Sale to the Red Sox

[KirbyDome89]

 

You have always limited the Tigers success to short term. It hasn't been short term. They have been ridiculously successful for the long term with all of those aging veterans. Even now they don't have hardly any long term contracts that are dragging the team down and somehow they still have several <30 core players.

I've said it numerous times now, when you sell off a farm system that maximizes the present at the expense of the future. That is taking a short term approach. OMG for the last time I'm not arguing they haven't had good teams over the years.

 

Several young players to build around? Castellanos, Iglesias, and Fulmer are the three regulars who won't be 30+ next season. Saying that is a core is pretty generous IMO. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

 

 

I think we all agree building with a young, cheap core is a smart idea.  But there are plenty of ways to skin a cat and Dombrowski is damn good at his way.

Readily acknowledged the the second part and couldn't agree more on the first. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Shouldn't a smart GM have been able to restock the farm system by the time core gets old?

You don't stop adding players to your farm system because you traded some off.

Sure, but if you've built a stud team you're drafting at or near the end of every round. You also may be giving up picks to sign FAs. That puts a lot of pressure on scouting and development. If your point is that they can draft and develop those players and have the same kind of success as teams drafting at the top then you're asking me to argue against the perfect GM and perfect organization. 

 

Every strategy has its strong and weak points. I was pointing out what I see as the weak point in selling a farm system. 

[kab21]

 

I've said it numerous times now, when you sell off a farm system that maximizes the present at the expense of the future. That is taking a short term approach. OMG for the last time I'm not arguing they haven't had good teams over the years.

You keep writing one sentence (can't have long term success) and following with the complete opposite (I'm not arguing that they haven't been good). Surely you can see how this is frustrating?

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

You keep writing one sentence (can't have long term success) and following with the complete opposite (I'm not arguing that they haven't been good). Surely you can see how this is frustrating?

I NEVER once said they could only be good for a few years and then had to completely fall apart. Please, if you can find where I said that feel free to quote it. Very few teams are horrible, have a stretch like 11-14, then fall apart and are horrible again. You trend up, peak (11-14) and come back down. So now I'm contradicting myself by acknowledging that teams rise and fall? Is it so unreasonable to expect teams to put up decent records while they near the peak and as they begin to move away from it? I thought we had agreed that teams cycle through periods of up and down but maybe that was TheLeviathan. 

 

Look, Idk if you're not understanding what I'm saying, or if you're purposely misrepresenting my posts. Maybe we have very different ideas about what constitutes short term and long term. When I say its a short term strategy I mean its win now at all costs. For some teams thats a one year run, for others it could be 5, 6, who knows, but its all about pouring resources in to maximize in the moment. Long term would be after that competitive window closes when the team is on the downside of the arch. When I say longterm, I mean when it is time to move on from the team as it has been constructed. Having prospects that can fill those holes would go a long way in shrinking a rebuild project. I think its obvious that Detroits prime competing years were 2011-2014. Like I said, having good teams leading up to, and shortly following those years isn't crazy. 

 

You keep trying to pin me down by repeating that they've been so successful over the last decade. By doing so you're assuming that all those years are created equally, meaning they were at the same level of competitiveness each year. Obviously, I see that span as an arch. I'm assuming that by the "writing one sentence (can't have long term success)" comment you were referring to those 10 years and their records. I've explained how good records and the curve aren't mutually exclusive. I'm sure you can see how that is frustrating for me as well.

 

 

[USAFChief]

 

Sure, but if you've built a stud team you're drafting at or near the end of every round. You also may be giving up picks to sign FAs. That puts a lot of pressure on scouting and development. If your point is that they can draft and develop those players and have the same kind of success as teams drafting at the top then you're asking me to argue against the perfect GM and perfect organization. 

 

Every strategy has its strong and weak points. I was pointing out what I see as the weak point in selling a farm system.

Not "perfect."  Just good, and aggressive.

 

The Twins have been awful for over half a decade.  Historically bad, drafting near the top all that time.  What do they have to show for it?  Hope that Buxton continues to improve?  That Berrios--the only highly rated pitcher in the Twins system--can be an above average pitcher in a couple years?  THAT'S the reward?

 

Judging by comments here, we shouldn't even expect contention for another couple years.  Meanwhile...what about the minor league system, that Twins management so jealously guarded? Could the Twins have even put together a package good enough to land Chris Sale?  I don't think they could have.  Yet Boston can, and still have plenty of talent in their minor league system, AFTER being in contention and active in the FA and trade market for, like, forever.

 

Could the Twins even trade for Brian Dozier?  How can the Dodgers?  How can Detroit trade for David Price in 2015?

 

It isn't a given that "not trading the farm" gets you anywhere, nor it is a given that "trading the farm" leaves you with nothing for the future.

 

The evidence suggests it's often the opposite.   Holding on to minor leaguers, playing for the future, hurts today and often doesn't do anything for tomorrow, either.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Not "perfect."  Just good, and aggressive.

 

The Twins have been awful for over half a decade.  Historically bad, drafting near the top all that time.  What do they have to show for it?  Hope that Buxton continues to improve?  That Berrios--the only highly rated pitcher in the Twins system--can be an above average pitcher in a couple years?  THAT'S the reward?

 

Judging by comments here, we shouldn't even expect contention for another couple years.  Meanwhile...what about the minor league system, that Twins management so jealously guarded? Could the Twins have even put together a package good enough to land Chris Sale?  I don't think they could have.  Yet Boston can, and still have plenty of talent in their minor league system, AFTER being in contention and active in the FA and trade market for, like, forever.

 

Could the Twins even trade for Brian Dozier?  How can the Dodgers?  How can Detroit trade for David Price in 2015?

 

It isn't a given that "not trading the farm" gets you anywhere, nor it is a given that "trading the farm" leaves you with nothing for the future.

 

The evidence suggests it's often the opposite.   Holding on to minor leaguers, playing for the future, hurts today and often doesn't do anything for tomorrow, either

If it isn't perfect then its the closest thing to it. Picking at the top of the draft is an advantage. Yes you can find talent throughout (Mike Trout?) but your chances of getting MLB players increases the closer you pick to the #1 spot. With each round the difficulty level increases. Choosing first in the 2nd round (38th overall) is basically a late first round pick. Now, compare that to picking last in the 2nd round (70th overall). Obviously the overall spots aren't exact but essentially whats happening is that teams at the top are getting 2 picks for every one that bottom teams have. When you say that good teams don't stop acquiring players you're minimizing the distinction between the picks and basically shrugging off the advantage of choosing at the top. I think thats a big deal. 

 

So because the Twins have been a s**t show the past few years its evidence that building a farm system is overrated? The Twins system was trash and essentially was restocked using those high round picks. Yes that takes a long time, which is exactly why I'm advocating for holding onto some prospects. Personally I'm pumped about the way Buxton finished the season. Yes Berrios was disappointing, but it was also in a limited amount of action. I think its way too early to put those guys into the "not good players," pile. I also wouldn't rush to hold those guys up as an indictment of prospects. The consensus has been Dombrowski is a good GM and built a solid FO. I haven't disputed that fact so Idk why you would ever compare him to what has gone on in MN.

 

You don't think the Twins could have traded for Sale or a Dozier clone last year when Sano, Buxton, and Berrios were still considered prospects? You're asking me to argue against Epstein and what he has done. I can't do that. I will say he is on a different level than Dombrowski, so I'm not sure its apples to apples, but obviously Epstein's history speaks for itself.  

 

I can flip that around just as easily and say it isn't a given that holding onto prospects won't get you anywhere, nor is it a given that emptying the farm won't have ramifications in the future. I think teams such as KC, Cleveland, TB,  and Pittsburgh would strongly disagree with the notion that holding onto prospects hurts today and does nothing for the future. 

[biggentleben]

So, here's my personal take after reading all this...

 

Detroit having a chance at the World Series made them legit World Series contenders. Look at Cleveland this year - they were starting Kluber and....um....yeah, by the time they got to the playoffs, and they ended up in the Series, taking the team that nearly lapped the field in run difference this season to seven games before they fell without 2/3 of the top of their rotation, their best offensive player, and so many other pieces that were hurt and/or lost.

 

Edit: Return key accidentally posted rather than giving a carriage return...

 

Detroit used their prospects the way they should, to supplement the big league club. They drafted high ceiling guys, and when those guys hit, they hit big. When they struggled, they were easy to brush away and/or sell off on potential to other teams. Their system was never very deep, but it always had viable major league talent at the top of the system ranks. This year is no exception as you see guys like Christian Stewart, Matt Manning, Kyle Funkhouser, etc. at the top of the rankings. Stewart is a guy who should be in Detroit's outfield in 2017 for at least a late-season call up and likely takes over for J.D. when he leaves after the season.

 

They're also in a different spot than any other team with an owner willing to invest significant funds in bringing home a title.

 

Now, the White Sox hung on for a long time where the Tigers are this offseason and didn't make moves like they've already done with the Maybin deal, so their move is delayed and they now need to do the big strip-down rebuild to recover their system because they've hurt the system so badly.

 

Part of that was having those same high-ceiling guys that the Tigers saw some success in almost completely failing for the White Sox. Trayce Thompson finally had success...after he was with another organization. Their pitching has produced Sale and Rodon, but outside of that, their drafting has been rough. Quintana may be the best minor league free agent signing in a long, long time.

[USAFChief]

 

If it isn't perfect then its the closest thing to it. Picking at the top of the draft is an advantage. Yes you can find talent throughout (Mike Trout?) but your chances of getting MLB players increases the closer you pick to the #1 spot. With each round the difficulty level increases. Choosing first in the 2nd round (38th overall) is basically a late first round pick. Now, compare that to picking last in the 2nd round (70th overall). Obviously the overall spots aren't exact but essentially whats happening is that teams at the top are getting 2 picks for every one that bottom teams have. When you say that good teams don't stop acquiring players you're minimizing the distinction between the picks and basically shrugging off the advantage of choosing at the top. I think thats a big deal. 

 

So because the Twins have been a s**t show the past few years its evidence that building a farm system is overrated? The Twins system was trash and essentially was restocked using those high round picks. Yes that takes a long time, which is exactly why I'm advocating for holding onto some prospects. Personally I'm pumped about the way Buxton finished the season. Yes Berrios was disappointing, but it was also in a limited amount of action. I think its way too early to put those guys into the "not good players," pile. I also wouldn't rush to hold those guys up as an indictment of prospects. The consensus has been Dombrowski is a good GM and built a solid FO. I haven't disputed that fact so Idk why you would ever compare him to what has gone on in MN.

 

You don't think the Twins could have traded for Sale or a Dozier clone last year when Sano, Buxton, and Berrios were still considered prospects? You're asking me to argue against Epstein and what he has done. I can't do that. I will say he is on a different level than Dombrowski, so I'm not sure its apples to apples, but obviously Epstein's history speaks for itself.  

 

I can flip that around just as easily and say it isn't a given that holding onto prospects won't get you anywhere, nor is it a given that emptying the farm won't have ramifications in the future. I think teams such as KC, Cleveland, TB,  and Pittsburgh would strongly disagree with the notion that holding onto prospects hurts today and does nothing for the future. 

KC spent 20 years in the wilderness amassing prospects.  Ditto Pittsburgh.  In fact, KC got to the WS immediately AFTER trading some minor league talent for big league talent.

 

Not sure they are strong examples of what you advocate.

 

Every team needs minor league talent.  I'm not disputing that.  What I don't believe in is thinking that keeping it is somehow preferable to using it to acquire proven MLB talent.  Both ways can work, and I would argue history strongly favors the latter.

[HitInAPinch]

The White Sox are clearing out space for the Free Agent class of 2017....

[KirbyDome89]

 

KC spent 20 years in the wilderness amassing prospects.  Ditto Pittsburgh.  In fact, KC got to the WS immediately AFTER trading some minor league talent for big league talent.

 

Not sure they are strong examples of what you advocate.

 

Every team needs minor league talent.  I'm not disputing that.  What I don't believe in is thinking that keeping it is somehow preferable to using it to acquire proven MLB talent.  Both ways can work, and I would argue history strongly favors the latter.

Both were horribly mismanged franchises. Its not coincidence they turned around after Moore and Huntington took over as GM in 06' and 07' respectively. The minor league systems were rebuilt, the prospects have produced at the MLB level, and they've been able to hold onto that talent for the most part (maybe not much longer for KC) to sustain the success. TB held on as long as they could during their run and they're still pumping out pitchers. Cleveland is set for a while thanks to their drafting and development. I would say those are strong examples of what building through a farm can produce. 

 

Yep, they received Shields and Davis, who was a failed starter, not the dominant reliever we know him as today. I guess Hosmer, Cain, Herrera, Perez, Gordon, and  Moustakas were less important? C'mon...that trade was the cherry on the sundae the farm system provided. 

 

I'm skeptical whether history actually does favor trading prospects, especially if you consider the earlier years of baseball (although that may not be fair) but I'm too lazy to fact check and dig through transactions of every team over the last 100+ years so I think we can agree to disagree

 

As a side not I think it would be really interesting if there was a way to quantify how often each strategy was deployed and the success rate. i would also wonder whether the more popular option was actually the better decision, or were teams prisoners of their conventional thinking. in 2016 the idea of using your best relief pitcher in the highest leverage situation of a game was "revolutionary." Sometimes I love the stubbornness in the face of change, other times its maddening. 

[biggentleben]

I can tell you that the Braves system produced a lot of the talent that keyed their 90s run, but the guy that put them over the top for their lone WS of the run was a guy the team gave up 2 of its top 5 prospects for and 3 of the top 10 in Fred McGriff.

[biggentleben]

The Yankees did similar. Do you remember the guys they gave up to get John Wetteland? Paul O'Neill, Tino, etc. that weren't part of the home grown group that was so dominant for so long?

 

Shoot, the Brewers almost got a WS and CY out of their big overpay for Sabathia, and that trade really has brought near nothing to the Indians.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The Yankees did similar. Do you remember the guys they gave up to get John Wetteland? Paul O'Neill, Tino, etc. that weren't part of the home grown group that was so dominant for so long?

 

Shoot, the Brewers almost got a WS and CY out of their big overpay for Sabathia, and that trade really has brought near nothing to the Indians.

The Brewers actually lost their NLDS in 4 games with Sabathia (and Michael Brantley turned out to be a pretty good return for a few months of Sabathia).

 

Perhaps you meant Greinke? He took the Brewers to the NLCS, and they lasted through 6 games.

[kab21]

 

I NEVER once said they could only be good for a few years and then had to completely fall apart. Please, if you can find where I said that feel free to quote it. Very few teams are horrible, have a stretch like 11-14, then fall apart and are horrible again. You trend up, peak (11-14) and come back down. So now I'm contradicting myself by acknowledging that teams rise and fall? Is it so unreasonable to expect teams to put up decent records while they near the peak and as they begin to move away from it? I thought we had agreed that teams cycle through periods of up and down but maybe that was TheLeviathan. 

 

Look, Idk if you're not understanding what I'm saying, or if you're purposely misrepresenting my posts. Maybe we have very different ideas about what constitutes short term and long term. When I say its a short term strategy I mean its win now at all costs. For some teams thats a one year run, for others it could be 5, 6, who knows, but its all about pouring resources in to maximize in the moment. Long term would be after that competitive window closes when the team is on the downside of the arch. When I say longterm, I mean when it is time to move on from the team as it has been constructed. Having prospects that can fill those holes would go a long way in shrinking a rebuild project. I think its obvious that Detroits prime competing years were 2011-2014. Like I said, having good teams leading up to, and shortly following those years isn't crazy. 

 

You keep trying to pin me down by repeating that they've been so successful over the last decade. By doing so you're assuming that all those years are created equally, meaning they were at the same level of competitiveness each year. Obviously, I see that span as an arch. I'm assuming that by the "writing one sentence (can't have long term success)" comment you were referring to those 10 years and their records. I've explained how good records and the curve aren't mutually exclusive. I'm sure you can see how that is frustrating for me as well.

I am still unable to see how this short term approach that the Tigers went after in 2005+ hurt them in any meaningful way. If the down years (the four non-playoff years '07 to '10 that you referred to) yield a 5 games over .500 mark then I think it is an AWESOME strategy. The tigers 10 years ago were making the same kind of trades and signing long term FA's to contracts that weren't going to finish well. It never hurt them like you have suggested.

[biggentleben]

 

The Brewers actually lost their NLDS in 4 games with Sabathia (and Michael Brantley turned out to be a pretty good return for a few months of Sabathia).

Perhaps you meant Greinke? He took the Brewers to the NLCS, and they lasted through 6 games.

 

Yeah, derp, though, frankly, you can't get too upset with the Sabathia situation either. They had a legit chance in the playoffs that year with the hottest pitcher in the game.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I am still unable to see how this short term approach that the Tigers went after in 2005+ hurt them in any meaningful way. If the down years (the four non-playoff years '07 to '10 that you referred to) yield a 5 games over .500 mark then I think it is an AWESOME strategy. The tigers 10 years ago were making the same kind of trades and signing long term FA's to contracts that weren't going to finish well. It never hurt them like you have suggested.

If you don't think it has hurt them then we clearly have very different opinions on the value of having a good farm system. Would good prospects not boost their chance or competing this year? Would having another pitcher to help with a playoff push not have been beneficial last year? I pointed out the 4 year absence because you kept hammering down about how great they had been for a decade. They certainly weren't terrible years but I would hardly call them a great team during that stretch which was EXACTLY the point of the wave analogy. 

 

Last time on "the ten year stretch." I've said it before, those years aren't all equal. If you want to lump them all into the same category and tell me they were equally competitive all ten seasons then I'll disagree and thats where it ends. There is a clear trend, and the Tigers are on the wrong side of it now. The fact that Detroit took time to reach their peak and the descent hasn't been abrupt doesn't change what they are as a team or which direction they're heading. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If you don't think it has hurt them then we clearly have very different opinions on the value of having a good farm system. Would good prospects not boost their chance or competing this year? Would having another pitcher to help with a playoff push not have been beneficial last year?

Who was the mythical "another pitcher" that would have been available to Detroit last year, had they chosen a different strategy?  Actually two of their top 3 starters (Fulmer and Norris) were proceeds from "win-now" moves (Cespedes and Price).

 

Their worst trade recently had nothing much to do with a "win now" approach but was just a bet on the wrong young player (swapping Travis for Gose, although even there, Travis would have been blocked by a better player in Detroit).

[kab21]

 

If you don't think it has hurt them then we clearly have very different opinions on the value of having a good farm system. Would good prospects not boost their chance or competing this year? Would having another pitcher to help with a playoff push not have been beneficial last year? I pointed out the 4 year absence because you kept hammering down about how great they had been for a decade. They certainly weren't terrible years but I would hardly call them a great team during that stretch which was EXACTLY the point of the wave analogy. 

 

Last time on "the ten year stretch." I've said it before, those years aren't all equal. If you want to lump them all into the same category and tell me they were equally competitive all ten seasons then I'll disagree and thats where it ends. There is a clear trend, and the Tigers are on the wrong side of it now. The fact that Detroit took time to reach their peak and the descent hasn't been abrupt doesn't change what they are as a team or which direction they're heading. 

Of course not all years are equal. There are very few teams that are great every season for a decade. There are very few teams that have had losing records twice in the last decade. That should be the point here. If this is the Red Sox future that you are warning us about then they should be very happy.

And even now the Tigers aren't stuck with any bad long term contracts that you have warned about. They can go out and sign new aging veterans to retool. Things are not that bad in Detroit. On the South Side however things are ugly. This is kind of the polar opposite of the Tigers situation. The White Sox haven't enjoyed anything even close to the Tiger's success and they are now terrible with very little of a core. Of course they used their prospects to acquire good but not great players. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Who was the mythical "another pitcher" that would have been available to Detroit last year, had they chosen a different strategy?  Actually two of their top 3 starters (Fulmer and Norris) were proceeds from "win-now" moves (Cespedes and Price).

 

Their worst trade recently had nothing much to do with a "win now" approach but was just a bet on the wrong young player (swapping Travis for Gose, although even there, Travis would have been blocked by a better player in Detroit).

There was no "mythical," pitcher to bring up, and that was EXACTLY the point. Having somebody to bring up so you don't have to trot out Anibal Sanchez every 5th day would have helped that team...

 

I haven't called any failed trades into question, but sure lets look at the Travis/Gose trade.

 

Travis was the top prospect in their farm at the time of the trade. I think thats more of an indictment on their farm than it is a compliment about Travis, but he had looked like a solid player. Detorit had asked him to play some CF but quickly turned around and swapped him for Gose who already had 3 years of MLB time. So rather than allow your top prospect the chance to learn a new position you trade him for a guy that has MLB experience. That isn't a win now move? Those players were in completely different places in their careers at that time, so no, it wasn't an even swap of young talent. It was trading an unknown for the known.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

There was no "mythical," pitcher to bring up, and that was EXACTLY the point. Having somebody to bring up so you don't have to trot out Anibal Sanchez every 5th day would have helped that team...

But you can't just assume that had they acted differently, they would have more/better pitchers to bring up.  Who are these specific pitchers that Detroit sacrificed in "win now" efforts that could have helped them in 2016?  Jacob Turner (ERA+ of 62)?  Drew Smyly (83)?  Robbie Ray (89)?

 

In fact, like I showed, 2 of their top 3 starters last year were minor league call-ups, and were actually byproducts of "win now" moves -- Fulmer (135 ERA+) who they got for Cespedes, and Norris (123) who they got for Price.  Plus Boyd (91) who they also got for Price.

 

They did forfeit first round picks from 2010-2012 due to free agent signings, although the odds of those picks (19, 19, and 27 overall) producing quality MLB SP were probably pretty low.  And the Tigers have received a lot of benefit to date from those FA signings, including Victor Martinez and Prince Fielder/Ian Kinsler, so it's not like those picks were lost for nothing.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Of course not all years are equal. There are very few teams that are great every season for a decade. There are very few teams that have had losing records twice in the last decade. That should be the point here. If this is the Red Sox future that you are warning us about then they should be very happy.

And even now the Tigers aren't stuck with any bad long term contracts that you have warned about. They can go out and sign new aging veterans to retool. Things are not that bad in Detroit. On the South Side however things are ugly. This is kind of the polar opposite of the Tigers situation. The White Sox haven't enjoyed anything even close to the Tiger's success and they are now terrible with very little of a core. Of course they used their prospects to acquire good but not great players. 

So you agree that all years aren't equal but then you say the point is they only had 2 losing seasons in 10 years. When you say that, it does put all those seasons on the same plane. Essentially you're flattening the curve and ignoring the direction of those teams over those years. Clearly this team isn't where they were a few years ago, and they've started to slide.

 

"Things aren't that bad in Detroit."The argument seems to be that because they haven't imploded to the point of disaster the idea that decimating a farm system could hurt them is foolish. I disagree, I think it is hurting them, and I think the last few years are starting to show it.

 

You're right, they have players coming off the books in the next few years, but the point is to minimize how many aging FAs you have to sign to big contracts.   I'm not sure where the comparison is between Detroit and the Sox...

[KirbyDome89]

 

But you can't just assume that had they acted differently, they would have more/better pitchers to bring up.  Who are these specific pitchers that Detroit sacrificed in "win now" efforts that could have helped them in 2016?  Jacob Turner (ERA+ of 62)?  Drew Smyly (83)?  Robbie Ray (89)?

 

In fact, like I showed, 2 of their top 3 starters last year were minor league call-ups, and were actually byproducts of "win now" moves -- Fulmer (135 ERA+) who they got for Cespedes, and Norris (123) who they got for Price.  Plus Boyd (91) who they also got for Price.

 

They did forfeit first round picks from 2010-2012 due to free agent signings, although the odds of those picks (19, 19, and 27 overall) producing quality MLB SP were probably pretty low.  And the Tigers have received a lot of benefit to date from those FA signings, including Victor Martinez and Prince Fielder/Ian Kinsler, so it's not like those picks were lost for nothing.

I don't think its a stretch to say that a decent farm system can promote a SP who can keep an ERA under 6. Both Ray and Smyly were better than Sanchez last year so sure, feel free to swap either in. 

 

I agree, trading proven MLB talent for prospects isn't a win now move. Its what a smart team does when it realizes the window has closed. I've said before that the Tigers are moving down not up. They're looking to move Kinsler and Martinez too, that isn't what teams who think they can contend do.  Kudos to Detroit on snagging Fulmer; and Norris looks like he'll be good too. Count me out on the Matt Boyd hype train.... 

 

Again, I agree, it's harder to hit on elite talent when you're picking late in rounds. However, along with talent acquisition, part of building a farm system is playing the numbers game. The more prospects you have the chance to evaluate, the better your chances of having some succeed. If you're losing those picks, you're missing out on opportunities to acquire cheap impact talent, that in turn hurts your farm system, which can then negatively impact the MLB club. Yes those FAs have provided value up front, but that was also at the cost of 1st round picks that had the potential to be contributing now.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I don't think its a stretch to say that a decent farm system can promote a SP who can keep an ERA under 6. Both Ray and Smyly were better than Sanchez last year so sure, feel free to swap either in.

Smyly got them Price, who helped them to the playoffs once and then got them Norris and Boyd who were both better than Smyly last year.

 

I don't think you're really thinking this through.  It sounds nice in theory to say "they should have focused less on winning now and more on the farm system and they would have been better off" but there are so many variables around player acquisition and development, it rarely works out so neatly.

 

The Tigers aren't perfect, but by any reasonable measure, they have a good team and have had a very good 10 year stretch.  It seems folly to criticize them for taking the "wrong" approach.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I've said before that the Tigers are moving down not up. They're looking to move Kinsler and Martinez too, that isn't what teams who think they can contend do.

How long have you been saying "the Tigers are moving down not up"?  Even a broken clock is correct twice a day...

 

Kinsler is 34, Martinez is almost 38. Every team should be listening to offers on those players, regardless of contention status.

 

 

Yes those FAs have provided value up front, but that was also at the cost of 1st round picks that had the potential to be contributing now.

Up front?  Kinsler and Martinez are still contributing now, 4-5 years later after those forfeited draft picks.  Why can't you credit the Tigers for that?  Why pick on them because they didn't instead roll the dice on Matt Barnes and Clint Coulter (the two guys taken with the picks they forfeited)?

 

Knowing when to forfeit draft picks and trade prospects, and knowing what veterans to acquire, is a skill.  And the Tigers have been good at it.

[kab21]

 

So you agree that all years aren't equal but then you say the point is they only had 2 losing seasons in 10 years. When you say that, it does put all those seasons on the same plane. Essentially you're flattening the curve and ignoring the direction of those teams over those years. Clearly this team isn't where they were a few years ago, and they've started to slide.

 

"Things aren't that bad in Detroit."The argument seems to be that because they haven't imploded to the point of disaster the idea that decimating a farm system could hurt them is foolish. I disagree, I think it is hurting them, and I think the last few years are starting to show it.

 

You're right, they have players coming off the books in the next few years, but the point is to minimize how many aging FAs you have to sign to big contracts.   I'm not sure where the comparison is between Detroit and the Sox...

This is just ridiculous. The Tigers have continuously been one of the best teams in baseball over an extended period of time. It is impossible to never have a down season.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Smyly got them Price, who helped them to the playoffs once and then got them Norris and Boyd who were both better than Smyly last year.

 

I don't think you're really thinking this through.  It sounds nice in theory to say "they should have focused less on winning now and more on the farm system and they would have been better off" but there are so many variables around player acquisition and development, it rarely works out so neatly.

 

The Tigers aren't perfect, but by any reasonable measure, they have a good team and have had a very good 10 year stretch.  It seems folly to criticize them for taking the "wrong" approach.

What is with this Matt Boyd love? Have you bothered to glance at his career numbers or is it just easier to throw his name in because he was part of the trade? l'm certainly taking Smyly over Boyd so they basically swapped Smyly for Norris, who if he pans out is an upgrade. Congrats on making a smart move? 

 

Yes, clearly I've put no though into this as 2 pages of my posts would suggest. If you read previous posts you saw that I never said it was the "wrong," approach, or that it couldn't work. I pointed out that emptying a farm system can hurt a team in the future and i think we're seeing that now with Detroit, and i think we'll continue to see it for a while barring some sort of sale like the Sox just had. There are also a lot of variables involving signing FAs and making big trades. I don't think I need to make a laundry list of failed trades and signings to show that there is risk involved in building from within or acquiring talent on the market. 

 

I really doubt a team that viewed itself as a WS contender would be shopping those two during the offseason. Yes, they did get value up front. That is what it is called when you sign a FA and forfeit a pick. Those 1st rounders would be starting to creep in MLB right now, and instead they're looking at the signings walking away in a year or two. That would be the definition of getting the value up front. When did I ever "not give them credit for the signings?" Honestly did you even read this thread or did you just decide to jump in....

 

Wait wait wait, so I'm not allowed to assume an average farm system could call up a pitcher who could best Anibal Sanchez's 5.87 ERA last season, but you're free to assume that Detroit would have selected the exact same players as the teams they forfeited picks to? Makes total sense....

 

How long have you been saying "the Tigers are moving down not up"?  Even a broken clock is correct twice a day...

 

Yet it is still true...Its funny that nobody wants to acknowledge that; all they want to do is point at past success  as if that somehow changes where they are right now. Yes they had a good run, I said that a while back, but the original point I made was about the team they are now, and what they look to be moving forward. But sure, cover your ears, stomp on the ground, and keep yelling "10 years." 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

This is just ridiculous. The Tigers have continuously been one of the best teams in baseball over an extended period of time. It is impossible to never have a down season.

We agreed a while back that all teams cycle through up and down periods. What is ridiculous is to call people foolish for pointing out the potential downfalls of trading away a farm system, whether they said it 10 years ago or now, and then when those negative aspects start to show, it is dismissed as "no team can stay good forever."

[TheLeviathan]

 

We agreed a while back that all teams cycle through up and down periods. What is ridiculous is to call people foolish for pointing out the potential downfalls of trading away a farm system, whether they said it 10 years ago or now, and then when those negative aspects start to show, it is dismissed as "no team can stay good forever."

 

10 years is a pretty good run for any strategy.  Every strategy has drawbacks, but if done well, you can hold off the inevitable longer.  And it's clear Dombrowski is good at that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

What is with this Matt Boyd love? Have you bothered to glance at his career numbers or is it just easier to throw his name in because he was part of the trade? l'm certainly taking Smyly over Boyd so they basically swapped Smyly for Norris, who if he pans out is an upgrade. Congrats on making a smart move? 

I'm not showing Matt Boyd any particular "love".  You said they would have more reinforcements available if they had taken a better approach.  They did have a reinforcement in Boyd, one who performed better than Smyly in their 2016 MLB samples, in addition to reinforcements in Fulmer and Norris.

 

 

Wait wait wait, so I'm not allowed to assume an average farm system could call up a pitcher who could best Anibal Sanchez's 5.87 ERA last season, but you're free to assume that Detroit would have selected the exact same players as the teams they forfeited picks to? Makes total sense....

Are you really arguing that, had the Tigers not forfeited their late first round picks in 2010-2012, they would have definitively had more than 3 starting pitchers come up from the minors in 2016 to pitch acceptably well or better?

 

Feel free to use average returns on 19th and 27th overall picks, if you prefer.  They're not that great.  Unless you want to play "hindsight draft" it is extremely unlikely that those 3 picks would provide the Tigers as much value as Fielder/Kinsler, Martinez, and Valverde.  Those guys have already helped the Tigers to a World Series appearance, two ALCS appearances, plus an 86 win season in the wild card hunt in the 7 seasons since they forfeited that 2010 pick.  And they could still get more value from two of those players too, either in performance or trade.

 

I have followed this discussion, and I think you're repeatedly making a generic argument without looking at the particulars.  Yes, having an average farm system is better than having a bad one, all else being equal.  No one is going to argue with you on that point.  But all else isn't equal here -- the Tigers haven't been particularly limited in budget, and have received considerable MLB contributions from FA and trade acquisitions (even prospects!), as recently as this just-concluded season.