OnlyBucs

He won't have to offer long term deals anymore, it's pointless. For every Trout, there's 10 Polanco's.



The FA pool will be able to supplement at a much lower cost then before, except as I said what I believe will still be the major bread winners, the pitchers.



By not really having much incentive to keep those years of control for your top tier guys, we are where I think BN can live: If the draft picks pan out, supplementing the team to fill out deficiencies isn't going to have the potential to cripple by trying to go big on one or two guys.



At the very least, teams have no reason not to field their absolute best team.

794C5B5B50695B5B50575B3E0 wrote:

The best way to counter the "WILL Stop Tanking" argument is by asking one question:



Do you really think for one brief moment that BOB and guys like BOB (if there ARE any) will say to their general manager something along the lines of....



"We'd better NOT tank, because if we do, we'll only have a 16.5% chance of getting the #1 pick."?



I don't see that discussion ever happening.



They'll still tank, and hope that the first rounder, second rounder, sixth rounder, will be good enough guys who can help to improve the club.


One guy doesn't make a team. Two guys start to raise some eyebrows. Three or more start making a huge difference.



You don't get three or four or more chances to dip into that pool. didn't you read what I posted? Can only get away with it for two years.



You think even a cheapy like Bob wants to tank for no shot at anything better than a mid round pick? I'm not saying Bob is going to outlay tons of money. All I'm saying is in two or three years, when the FA pool starts getting younger, better, and deeper, there will be bargains that are much more serviceable then Lonnie Chisenhall or Melky Cabrera. If they draft well, they will finally be sustainably competitive because supplementing the team won't cost much more than it does now, but the quality will be better.



Just how I'm seeing it. See you in three or four years to revisit this discussion, because we've both stated our position, and no need to further go on with it.



I'll admit I'm wrong if it happens. If the Pirates are contenders by 2025, I'll be accepting your apology

You could hand the Atlanta Braves ten Polancos. They wouldn't want any of them.



You can charge a fortune for an Archer. There will be one guy who'll pay the price.



Happens all the time.

5F797E6B626E796F670C0 wrote:

The best way to counter the "WILL Stop Tanking" argument is by asking one question:



Do you really think for one brief moment that BOB and guys like BOB (if there ARE any) will say to their general manager something along the lines of....



"We'd better NOT tank, because if we do, we'll only have a 16.5% chance of getting the #1 pick."?



I don't see that discussion ever happening.



They'll still tank, and hope that the first rounder, second rounder, sixth rounder, will be good enough guys who can help to improve the club.


One guy doesn't make a team. Two guys start to raise some eyebrows. Three or more start making a huge difference.



You don't get three or four or more chances to dip into that pool. didn't you read what I posted? Can only get away with it for two years.



You think even a cheapy like Bob wants to tank for no shot at anything better than a mid round pick? I'm not saying Bob is going to outlay tons of money. All I'm saying is in two or three years, when the FA pool starts getting younger, better, and deeper, there will be bargains that are much more serviceable then Lonnie Chisenhall or Melky Cabrera. If they draft well, they will finally be sustainably competitive because supplementing the team won't cost much more than it does now, but the quality will be better.



Just how I'm seeing it.  See you in three or four years to revisit this discussion, because we've both stated our position, and no need to further go on with it.



I'll admit I'm wrong if it happens. If the Pirates are contenders by 2025, I'll be accepting your apology


You'll still see tanking, Surg.  You're going to see teams that will do less than their full effort to field a championship-level team in that season. They'll use The Punt and Hope Excuse.  To think otherwise is naive.



We just saw the A's do it within hours of your prediction.

Reds gave Sonny Gray to the Twins, but thanks to this CBA, they aren't tanking, either.

The A's aren't tanking, either. Matt Olson goes to the Atlanta Braves just because.

No, those A's aren't tanking. They only gave Matt Chapman to the BJ.'s.

625740404B7240404B4C40250 wrote: No, those A's aren't tanking.  They only gave Matt Chapman to the BJ.'s.
Good grief! I hadn't heard that. Olson and now Chapman gone! A's fans: welcome to our world.

The part that makes me wonder is that I've read that the A's were rising.  This looks like an About Face to me.



Indeed, welcome to The World of Make Believe Baseball.



What else do the clubs have in common?



Two well-regarded general managers. 



I dnk what to think anymore.

5A6F7878734A78787374781D0 wrote: The part that makes me wonder is that I've read that the A's were rising.  This looks like an About Face to me.



Indeed, welcome to The World of Make Believe Baseball.



What else do the clubs have in common?



Two well-regarded general managers. 



I dnk what to think anymore.
Looks like Oakland wanted to avoid a huge payroll increase with both, as both are arb eligible. Chapman made 6.5 mil and Olson 5 mil last year. Both would have received a healthy raise either in arb or a comparable offer from the team. Olson just signed an 8-year extension with Braves. He'll make 15 mil this year. A's were not gonna pay that. Oakland has done a ot better than the Pirates without being a big spending team. But I guess they have their limits.