]

The Lind trade and the Krod trade..... We basically got lottery tickets for them, right? All the other trades, Melvin or DS, didn't have that big of tank stink to them. Those two trades raised red flags for me. Something said to me that Stearns might have more on his agenda than just getting young talent in return..... I might be wrong in my line of thinking, I might. But how can you be sure that you are right?

 

Check those ridiculous Astros yearly records out again from a few years ago. With all this parity in baseball, how could they be that bad yearly? How about that extra money that they had to play with during this past draft.... Didn't that help them sign another tough to sign pick? Not to mention the opportunity to get yor paws on the next Bryant or Harper- the types of players the Brewers can't trade for, sign in free agency, or buy in the international signing. Just truth be told, in the current system, being really, really bad benefits you more long term than just being bad. Stearns knows it.

 

Say what you will, Stearns would take a top pick instead of being mediocre this season and probably next. He and the Astros wrote the book on the long term rebuild and we will see it again. It worked the first time for him. Why wouldn't he replicate the plan? Being really bad first seems to be part of the early plan.

Again, I could be wrong, but how can you be so sure that you are right?

[1992casey]

Stearns would take a top pick instead of being mediocre this season and probably next.

 

I don't have a problem with that statement because it doesn't go so far as to say that losses are an objective. We'd need some pretty solid evidence to say that the Brewers are trying to lose, and the preponderance of evidence just doesn't add up to that. We have plenty to be able to say that winning at the Major League level right now isn't a priority, though.

[Eye Black]

Check those ridiculous Astros yearly records out again from a few years ago.

...........................

 

He and the Astros wrote the book on the long term rebuild and we will see it again. It worked the first time for him. Why wouldn't he replicate the plan? Being really bad first seems to be part of the early plan.

 

I think there are some oversimplifications in those statements. I don't think the Astros plan was ever "lets be really bad". The Astros lost 106 games in 2011 and fired their GM, Ed Wade. When Jeff Luhnow was hired that offseason before the 2012 season it was pretty clear that his directive was to build the organization for the future, and he did exactly that. Stearns began with the Astos during the off-season heading into the 2013 season, which would their final year of 100+ losses. In Stearns third season with the organization they made the playoffs.

 

It's possible we are each applying different definitions of "long term", but if the Brewers use the next two seasons to build a foundation of talent throughout the organization and then start their climb towards relevance at the MLB level in 2018 I would be satisfied with that.

[QuevedosTongue]

After reading Buster Olney ring the 'tanking' alarm after the Davis deal I have thought quite a bit about what would fix 'tanking', or what would make the incentive to go 'scorched earth' to rebuild less. And I can't find an answer. The only real thing that might stop teams (and I stress might) from going the way of the Brewers would be a salary floor (meaning they'd have to spend money on big league players) coupled with a draft in which the order is completely random each year.

 

The real issue with this is that attendance is no longer driving the revenue for teams, television is. TV contracts are signed for multiple years, so teams know what kind of cash they'll be taking in before the season starts. Now, attendance dollars aren't meaningless, but they're certainly not as meaningful as they were 20 years ago.

 

Seriously, does anyone have an idea what might cause a team like Milwaukee to sign a veteran for more money to squeeze out a couple more wins? I can't see it.

[logan82]

It isn't about saving money or being bad to get picks, so a salary floor and random draft would do absolutely nothing. Those two things are just a side effect of trading away MLB players to get prospects. The goal for every single team is to get enough talent together at one time to win the World Series. There are only a finite number of ways to acquire and keep good players, and when one of those avenues is completely out of the question for the majority of the league you are going to get teams that have to trade away good players to amass talent. Teams like the Brewers do not do this by choice. They are going to be bad by necessity.

[BallFour]

Where is the outcry over large market teams spending on the international market? I know they have penalties and teams can't hit up the international market for a couple years but it is still unjust. How is it fair that a 19 year old Yoan Moncada gets over $30 Million? And that the Red Sox can eat another $30 Million in penalties. That blows team's entire draft pools out of the water....

 

Seems like a way bigger problem to me than a couple NL teams rebuilding/tanking....

[jerichoholicninja]

Where is the outcry over large market teams spending on the international market? I know they have penalties and teams can't hit up the international market for a couple years but it is still unjust. How is it fair that a 19 year old Yoan Moncada gets over $30 Million? And that the Red Sox can eat another $30 Million in penalties. That blows team's entire draft pools out of the water....

 

Seems like a way bigger problem to me than a couple NL teams rebuilding/tanking....

 

The international market is a joke. They are paying 16 year old kids more than number 1 draft picks. An international draft is the only solution to fix that problem.

 

A salary floor is dumb too. I read that the Jacksoncille Jaguars are something like $30 million under the salary floor. Is there any way that spending the money to get them over the floor is going to turn them into a playoff contender? It's the NFL, maybe, but probably not. If they make the playoffs next year it's going to be more because they got lucky with injuries and Andrew Luck repeats his 2015. In the Brewers current situation, forcing them to spend any more money on the MLB team does nothing to help the organization.

[reillymcshane]

In addition to getting some international draft, I think a big thing that could be done in baseball is simply require players to submit for the draft or not. Perhaps combine that with strict slotting of pay. This way there's no screwing around with the salary pool. Players get drafted based on their talent and not signability or whatever.

 

It doesn't mean a team won't try and lose to get a higher draft position, but no one is manauevering for more cap money or whatever.

[pacopete4]

International draft with the draft slot money pre determined. Either you sign, or you don't but the money doesn't change no matter what team it is.