KirbyDome89

Whether they said it ten years ago or I'm saying it now, it doesn't change the reality of that team today and moving forward. Yeah I must be forgetting all that homegrown talent they've been bringing up through their system to plug holes over the years. Go back and look at those rosters, its nearly all signings and trades. Right now I see McCann, Castellanos, Verlander, Rondon, and some bullpen arms sprinkled in. Those are the players on the 25 man that Detroit has drafted. I wouldn't call it a restocking if they're still ranked 25th. Younger and cheaper? In that 10 year span the lowest their payroll ranked was 9th, they finished in the top 5 in seven of those ten years. That wasn't a team that was plugging in prospects, thats a team that was signing FAs.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.....

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.

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.

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.

"His reliance on tailing, spinning pitches around the edges of the zone will make it hard for him to ever develop an efficient approach to dispatching hitters, and Berrios could still easily wind up in the bullpen." Given the depressing state of the current rotation I'm not sure I could handle this....

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We agreed a while back that all teams cycle through up and down periods. What is ridiculous is to call people foolish for pointing out the potential downfalls of trading away a farm system, whether they said it 10 years ago or now, and then when those negative aspects start to show, it is dismissed as "no team can stay good forever."

What is with this Matt Boyd love? Have you bothered to glance at his career numbers or is it just easier to throw his name in because he was part of the trade? l'm certainly taking Smyly over Boyd so they basically swapped Smyly for Norris, who if he pans out is an upgrade. Congrats on making a smart move? Yes, clearly I've put no though into this as 2 pages of my posts would suggest. If you read previous posts you saw that I never said it was the "wrong," approach, or that it couldn't work. I pointed out that emptying a farm system can hurt a team in the future and i think we're seeing that now with Detroit, and i think we'll continue to see it for a while barring some sort of sale like the Sox just had. There are also a lot of variables involving signing FAs and making big trades. I don't think I need to make a laundry list of failed trades and signings to show that there is risk involved in building from within or acquiring talent on the market. I really doubt a team that viewed itself as a WS contender would be shopping those two during the offseason. Yes, they did get value up front. That is what it is called when you sign a FA and forfeit a pick. Those 1st rounders would be starting to creep in MLB right now, and instead they're looking at the signings walking away in a year or two. That would be the definition of getting the value up front. When did I ever "not give them credit for the signings?" Honestly did you even read this thread or did you just decide to jump in.... Wait wait wait, so I'm not allowed to assume an average farm system could call up a pitcher who could best Anibal Sanchez's 5.87 ERA last season, but you're free to assume that Detroit would have selected the exact same players as the teams they forfeited picks to? Makes total sense.... How long have you been saying "the Tigers are moving down not up"? Even a broken clock is correct twice a day... Yet it is still true...Its funny that nobody wants to acknowledge that; all they want to do is point at past success as if that somehow changes where they are right now. Yes they had a good run, I said that a while back, but the original point I made was about the team they are now, and what they look to be moving forward. But sure, cover your ears, stomp on the ground, and keep yelling "10 years."

I don't think its a stretch to say that a decent farm system can promote a SP who can keep an ERA under 6. Both Ray and Smyly were better than Sanchez last year so sure, feel free to swap either in. I agree, trading proven MLB talent for prospects isn't a win now move. Its what a smart team does when it realizes the window has closed. I've said before that the Tigers are moving down not up. They're looking to move Kinsler and Martinez too, that isn't what teams who think they can contend do. Kudos to Detroit on snagging Fulmer; and Norris looks like he'll be good too. Count me out on the Matt Boyd hype train.... Again, I agree, it's harder to hit on elite talent when you're picking late in rounds. However, along with talent acquisition, part of building a farm system is playing the numbers game. The more prospects you have the chance to evaluate, the better your chances of having some succeed. If you're losing those picks, you're missing out on opportunities to acquire cheap impact talent, that in turn hurts your farm system, which can then negatively impact the MLB club. Yes those FAs have provided value up front, but that was also at the cost of 1st round picks that had the potential to be contributing now.

So you agree that all years aren't equal but then you say the point is they only had 2 losing seasons in 10 years. When you say that, it does put all those seasons on the same plane. Essentially you're flattening the curve and ignoring the direction of those teams over those years. Clearly this team isn't where they were a few years ago, and they've started to slide. "Things aren't that bad in Detroit."The argument seems to be that because they haven't imploded to the point of disaster the idea that decimating a farm system could hurt them is foolish. I disagree, I think it is hurting them, and I think the last few years are starting to show it. You're right, they have players coming off the books in the next few years, but the point is to minimize how many aging FAs you have to sign to big contracts. I'm not sure where the comparison is between Detroit and the Sox...

There was no "mythical," pitcher to bring up, and that was EXACTLY the point. Having somebody to bring up so you don't have to trot out Anibal Sanchez every 5th day would have helped that team... I haven't called any failed trades into question, but sure lets look at the Travis/Gose trade. Travis was the top prospect in their farm at the time of the trade. I think thats more of an indictment on their farm than it is a compliment about Travis, but he had looked like a solid player. Detorit had asked him to play some CF but quickly turned around and swapped him for Gose who already had 3 years of MLB time. So rather than allow your top prospect the chance to learn a new position you trade him for a guy that has MLB experience. That isn't a win now move? Those players were in completely different places in their careers at that time, so no, it wasn't an even swap of young talent. It was trading an unknown for the known.

If you don't think it has hurt them then we clearly have very different opinions on the value of having a good farm system. Would good prospects not boost their chance or competing this year? Would having another pitcher to help with a playoff push not have been beneficial last year? I pointed out the 4 year absence because you kept hammering down about how great they had been for a decade. They certainly weren't terrible years but I would hardly call them a great team during that stretch which was EXACTLY the point of the wave analogy. Last time on "the ten year stretch." I've said it before, those years aren't all equal. If you want to lump them all into the same category and tell me they were equally competitive all ten seasons then I'll disagree and thats where it ends. There is a clear trend, and the Tigers are on the wrong side of it now. The fact that Detroit took time to reach their peak and the descent hasn't been abrupt doesn't change what they are as a team or which direction they're heading.

Both were horribly mismanged franchises. Its not coincidence they turned around after Moore and Huntington took over as GM in 06' and 07' respectively. The minor league systems were rebuilt, the prospects have produced at the MLB level, and they've been able to hold onto that talent for the most part (maybe not much longer for KC) to sustain the success. TB held on as long as they could during their run and they're still pumping out pitchers. Cleveland is set for a while thanks to their drafting and development. I would say those are strong examples of what building through a farm can produce. Yep, they received Shields and Davis, who was a failed starter, not the dominant reliever we know him as today. I guess Hosmer, Cain, Herrera, Perez, Gordon, and Moustakas were less important? C'mon...that trade was the cherry on the sundae the farm system provided. I'm skeptical whether history actually does favor trading prospects, especially if you consider the earlier years of baseball (although that may not be fair) but I'm too lazy to fact check and dig through transactions of every team over the last 100+ years so I think we can agree to disagree As a side not I think it would be really interesting if there was a way to quantify how often each strategy was deployed and the success rate. i would also wonder whether the more popular option was actually the better decision, or were teams prisoners of their conventional thinking. in 2016 the idea of using your best relief pitcher in the highest leverage situation of a game was "revolutionary." Sometimes I love the stubbornness in the face of change, other times its maddening.

If it isn't perfect then its the closest thing to it. Picking at the top of the draft is an advantage. Yes you can find talent throughout (Mike Trout?) but your chances of getting MLB players increases the closer you pick to the #1 spot. With each round the difficulty level increases. Choosing first in the 2nd round (38th overall) is basically a late first round pick. Now, compare that to picking last in the 2nd round (70th overall). Obviously the overall spots aren't exact but essentially whats happening is that teams at the top are getting 2 picks for every one that bottom teams have. When you say that good teams don't stop acquiring players you're minimizing the distinction between the picks and basically shrugging off the advantage of choosing at the top. I think thats a big deal. So because the Twins have been a s**t show the past few years its evidence that building a farm system is overrated? The Twins system was trash and essentially was restocked using those high round picks. Yes that takes a long time, which is exactly why I'm advocating for holding onto some prospects. Personally I'm pumped about the way Buxton finished the season. Yes Berrios was disappointing, but it was also in a limited amount of action. I think its way too early to put those guys into the "not good players," pile. I also wouldn't rush to hold those guys up as an indictment of prospects. The consensus has been Dombrowski is a good GM and built a solid FO. I haven't disputed that fact so Idk why you would ever compare him to what has gone on in MN. You don't think the Twins could have traded for Sale or a Dozier clone last year when Sano, Buxton, and Berrios were still considered prospects? You're asking me to argue against Epstein and what he has done. I can't do that. I will say he is on a different level than Dombrowski, so I'm not sure its apples to apples, but obviously Epstein's history speaks for itself. I can flip that around just as easily and say it isn't a given that holding onto prospects won't get you anywhere, nor is it a given that emptying the farm won't have ramifications in the future. I think teams such as KC, Cleveland, TB, and Pittsburgh would strongly disagree with the notion that holding onto prospects hurts today and does nothing for the future.

I NEVER once said they could only be good for a few years and then had to completely fall apart. Please, if you can find where I said that feel free to quote it. Very few teams are horrible, have a stretch like 11-14, then fall apart and are horrible again. You trend up, peak (11-14) and come back down. So now I'm contradicting myself by acknowledging that teams rise and fall? Is it so unreasonable to expect teams to put up decent records while they near the peak and as they begin to move away from it? I thought we had agreed that teams cycle through periods of up and down but maybe that was TheLeviathan. Look, Idk if you're not understanding what I'm saying, or if you're purposely misrepresenting my posts. Maybe we have very different ideas about what constitutes short term and long term. When I say its a short term strategy I mean its win now at all costs. For some teams thats a one year run, for others it could be 5, 6, who knows, but its all about pouring resources in to maximize in the moment. Long term would be after that competitive window closes when the team is on the downside of the arch. When I say longterm, I mean when it is time to move on from the team as it has been constructed. Having prospects that can fill those holes would go a long way in shrinking a rebuild project. I think its obvious that Detroits prime competing years were 2011-2014. Like I said, having good teams leading up to, and shortly following those years isn't crazy. You keep trying to pin me down by repeating that they've been so successful over the last decade. By doing so you're assuming that all those years are created equally, meaning they were at the same level of competitiveness each year. Obviously, I see that span as an arch. I'm assuming that by the "writing one sentence (can't have long term success)" comment you were referring to those 10 years and their records. I've explained how good records and the curve aren't mutually exclusive. I'm sure you can see how that is frustrating for me as well.