Photo

PressBox: Tim Kurkjian: Tanking Isn't The Only Option


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#1 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 110,271 posts

Posted 06 July 2019 - 11:27 AM

PressBox: Tim Kurkjian: Tanking Isn't The Only Option
https://www.pressbox...bs-like-orioles


  • B00E00N00 likes this

#2 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,662 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 06 July 2019 - 01:36 PM

PressBox: Tim Kurkjian: Tanking Isn't The Only Option
https://www.pressbox...bs-like-orioles

Interesting article.

A couple of real intriguing comments.   Cold Blooded as a description for the general mangers like Elias   The Orioles are in real trouble.

 

The first, IMO is totally true.  Elias, is polished, and says the right things, but there is no doubt in my mind, he is willing to lose 125 games, in order to get the 1-1, the additional International money, the first waiver claim spot etc.    

 

Are the Orioles in trouble.  For a variety of reasons, probably.  MLB is IMO, screwing them on the schedule and other various ways because of the National dispute.  Baltimore city is costing them fans, but not as badly as some think.  The losing and horrible baseball is the main culprit.

Two years ago, I went to about 25 games, last year a dozen and either gave away or wasted about another 7.  This year I have gone to 3.  I do not have any other tickets but will probably go to a few.    

I don't worry about down town, don't enjoy the games more on TV, but just refuse to pay for or accept poor baseball.  I think that is the primary reason for poor attendance.

I think the Orioles are in trouble short term, but if Elias is successful people will be back.  Fans can be cold blooded too.


@mikeghg

#3 Steve55

Steve55
  • Members
  • 460 posts

Posted 07 July 2019 - 07:39 AM

He needs to write an article on the Tigers. They are a real threat for the #1 pick.


  • sandiegosean likes this

#4 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 07 July 2019 - 08:06 AM

That was a disappointing piece. I totally respect TK's take on baseball. The reason I'm disappointed, is because he didn't discuss the alternatives to tanking. I was all set to hear his thoughts on the other routes the O's could have taken. I was equal parts: ready to disagree with him, and prepared to have my opinion swayed by him. Damn it Tim, you left me hangin'

 

I know empty seats make the league unhappy. But these teams rake in the bulk of their money from TV. And even the bad teams with low ratings have people lining up to give them their advertising dollar. Streaming and DVR options have rendered live sports the last bastion of watched commercials.   


  • BSLBobPhelan likes this

Good news! I saw a dog today.


#5 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,255 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 07 July 2019 - 12:49 PM

That was a disappointing piece. I totally respect TK's take on baseball. The reason I'm disappointed, is because he didn't discuss the alternatives to tanking. 

 

So I agree with this take.

 

I think tanking has nothing to do with winning later but he didn't make any kind of argument for what you can or should be doing.

 

I'll make other comments in separate posts.



#6 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 82,646 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 July 2019 - 12:51 PM

Kurkijian is an old school guy in that he has immense respect for the game and he probably feels you should never tank because that’s not how things should be done.
@BSLRobShields

#7 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,255 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 07 July 2019 - 12:58 PM

This same story can be shared regarding the Cubs under club president Theo Epstein and GM Jed Hoyer. Chicago won 61, 66 and 73 games from 2012-2014 after Epstein and Hoyer took over. The Cubs took third baseman Kris Bryant with the second overall pick in 2013 and outfielder Kyle Schwarber with the fourth overall pick in 2014. Both helped lead the Cubs to their first World Series since 1908.

 

Quotes like this, from a respected source, are part of the myth of rebuilding.

 

So Schwarber helped lead the Cubs to their first WS?  He had 4 ABs in the 2016 season as her got hurt in the first game of the year and missed the season.  I could make an argument his getting hurt helped the Cubs, but that's not what anyone is talking about.  He also missed the first 2 playoff series but was available for DH duties against CLE in the WS.  He had a credible 7/20 with 3 bbs in 5 Games in the WS....but that's not really what we're tying his contributions to "helping the Cubs to their first WS since..." to....is it?



#8 Dystopia

Dystopia
  • Members
  • 288 posts

Posted 07 July 2019 - 01:30 PM

If MLB is really concerned about tanking, then have the top 5 worst teams draw a lottery for the first 5 picks. 



#9 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,674 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 07 July 2019 - 01:51 PM

Simple question. For sake of discussion lets assume that the O's are really tanking this season.

 

Just what would the O's be doing differently than they are now if they weren't "tanking."  Cause my opinion is its pretty much a load of crap. They are playing the best that they have save for perhaps a guy or two in the minors who may be close to ready such as Mountcastle.



#10 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,989 posts

Posted 07 July 2019 - 01:54 PM

Simple question. For sake of discussion lets assume that the O's are really tanking this season.

Just what would the O's be doing differently than they are now if they weren't "tanking." Cause my opinion is its pretty much a load of crap. They are playing the best that they have save for perhaps a guy or two in the minors who may be close to ready such as Mountcastle.

Management would've spent some money on more capable short term stopgaps.

Basically everyone you roster, or very close to it, should be a prospect who you want to give an opportunity to or a player who at least meets some minimum level of competency. The Orioles have way too many players getting PAs and pitching innings this year that don't fall into either category.

Hyde isn't the one tanking. It's above him that is tanking.
  • Mike B likes this

#11 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,674 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 07 July 2019 - 04:44 PM

Then the solution is very very simple. Just put in a salary cap AND minimum. 



#12 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 535 posts

Posted 07 July 2019 - 05:34 PM

Then the solution is very very simple. Just put in a salary cap AND minimum.


I don't think I like the thought of a team being required to pay a middling player more than he's worth just to satisfy some arbitrary number.

#13 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,255 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 07 July 2019 - 06:27 PM

Then the solution is very very simple. Just put in a salary cap AND minimum. 

 

Not sure why you think that would specifically address that issue.



#14 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,674 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 07 July 2019 - 08:07 PM

Not sure why you think that would specifically address that issue.

For the simple reason that if a team has a payroll that meets the league requirements then they are by definition not tanking. And if the team still sucks, which I suspect would be the case, then it points out how overpaid players are.

 

Shoot lets take the current team. Go back to January and spend an additional $20M. 

 

Would we be a playoff contender? Not a chance.

Would we have more wins that we do now? Probably.

Would we still be a very bad team near the bottom of the league? Probably.

 

Really how many more wins would we expect the team to have right now had they spent an additional $20M for this season? 



#15 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,989 posts

Posted 07 July 2019 - 08:20 PM


Really how many more wins would we expect the team to have right now had they spent an additional $20M for this season?

I'd say like 10 or 12.

Maybe not for exactly $20M. But I think it'd have been possible to build a 70ish win team without sacrificing a single thing for the future. Aside from draft position, which I've stated I don't really think is much of an advantage over the long term. Every promising young player still gets time. It's just the obvious chaff that I want to replace with mediocre but legitimate MLB players. Mediocre is a massive upgrade over several of our roster positions.

#16 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,255 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 07 July 2019 - 09:22 PM

Shoot lets take the current team. Go back to January and spend an additional $20M. 

 

You mean 50M?

 

Really how many more wins would we expect the team to have right now had they spent an additional $20M for this season? 

 

Go into your office tomorrow and announce that the open positions will be filled by less qualified people, most of them won't be part of the organization 2 years from now and there will no longer be any expectations on individual or group (department) performance.

 

See how that works out....and that's not even considering a competitive environment.



#17 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,674 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 08 July 2019 - 11:05 AM

You mean 50M?

 

 

Go into your office tomorrow and announce that the open positions will be filled by less qualified people, most of them won't be part of the organization 2 years from now and there will no longer be any expectations on individual or group (department) performance.

 

See how that works out....and that's not even considering a competitive environment.

 

 

Typical Dude. Why not just answer my question like Mackus did? For the record I think Mackus' 10-12 more wins is a bit more than I would have said. I would have said more like 5 or 6. Why did you come up with $50M. Shoot then why not just say $100M?

 

As to your second point I am not sure how that has anything to do with baseball. Yes if you did that you would have a disaster on your hands. BUT its apples to oranges. Business doesn't have a built in revenue stream that enables them to do what you can do in baseball. You tank in business and you are out of business.


  • russsnyder likes this

#18 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,674 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 08 July 2019 - 06:50 PM

I think I finally figured out why this whole "tanking" thought is grating on me. Here's an article that suggests that tanking isn't a good thing and that there are alternatives. Then there are comments on here on in previous threads, especially this past winter, that seem to suggest other alternatives are more palatable.

 

Then we go look at two current threads today.

 

1. Increased trade value of Cashner (and one comment saying they'd consider trading Means too.{

 

2. Three proposed trades with the Cubs with varying degrees of traction.

 

And both of those articles lay out approaches that would make the O's less competitive the rest of this season. In fact maybe quite a bit so. Can't have it both ways.



#19 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,989 posts

Posted 08 July 2019 - 07:36 PM

Can absolutely have it both ways. Not remotely hypocritical.

Trading guys away is investing in your future. There is significant tangible benefit (at least if you're trading anyone decent). There is very little to no long term benefit to tanking. You might screw it up, but the intent is fine.

I had zero problems with the idea of trading guys away last year, in the offseason, now or moving forward. That's a good move for the future if you get decent pieces back (unlike the Gausman trade which was a salary dump). That is a very different thing than intentionally building a crappy roster when there are cheap alternatives that could keep you within eyeshot of respectability.

#20 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,674 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 08 July 2019 - 09:43 PM

Really at the end of the day how much more "fun" would the O's be right now if they had 10 more wins? They would be in fourth in the division and 20 games out of first and well out of even a second wild card spot. They would still be in the bottom 6 teams in all of baseball. So would that have been $20M well spent? Perhaps but in the big picture it wouldn't really amount to much IMO.


  • BSLSeanJester likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners