The National League has rather a pronounced divide between its better teams and its anticipated bottom-dwellers, ESPN.com’s Jayson Stark writes, and that poses a significant problem. While commissioner Rob Manfred says that the league’s less talented clubs are in a routine phase of the natural winning/rebuilding cycle, some rival executives believe that at least some organizations are looking to strip down their MLB rosters, pursue top draft picks, and aim for a relatively distant competitive timeline. There are a host of interesting quotes, particularly from Manfred, who says that outright tanking efforts would be “self-correcting” in that, “if too many teams try to follow this strategy, the effectiveness of that strategy will be naturally undermined.” The piece is well worth a read.
Here’s the latest out of the N.L.:
- Rockies GM Jeff Bridich has been in touch with veteran outfielder Carlos Gonzalez to tell him not to pay any heed to trade rumors, as Patrick Saunders of the Denver Post reports. While that’s hardly any guarantee, multiple rival GMs say they have received the impression that Colorado will not move its most recognizable player this winter, Jon Heyman tweets. Nevertheless, the recent signing of Gerardo Parra still seemingly leaves the club with good cause to move an outfielder. If it isn’t CarGo, of course, then the two obvious candidates would be Charlie Blackmon and Corey Dickerson.
- Chances are “slim” that the Cubs will make another major addition before the season, president of baseball operations Theo Epstein said today, as Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times reports on Twitter. We’ve heard plenty of suggestions of ways Chicago could look to add yet more impact after an already-busy offseason, but it certainly doesn’t appear as if the club really needs to do anything to its roster at this point.
- The Reds are still working on various trade scenarios, ESPN.com’s Jerry Crasnick reports (via TwitLonger). Jay Bruce seems the most plausible trade piece, Crasnick indicates, but his market is complicated by Colorado’s trio of possible left-handed bats for sale. And he arguably hasn’t performed to the standard of his rather expensive contract in recent years. “Once you start down this road, it is important to continue with the tough decisions and not pull up in the middle of the project,” said GM Dick Williams. “That being said, we cannot force deals so I cannot guarantee we will do more.’’
- New Phillies hurler Mark Appel has a lot to prove, Crasnick writes. But the 24-year-old says he is determined and able to live up to his former billing as a top-end pitching prospect.
I fully expect the Cubs to stay pat unless an opportunity to trade high-end prospects for another pitcher comes around. One or possibly two of Wood, Hendricks, hammel, would being going the other way as well. I expect them to ride the youngins hard this year. Guys like Soler, Baez, and Schwarber should be playing a minimum of 140 games (health provided). I expect a slow start out of these Cubs, but come June/July they’ll be in mid season form. I’m thinking 94-97 games and a division title. The Brewers and the Reds are going to be pretty bad. I wouldn’t be shocked if NL central owns both wild card spots again.
With Joe Maddon as manager, it’s likely every Cubs position player appears in a minimum of 140 games, maybe a couple of relievers as well. (lol)
Baez and Hendricks to Padres for Ross makes too much sense.
Cubs would be NL favorites for World Series IMO.
Which has to be worth “whatever it takes”….. Doesn’t it?
Cubs are better off keeping Baez and Hendricks at this point.
That is, I’d rather see how Baez and Hendricks pan out over the next five years than have Ross for two years with a salary of $20MM+. Baez and Hendricks have already contributed and can continue to do so this year.
Stark’s article is interesting, but ignores the financial divide between the teams who are in rebuilding mode (Braves, Phillies) and the teams in “tanking” mode (Brewers, Reds). Small market teams without capacity for large television revenues have seen the model of “tanking” and restocking the farm system work for the Cubs and Astros and recognize that personnel assets can be used in lieu of financial assets to build a winner. Execs can grumble all they like, but it’s the large market teams and out-of-control contracts that caused this in the first place.
This is part of what was missing from Stark’s article, The other strangely absent aspect in this story is any discussion of team profits. During their “rebuilding” the Astros were one of if not the most profitable team in baseball. If teams can field lousy product, and make more money, then why in the world would they spend more money on the product? That’s the disincentive they really need to address.
That story about the Astros being extremely profitable during their rebuild has been debunked. The Astros were in a court battle over their TV contact and actually made very little money during their losing years.
A team that spends $20M on payroll makes $30M more in profit than the same team spending $50M on payroll. You can’t escape the arithmetic and you can’t escape the fundamental fact that in business profit is the only arithmetic that actually matters. With all the talk about salaries and what players are worth and other aspects of the business of baseball dominating these discussions, I think it is beyond odd that this subject is seen as so uninteresting and irrelevant as to be virtually non-discussable. It’s the big pink elephant in the room just the same.
jerry jones’ way in dallas, profitable football team, not worth two cents in the standings
All 4 of those teams have been handicapped by huge contracts though. I’m guessing all 4 of those teams would have had a much faster turnaround if Votto, Braun, Freeman and Howard were not on their teams, taking up an expensive roster spot.
Bruce is the OF I would be buying low on. His contract being guaranteed for $13.5M (including the option buy-out) is certainly less than Cespedes or Upton; and the prospect cost would appear to be less than a Colorado option.
Cleveland should be taking a hard look at him.
That is the team that stood out to me as well.
Shouldn’t the Mets buy low on him as well?
Baseball is all about windows of opportunity. “Does my team have the talent to seriously contend, right now and, if so, for how long?” If the answer is yes, then the team should make moves to maximize that window and to keep it open for as long as possible, including (sigh) pricey free agent signings. If the answer is ‘no’, however, then a team has to ask, what can I do now – trades, low-level signings, claims, draft, etc.- to open a window in the future? Small market/cost conscious teams usually have to trade their veteran MLB talent and, yes, lose, and focus on player development to open a future window. That route, however, can take a long, long time. But that is just kind of the nature of the beast, especially in a day and age where key/star players are getting $100 to $200 million dollar contracts. Not every team can play in that sandbox and baseball can’t (and ought not be able to) make them.
What is most frustrating is when teams with strong open windows – who have the talent to win now – fail to do anything substantial or creative to improve their teams. That is the real travesty.
Realistically, you can’t get away from reverse-order in the draft (I don’t like the NBA lottery system) but you can eliminate the slotting system (which is clearly a way to game things). And you really have to think about getting rid of the idea of protected picks, and competitive balance picks. But, fundamentally, it’s certainty of revenues that may be the biggest underpinning to tanking. If your stadium is taxpayer financed, if you have a big TV contract, if you are getting big money from the national TV contract, and if you are getting revenue sharing, then the economic impact of losing is negligible–and subsidized by the teams trying to compete. Manfred says “no problem” but I’ll bet, privately, he thinks there is.
Sure you can get away from it very easily. It’s just we have gotten accustomed to using the reverse-order as the model for drafts. I have always thought that the best way to combat taking in all leagues is to give the 1st pick in the draft to the team that finishes with the best record WITHOUT making the playoffs and then continuing down the line until you get to the playoff teams, and then go in reverse order. When you think about it, it makes so much more sense because that new #1 team can use the top draft pick to get them over the top and into the playoffs next year. It also makes more sense for the league, because it gives a better chance for the top draft picks to be in the playoffs sooner rather than later to build upon their college success and turn them into marketable stars for the league (especially in the NFL and NBA). That system gives everyone the incentive to play their best and makes for an interesting conundrum on whether it would be better to get a Wild Card spot and a chance at a championship or miss the playoffs and get a high draft pick.
I think your idea could work in the NBA or NFL, where draft picks (especially high picks) typically are on a roster and expected to contribute right away, but in MLB, where even a sure-fire, can’t miss player is drafted #1 overall realistically won’t see time on the big league roster for 2-5 years (depending on all sorts of circumstances).
What good would it really do for Milwaukee or Cincinnati or whoever to buy a lot of third tier free agents, spend $90 – $110 million on their major league roster to push for 80 wins in 2016 to have a shot at a #1 pick in 2017, for a player who has a realistic outcome of “serviceable Major Leaguer” they won’t see until likely 2020 at the earliest?
The draft system we have today isn’t perfect, and there may be ways to make it better, reward teams that “try” hard, etc., but where to start?
With that rationale, a team at the bottom of the standings would be at a huge disadvantage and it would lead to major disparity. Reverse order is really the only logical way for the draft to work.
But stripping down a MLB roster, pursuing top draft picks, and aiming for a relatively distant competitive timeline IS SMART. It’s plain and simple, an excellent plan.
What these people don’t like to hear is how worthless winning 72-82 games is, which is also true.
I’d rather see an article about how many people in MLB strive to hold onto the delusion that their team is a contender when it just isn’t – why is that a “problem”? Being smart should not be called “a problem” which is what is happening here. Then again, MLB loves hearing stupidity like promoting analysts who say things like “Being on base means nothing if the runner clogs the bases and won’t score from 2nd on a single” – to me, the promotion of stupidity is the problem.
You are correct in that it is the proper strategy and that winning 72-82 games is not better than winning 62 games. But does that make sense? Winning 20 more games SHOULD be a lot better for every team. Otherwise, why should anyone ever pay for a ticket to see a rebuilding team? If you are a Reds fan, why would you pay for a seat in 2016, knowing that the team won’t be trying to win until 2018 and most of the players on the field in 2016 will not be a part of that attempt? I laid out a plan just above on how to combat that and reward every team for every single victory. Winning should always be a priority, but right now in sports it is better to lose and that needs to change.
Is OF defense an issue for the Cubs. Schwarber and Soler are in the corners, and while Heyward is a GG defender in right, he is playing a more difficult position in CF
First sentence is a question not a statement. Typo
I think defense in the outfield is an issue. Heyward should be in right and a true center fielder should be playing CF. It looks like a mickey mouse outfield configuration to me.
Scwarber has to play. If outfield defense has to suffer a bit, I believe it is well worth it.
Scwarber has to play. If outfield defense has to suffer a bit, I believe it is well worth it. Now if you could trade Soler for a viable young cost controlled CF, that would be optimal.
Regarding the Parra signing, I have not seen any info on him passing his physical and the deal finalized . They will not move anyone else till that deal is done…
If the Cubs are so worried about outfield defense I don’t see why they don’t just go full out block buster with the Rays to send Baez and Soler and others for a return maybe involving Odorizzi and Kiermair, and if that’s too much explore other trades or hit the Free agent market, I’m sure there are plenty of teams willing to strike a deal for Baez or Soler, both can really hit especially Soler
Every time I see Mark Appel’s name I can’t help but shake my head thinking abut how they passed up Bryant for him and what a Bryant/Correa left side coulda looked like the next 10 years.
Also, how they took Aiken over Rodan the next year.
They’ve drafted well and have a very good young team, but man, taking those guys #1… which would have been in no way a stretch, completely plausible and maybe even the somewhat obvious… would had them in insane position in the years ahead.
Hindsight is 20/20, but most “experts” were questioning the Cubs taking Bryant over Jon Gray when it happened due to needing pitching in the minors. People were also questioning the Astros for taking Appel over Gray, but I don’t remember anyone saying they should have taken Bryant. I remember because for about 4 months every mock draft had Bryant going to the Rockies at #3 and I was surprised when he wasn’t taken there.
Guess I shoulda been a scout then! I had Bryant at #1. He’s a 3rd baseman who out homered 230 of 300 college baseball teams with a high average and OBP. That’s a Unicorn compared a 4-year right handed pitcher like Appel, who was good in college but not plus insane.
Of course like you say, hindsight is always 20/20, but I’m of the school that you always take the Unicorn. Especially when Unicorns at that position on the market so less frequently than quality right handed arms do.
And none of this matters, but like I said, Appel’s name just makes me think about it.
Think about it though, if Astros took Bryant next team would have taken Appel. Imagine if Astros took Bryant and he didnt pan out. Everyone would have been “should have taken Appel!!!!!”
Well considering Appel isn’t a major league pitcher, no, no one would say that.
Well you also have to consider the situation of the Astros at the time as well. They had Matt Dominguez at third and he was widely considered their long term solution at the position. This was also before the breakout of Dallas Keuchel, so getting an ace was more important to them than a guy whose position would have to be changed to help the major league team. Of course Dominguez flopped and Keuchel blossomed, so now it looks like a mistake. But at the time starting pitching was a lot more of a need for Houston.
I am a Reds fan. I’m a Jay Bruce fan and I just wanna say I have gained more respect for Jay since the Reds starting trying to trade him last July. He has never been bitter toward management and has kept being a team player.