RealGM

Milwaukee Brewers (14-9) versus Kansas City Royals (5-15)

Game 24: Tuesday, April 24 at 7:15PM CST

Zach Davies (RHP, 1-2 with a 4.84 ERA) versus Ian Kennedy (RHP, 1-2 with a 2.35 ERA)

Game 25: Wednesday, April 25 at 7:15PM CST

Chase Anderson (RHP, 2-1 with a 3.25 ERA) versus Jason Hammel (RHP, 0-1 with a 3.20 ERA)

Better

Royals have sucked but Kennedy and Hammel will be tough. Let's keep beating the cupcakes. I love seeing Twirl riled up.

Win this one for Twirly's retroactive no tank pout!!!

I just don't get the tanking approach in MLB. NBA? Absolutely... NFL? Perhaps. MLB is just such a crapshoot.

https://www.fangraphs.com/community/is-tanking-in-baseball-worth-it/

I think the way the Brewers were able to go from bottom to top farm system in a matter of 1-2 years with their trades was the way to go.

Its going to happen more and more. A lot of kids are going the college route and as you can see over the last couple drafts theyve become a far lessor crapshoot IMO. The pool money matters. Then you have to factor in this is the new "model" to build a team (Cubs, Stro's) and everyone tries to copy it. In addition with revenue sharing it also puts quite a bit of coin in owners pockets. Its pretty difficult to compare anything before this redo of the last CBA to what theyre doing now.

Sure, but doesn't the Cubs/Stro's "model" also have the benefit of having a ton of money available to spend? Much more room for error there when they can just supplement with big contract starters.

And it's not just oh, go lose more games. It's about giving younger players opportunities and we didn't even do that. There was absolutely no upside in signing Chris Carter. Just go with Josmil Pinto and see if there's anything there. If he's good, you have a cheap 1st baseman for several years. If he sucks, no harm done.

If the Astros don't do a scorched earth rebuild there's not a chance in the world Jose Altuve is an MVP. Wasn't highly thought of as a prospect and if they were even putting up the veil of trying to compete they probably would have went out and looked for a better option. Instead they were just like go play, we don't really care about wins and losses right now so we'll see if he turns into something and if he doesn't, we'll replace him when he gets older and more expensive.

That's the kind of stuff we should've been doing. That and taking advantage of stupid teams like the Mariners who gave away Luiz Gohara for nothing.

soboMP3 wrote:Sure, but doesn't the Cubs/Stro's "model" also have the benefit of having a ton of money available to spend? Much more room for error there when they can just supplement with big contract starters.

You're basically arguing for a total rebuild because those young players we would get in the draft are also insanely cheap for their first several years. Until they traded for Verlander on what, August 31st, the Astros had one player making over $15 million last season.

Tanking can work and I get the strategy but as I mentioned the other day I do think there are some diminished results the more teams go that route. If 10-12 teams tank some of them will still pick 10-12. Plus with less teams bidding for veteran talent means you probably don't as good of a prospect haul when you try to peddle of your useful players.

trwi7 wrote:And it's not just oh, go lose more games. It's about giving younger players opportunities and we didn't even do that. There was absolutely no upside in signing Chris Carter. Just go with Josmil Pinto and see if there's anything there. If he's good, you have a cheap 1st baseman for several years. If he sucks, no harm done.

There definitely could be some upside in signing Carter. Plenty of guys have reformed their game as post-hype players that had weaknesses like Carter's K issues. I barely see the difference between Pinto and Carter in this. Maybe you find something in Carter and keep him around for a while or you can flip him for something. Carter almost looked like they may have been able to flip him for something early in that season before the magic ran out.

The Cubs did a better job of tanking but they did A LOT, and I mean a lot, of stuff like this.

Nate Schierholtz, Luis Valbuena (used to get Fowler), Tommy La Stella, Chris Coghlan, Emilio Bonifacio (dealt for Caratini), they signed Edwin Jackson, Jason Hammel helped them in the Addison Russell package, David DeJesus, Scott Feldman (used to acquire Arrieta).

There are probably 10 other guys on this list but I don't feel like digging around even further.

The Cubs also had the benefit of more big $ players that the Brewers could never touch Lester, Heyward, and Zobrist to start up this dynasty even if some underwhelmed.

The Astros did plenty of this as well. They were a bit more scorched earth, but they still did plenty of horse trading to move pieces around.

soboMP3 wrote:Sure, but doesn't the Cubs/Stro's "model" also have the benefit of having a ton of money available to spend? Much more room for error there when they can just supplement with big contract starters.

There best players arent even in ARB yet. Sure it helps to have money to spend but when you dont have these albatross deals on your books you basically have a rainy day fund. KC did it smart with Moustakas. They should be able to flip him at the deadline. HOU like twirly said had just Beltran and McCann making a significant salary before they waiver dealt for Verlander. Picking at the top of the draft or losing games really speed along rebuild especially when you basically have no other options like say KC, TB, or MIA. They get the pool money and pick close to the top of the drafts. If I knew we had zero shot of winning a WS and you asked me to have a choice of losing 95 games or going 81-81 its a slam dunk. Sure every so often you can hit on a mid round 1 guy like Walker Beuhler but chances are Bregman and Swanson are going to turn out better players than Chris Shaw and Christian Stewart.

On the whole, I'm all for tanking and would have been a fan if the Brewers did it. But you can also handle some nuance to compare what the Brewers have done with what the Orioles have done the last 2 or so years while their ship is sinking.

I'm OK with Miami and TB and others doing it. It's a fairly smart idea. I just don't think you should make some blanket statement that a franchise is stupid for not tanking for 5 years.

Kerb Hohl wrote: I just don't think you should make some blanket statement that a franchise is stupid for not tanking for 5 years.

Speaking of stupid blanket statements.

trwi7 wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote: I just don't think you should make some blanket statement that a franchise is stupid for not tanking for 5 years.

Speaking of stupid blanket statements.

Glad that's all that you've picked out from what I said. They didn't go scorched earth, but they did not do anything win now of sort for 2-3 years. They had a pretty high pick twice. So you wanted them to go for a full 5, I'd imagine.

That Carter vs. Pinto stuff is completely asinine. I get the idea of getting extra losses, but there are plenty of times you can flip a damaged goods player that have a marketable skill and there are also times where those guys flame out more spectacularly than someone like Pinto.

Cain loving the standing O

Atta boy Shaw

Might be the first time I've seen an opposing player get a standing ovation off of a non-historic Home Run.

idk about Shaw bunting there. Even against a lefty I trust his approach. I hope he did that on his own.

EDIT: Especially if Santana is going to be a pile of crap hitting right behind him.