Sale to the Red Sox

[KirbyDome89]

 

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

I haven't disagreed with any of that. Would I prefer to build a different way? Yes. Do I understand why teams follow the route Detroit did? Absolutely. You're right, there is risk associated in each. If I'm choosing between prospect volatility and emptying the farm/signing FAs I would take the former. Its a preference, as is Detroit's plan, but apparently you're a fool to hold it.

 

Whats frustrating is this sentiment that because people have apparently been pointing out the potential downfalls of Detroit's build for a while, it somehow delegitimizes those flaws now that they've become evident. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

Yeah, meaning maybe they spend one of those lost 1st round picks on a pitcher so they don't have to give innings to a guy like Matt Boyd...

 

I'm playing hindsight draft? You literally just made the statement that Detroit would have drafted the exact same players other clubs did using their picks. Yeah I guess I think having an extra 3 first round picks would help a farm system that is bottom tier in MLB, crazy right? Yep those guys did, and now they're about to be traded or walk, and Detroit is left without those picks to potentially replace them, that was the point all along....

 

A generic argument? You'll have to explain that one....

Yeah they have a financial advantage, but that isn't confined to only signing FAs and taking on contracts in trades. They could have played the old draft system and stole better talent in the 2nd round with higher offers. They could have done what the Dodgers did and go nuts signing international players. All large market teams have an advantage, that isn't unique to the Tigers. They have a choice as to which areas they apply that advantage. 

[kab21]

 

I haven't disagreed with any of that. Would I prefer to build a different way? Yes. Do I understand why teams follow the route Detroit did? Absolutely. You're right, there is risk associated in each. If I'm choosing between prospect volatility and emptying the farm/signing FAs I would take the former. Its a preference, as is Detroit's plan, but apparently you're a fool to hold it.

 

Whats frustrating is this sentiment that because people have apparently been pointing out the potential downfalls of Detroit's build for a while, it somehow delegitimizes those flaws now that they've become evident. 

Many rebuild through the farm teams spend a decade being terrible or mediocre and then have a short window of success. Very few can go on a run of a decade like the Tigers did. The Rays did it building through the farm but could only last 6 years and they have been one of the most successful teams to do it through the farm.

But nobody is saying that this is the right way or the only way. It requires a team to spend a lot on salary and not every team that does it is successful long term. Dombrowski has been more successful than most of the teams that did it.

The flaws of this approach are more evident when other teams have traded their farm systems for good but non-elite players. Sale is an elite player and it is very hard to lose that trade for the Red Sox. It can be a win-win though if the prospects realize their potential.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Many rebuild through the farm teams spend a decade being terrible or mediocre and then have a short window of success. Very few can go on a run of a decade like the Tigers did. The Rays did it building through the farm but could only last 6 years and they have been one of the most successful teams to do it through the farm.

But nobody is saying that this is the right way or the only way. It requires a team to spend a lot on salary and not every team that does it is successful long term. Dombrowski has been more successful than most of the teams that did it.

The flaws of this approach are more evident when other teams have traded their farm systems for good but non-elite players. Sale is an elite player and it is very hard to lose that trade for the Red Sox. It can be a win-win though if the prospects realize their potential.

If you empty the pipeline then yeah you're right, the rebuild is going to take forever. What I'm saying is don't get to that point. I think the Rays vs. Detroit comparison is more about the advantages you talked about earlier. If the Rays didn't operate on a shoestring budget they could've held onto some of those players and that run could've been longer.

 

Agreed, I wasn't taking anything away from him. 

 

Agree again, some teams will pull off whichever plan better than others. I'm not opposed to making a trade for a player like Sale, hell, I wish the Twins were in a position to deal for a pitcher like that. I realize that teams that build through drafting still need to make trades and/or sign FAs and vice versa; its the skew towards the extreme on either end that I disagree with. 

[kab21]

Wasn't it always known that teams like the Tigers (and Red Sox) have those advantages?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'm playing hindsight draft? You literally just made the statement that Detroit would have drafted the exact same players other clubs did using their picks. 

I did not make that statement. It was an example of how much of a crapshoot those picks are. I said feel free to use the average returns for 19th and 27th overall picks. It will not help your case.

 

 

Yeah, meaning maybe they spend one of those lost 1st round picks on a pitcher so they don't have to give innings to a guy like Matt Boyd...

The odds of that are not particularly high.

 

Through 2012, there were 48 picks at #19 overall.  Only 20 of them have produced more than 1 career WAR (for reference, Boyd produced 1.0 last year), and only ~4 of those were SP who were discernibly better than Matt Boyd.

 

It gets worse at 27th overall, as you can imagine.  Only 12 of 48 picks exceeded 1 career WAR, and again only ~4 SP better than Boyd.

 

The Tigers forfeited two 19th overall picks, and one 27th overall picks.  What do you think the odds were that those picks would have been SP that exceeded Matt Boyd's contributions in 2016? 

 

Meanwhile, with the players they signed in exchange for forfeiting those picks, the Tigers have so far netted ~$45 mil in surplus value per Fangraphs, plus a number of neutral value seasons where the value of marginal wins was high (playoff seasons).  With still more value to collect on Kinsler.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Yeah I guess I think having an extra 3 first round picks would help a farm system that is bottom tier in MLB, crazy right? Yep those guys did, and now they're about to be traded or walk, and Detroit is left without those picks to potentially replace them, that was the point all along....

You really want to argue that Detroit would be in a better position today, if they had kept the #27 overall pick in the 2012 draft and didn't have Kinsler?

 

This is what I mean when I say you are making a generic argument that falls apart when you look at specifics.  Yes, it is better to have the 27th overall pick than to not have it, all else being equal.  But adding talents/assets like Kinsler, particularly for playoff seasons, clearly means that all else is NOT equal.

 

Yes, it is better to have Drew Smyly than to not have him, all else being equal, but getting David Price for a playoff run, then later flipping Price in a down season for Norris and Boyd clearly means that all else is NOT equal.

 

(And we haven't even talked about the Miguel Cabrera trade!)

 

The Tigers have actually done such a good job at getting good returns on the picks/prospects they've given up the past 10 years, it would have taken exceptional circumstances for them to even match much less exceed those returns with a more conservative approach.  (Meaning, they would have needed to hit on the ~2% chance that one of those 19th overall picks turned into Roger Clemens.)

[Brock Beauchamp]

Dombrowski worked some serious magic to keep Detroit afloat.

 

It also helped that when he made a major mistake - Prince Fielder - another GM stepped in to let him walk away from that terrible deal and that GM got burned for it (as he rightly should for not only acquiring Fielder but giving up Kinsler to do it).

 

I still believe Dombrowski used some form of Jedi mind trick and/or roofies on opposing GMs to pull off some of the trades he did over the years.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I did not make that statement. It was an example of how much of a crapshoot those picks are. I said feel free to use the average returns for 19th and 27th overall picks. It will not help your case.

 

 

The odds of that are not particularly high.

 

Through 2012, there were 48 picks at #19 overall.  Only 20 of them have produced more than 1 career WAR (for reference, Boyd produced 1.0 last year), and only ~4 of those were SP who were discernibly better than Matt Boyd.

 

It gets worse at 27th overall, as you can imagine.  Only 12 of 48 picks exceeded 1 career WAR, and again only ~4 SP better than Boyd.

 

The Tigers forfeited two 19th overall picks, and one 27th overall picks.  What do you think the odds were that those picks would have been SP that exceeded Matt Boyd's contributions in 2016? 

 

Meanwhile, with the players they signed in exchange for forfeiting those picks, the Tigers have so far netted ~$45 mil in surplus value per Fangraphs, plus a number of neutral value seasons where the value of marginal wins was high (playoff seasons).  With still more value to collect on Kinsler.

I realize it is more difficult to mine talent picking late in rounds, I made that point a while back. Oh course no picks are a sure thing, on the flip side surely you acknowledge that by definition basically all FA contracts are bad contracts. I'm sure you're also aware of the risks involved in signing them as well. You're acting like drafting players is like walking through a minefield but signing FAs guarantees production. That isn't true, there is risk on both sides; for every busted #19 pick I'm certain you can find a terrible FA contract. According to your stats they've should've drafted a pitcher with a +1 WAR with one of those #19 picks. Somehow other MLB teams are able to find talent in 1st round picks, I'm sure Detroit is able to as well....

 

Oh course they boosted their surplus value in those seasons. They were trading minor league players for established MLB players and signing MLB FAs. Those prospects aren't contributing to MLB teams so how can you not increase surplus value that way? That sounds so nice until you take a look at the surplus WAR of the farm system. Its 12.5. For reference Boston ranks #1 at 42.5 and even the D-backs and Padres could must a 13 farm system surplus WAR. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

You really want to argue that Detroit would be in a better position today, if they had kept the #27 overall pick in the 2012 draft and didn't have Kinsler?

 

This is what I mean when I say you are making a generic argument that falls apart when you look at specifics.  Yes, it is better to have the 27th overall pick than to not have it, all else being equal.  But adding talents/assets like Kinsler, particularly for playoff seasons, clearly means that all else is NOT equal.

 

Yes, it is better to have Drew Smyly than to not have him, all else being equal, but getting David Price for a playoff run, then later flipping Price in a down season for Norris and Boyd clearly means that all else is NOT equal.

 

(And we haven't even talked about the Miguel Cabrera trade!)

 

The Tigers have actually done such a good job at getting good returns on the picks/prospects they've given up the past 10 years, it would have taken exceptional circumstances for them to even match much less exceed those returns with a more conservative approach.  (Meaning, they would have needed to hit on the ~2% chance that one of those 19th overall picks turned into Roger Clemens.)

You really want to argue that Detroit would be in a better position today, if they had kept the #27 overall pick in the 2012 draft and didn't have Kinsler?

 

This is such garbage. That isn't at all what I've said and you know that. Here look, I can do it too; "Do you really think the Tigers were better off trading Devon Travis for Anthony Gose? Is that the best way to build a good team?" Pretty annoying right? 

 

Have I not acknowledged the value they received up front in both trades and signings? If  Again, show me what part of my argument is "generic." You keep talking about all the positives about all the success they had in singing FAs and making trades for established players, yet you continue to ignore the effect that has on a farm system. THAT is holding all things equal. And here we are again at the "they've been good for 10 years," statement. Again, that doesn't somehow erase the state of the team today. Thats what you're ignoring, and that has been my point the whole time. 

 

None of these specific trades and FA signings occurred in a vacuum. No, losing one 1st round pick isn't the end of the world, but yes giving up multiple picks for FAs, and trading away prospects does hurt your farm system, that is clear. When the core moves past their prime and those FAs are either walking or being shopped, the lack of young talent to promote is a problem. 

 

[KirbyDome89]

Sure, I assume its common knowledge they have advantages. I don't think that changes anything I said...

[Otto von Ballpark]

I never said FA contracts are guaranteed sources of good production. I only said the Tigers have been very good at getting production out of them. Same with trades. Is that so hard to acknowledge?

 

Go ahead and go back 10 years or whatever and give us specifics, not generalities, about your alternate history Tigers, using your supposedly better approach. Pretty sure you will be unable to produce better results or put them in an appreciably better position today unless you rely on faulty assumptions about draft/development success, and/or make too much use of hindsight judgements to achieve perfection. Burden of proof is on you.

 

Until you are ready to do that, I am done with this conversation.

[kab21]

Detroit's farm system has been rated one of the worst for almost that entire decade that they have been good. It didn't stop them from being good nor did it stop them from trading prospects for very good players. 

Going back to the Red Sox (the original topic). Their long term future is in great shape despite the trade. How long will we have to wait for the negative impact to hurt the Red Sox? 5 years - 10 years - 15 years?

 

Teams like Detroit and the Red Sox can certainly use cheap talent but if they have a hole they can also easily go out and sign a player for 10M/yr. 

 

One thing that was always surprising me during Detroit's playoff runs is that they always had role getting promoted and filling holes. They weren't great players but they did provide value.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Your entire argument was about the value FAs provided vs. the volatile nature of prospects. I pointed out that there is big risk involved both ways. Is that so hard to acknowledge? 

Who's not acknowledging that all moves have risk?

 

The only fact not acknowledged here appears to be that Detroit has done a fine job managing those risks and fielding successful teams the past 10+ years, and are in a decent position today (bringing back an 86 win team with a good mix of stars and young players).  And it's unlikely that any of your preferred changes in approach would have benefitted them, overall.

 

I don't have a preference for stocking prospects or chasing veterans; I have a preference for sustained success. Detroit has met that threshold by any meaningful measure, and I tip my cap to them for it.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Who's not acknowledging that all moves have risk?

 

The only fact not acknowledged here appears to be that Detroit has done a fine job managing those risks and fielding successful teams the past 10+ years, and are in a decent position today (bringing back an 86 win team with a good mix of stars and young players).  And it's unlikely that any of your preferred changes in approach would have benefitted them, overall.

 

I don't have a preference for stocking prospects or chasing veterans; I have a preference for sustained success. Detroit has met that threshold by any meaningful measure, and I tip my cap to them for it.

So my post mysteriously disappeared....no idea how much or yours I'm seeing either....

 

When you knock on prospects as too risky to build around because they're volatile yet hold up FA signings as a way to continue successful runs you're ignoring the inherent risk each carries.

 

Oh Jesus....feel free to read previous posts if you can't believe I've given credit for that time. Yes, please, tell me more about how great they were and continue to ignore the point I've made the whole time. 

 

We both prefer sustained success; we have different ideas on how to achieve it. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I pointed out that emptying your minor league system would have a negative effect down the line. So here Detroit is; with a core that has aged past their prime, FA signings that are being shopped or getting ready to walk, and a farm system that is rated one of the worst in baseball. They're trending the wrong way. Yes, I think that building via the farm can help stave off a large rebuild. Again, you keep ignoring where this team is now and moving forward. 

 

I think a lot of the disagreement lies here.  I'm not terribly interested in generalities, and I'm not sure your application of them to the Tigers is warranted.

 

Detroit isn't perfect, but I fail to see how they are in that bad of shape.  86 wins last year, 83 pythag, probably an ~83 win projection for 2017.

 

A few bonafide stars still on top of their game with multiple years of control left (Cabrera, Kinsler, Verlander).  Younger pieces already in place with success (Fulmer, Norris) or at least steadiness (Castellanos, McCann, Iglesias).  Upton started slow but bounced back. Zimmermann has similar bounceback potential.  Solid bullpen.  Few "black holes" on the roster.  The farm system, while still not good overall, has some good pieces -- Manning, Stewart, Jimenez.  They haven't forfeited a first round pick since 2012, and the new CBA means they never will again.

 

They're not perfect, but they are still in the contention mix for the foreseeable future.  Coming on the heels of 10+ years of success, I'm not sure it's realistic to expect more.

[KirbyDome89]

Detroits farm system has been rated one of the worst in baseball because they kept trading prospects. FTFY

 

Idc if its 5 or 10 years, the point was when that stretch winds down there is no farm system in place pick them up. I realize big market teams are at a financial advantage, but again, that advantage applies to all aspects of building, not just signing FAs. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Frankly, I think any abstract preference is bunk -- it's dependent on what you start with, what opportunities are available, and what you do well.  The Tigers built a good core (Verlander, Granderson), supplemented it, and kept supplementing and succeeding.  Passing up opportunities to hoard prospects and draft picks almost certainly wouldn't have worked out as well.

 

And on the flip side, taking over the 1996 or 2011 Twins, and you'd be a fool to do that strategy.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I also think the degree to which the Tigers are "selling" this winter is overblown.  Sounds like Kinsler is unlikely to move, so it's basically Cameron Maybin so far, and rumblings about moving JD Martinez in his walk year.

[KirbyDome89]

 

I think a lot of the disagreement lies here.  I'm not terribly interested in generalities, and I'm not sure your application of them to the Tigers is warranted.

 

Detroit isn't perfect, but I fail to see how they are in that bad of shape.  86 wins last year, 83 pythag, probably an ~83 win projection for 2017.

 

A few bonafide stars still on top of their game with multiple years of control left (Cabrera, Kinsler, Verlander).  Younger pieces already in place with success (Fulmer, Norris) or at least steadiness (Castellanos, McCann, Iglesias).  Upton started slow but bounced back. Zimmermann has similar bounceback potential.  Solid bullpen.  Few "black holes" on the roster.  The farm system, while still not good overall, has some good pieces -- Manning, Stewart, Jimenez.  They haven't forfeited a first round pick since 2012, and the new CBA means they never will again.

 

They're not perfect, but they are still in the contention mix for the foreseeable future.  Coming on the heels of 10+ years of success, I'm not sure it's realistic to expect more.

So question, how is it that you're quoting a post I can no longer see? 

 

It isn't a generality. Its a preference for a philosophy of building a team. I can start pulling up examples using Cleveland and KC as to how successful it can be but that wasn't my point. The point I've made this entire time, is that when you sell a farm to bring in proven MLB talent you've hurt yourself/made things more difficult in the future. If I make that point its a faulty assumption, yet when you say Detroit could not have done anything better its apparently fact. You see the hypocrisy there right?

 

That is where the disagreement lies. You clearly don't think that rotten farm is a problem going forward; I do. 

 

We'll agree to disagree with current state of this team. Cabrera, Kinsler, and Verlander are studs but I would stop short of saying I'm thrilled about Cabrera's contract. Fulmer looks the part. Norris was solid in 15' then roughed up last year at AAA and didn't make a start for Detroit. Upton needed a crazy hot September just to have an ok season, and Zimmerman was just flat out bad. Castellanos might be moving into that upper tier but if you're throwing Iglesias and McCann into the same breath as him and saying that is a young group to build around then we strongly disagree. 

 

I think the fact Detroit is shopping Kinsler and Martinez would suggest that even they don't agree with your assertion that they're set to contend for the the foreseeable future. 

[KirbyDome89]

So what KC and Cleveland did to reach the WS the last three years is bunk? It isn't any more abstract than what Detroit did. How are you even saying this.....

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

So what KC and Cleveland did to reach the WS the last three years is bunk? It isn't any more abstract than what Detroit did. How are you even saying this.....

No, of course not.  What I said is that generalized statements like "building up from within is better" or "building through trades and FA is better" are bunk.  Both can be the right course of action, depending on circumstances.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think the fact Detroit is shopping Kinsler and Martinez would suggest that even they don't agree with your assertion that they're set to contend for the the foreseeable future. 

This is overblown.

 

JD Martinez is a free agent after the 2017 season.  Of course they should be shopping him -- even if they don't strike a deal now, they might set up partners/parameters for a summer deal.  And if defensive metrics are to be believed, he might belong at DH where Victor Martinez is still signed for 2 more years (although it could be a blip, or a temporary condition from injury, I haven't looked at it closely yet).

 

I don't think Kinsler has been "shopped" any more than virtually any player is "shopped" -- available for a premium return.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

We'll agree to disagree with current state of this team. Cabrera, Kinsler, and Verlander are studs but I would stop short of saying I'm thrilled about Cabrera's contract. Fulmer looks the part. Norris was solid in 15' then roughed up last year at AAA and didn't make a start for Detroit. Upton needed a crazy hot September just to have an ok season, and Zimmerman was just flat out bad. Castellanos might be moving into that upper tier but if you're throwing Iglesias and McCann into the same breath as him and saying that is a young group to build around then we strongly disagree. 

Cabrera is elite HOF talent showing no signs of age.  It's a big contract, but not one you worry about.

 

Norris in fact made 13 starts for Detroit last year, with a 123 ERA+.

 

Zimmermann was actually pretty good until he hit the DL. The question is whether he can get and stay healthy. No real evidence that he's turned into a Pelfrey-level performer yet.

 

Castellanos doesn't score well defensively, while Iglesias and McCann do.  They were all roughly 1-2 bWAR players last year.

 

They're obviously not perfect, but they're not in dire straits either.  They absolutely should be in the mix for contention; with the right breaks, they are a very good team, and even with some bad breaks, they still should have some assets worth selling if they need to.

[KirbyDome89]

 

No, of course not.  What I said is that generalized statements like "building up from within is better" or "building through trades and FA is better" are bunk.  Both can be the right course of action, depending on circumstances.

Ok, so since I never made the claim it was, then preferring to build using the minor league system cannot be bunk either correct?

[KirbyDome89]

 

This is overblown.

 

JD Martinez is a free agent after the 2017 season.  Of course they should be shopping him -- even if they don't strike a deal now, they might set up partners/parameters for a summer deal.  And if defensive metrics are to be believed, he might belong at DH where Victor Martinez is still signed for 2 more years (although it could be a blip, or a temporary condition from injury, I haven't looked at it closely yet).

 

I don't think Kinsler has been "shopped" any more than virtually any player is "shopped" -- available for a premium return.

I don't know how any team that views itself as a contender would look to move those two players. I agree, there is a difference between listening, and actively looking to move a player but I think the talk about Kinsler refusing to waive his no trade clause speaks to more than just formal inquiries. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Cabrera is elite HOF talent showing no signs of age.  It's a big contract, but not one you worry about.

 

Norris in fact made 13 starts for Detroit last year, with a 123 ERA+.

 

Zimmermann was actually pretty good until he hit the DL. The question is whether he can get and stay healthy. No real evidence that he's turned into a Pelfrey-level performer yet.

 

Castellanos doesn't score well defensively, while Iglesias and McCann do.  They were all roughly 1-2 bWAR players last year.

 

They're obviously not perfect, but they're not in dire straits either.  They absolutely should be in the mix for contention; with the right breaks, they are a very good team, and even with some bad breaks, they still should have some assets worth selling if they need to.

Meh signing a guy through his age 40 season for $30 million a year would make me worry. I get why they gave him the contract but man that is a big leap. 

 

Good call on Norris I totally missed that. If he and Fulmer pan out then kudos Det. 

 

Thats true, I just think its more likely that Castellanos picks up defensively a la Plouffe than it is that Iglesias and McCann suddenly start mashing. They're good players, obviously a team like the Twins would love having all three, but I just don't think you look at those three and say "yep, thats a group to build around." 

 

No they haven't plunged into all out rebuild mode but I don't think they're right there with playoff teams in the AL either. I'm not saying the Tigers are in the same boat as the Twins, but I've heard my fill of  the "if things break right," mantra. Hope is nice, but the goal is to not have to bank on things like that to make it in. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Ok, so since I never made the claim it was, then preferring to build using the minor league system cannot be bunk either correct?

Why state a preference unless you think it is better?

[KirbyDome89]

 

Why state a preference unless you think it is better?

Its stated as a preference because there is no objective set of criteria to measure which way is "better." The basis of the argument is subjective.....

 

I may think summer is better than winter, but there is no way to clearly prove that and so I would say I prefer summer, but that doesn't make it "better," than winter.

 

I've been very clear about that.

[kab21]

 

Ok, so since I never made the claim it was, then preferring to build using the minor league system cannot be bunk either correct?

The entire point of this thread was not to say that one method or the other was better. The point of the thread has been that Detroit has done a great job doing it this way and people have been saying the same things for 10 years. You may not remember it happening but it did. And despite all of this concern about the terrible Tiger's farm system it still routinely produced decent to good players/prospects that were later used to fill holes or in trades.

 

Ironically there have been several times that Dombrowski traded off older players (like Granderson, and Price among others) to restock the farm system or make the team younger and cheaper. He has done a great job although it is fair to say that some of it has been due to luck but that would likely be true of any GM that has been successful.