PDA

View Full Version : The cost to acquire Miguel Cabrerra?


jabrch
01-02-2008, 01:10 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-071222whitesox,1,2297543.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

"I get that too," Williams said. "There's a flip side to that as well. Let's say we acquire [Miguel] Cabrera and we give up Josh Fields, John Danks, Gio [Gonzalez], [Danny] Richar and a young bullpen guy. There would be just as many [fans] saying we sold out our future for a guy who might be here for two years. Would I have liked Cabrera? Yes, but at a price the White Sox [could afford].

Does anyone think that the Marlins had the stones to ask for Fields, Danks, Gio, Richar and another prospect? If that's the price that the Tigers paid (Maybin+Miller + 2) then I agree with Williams - there's just no way to justify paying that much.

Corlose 15
01-02-2008, 01:17 PM
In order to get Sheffield, Renteria, Cabrera and Willis the Tigers gave up 11 prospects. That could really bite them down the road especially if they don't resign Cabrera and they aren't drafting top 10 every year.

They've got some older players that they just made it more difficult to replace.

itsnotrequired
01-02-2008, 01:18 PM
Does anyone think that the Marlins had the stones to ask for Fields, Danks, Gio, Richar and another prospect? If that's the price that the Tigers paid (Maybin+Miller + 2) then I agree with Williams - there's just no way to justify paying that much.

If it included Willis, absolutely.

Billy Ashley
01-02-2008, 01:48 PM
That seems to make sense in terms of value, though I donít think it would make sense for either team to do the trade.

First, we must consider how good Miguel Cabrera is. In the past 2 seasons heís had a WARP 3 above 11, been in the top ten in Vorp, has had an OPS+ above 150 over the past three seasons and is about the same age as Josh Fields. Heís on the career path to be one of the 10-15 best offensive players of all time. Look at his top ten comps for his age according to baseball reference: Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Ken Griffey, the list is sick. While heís a butcher at 3b, heís got a good to great arm for Left Field (according to the fielding bible: ďThe strongest arm in left field? Probably Miguel Cabrera. His hold percentage of .328 is fourth over three years in left field while his 20 kills is tied for second.Ē). While some have made arguments about his size, very few have actually provided empirical evidence as to why heís going to break down over the next 5-6 seasons (the same period of time that all those prospects would be cost controlled).

Second we must look at the prospects:

Josh Fields: Very talented, has lots of power potential, though his K/BB rate is pretty scary. Below average in the field, will be 25 on opening day, the same age as Cabrera.

Gio Gonzalez: Heís the anti Ryan Sweeney, meaning, most scouts think of him as a 3 or 4 during the majority of his career and maybe a 2 during his peak years but despite that somewhat conservative assessment (note: number 3 or 4ís are paid 10-12 million a year these days) heís put up excellent numbers for his age in the minors. Heís somewhat similar to Ian Kennedy in that respect (scouts like him, but are not crazy about hit and yet he continues to pitch very well).

Danny Richar: Looks to be a very solid second basemen, a position that is somewhat weak through out baseball. He has shown flashes of power in Single A. Perhaps the best thing about Richar is that in the minors, as he advanced his K/BB ratio improved as did his OBP.

John Danks: Has pitched pretty well in the minors at a fairly young age. He had some command issues in the minors and was also plagued at times by the long ball. Both those trends hurt him last season as he walked far too many batters and gave up 28 home runs in only 139 innings pitched. That said, heís still very young (heíll be 23 on opening day) and is at the very least an interesting young pitcher.

Why it doesnít make sense for the White Sox: The white sox make that trade (assuming they Marlins feel it is better than the Tigers deal) and they start the season with Cabrera in LF, an achy Crede at 3b and no second basemen. They also lose a great deal of pitching depth as Danks should compete for a spot in the rotation right out of Spring Training and Gio Gonzalez would likely be a mid season call up if he remains healthy and with in his IP limitations (if he has any). While Cabrera is clearly and phenomenal talent, the White Sox would have difficulty competing, especially if Contreras doesnít bounce back or one of the other starters goes down with an injury.


Why it doesnít make sense for the Marlins: Right now the Marlins have an amazing offensive SS who they need to move to either the OF or 3b because heís an awful defender. They also have a very solid offensive 2b with the same issues. While this may make Richar look valuable to diminishes the value of Fields as Ugla or Hanley should be at 3b. Additionally, their weakest position in their organization is CF and like many teams, the white sox donít have much available there either. Finally, while each of those players are worth a lot, none of them are likely to be a star (like Maybin) and the Marlins might be more inclined to receive a ďhuge ceilingĒ guy in return to appease what ever fans they have left.

jabrch
01-02-2008, 01:52 PM
they aren't drafting top 10 every year.

Which, incidentally, is how they got most of their good prospects anyhow.

jabrch
01-02-2008, 02:04 PM
In the past 2 seasons heís had a WARP 3 above 11, been in the top ten in Vorp, has had an OPS+ above 150 over the past three seasons and is about the same age as Josh Fields.


Ya see - here's what I hate about this ridiculous use of "statistics".

There is nobody that can't take .313/.388/.542 with 138 HR and 523 RBI in 2694 ABs (most of which was on crappy teams) and figure out that he is good. Instead, you had to go ahead and put out numbers that make absolutely no sense without context just for the sake of using them. Really Billy...would it not have been sufficient just to post his conventional statistics?

GoSox2K3
01-02-2008, 02:07 PM
Josh Fields: Very talented, has lots of power potential, though his K/BB rate is pretty scary. Below average in the field, will be 25 on opening day, the same age as Cabrera.



One other thing to consider:

Fields may be the same age as Cabrera, but Cabrera is much closer to Free Agency - only 2 years away. At his current pace, Cabrera is likely to get an astronomical contract after 2009 (perhaps over $20 million/year). MC's youth would have benefited the Sox only if they could lock him up to a long-term extension without exhausting any payroll flexibility needed for other positions.

Billy Ashley
01-02-2008, 02:08 PM
Ya see - here's what I hate about this ridiculous use of "statistics".

There is nobody that can't take .313/.388/.542 with 138 HR and 523 RBI in 2694 ABs (most of which was on crappy teams) and figure out that he is good. Instead, you had to go ahead and put out numbers that make absolutely no sense without context just for the sake of using them. Really Billy...would it not have been sufficient just to post his conventional statistics?

Sorry, I was trying to go with the most neutral stats possible that would normalize league, stadium, and position and so on. Not trying to be vague, or too stat nerdy.

GoSox- good point, should have included that as to why the White Sox would be weary of making that deal

SBSoxFan
01-02-2008, 02:09 PM
Ya see - here's what I hate about this ridiculous use of "statistics".

There is nobody that can't take .313/.388/.542 with 138 HR and 523 RBI in 2694 ABs (most of which was on crappy teams) and figure out that he is good. Instead, you had to go ahead and put out numbers that make absolutely no sense without context just for the sake of using them. Really Billy...would it not have been sufficient just to post his conventional statistics?

True. I was wondering with such a high warp factor why he didn't have more stolen bases. :duck:

jabrch
01-02-2008, 02:10 PM
Sorry, I was trying to go with the most natural stats possible that would normalize league, stadium, and position and so on. Not trying to be vague, or too stat nerdy.

GoSox- good point, should have included that as to why the White Sox would be weary of making that deal

Nothing to do with being nerdy... But it just isn't needed. Everyone knows how good he is. And in his case, the raw numbers actually tell you much more than the convoluted manipulations of those numbers do.

Billy Ashley
01-02-2008, 02:18 PM
Nothing to do with being nerdy... But it just isn't needed. Everyone knows how good he is. And in his case, the raw numbers actually tell you much more than the convoluted manipulations of those numbers do.


I don’t believe that to be true whatsoever. Raw statistics while useful often times don’t tell the entire story. For instance, a great deal of Cabrera’s wealth comes from that fact that he’s a third basemen, hence my use of Vorp. It’s important to try to quantify how that affects a players value. These so called “convoluted statistics” are created by people who often have gotten advanced degrees in mathematics and are created in order to have a better understanding of how certain variables impact a players value.

Generally, simpler is better (look at the Baldus study of the 1970’s, tells a lot through very basic math about capital punishment in the United State) but sometimes understanding can not be had with out the implementation of different methodology, whether the understanding be about baseball, football, public policy, economics or any other topic.


Edit: cited wrong study... whoops

FedEx227
01-02-2008, 02:29 PM
Which, incidentally, is how they got most of their good prospects anyhow.

Really?

Verlander - 1st round, 2nd pick
Zumaya - 11th round
Granderson - 3rd round
Maybin - 1st round, 10th pick
Miller - 1st round, 6th pick
Clevlen - 2nd round
Jurrjens - Amateur Free Agent
Tata - 16th round
de la Cruz - Amateur Free Agent
Gorkys Hernandez - Amateur Free Agent
Dallas Trahern - 34th round
Jeff Larish- 6th round
Scott Sizemore - 5th round

To get Cabrera they gave up Rabelo (4th round), de la Cruz (FA), Miller (1st round), Maybin (1st round).
To get Renteria they gave up Jurrjens (FA), Hernandez (FA)

They are doing a lot more than just stockpiling 1st round picks.

Sox fans love to think that's all that's holding our minor leagues down, that's not the case.

Oblong
01-02-2008, 02:47 PM
Really?

Verlander - 1st round, 2nd pick
Zumaya - 11th round
Granderson - 3rd round
Maybin - 1st round, 10th pick
Miller - 1st round, 6th pick
Clevlen - 2nd round
Jurrjens - Amateur Free Agent
Tata - 16th round
de la Cruz - Amateur Free Agent
Gorkys Hernandez - Amateur Free Agent
Dallas Trahern - 34th round
Jeff Larish- 6th round
Scott Sizemore - 5th round

To get Cabrera they gave up Rabelo (4th round), de la Cruz (FA), Miller (1st round), Maybin (1st round).
To get Renteria they gave up Jurrjens (FA), Hernandez (FA)

They are doing a lot more than just stockpiling 1st round picks.

Sox fans love to think that's all that's holding our minor leagues down, that's not the case.

Thanks for that. I've made that point repeatedly but he's never responded. The guys traded fo Sheffield were not first rounders either. Being bad at the ML level helps you in the first round. After that, everybody's on an equal playing field. Obviously without Maybin and Miller the Cabrera deal never even gets discussed.

PalehosePlanet
01-02-2008, 03:01 PM
Really?

Verlander - 1st round, 2nd pick
Zumaya - 11th round
Granderson - 3rd round
Maybin - 1st round, 10th pick
Miller - 1st round, 6th pick
Clevlen - 2nd round
Jurrjens - Amateur Free Agent
Tata - 16th round
de la Cruz - Amateur Free Agent
Gorkys Hernandez - Amateur Free Agent
Dallas Trahern - 34th round
Jeff Larish- 6th round
Scott Sizemore - 5th round

To get Cabrera they gave up Rabelo (4th round), de la Cruz (FA), Miller (1st round), Maybin (1st round).
To get Renteria they gave up Jurrjens (FA), Hernandez (FA)

They are doing a lot more than just stockpiling 1st round picks.

Sox fans love to think that's all that's holding our minor leagues down, that's not the case.

But IT IS the top ten picks (Maybin & Miller) that allowed them to acquire Cabrera. They could have offered 15 Scott Sizemore's and Jeff Larish's and the deal would not have happened.

The fact that the Tigers lost 120+ games netted them Verlander; the fact that they sucked for 12 consecutive years prior to 2006 did indeed help them restock the sytem.

I agree that we need to do a much better drafting, especially in the latter rounds; and more so, a better job in developing players. However, it is no coincidence that the 3 best players on that list of yours are top ten picks.

Domeshot17
01-02-2008, 03:03 PM
I too hate the where you pick arguement. We have missed out on plenty of future stars in the late portion of the first round too. Teams like Boston and the Yanks always pick after us, and they are 100x better in the draft. Kenny and his group by far are one of the 10 worst in terms of drafting. That being said, some of that must go into the minor leagues because we don't DEVELOP either.

gogosox16
01-02-2008, 03:07 PM
I too hate the where you pick arguement. We have missed out on plenty of future stars in the late portion of the first round too. Teams like Boston and the Yanks always pick after us, and they are 100x better in the draft. Kenny and his group by far are one of the 10 worst in terms of drafting. That being said, some of that must go into the minor leagues because we don't DEVELOP either.
Also doesn't help when Kenny refuses to draft Boras's players, they are always the best in the draft and Kenny just says no to them.

jabrch
01-02-2008, 03:11 PM
I donít believe that to be true whatsoever. Raw statistics while useful often times donít tell the entire story. For instance, a great deal of Cabreraís wealth comes from that fact that heís a third basemen, hence my use of Vorp.

But we know that. So we don't need to incorporate that into another statistic to muddy the waters when we are really talking about a guy universally accepted as a top X player. If you were comparing him to, say, Paul Konerko, then MAYBE I can see it. But even still I'd rather have the data point in my hand, knowing his raw statistics, and the position he plays, rather than have someone else assign values and normalize that out for me. I still don't believe you can tell me the difference in the value based on position because it is too much a philosophical issue of the balance between offense and defense.

It really depends on the use. In this case, when trying to tell us that Miguel is very very good, you could have gotten away with less. If you were trying to tell me exactly how much better/worse he is than Albert Pujols, for example, then I can see it.

Chipol
01-02-2008, 03:13 PM
At the risk of being redundant, I'll paraphrase what I wrote in an earlier Cabrera thread: "If Fields comes in next year at .270/35/85 and Cabrera comes in at .320/45/120, you are giving up what little future this team has for the sake of 30 hits, 10 HR and 35 ribbies over the course of a season. I just donít see it. I hated seeing him go to Detroit; but I didnít want to give up Fields, Danks, Gio and more for 30 hits."

jabrch
01-02-2008, 03:13 PM
Also doesn't help when Kenny refuses to draft Boras's players, they are always the best in the draft and Kenny just says no to them.

This is untrue...He won't draft a player who he isn't willing to sign to their demands. Who their agent is doesn't matter. We have multiple Boras clients on the team, including Crede and Danks. But Williams won't pay 8mm for a HS pitcher. That's admirable judgement - not a character flaw.

jabrch
01-02-2008, 03:33 PM
But IT IS the top ten picks (Maybin & Miller) that allowed them to acquire Cabrera. They could have offered 15 Scott Sizemore's and Jeff Larish's and the deal would not have happened.

The fact that the Tigers lost 120+ games netted them Verlander; the fact that they sucked for 12 consecutive years prior to 2006 did indeed help them restock the sytem.

Exactly...If the Tigers weren't one of the crappiest teams in baseball for nearly a decade, they'd have not had Verlander, Miller or Maybin. So that would be $15mm less money they'd have to spend elsewhere because they'd have to buy a #1 SP, and that would mean no Willis/Cabrerra without Miller/Maybin.

This franchise has sucked - big time - for the larger part of the last 20 years. They stockpiled top talent while sucking the past 5-7 years, and were able to build this team.

Imagine if 2007 was our third best season in a 9 season stretch...NOW YOU'D BE THE TIGERS. Imagine if our best player for an entire decade was Bobby Higginson. (take away his questionable 2000 - I was surprised his name didn't make the Mitchell Report) Imagine if you couldn't even name a second best player in a decade because you sucked so bad. NOW YOU'D BE THE TIGERS. They won fewer games in 2002 and 2003 COMBINED than we did in 2005. That's where this great farm system came from.

Then their "veterans" came because their owner was willing to to throw caution into the wind and pay for veteran players with questionable history, injuries and potential eu de Balco on them. (Kenny Rogers, Magglio and I-Rod). My ass this was some great plan by Dombrowsky. This was lots of money, lots of luck, and 10 years of sucking asstasticly.

Flight #24
01-02-2008, 04:33 PM
This is untrue...He won't draft a player who he isn't willing to sign to their demands. Who their agent is doesn't matter. We have multiple Boras clients on the team, including Crede and Danks. But Williams won't pay 8mm for a HS pitcher. That's admirable judgement - not a character flaw.

Of course, there's always the "I know what players are worth more than the market" problem with KW's philosophy. So if the market says players like X are worth $8M and KW doesn't agree, he doesn't draft them, he drafts players who have a lower market value. Then when his farm becomes relatively void of high-level talent, who's surprised?

I know it's much less discrete than that because of the random variance inherent in prospects, but there is an element of "guys get the big bonuses because they've shown they're the best players/prospects". IMO KW doesn't care as much about getting the best players if he has money, he'd rather get the best player for the amount he has allocated to that slot, even if he's got some extra $$$ in his pocket.

Flight #24
01-02-2008, 04:36 PM
Exactly...If the Tigers weren't one of the crappiest teams in baseball for nearly a decade, they'd have not had Verlander, Miller or Maybin. So that would be $15mm less money they'd have to spend elsewhere because they'd have to buy a #1 SP, and that would mean no Willis/Cabrerra without Miller/Maybin.

This franchise has sucked - big time - for the larger part of the last 20 years. They stockpiled top talent while sucking the past 5-7 years, and were able to build this team.



1 of their core players the past 2 years was a top pick. The rest were available to everyone in baseball including the Sox, so I'm not sure how that's a result of "sucking asstastically" (which I love as a saying, by the way!). You're right that they took some gambles on veterans that panned out, but it's not like they're Oakland ca 2000 who built their team on high draft picks (and high degrees in biochemistry).

batmanZoSo
01-02-2008, 06:39 PM
It just wasn't in the cards, period. We didn't have the horses to get it done and even if we did, our farm system would plummet to the worst in baseball easily. As is it's lower 25%. Detroit's is depleted now as far as the short term goes, but that trade allowed them to make an actual run this year. The same trade for us only elevates us up to mediocrity.

And I trust Dombrowski to re-stock that farm system. I couldn't say the same for KW.

Lukin13
01-02-2008, 07:05 PM
\"If Fields comes in next year at .270/35/85 and Cabrera comes in at .320/45/120, you are giving up what little future this team has for the sake of 30 hits, 10 HR and 35 ribbies over the course of a season."

Amen!

All the Tigers received was 2 years of Cabrera and the right to extend him to the second highest deal in baseball history.

And if for some strange reason they decide NOT to pay him; do you think he is gonna be a happy and productive camper for the next two seasons? No way, if you deal for Cabrera you have to extend him.

If the Sox were gonna pay someone 20,000,000 a season they could have paid Arod and given up zero players.

dickallen15
01-02-2008, 07:32 PM
Exactly...If the Tigers weren't one of the crappiest teams in baseball for nearly a decade, they'd have not had Verlander, Miller or Maybin. So that would be $15mm less money they'd have to spend elsewhere because they'd have to buy a #1 SP, and that would mean no Willis/Cabrerra without Miller/Maybin.

This franchise has sucked - big time - for the larger part of the last 20 years. They stockpiled top talent while sucking the past 5-7 years, and were able to build this team.

Imagine if 2007 was our third best season in a 9 season stretch...NOW YOU'D BE THE TIGERS. Imagine if our best player for an entire decade was Bobby Higginson. (take away his questionable 2000 - I was surprised his name didn't make the Mitchell Report) Imagine if you couldn't even name a second best player in a decade because you sucked so bad. NOW YOU'D BE THE TIGERS. They won fewer games in 2002 and 2003 COMBINED than we did in 2005. That's where this great farm system came from.

Then their "veterans" came because their owner was willing to to throw caution into the wind and pay for veteran players with questionable history, injuries and potential eu de Balco on them. (Kenny Rogers, Magglio and I-Rod). My ass this was some great plan by Dombrowsky. This was lots of money, lots of luck, and 10 years of sucking asstasticly.

They have been awful, KC has been awful. Cleveland went through an entire re-building and Minnesota turned over their entire roster. All during KW's reign. Yet only 1 playoff appearance.

btrain929
01-02-2008, 07:57 PM
The bright side to all of this is that we get to keep these young and talented ball players, and we still might sign Cabrera after the '09 season when he becomes a free agent. If he is really tight with Ozzie, then it can be very realistic that Miggy doesn't sign an extension with Detroit and hits the market. If this happens, we have to be considered one of the favorites to land him. Honestly, I think the only thing that prevents him from being with the Sox in 2010 is him signing an extension with Detroit. Hopefully crazy-man Leyland pisses him off and is on his ass all the time and he'll count the days til free agency.

chaerulez
01-02-2008, 08:09 PM
Nothing to do with being nerdy... But it just isn't needed. Everyone knows how good he is. And in his case, the raw numbers actually tell you much more than the convoluted manipulations of those numbers do.

Convoluted manipulations? OPS+ is just OPS (on base + slugging) adjusted for era. Pretty good way to determine a hitters ability if you ask me. VORP I believe rates players by position, I don't think that's manipulating anything. I'm not to familiar with WARP, but I wouldn't dismiss OPS+ and VORP as meaningless stats that distort "raw numbers".

Brian26
01-02-2008, 08:16 PM
The bright side to all of this is that we get to keep these young and talented ball players, and we still might sign Cabrera after the '09 season when he becomes a free agent. If he is really tight with Ozzie, then it can be very realistic that Miggy doesn't sign an extension with Detroit and hits the market. If this happens, we have to be considered one of the favorites to land him.

The best chance the Sox had at signing Cabrera was to trade for him and hope to put together a contract while he played for the Sox (similar to Freddy Garcia). Based on history over the past 26 years, I don't see the Sox winning a bidding war for Cabrera on the open market (god bless Albert Belle and Floyd Bannister).

jabrch
01-02-2008, 08:28 PM
Convoluted manipulations? OPS+ is just OPS (on base + slugging) adjusted for era. Pretty good way to determine a hitters ability if you ask me. VORP I believe rates players by position, I don't think that's manipulating anything. I'm not to familiar with WARP, but I wouldn't dismiss OPS+ and VORP as meaningless stats that distort "raw numbers".

actually - that's the problem. You are taking a number and doing something to it to normalize it to other numbers, and then trying to use it to make a raw statement of how good someone is. That number is only good when used to compare two players - and I even question it's validity. As far as OPS, I think there's a flaw there as well since you are adding up the numerators to decimals with different denominators. That's not good math where I come from. I get OBP. I get SLG. OPS is not calculatable in a legitimiate mathematical sense.

Anyhow, why the hell do I need OPS+ anything to tell me that Miguel Cabrerra is very good? I know his avg/obp/slg/HR/RBI and his ABs in the past 4 seasons. That's good enough for me to figure it out.

jabrch
01-02-2008, 08:38 PM
They have been awful, KC has been awful. Cleveland went through an entire re-building and Minnesota turned over their entire roster. All during KW's reign. Yet only 1 playoff appearance.

and a WS win - and competitive teams every year - and only one losing season.

champagne030
01-02-2008, 09:20 PM
Really?

Verlander - 1st round, 2nd pick
Zumaya - 11th round
Granderson - 3rd round
Maybin - 1st round, 10th pick
Miller - 1st round, 6th pick
Clevlen - 2nd round
Jurrjens - Amateur Free Agent
Tata - 16th round
de la Cruz - Amateur Free Agent
Gorkys Hernandez - Amateur Free Agent
Dallas Trahern - 34th round
Jeff Larish- 6th round
Scott Sizemore - 5th round

To get Cabrera they gave up Rabelo (4th round), de la Cruz (FA), Miller (1st round), Maybin (1st round).
To get Renteria they gave up Jurrjens (FA), Hernandez (FA)

They are doing a lot more than just stockpiling 1st round picks.

Sox fans love to think that's all that's holding our minor leagues down, that's not the case.

Excellent post FedEx. We wouldn't have drafted Maybin or Miller had they been available when we drafted far lower.

This is untrue...He won't draft a player who he isn't willing to sign to their demands. Who their agent is doesn't matter. We have multiple Boras clients on the team, including Crede and Danks. But Williams won't pay 8mm for a HS pitcher. That's admirable judgement - not a character flaw.

It's crazy to pay $8M for the consensus #1 talent in the draft, but it's A-okay to spend $5M on Alexei? :rolleyes::kukoo:

rdivaldi
01-02-2008, 09:24 PM
It's crazy to pay $8M for the consensus #1 talent in the draft, but it's A-okay to spend $5M on Alexei? :rolleyes::kukoo:

:?:

Apples and oranges. One is a position player in his mid-twenties who has played against major league competition. Another is a 18 year old pitcher who has gone against high school kids and could be injured and out of baseball in 3 years like many other high school draftees.

Lip Man 1
01-02-2008, 09:24 PM
Crede and Danks are the ONLY Boras clients on the 40 man roster and Joe's basically out the door as soon as Kenny can find a taker. Kenny himself was directly quoted in regards to Ozzie's comments about the Sox possibly being interested in Andrew Jones that the fact that Boras is his agent (paraphrasing) 'doesn't help matters.'

You can find the thread on this at WSI.

Lip

champagne030
01-02-2008, 09:44 PM
:?:

Apples and oranges. One is a position player in his mid-twenties who has played against major league competition. Another is a 18 year old pitcher who has gone against high school kids and could be injured and out of baseball in 3 years like many other high school draftees.

Major league competition? :?:.......A few games in the World Farce?

.....A position player without a position seems to be the consensus. Rumor/fact that a Sox scout has compared him to Omar Infante? I wouldn't think twice about spending the extra $3M on a Porcello type player versus an Alexei type player.

Edit: I actually am happy with the roll of the dice taken on Alexei. I don't get the refusal to pay and draft based on paying above "Bud" slot money.

soxfanreggie
01-02-2008, 10:17 PM
1.) I don't think we could have signed A-Rod for $20 million. For that much, I might have considered it, but he's making more around $25-$27.5 million. If Cabrera gets within $5 million of A-Rod, I'd be surprised. Yankees and Red Sox may be the only teams willing to play above $20 million for him, and neither really has the need for him right now.

2.) If you give up Richar, wouldn't that mean that Ramirez would be the top choice to go to 2B?

jabrch
01-02-2008, 10:23 PM
Of course, there's always the "I know what players are worth more than the market" problem with KW's philosophy.

Or maybe there is the, "I have a budget and operate within it, while building the best possible MLB club that I can" part of his philosophy and that the "I know what players are worth more than the market" part of his philosophy is made up - and does not exist.

So if the market says players like X are worth $8M and KW doesn't agree, he doesn't draft them, he drafts players who have a lower market value. Then when his farm becomes relatively void of high-level talent, who's surprised?

I think you are confusing "price" with "market value". In the case of a draft pick, there is not a true market. In fact, even with FA there isn't a true market - because there are too limited number of bidders and the playing field isn't level for those bidders. It isn't like a commodity where supply/demand determine price. In the case of a draft pick, the players set their price, and if the team doesn't like it - they go back to school.

IMO KW doesn't care as much about getting the best players if he has money, he'd rather get the best player for the amount he has allocated to that slot, even if he's got some extra $$$ in his pocket.

He's got a budget. He allocates it in the manner he believes best suited to help the club win. Not paying 8mm for a HS pitcher and then having to take 7mm of that out of the MLB team payroll is not a bad thing. He allocates resources to a plan - and executes to it. If he had 20mm more, he'd happily spend it.

1 of their core players the past 2 years was a top pick. The rest were available to everyone in baseball including the Sox

But many of the players they have had that enabled this have come from their suckitude or their opulence. It isn't from this excellent drafting that KW missed on?

so I'm not sure how that's a result of "sucking asstastically" (which I love as a saying, by the way!)

If it wasn't for sucking, they wouldn't have had Verlander or Bonderman (cost them their first rounder [Weaver]) They wouldn't have had this depth in the farm system to make these sort of move - and they surely wouldn't have had Miller/Maybin to make the move they just made.

Oh - and by the way - they wouldn't have their WS title that they won last year...or the year before...or....nah....

champagne030
01-02-2008, 10:30 PM
He's got a budget. He allocates it in the manner he believes best suited to help the club win. Not paying 8mm for a HS pitcher and then having to take 7mm of that out of the MLB team payroll is not a bad thing. He allocates resources to a plan - and executes to it. If he had 20mm more, he'd happily spend it.

Alexei is the answer though.......:rolleyes:

Flight #24
01-02-2008, 10:57 PM
I think you are confusing "price" with "market value". In the case of a draft pick, there is not a true market. In fact, even with FA there isn't a true market - because there are too limited number of bidders and the playing field isn't level for those bidders. It isn't like a commodity where supply/demand determine price. In the case of a draft pick, the players set their price, and if the team doesn't like it - they go back to school.


But many of the players they have had that enabled this have come from their suckitude or their opulence. It isn't from this excellent drafting that KW missed on?
If it wasn't for sucking, they wouldn't have had Verlander or Bonderman (cost them their first rounder [Weaver]) They wouldn't have had this depth in the farm system to make these sort of move - and they surely wouldn't have had Miller/Maybin to make the move they just made.

I eliminated the other points that you and I have already debated in other threads.

1) The price at which an arms-length transaction is executed is an indication of market value. The fact that it some bidders may have greater resources doesn't change that. An item is worth what someone will pay for it. If you want it, you have to pay that price or forgo the item.

2) Verlander is the player I noted. Bonderman was traded for Weaver, who was a 14th overall pick (and one who was previously available to the Sox but not signed, i.e. a player they could have had and therefore potentially dealt for Bonderman). Which was my point. Their recent success (i.e. the past 2 years, not their potential or likely success in 2008) was not based on high draft picks. So when you say "many", you really mean "one".

gogosox16
01-02-2008, 11:01 PM
1.) I don't think we could have signed A-Rod for $20 million. For that much, I might have considered it, but he's making more around $25-$27.5 million. If Cabrera gets within $5 million of A-Rod, I'd be surprised. Yankees and Red Sox may be the only teams willing to play above $20 million for him, and neither really has the need for him right now.

2.) If you give up Richar, wouldn't that mean that Ramirez would be the top choice to go to 2B?
I believe either him, Ozuna or possibly Burgueos or what ever, he was in AA and AAA last year for the Sox and is a non roster invitee.

Billy Ashley
01-02-2008, 11:12 PM
Couldnít the Tigers recent success be not a result of 20 years of ass, but rather a combination of a change towards an aggressive drafting philophy (Theyíve started to draft above slot), aggressive action on the FA market, good scouting, and a bit of good luck? In fact, that seems a lot more likely (and supported by whatís that word- oh yeah evidence) than their recent success being the result of being an awful baseball team.

Generally failure does not bread winning. The draft is such a crap shoot regardless of where a team picks due to attrition rates for pitchers and the generally unpredictable nature of development for just about anyone ages 18-22. Itís very rare that there are more than 1 or 2 slam dunks in the draft class. Even the most obviously talented players often have questions about their healthy, competition, ability and so on. Joba Chamberlain of course fell into the Yankees hands due to the facts that other teams felt his college health record made him not worth the cash needed to be drafted.

Several years ago, the Tigers began signing big name free agents to what looked like foolish contracts. They spent massive amounts of money in order to lure free agents to their city; they had to, due to the fact that they were truly awful. It was risky, but fortunately for them it worked out. It probably would be better for baseball if other perennial losers also dabbled in that model from time to time.

jabrch
01-02-2008, 11:22 PM
Weaver, who was a 14th overall pick (and one who was previously available to the Sox but not signed, i.e. a player they could have had and therefore potentially dealt for Bonderman).

If we had unlimited resources - I guess we could have. But signing Weaver would have meant forgoing something else. So that's the dilema...

If our fans had patience for Detroit-like crapticism, maybe KW could take a different route to build the team. But he doesn't have that luxury. Look at the fans fleeing the team like the Titanic after one bad season which came after 189 wins in 2 years and a WS. If we were Detroit bad, and were on a 10 year rebuilding mission, our fans would be dead freaking gone. Hell, from 1995 - 2003 we finished no better than 9th of 14 in the AL in attendance despite only haveing 2 seasons under .500 and finsihing first or second in the division 7 of 9 years.

There are lots of other factors obviously. Detroit made some great low round picks that turned out. (Granderson) They made a few good trades (Polanco and Guillen). We've talked about their willingness to spend money (some would say) foolishly on guys like Rogers, I-Rod and Magglio. But without sucking, they wouldn't have had Verlander. They may not have had Inge. They may not have had Bonderman. And the fact that they had Miller and Maybin coming up meant they could make other moves that they otherwise wouldn't have if they didn't feel comfortable with those guys. Then those guys enabled the Cabrerra/Willis deal.

Let me ask you a question Flight. Do you believe Sox fans have the patience to do a Detroit? That would mean sucking for 10 years like 2007... But hear KW talk about all the great HS kids he drafted and paid tons of money to while he couldn't afford to allocate said resources to the club that some of us are paying a ton of money to go see?

I'll tell you what - if I felt like we weren't making a legitimate shot at being a contender each season, I would reconsider my seats. I hold 8 full season tickets and 4 27 game seats. If I was told we were entering a 6 year rebuilding plan, I'd have to think long and hard about continuing to plop down $25K of both my $ and my company's money. I have no problem paying it if I believe the team is trying to win - but if every season for 5+ years was going to look like 2007, you can forget about it.

batmanZoSo
01-02-2008, 11:34 PM
Several years ago, the Tigers began signing big name free agents to what looked like foolish contracts. They spent massive amounts of money in order to lure free agents to their city; they had to, due to the fact that they were truly awful. It was risky, but fortunately for them it worked out. It probably would be better for baseball if other perennial losers also dabbled in that model from time to time.

True, but they also have a nice core of talented players they scouted, drafted and developed, just like any successful team including the Yankees and Red Sox. A team like KC could try to do the same as the Tigers and try to turn things around but their player development sucks and has for 15 years, so they'd simply end up with a bunch of albatross contracts.

Billy Ashley
01-02-2008, 11:49 PM
True, but they also have a nice core of talented players they scouted, drafted and developed, just like any successful team including the Yankees and Red Sox. A team like KC could try to do the same as the Tigers and try to turn things around but their player development sucks and has for 15 years, so they'd simply end up with a bunch of albatross contracts.

I agree that the development of young plays has been a huge part of their turn around. I just think that the notion that the Tigers have become a contender through sucking for 20 years and sucking only is to idiotic. Dismissing ones opponents as stupid is a great way to fall behind the curve.

jabrch
01-03-2008, 12:16 AM
so they'd simply end up with a bunch of albatross contracts.

That's how the Tigers ended up with 10 years of Bobby Higginson...

Until they coupled sucking with spending a ton of money, they were just able to suck and develop a farm... It wasn't until they started to throw caution into the wind and sign injured players, steroid users and old guys to big contracts that they became a contender.

Billy Ashley
01-03-2008, 01:02 AM
That's how the Tigers ended up with 10 years of Bobby Higginson...

Until they coupled sucking with spending a ton of money, they were just able to suck and develop a farm... It wasn't until they started to throw caution into the wind and sign injured players, steroid users and old guys to big contracts that they became a contender.

You do realize that when they signed him to that contract (April of 2001: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-43240618.html) he was coming off a season with an OPS+ of 131, a rebound from the prior season in which he posted an awful OPS+ of 88. However, the three years prior to that crap season he posted OPS+ of 115, 133, and 145. So the Tigers signed Higginson to a four year extension after Higginson had been a starter for 5 seasons in which he was excellent in 3 of those years, pretty good in 1 and awful in 1. He was also only 30 years of age at the time of the deal and played pretty damn well that season and ok the next year. It wasn’t until injuries killed his career at the age of 32 that the deal became an albatross. It was a deal any GM would have made, Higginson was a hell of a hitter.

As far as the steroids talk, please, everyone knew tons of players where using back in 2000. Considering the White Sox acquired Jose freaking Conseco that same year; I’d save the sanctimony for another time.

But yeah, the Tigers haven't done anything right, they just sucked and got loads of talent by accident and then went out and aquired a bunch of roid heads.

Flight #24
01-03-2008, 01:24 AM
Let me ask you a question Flight. Do you believe Sox fans have the patience to do a Detroit? That would mean sucking for 10 years like 2007... But hear KW talk about all the great HS kids he drafted and paid tons of money to while he couldn't afford to allocate said resources to the club that some of us are paying a ton of money to go see?


You've built a strawman with little factual support. The "years of sucking" resulted in the following "great HS kids" that were contributors to the Tigers last 2 years: Verlander (2), Kyle Sleeth (3), Scott Moore (8), Kenny Baugh (11), Mike Woods (32), Matthew Wheatland (8), Eric Munson (3), Weaver (14), Nate Cornejo (34), Matt Anderson (1), Seth Greisinger (6), Mike Drumright (11). That's all of their first round picks back to 2005 (10 years up to and including Verlander). Not one outside of Weaver/Verlander were more than minor contributors to their past 2 years.

Their team included FA signings that have worked out pretty well for them: IRod, Maggs, Kenny Rogers, Todd Jones. Also some others like Ugueth Urbina (traded for Polanco)

It also included smart trades for Polanco, Guillen, Casey, Miner, Robertson, Sheffield.

Smart draft and minor league moves: Inge, Granderson, Infante, Ledezma, Maroth, Zumaya. And Verlander/Bonderman as the guys their suckitude resulted in (with Weaver as noted having been available to other teams).

That should cover most if not all of the key guys from their past 2 years.

So if your question is: Would I be happy if KW through a combination of smart drafting, trading, and FA signings built a team like Detroit's that made it to the postseason more than once? Yes.

But to the point you were trying to make, even though it's not relevant - would I be happy with 10 years of sucking, no. But that type of downturn implied bad management and much of the Tigers poor performance was due to that. even the Tigers 10 years were because of bad management. Dombrowski came on in-season in 2002, so in his 4th full year, he had the team built that got the the WS and in his 5th, he repeated them getting to the playoffs, and he's got the team positioned in his 6th full year as one of the strongest in baseball. That type of management I'd be ecstatic with.

Grzegorz
01-03-2008, 04:57 AM
Which, incidentally, is how they got most of their good prospects anyhow.

Are you saying that drafting in the top ten is basically a "can't miss" position when it comes to drafting talent?

The Tigers had the assets to trade that enabled them to take a bold step towards a championship.

Don't fool yourself; the Chicago White Sox would make a similar move if they had the chance.

spawn
01-03-2008, 07:08 AM
But to the point you were trying to make, even though it's not relevant - would I be happy with 10 years of sucking, no. But that type of downturn implied bad management and much of the Tigers poor performance was due to that. even the Tigers 10 years were because of bad management. Dombrowski came on in-season in 2002, so in his 4th full year, he had the team built that got the the WS and in his 5th, he repeated them getting to the playoffs, and he's got the team positioned in his 6th full year as one of the strongest in baseball. That type of management I'd be ecstatic with.
I don't mean to be picky, but Detroit didn't make the playoffs this past season. I like the rest of your post though. :D:

dickallen15
01-03-2008, 07:14 AM
If our fans had patience for Detroit-like crapticism,

.

Its on the way.

russ99
01-03-2008, 08:05 AM
The thing everyone's forgetting is that the Marlins wouldn't budge on Cabrera unless they got a catching prospect in return.

The Sox don't have one so they weren't players in this deal, and no amount of throw-ins like Richar and pitching prospects would have made any difference in the Marlins' eyes. The Sox don't have a prospect like Maybin in their system either, and 2-3 marginal prospects don't add up to the value of a solid one unless we're playing Playstation or Xbox.

I won't cry over spilled milk on this one. Kenny made an strong effort to get Miguel and that's all we can ask for from our GM.

jabrch
01-03-2008, 09:09 AM
Its on the way.

Just go slit your wrists now. Save yourself the misery of watching baseball.

jabrch
01-03-2008, 09:11 AM
Don't fool yourself; the Chicago White Sox would make a similar move if they had the chance.

KW said they weren't going to give up Fields, Gio, Danks, Richar and a bullpen guy for him. Maybe you doon't believe him - but that's a different story.

jabrch
01-03-2008, 09:13 AM
Are you saying that drafting in the top ten is basically a "can't miss" position when it comes to drafting talent?

Nope - just that drafting in the top 10 makes it much easier to get a guy who is going to make it. Having to draft a HS kid and pay him 8mm or see him go to school and not have the benefit of that pick for a year is a bad idea.

Ask the Os how drafting Wade Townsend worked for them...

jabrch
01-03-2008, 09:16 AM
That type of management I'd be ecstatic with.


I think you are full of ****. Pardon me... But 10 years of sucking, followed by the ticket price raises that this team would have to make to spend silly amounts of money on injured and questionable players is not good management. Our "fans" would be rioting in the streets...actually, many of them would go back to being Cubs fans that they were before September of 2005.

I'm waiting to see the Tigers win ANYTHING. I don't think they will. Their staff is mediocre and they have very little in the pen.

jabrch
01-03-2008, 09:18 AM
You do realize

I do realize that for 10 years they had ONE good offensive player - and it was Higginson. And his numbers were inflated by 2 very questionable years followed by lots of Tigeresque sucking and some odd injuries. Hmmmmm

SBSoxFan
01-03-2008, 09:41 AM
So if your question is: Would I be happy if KW through a combination of smart drafting, trading, and FA signings built a team like Detroit's that made it to the postseason more than once? Yes.

I don't mean to be picky, but Detroit didn't make the playoffs this past season. I like the rest of your post though. :D:

I'll be a little more picky because Flight mentioned this twice in his post. Most people probably think Detroit won the division in 2006.

For all the chest thumping being done for Detroit and Cleveland the last few years, let's remember that neither of them has really won much. Since Dombrowski's first full year (2003), Detroit has never won a division title; Chicago and Cleveland have both won one, and Minnesota took the other 3. The Sox are the only AL Central team in that time frame to win a World Series. Since 2003, Minnesota has 3 90+ win seasons, Chicago and Cleveland have 2, and Detroit has 1. Overall, Minnesota is the cream of the crop in the AL Central with a 543 winning "percentage" over those 5 seasons. The Sox are next at 531, followed by Cleveland at 512, Detroit at 456, and Kansas City at 405. In fact, Detroit is closer to Kansas City than they are to Cleveland.

I realize Detroit looks well-positioned for at least a couple of years, but I'm still interested to see how it plays out on the field.

spiffie
01-03-2008, 09:57 AM
I'll be a little more picky because Flight mentioned this twice in his post. Most people probably think Detroit won the division in 2006.

For all the chest thumping being done for Detroit and Cleveland the last few years, let's remember that neither of them has really won much. Since Dombrowski's first full year (2003), Detroit has never won a division title; Chicago and Cleveland have both won one, and Minnesota took the other 3. The Sox are the only AL Central team in that time frame to win a World Series. Since 2003, Minnesota has 3 90+ win seasons, Chicago and Cleveland have 2, and Detroit has 1. Overall, Minnesota is the cream of the crop in the AL Central with a 543 winning "percentage" over those 5 seasons. The Sox are next at 531, followed by Cleveland at 512, Detroit at 456, and Kansas City at 405. In fact, Detroit is closer to Kansas City than they are to Cleveland.

I realize Detroit looks well-positioned for at least a couple of years, but I'm still interested to see how it plays out on the field.
I still think Cleveland should be the favorites next year. Detroit has become stronger, but I don't think they are more than the fifth best team in the AL as things stand right now, behind BOS, NYY, CLE, and LAA.

jabrch
01-03-2008, 10:35 AM
I realize Detroit looks well-positioned for at least a couple of years

I'm still not convinced they are as great as some believe. Sure - they are better than we are - but if you look at their pitching - it is suspect. And they have a group of 3 of their top 4 hitters who are all risky (Maggs [safest of the bunch], Sheff's overall profile (age, injuries, performance and the cold hard fact that he was juicing for a long time) and Rodriguez's age and rapid decline since 2004[.020 avg, .030 slg and .080 obp])

(That was a difficult paragraph to read - I hope it was clear)

The Tigers window is very small as they are currently constituted - but it is definitely open for next season. It was open for last year as well - but having only one SP with an ERA under 4.70 probably got in their way. I'm not sure adding Dontrelle Willis (5+ ERA and 1.60 WHIP in a pitcher friendly park in the NL) is going to really help them.

rdivaldi
01-03-2008, 10:42 AM
Major league competition? :?:.......A few games in the World Farce?

.....A position player without a position seems to be the consensus. Rumor/fact that a Sox scout has compared him to Omar Infante? I wouldn't think twice about spending the extra $3M on a Porcello type player versus an Alexei type player.

Edit: I actually am happy with the roll of the dice taken on Alexei. I don't get the refusal to pay and draft based on paying above "Bud" slot money.

I'm just not comfortable with handing out huge contracts to 17 year olds. I think that was a ludicrous amount of up-front money to pay someone who could be out of baseball in 3 years, something quite common for high school pitchers. Yes he could be the next Beckett, but the odds aren't good.

SBSoxFan
01-03-2008, 10:55 AM
I still think Cleveland should be the favorites next year. Detroit has become stronger, but I don't think they are more than the fifth best team in the AL as things stand right now, behind BOS, NYY, CLE, and LAA.

Maybe, but this is the same Cleveland team that won 93 games in 2005, was everyone's pre-season darling in 2006, and managed to go out and win only 78 games that year. Perhaps this year, they'll be a consensus pick because they'll be "hungry" after narrowly missing a trip to the World Series. That didn't pan out so well for Detroit last year, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar slide by Cleveland.

I'm still not convinced they are as great as some believe. Sure - they are better than we are - but if you look at their pitching - it is suspect. And they have a group of 3 of their top 4 hitters who are all risky (Maggs [safest of the bunch], Sheff's overall profile (age, injuries, performance and the cold hard fact that he was juicing for a long time) and Rodriguez's age and rapid decline since 2004[.020 avg, .030 slg and .080 obp])

(That was a difficult paragraph to read - I hope it was clear)

The Tigers window is very small as they are currently constituted - but it is definitely open for next season. It was open for last year as well - but having only one SP with an ERA under 4.70 probably got in their way. I'm not sure adding Dontrelle Willis (5+ ERA and 1.60 WHIP in a pitcher friendly park in the NL) is going to really help them.

I agree, especially regarding the pitching. Hopefully they'll look more like the '01-'04 Sox. If a team like Minnesota or the Sox play fundamentally sound in all aspects of the game, there's no reason they can't handle both Cleveland and Detroit.

jabrch
01-03-2008, 11:05 AM
I'm just not comfortable with handing out huge contracts to 17 year olds. I think that was a ludicrous amount of up-front money to pay someone who could be out of baseball in 3 years, something quite common for high school pitchers. Yes he could be the next Beckett, but the odds aren't good.


And if he (Porcello) was a College player, with the performance that people were projecting from him, he would not have fallen that far because more than just one team (of the first 27) would have been thrilled to draft him. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have competed with Price if he was a JR, or that he'd have been the consensus #1 if he were a Sr and if he did what people say he might do.

But at this point, the risk is so great that giving him that much money was just not a good move for a franchise operating with financial constraints, and desiring to compete now.

Billy Ashley
01-03-2008, 01:09 PM
I'm still not convinced they are as great as some believe. Sure - they are better than we are - but if you look at their pitching - it is suspect. And they have a group of 3 of their top 4 hitters who are all risky (Maggs [safest of the bunch], Sheff's overall profile (age, injuries, performance and the cold hard fact that he was juicing for a long time) and Rodriguez's age and rapid decline since 2004[.020 avg, .030 slg and .080 obp])

(That was a difficult paragraph to read - I hope it was clear)

The Tigers window is very small as they are currently constituted - but it is definitely open for next season. It was open for last year as well - but having only one SP with an ERA under 4.70 probably got in their way. I'm not sure adding Dontrelle Willis (5+ ERA and 1.60 WHIP in a pitcher friendly park in the NL) is going to really help them.


I actually agree with you here: Considering last season they got years out of Palanco and Maggs that they likely never will come close to again, their offense looks to be a little better assuming Sheffield is healthy enough to play next season. Their pitching is also suspect as we donít know what the hell happened to Bondermen, did he have dead arm, or has been the victim of abuse. Willis is also another huge question mark. Given that Ivan has turned into a fairly horrible hitter, and the age issue with Sheffield, the Tigers are one injury away from being a massive disappointment.

Flight #24
01-03-2008, 02:01 PM
I think you are full of ****. Pardon me... But 10 years of sucking, followed by the ticket price raises that this team would have to make to spend silly amounts of money on injured and questionable players is not good management. Our "fans" would be rioting in the streets...actually, many of them would go back to being Cubs fans that they were before September of 2005.


You can keep saying it like a mantra, but it's a fact that their team was not built on "10 years of sucking". It was built on smart picks and big FA signings that worked out (which means they were also smart). The 10 years of sucking resulted in little to nothing that impacted the major league roster. yes, they sucked for 10 years, but they didn't use their suckitude well. Once Dombrowski came on board, in a few years, they had built a WS team.

It may make you feel better to think that "we could be that good, but we'd have to endure 10 years of sucking", but that's simply not the case. The Sox would just have to use this current pick wisely and then build their farm with smart picks.

jabrch
01-03-2008, 02:30 PM
but it's a fact that their team was not built on "10 years of sucking".

Actually, that's not a fact at all. That's an opinion.

And you are also only capturing a part of what I said. I said that they sucked for 10 years - which is a fact. That they spent a ton of money on risky veteran players - which most would agree is a fact. And I said they had a few good late rouond picks pan out. But to say that they didn't suck for 10 years is untrue. To say that sucking for so long didn't enable them to build the farm system that they had is untrue. They got Verlander and Bonderman - because of how much they sucked. They got Maybin and Miller - because of how much they sucked. Same with other guys - just because a guy wasn't a first round draft pick doesn't mean their suckiness didn't make it easier to get him.

Like I said - I wouldn't trade the last twelve years of Tigerdom for what I had the past 12 years.

Flight - this is getting boring. You can have the last word. I'm tired of it.

Flight #24
01-03-2008, 02:34 PM
Actually, that's not a fact at all. That's an opinion.

And you are also only capturing a part of what I said. I said that they sucked for 10 years - which is a fact. That they spent a ton of money on risky veteran players - which most would agree is a fact. And I said they had a few good late rouond picks pan out. But to say that they didn't suck for 10 years is untrue. To say that sucking for so long didn't enable them to build the farm system that they had is untrue. They got Verlander - because of how much they sucked. They got Maybin and Miller - because of how much they sucked. Same with other guys - just because a guy wasn't a first round draft pick doesn't mean their suckiness didn't make it easier to get him.

Like I said - I wouldn't trade the last twelve years of Tigerdom for what I had the past 12 years.

Flight - this is getting boring. You can have the last word. I'm tired of it.
Your strawman is that you had to have the 10-12 years of sucking to get to the team they have now. That's untrue. Yes, they sucked. But Verlander required 1 year of sucking, not 10. And none of their other picks from the sucking meant anything to their major league roster either directly or via trade. Even if you include Maybin and Miller, that's at most 3 years of sucking, not 10-12. High picks are what sucking gets you. Smart 2d round picks have little to nothing to do with sucking (and even then, IIRC only Inge was even a 2d).

Have a good day, enjoy the championship caliber organization here on the South Side and the lucky team to the east.