White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 02-12-2020, 12:35 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
Winner 2016 WSI Preseason Prediction Contest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 16,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Liked_Manuel View Post
Do we know when the exclusive territories were drawn up? I assume it was at the advent of cable since everything would have been over the air before that? I'm just wondering if a club like the A's would still have a right to the Philadelphia market, the Braves to Milwaukee, the Dodgers and Giants to New York, etc
I think they've been around in some form or another for a long time, but some of the TV rules date back to the '50s and '60s when you'd get the games over the air.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-12-2020, 01:23 PM
I_Liked_Manuel I_Liked_Manuel is online now
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: downers ****ing grove
Posts: 1,637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
I think they've been around in some form or another for a long time, but some of the TV rules date back to the '50s and '60s when you'd get the games over the air.
I have to assume as I play this out in my head that they were drawn up after the Dodgers and Giants moved to California otherwise the angels and A's wouldn't have been able to move into those markets. I would think that if that move to California didn't work that the Dodgers and Giants would have a right to move back to New York (obviously independent of the political desire to have 1 team in queens). If they would have had that right in the 50s and 60s, they'd probably still have that right today and if they do, could that right be transferred? I'm just struggling with the notion that the Yankees and subsequently Mets have sole access to that market when there are 2 existing clubs that spent the majority of their years in that market. Basically I don't think it's far fetched for the Dodgers to make a claim to the Brooklyn market and the Giants to manhattan if they were to want it, regardless of the current blackout map
__________________
Teacher Says, Every Time Brian Anderson Gets A Hit, An Angel Gets Its Wings.

Last edited by I_Liked_Manuel; 02-12-2020 at 01:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-12-2020, 01:35 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
Winner 2016 WSI Preseason Prediction Contest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 16,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Liked_Manuel View Post
I have to assume as I play this out in my head that they were drawn up after the Dodgers and Giants moved to California otherwise the angels and A's wouldn't have been able to move into those markets. I would think that if that move to California didn't work that the Dodgers and Giants would have a right to move back to New York (obviously independent of the political desire to have 1 team in queens). If they would have had that right in the 50s and 60s, they'd probably still have that right today and if they do, could that right be transferred? I'm just struggling with the notion that the Yankees and subsequently Mets have sole access to that market when there are 2 existing clubs that spent the majority of their years in that market
I don't know about the Giants but I THINK O'Malley had the rights to Los Angeles when the Dodgers were still in Brooklyn because the Dodgers had some sort of affiliation with a minor league team out there. I seem to recall in "Veeck as in Wreck" that when Veeck owned the Browns he wanted to move them to Los Angeles after the Busch family bought the Cardinals and O'Malley wouldn't allow it because he had the rights to L.A. and was contemplating moving the Dodgers out west even then. I think the reason the Braves were able to move from Boston to Milwaukee was because they had a minor league affiliate in Milwaukee, so they had the rights to Milwaukee. So I think the blackout rules might date back to the time of over the air TV but the territorial rights stretch past that.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-12-2020, 02:00 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Liked_Manuel View Post
I have to assume as I play this out in my head that they were drawn up after the Dodgers and Giants moved to California otherwise the angels and A's wouldn't have been able to move into those markets. I would think that if that move to California didn't work that the Dodgers and Giants would have a right to move back to New York (obviously independent of the political desire to have 1 team in queens). If they would have had that right in the 50s and 60s, they'd probably still have that right today and if they do, could that right be transferred? I'm just struggling with the notion that the Yankees and subsequently Mets have sole access to that market when there are 2 existing clubs that spent the majority of their years in that market. Basically I don't think it's far fetched for the Dodgers to make a claim to the Brooklyn market and the Giants to manhattan if they were to want it, regardless of the current blackout map
Remember that the AL and NL were much more separate institutions in the 1960s when the Angels were added in expansion and the A's moved out to Oakland. I don't know if the NL could actually block the AL from making such moves back then.

I'd be shocked if the Dodgers still had some claim to Brooklyn, the Braves to Milwaukee, etc. I don't see why such rights wouldn't have been abdicated after the team moved.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-12-2020, 02:02 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13,737
Default

Sully makes some good points on the ridiculousness of Manfred's proposal:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...er4-story.html

No doubt in my mind that this is part of what the league wants:
Quote:
Of course, the addition of four teams would increase the possibility of all of MLB’s glamour teams — the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Cubs — making the postseason.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-12-2020, 04:55 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitmen77 View Post
Remember that the AL and NL were much more separate institutions in the 1960s when the Angels were added in expansion and the A's moved out to Oakland. I don't know if the NL could actually block the AL from making such moves back then.

I'd be shocked if the Dodgers still had some claim to Brooklyn, the Braves to Milwaukee, etc. I don't see why such rights wouldn't have been abdicated after the team moved.
The A's wouldn't be able to move to Oakland under today's structure. The AL wouldn't have been able to expand to Los Angeles (or even Anaheim where the team settled and eventually decided to be an LA team again). For that matter, the AL wouldn't have adopted the designated hitter.

Peter Angelos had to sign off on the Expos moving from Montreal/San Juan, PR (not the official homes, but where they had shifted many of the games) moving to DC. The Orioles ended up accepting compensation. As for Brooklyn, the Yankees don't need compensation, of course, and I can't imagine them signing off to anything with the potential of reducing the value of their television revenues.

Television is now a bigger part of the value of franchises and loans taken out by franchises are affected by territorial rights (which is why the A's will never move to San Jose after contractually agreeing some years ago to cede the San Jose territory to the Giants). Baseball can't even do anything to address MLB television blackouts, which fans detest.

Support for baseball in Brooklyn was waning when the Dodgers moved to LA to become one of baseball's most successful franchises. But even if Brooklyn could support a team today among a sea of Yankees and Mets fans, there's no way baseball will put a third team in New York City. Maybe an XLB team could be located in Brooklyn, along with crazy rules to speed up the game that destroy the fabric of the game in the process and some fun wrinkles to attract younger fans, such as counting a steal of home after the sixth inning as two runs.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:18 AM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
Winner 2016 WSI Preseason Prediction Contest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 16,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
The A's wouldn't be able to move to Oakland under today's structure. The AL wouldn't have been able to expand to Los Angeles (or even Anaheim where the team settled and eventually decided to be an LA team again). For that matter, the AL wouldn't have adopted the designated hitter.

Peter Angelos had to sign off on the Expos moving from Montreal/San Juan, PR (not the official homes, but where they had shifted many of the games) moving to DC. The Orioles ended up accepting compensation. As for Brooklyn, the Yankees don't need compensation, of course, and I can't imagine them signing off to anything with the potential of reducing the value of their television revenues.

Television is now a bigger part of the value of franchises and loans taken out by franchises are affected by territorial rights (which is why the A's will never move to San Jose after contractually agreeing some years ago to cede the San Jose territory to the Giants). Baseball can't even do anything to address MLB television blackouts, which fans detest.

Support for baseball in Brooklyn was waning when the Dodgers moved to LA to become one of baseball's most successful franchises. But even if Brooklyn could support a team today among a sea of Yankees and Mets fans, there's no way baseball will put a third team in New York City. Maybe an XLB team could be located in Brooklyn, along with crazy rules to speed up the game that destroy the fabric of the game in the process and some fun wrinkles to attract younger fans, such as counting a steal of home after the sixth inning as two runs.
I don't know if I would say support was waning, in 1955 and 1956 they were second in the NL in attendance and were playing in a REALLY small stadium. The problem was Ebbets Field was hard to get to, especially from Long Island where a lot of their fans had moved to, and like I said, Ebbets Field was real small. The Braves were drawing twice as many fans in Milwaukee in a much larger stadium. O'Malley originally wanted to keep the team in Brooklyn and build an indoor stadium where the Barclays Center currently is but Robert Moses and the city of New York wouldn't agree to that, so O'Malley left. There was not really any question as to whether or not the borough of Brooklyn could support a baseball team.

I think the issue with a third team in New York now (other than territorial rights) is that the allegiance to the Mets and Yankees is baked in, so it would be hard to win over any converts. When the Mets moved in, they could at least cash in on some bitter Dodger and Giant fans who couldn't bring themselves to root for the Yankees.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-21-2020, 12:59 PM
cub killer cub killer is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 1,719
Disagree No

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

NO!!!!

Keep it at 5 per league, and that is that. Expand LDS to 7 games, include doubleheaders if you want. But leave the playoff field alone!!! Please!!!

Anyway, here's a prescient tweet I found, didn't wanna start a whole thread for it:

https://twitter.com/WhiteSoxPremium/...04312254169089

White Sox nation is much larger than most realize. People are just out of town stupid. The Sox are the soul of Chicago. The cubs are just touristy. Think of them like the most touristy restaurant from where you're from but the locals know where the real food spot is.
__________________
MRKARNO
04-04-2005, 04:03 PM
I was a doubter, but maybe, just maybe we can win with pitching, defense and fundamentals.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-21-2020, 01:01 PM
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 9,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cub killer View Post
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

NO!!!!

Keep it at 5 per league, and that is that. Expand LDS to 7 games, include doubleheaders if you want. But leave the playoff field alone!!! Please!!!

Anyway, here's a prescient tweet I found, didn't wanna start a whole thread for it:

https://twitter.com/WhiteSoxPremium/...04312254169089

White Sox nation is much larger than most realize. People are just out of town stupid. The Sox are the soul of Chicago. The cubs are just touristy. Think of them like the most touristy restaurant from where you're from but the locals know where the real food spot is.
That's a good analogy.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-23-2020, 07:44 AM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 15,908
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Anything to get rid of the 1 game wild card, which has exacerbated tanking and rebuilding.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-23-2020, 12:22 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
Anything to get rid of the 1 game wild card, which has exacerbated tanking and rebuilding.

The wild-card play-in game is the best thing to happen to the wild card. If you want to see less tanking and rebuilding, you'll have to punish tanking and rebuilding teams in the draft. You can't do relegation in American professional sports, but baseball would benefit from holding teams to a standard. The draft was set up more than half a century ago with a working presumption that all teams were trying to win. If your sport's standard for not trying to win is not being good enough to make the postseason even as a wild-card team, your sport has some real competition problems.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-23-2020, 12:38 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is online now
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 59,540
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
The wild-card play-in game is the best thing to happen to the wild card. If you want to see less tanking and rebuilding, you'll have to punish tanking and rebuilding teams in the draft. You can't do relegation in American professional sports, but baseball would benefit from holding teams to a standard. The draft was set up more than half a century ago with a working presumption that all teams were trying to win. If your sport's standard for not trying to win is not being good enough to make the postseason even as a wild-card team, your sport has some real competition problems.
Teams in all sports are disproportionately rewarded for winning the championship. Merely winning is not enough for most fans. Team that are consistently in the championship hunt and regularly win once a decade have gobs of cash, profits and the ability to spend at will to fund future championships. Thus teams view that as the only way to be truly successful both from a business and popularity standpoint (really that's redundant).

Best way to have a sustained run is to build a good young team with a strong farm system behind it and then supplement with FA talent to fill holes. Best way to build a good young team with a strong farm system is to have several years drafting high in the draft and have excellent talent evaluators at all levels of amateur baseball. The second is the harder thing to truly accomplish. The first is easy... just tank, baby.

The NBA recently tweaked their draft lottery to make it harder for the worst team to get the top pick, but that's an unusual situation. MLB and the NFL don't even use a lottery system and I honestly don't know what system the NHL uses.

Not sure what the answer is, but punishing bad teams for being bad by lowering or denying their draft picks won't fix the problem. It will merely add more talent to the winning teams and that will solidify the current system of haves and have-nots.

Besides, how do you evaluate when a team is actively trying to lose? Based on payroll? What if a good young inexpensive team just misses the playoffs by a few games after being in the hunt all season long? Where do we draw the line for "payroll big enough to not get punished?"

It's a tricky problem to solve at best and tanking has long been a part of all professional sports' leagues especially in the NBA and NFL where a single player can have a disproportionate impact on the game compared to MLB.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-23-2020, 05:26 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
Teams in all sports are disproportionately rewarded for winning the championship. Merely winning is not enough for most fans. Team that are consistently in the championship hunt and regularly win once a decade have gobs of cash, profits and the ability to spend at will to fund future championships. Thus teams view that as the only way to be truly successful both from a business and popularity standpoint (really that's redundant).

Best way to have a sustained run is to build a good young team with a strong farm system behind it and then supplement with FA talent to fill holes. Best way to build a good young team with a strong farm system is to have several years drafting high in the draft and have excellent talent evaluators at all levels of amateur baseball. The second is the harder thing to truly accomplish. The first is easy... just tank, baby.

The NBA recently tweaked their draft lottery to make it harder for the worst team to get the top pick, but that's an unusual situation. MLB and the NFL don't even use a lottery system and I honestly don't know what system the NHL uses.

Not sure what the answer is, but punishing bad teams for being bad by lowering or denying their draft picks won't fix the problem. It will merely add more talent to the winning teams and that will solidify the current system of haves and have-nots.

Besides, how do you evaluate when a team is actively trying to lose? Based on payroll? What if a good young inexpensive team just misses the playoffs by a few games after being in the hunt all season long? Where do we draw the line for "payroll big enough to not get punished?"

It's a tricky problem to solve at best and tanking has long been a part of all professional sports' leagues especially in the NBA and NFL where a single player can have a disproportionate impact on the game compared to MLB.
The NBA created the draft lottery because in a league where mediocrity was rewarded with postseason opportunities, teams were purposely losing, which was hurting the product. The NBA has been tweaking the lottery ever since because everything the the league has done to make losing less rewarding has perpetuated and even amplified the existing inequities.

The draft only works as intended if every team is trying to win. The draft itself provides an incentive for teams to lose.

What baseball could do, and what it has come close to doing at points in the past, is penalize teams for making trades for prospects or cash. Bowie Kuhn struck down trades made by the post-dynasty Oakland A's of the late 1970s in the interests of competitive baseball, although the A's of Philadelphia and Kansas City routinely sold players for profit.

Baseball has a serious problem with the lack of competition in part because general managers lack the creative aptitude to build a team without giving up on winning. There are perennial losers (the Royals went to the World Series twice after losing for 20 years, but what they had was hardly a 20-year plan, and what they did to get to the World Series was not intrinsically different from what they did to perpetuate losing, so they can be included here) that are in a constant state of rebuild.

None of this will happen because the idea that anyone can build a baseball team with a spreadsheet is not only prevalent but seen as desirable. But the first thing baseball should do is forfeit first-round draft picks for any team that trades star players for prospects. If the Cubs, for example, were to trade Bryant, they would lose their first-round draft pick. That would increase the return they would demand for Bryant by making it an equitable trade and not a trade with the intent to lose to secure a better draft pick. That would only be the start, but it would be a start in removing the idea that teams should celebrate losing. It won't happen because there aren't enough good baseball minds out there, in part because the formula for winning (which unfortunately has leaned on on-the-field cheating in at least two of the last three seasons) has become formula driven. There aren't enough Branch Rickeys (or even Roland Hemonds -- Hemond did amazing things with no money, once even needing to trade Ed Herrmann in a partial cash deal that gave the White Sox the money they needed to break Spring Training camp).

Ultimately, allowing teams to lose out of design is bad for baseball. The draft is only good for baseball in that it's better than the alternative. The postseason format won't change that. There is room for visionary general managers out there (one that don't trade for an aging James Shields because the team needs a starting pitcher and one who gives away seasons by trading Chris Sale for only prospects and the promise of higher draft picks). Baseball will continue to believe it needs help from ridiculous new playoff formats until teams make an effort to find such baseball people.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-23-2020, 06:04 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is online now
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 59,540
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
The NBA created the draft lottery because in a league where mediocrity was rewarded with postseason opportunities, teams were purposely losing, which was hurting the product. The NBA has been tweaking the lottery ever since because everything the the league has done to make losing less rewarding has perpetuated and even amplified the existing inequities.

The draft only works as intended if every team is trying to win. The draft itself provides an incentive for teams to lose.

What baseball could do, and what it has come close to doing at points in the past, is penalize teams for making trades for prospects or cash. Bowie Kuhn struck down trades made by the post-dynasty Oakland A's of the late 1970s in the interests of competitive baseball, although the A's of Philadelphia and Kansas City routinely sold players for profit.

Baseball has a serious problem with the lack of competition in part because general managers lack the creative aptitude to build a team without giving up on winning. There are perennial losers (the Royals went to the World Series twice after losing for 20 years, but what they had was hardly a 20-year plan, and what they did to get to the World Series was not intrinsically different from what they did to perpetuate losing, so they can be included here) that are in a constant state of rebuild.

None of this will happen because the idea that anyone can build a baseball team with a spreadsheet is not only prevalent but seen as desirable. But the first thing baseball should do is forfeit first-round draft picks for any team that trades star players for prospects. If the Cubs, for example, were to trade Bryant, they would lose their first-round draft pick. That would increase the return they would demand for Bryant by making it an equitable trade and not a trade with the intent to lose to secure a better draft pick. That would only be the start, but it would be a start in removing the idea that teams should celebrate losing. It won't happen because there aren't enough good baseball minds out there, in part because the formula for winning (which unfortunately has leaned on on-the-field cheating in at least two of the last three seasons) has become formula driven. There aren't enough Branch Rickeys (or even Roland Hemonds -- Hemond did amazing things with no money, once even needing to trade Ed Herrmann in a partial cash deal that gave the White Sox the money they needed to break Spring Training camp).

Ultimately, allowing teams to lose out of design is bad for baseball. The draft is only good for baseball in that it's better than the alternative. The postseason format won't change that. There is room for visionary general managers out there (one that don't trade for an aging James Shields because the team needs a starting pitcher and one who gives away seasons by trading Chris Sale for only prospects and the promise of higher draft picks). Baseball will continue to believe it needs help from ridiculous new playoff formats until teams make an effort to find such baseball people.
Define "prospect". If Bryant is traded for 3 players all very close to being ready for MLB (or one who has spent time in MLB and two others predicted to be there soon) should the Cubs be penalized? So their choice with Bryant becomes, take mediocre MLB level talent so as not to lose draft picks or get nothing when he walks during FA?

For Sale, the Sox got Moncada (#1 prospect in baseball and had played in the majors) and Kopech (predicted close to being ready and was except he required TJS setting the timetable back 1.5 years). Under your system would the Sox have been penalized even though they got back a guy who was the top prospect in all of baseball and had already played in the majors?

You would be greatly reducing a teams ability to maximize its resources with this system. The true way to create any kind of competitive balance is with hard ceiling caps and true revenue sharing as they do in the NBA and NFL. NY, Boston, The Cubs and Dodgers will never allow that. The NFL really does have parity on an insane level, though obviously having one of the greatest coaches and greatest QB to ever be employed in the NFL both playing for NE for the past 18 years has thrown some of that out of wack. The NBA has different issues because there's so much money per person involved that players now choose teams for different reasons and a lot of the movement comes through FA not trades. You might actually create a system more like that if you prohibit trades for prospects in MLB where players would simply wait for FA knowing the team can't afford to lose a high pick. Of course in the NFL and NBA, teams are 100% sure what they are getting with top picks most of the time and are getting players who will be starting for the team that picks them either immediately or by year 2. MLB still requires at least a year or two in the minors every single time and even then there are no guarantees.

You lay this blame on the GM who run the teams, but again, tanking has ALWAYS been a part of ALL professional sports. You act like MLB needs to change that and I don't see it happening anytime soon and I don't think there's an issue with it either.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-23-2020, 09:01 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
Define "prospect". If Bryant is traded for 3 players all very close to being ready for MLB (or one who has spent time in MLB and two others predicted to be there soon) should the Cubs be penalized? So their choice with Bryant becomes, take mediocre MLB level talent so as not to lose draft picks or get nothing when he walks during FA?

For Sale, the Sox got Moncada (#1 prospect in baseball and had played in the majors) and Kopech (predicted close to being ready and was except he required TJS setting the timetable back 1.5 years). Under your system would the Sox have been penalized even though they got back a guy who was the top prospect in all of baseball and had already played in the majors?

You would be greatly reducing a teams ability to maximize its resources with this system. The true way to create any kind of competitive balance is with hard ceiling caps and true revenue sharing as they do in the NBA and NFL. NY, Boston, The Cubs and Dodgers will never allow that. The NFL really does have parity on an insane level, though obviously having one of the greatest coaches and greatest QB to ever be employed in the NFL both playing for NE for the past 18 years has thrown some of that out of wack. The NBA has different issues because there's so much money per person involved that players now choose teams for different reasons and a lot of the movement comes through FA not trades. You might actually create a system more like that if you prohibit trades for prospects in MLB where players would simply wait for FA knowing the team can't afford to lose a high pick. Of course in the NFL and NBA, teams are 100% sure what they are getting with top picks most of the time and are getting players who will be starting for the team that picks them either immediately or by year 2. MLB still requires at least a year or two in the minors every single time and even then there are no guarantees.

You lay this blame on the GM who run the teams, but again, tanking has ALWAYS been a part of ALL professional sports. You act like MLB needs to change that and I don't see it happening anytime soon and I don't think there's an issue with it either.
The NBA considers tanking a huge problem and has for years. It was why they developed the draft lottery and why the lottery has been continuously tweaked to try to make the draft work as intended. In baseball, Joe Jackson isn't the the Hall of Fame, and will never be in the Hall of Fame because he tanked the 1919 World Series. It's an ethical question. I don't see a great distinction between players intentionally losing for personal profit and owners intentionally losing for profit. The line between owners intentionally losing for profit and intentionally losing to develop a better team can be blurry. The latter can serve as the plausible deniability for the latter.

Baseball subsidized the Sale trade for Moncada et.al. by including higher draft positions that led to the signing of Vaughn. That affects other teams who are honestly trying to win and unable to complete. It creates an incentive to lose, which is bad for the game. Requiring teams to either trade stars for prospects or draft for prospects would be a step in the right direction because American sports don't do relegation.

Baseball, at its highest levels, cares about tanking, at least in the way it is damaging the integrity of the game, which prides itself on integrity and fails so miserably at. The recent cheating scandals are not the credibility issues the commissioner is addressing with his ridiculous postseason proposal.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.