2023-24 MLB Off-Season News and Notes Part 2

[redsfan9988]

For me, the point is this:

There are many reasons for the Reds lack of success over the last 30+ years. The Dodgers payroll doesn’t make the top 20 on that list. It’s just a visible and convenient excuse for many incarnations of Reds baseball ownership to justify and rationalize their relative ineptitude.

[j.u.FAIRFIIELD]

For me, the point is this:

There are many reasons for the Reds lack of success over the last 30+ years. The Dodgers payroll doesn’t make the top 20 on that list. It’s just a visible and convenient excuse for many incarnations of Reds baseball ownership to justify and rationalize their relative ineptitude.

LA in recent years has done what the Reds and teams like them don't do -- they get players to make their lineup better. Reds FFS were using Tucker Barnhart in the 2 spot and Kyle Farmer as their cleanup guy, as well as having 3 guys at the end of the order who were worse hitters than pitchers. So. yeah, you don't get quality Freddie Freeman for bargain prices, but you have to get some talent to keep from having 6 straight outs in the fifth inning.
I don't know what a good lineup ought to cost, but you don't improve it by starting the season with Vosler, Myers and Newman.
The only reason there's hope now is because we choose to believe these guys are better than the 4A auditions they replaced.
I will go with hope for the minute.

[Falls City Beer]

For me, the point is this:

There are many reasons for the Reds lack of success over the last 30+ years. The Dodgers payroll doesn’t make the top 20 on that list. It’s just a visible and convenient excuse for many incarnations of Reds baseball ownership to justify and rationalize their relative ineptitude.

Of course it's mostly the organization's ineptitude. I doubt you'll find many people who disagree with that.

Maybe it's more an academic argument and maybe fans of teams in the NL West and AL East have a lot more skin in the complaining game than Reds' fans (since we DO stand a chance in the NL Central), but the arguments I don't find convincing at all:

1. Most of the bottom 2/3 of the league can contend year after year with primarily smart moves.

2. There are generous Santa Claus organizations and penurious Scrooge organizations (smart and dumb, yes, but not generous and cheap--they're all guided primarily by market decisions).

3. There can be nothing at all done about it.

I think a hard cap and a floor is an impossibility at this point and may not really work anyway. However, I do think that changes to the structure of the game could all but wipe out the arguments from the complainers: 1. Shorten the season: 162 games means that only the teams with money or the luxury of being able to throw away prospects can purchase difference-making talent for the final 45 games (i.e. Jordan Montgomery) 2. Expand the postseason: letting in more than half the league literally robs teams of an excuse and would likely spur "cheap-o" teams to kick in a million more here and there to make the cut.

[*BaseClogger*]

No thanks on shortening the regular season. I prefer the product as it currently stands.

[Falls City Beer]

No thanks on shortening the regular season. I prefer the product as it currently stands.

Well, it wouldn't be *that* much shorter since the postseason would take a good while longer than it currently does. It would just shorten the drudgery of 162 games in a sport where injuries literally short-circuit less financially able teams. I wouldn't miss cutting off the final month of gassed and ineffective pitchers dodging Tommy John candidacy.

The 162 game season is perfect for a bunch of beer-bellied guys whose max velocity was 90 MPH. Less so for guys who struggle to throw 150 innings and routinely top out at 98 MPH.

[redsfan9988]

I still fail to see how limiting the Dodgers’ payroll will lead to more success for the Reds - who have been consistently and thoroughly outperformed by orgs in their income bracket for three decades.

[Falls City Beer]

I still fail to see how limiting the Dodgers’ payroll will lead to more success for the Reds - who have been consistently and thoroughly outperformed by orgs in their income bracket for three decades.

Yeah me neither. Maybe someone who believes that will step into the discussion.

[redsfan9988]

Yeah me neither. Maybe someone who believes that will step into the discussion.

My post was intended for Phil…

[Brisco]

Yeah me neither. Maybe someone who believes that will step into the discussion.

I will wade in with a few thoughts.

1. Money does not guarantee success, but it does make it easier. It's the steroids of baseball management.
2. I hate when folks cite competitive results at the world's highest level of competition as evidence of ineptitude. At best its simplistic, at worst its arrogant or ignorant. The slowest horse in the Kentucky Derby is still a very fast horse and by no means "inept."
3. Succeeding in management at the MLB level takes resources, skill and luck. I have had the privilege of being behind the scenes at multiple MLB franchises and I will say that of those three, the variable that is the most flat is skill. One thing that shocked me was how generally cooperative MLB teams are in terms of player development. I have witnessed teams showing off new techniques and capabilities to competitors. One the one hand this open sharing environment creates a very collegial atmosphere between the front office and support staff, but on the other, it helps flatten out the 'skill' curve even more... which puts even more emphasis on resources and luck in terms of competitive results.
4. The difference in resources goes so far beyond payroll. In terms of support staff, its like the big money teams (my experience was with the Yankees) get the first pick in the draft each and every year. If they want a certain physical trainer, they get them. Period. They have the resources to outbid just about anyone else. My primary area is law, and it confuses me that folks can comprehend that large firms with huge resources have a huge competitive advantage in litigation, yet somehow they think that does not matter much in MLB. By parallel logic, those attorneys that represent the little guy and lose more trials against big firms than they win must be "inept"?
5. Please stop using the argument that because some small market teams succeed in a given time frame, all of them should... and if they don't they are "inept."

All that said, I agree with many that a lack of revenue sharing is at least if not more important than salary cap. I do not have hard numbers, but, based on what I have personally seen, it would not surprise me if the Yankees budget for scouting and player development compared to the Reds was far more extreme than the differences in player salary. Not just double or triple... I am talking maybe 10-20 times as much.

[TRF]

A 154-game season, with slightly expanded playoffs, especially if expansion takes the league to 32 teams and four divisions in each league ala the NFL.

I could get behind that.

[JFLegal]

RE: The length of the season...

There is zero chance if MLB was starting from scratch that they would have a 162-game regular season. Or even 154 games which was the previous standard. It's just too damn long and lessens the importance of each game.

I agree that the ideal number would be more along the lines of 120 games. Still a lot, but would make every game more meaningful.

Keeping it at 162 is peak "We do it this way because we've done it this way for decades." [Which is horrible logic. How would you do it if you were starting from scratch should be the question you're asking.]

[j.u.FAIRFIIELD]

I will wade in with a few thoughts.

...................
5. Please stop using the argument that because some small market teams succeed in a given time frame, all of them should... and if they don't they are "inept."

All that said, I agree with many that a lack of revenue sharing is at least if not more important than salary cap. I do not have hard numbers, but, based on what I have personally seen, it would not surprise me if the Yankees budget for scouting and player development compared to the Reds was far more extreme than the differences in player salary. Not just double or triple... I am talking maybe 10-20 times as much.

I agree that nobody at the highest level is inept, but there are matters that transcend it, such as if a GM has the authority to do it 'my way or the highway' and takes the lead on roster construction by ignoring people who have a decent idea, that's going to reflect on the overall operation. Not saying if/when this happens but I'd believe that there are lots of players who were added to rosters (or not added) because a GM either didn't believe the data or was stuck on it and didn't listen to other reasons. We all hear the story about why a player wasn't traded or released because the owner's wife liked the guy. (ugh).
As for scouting, there are abundant stories, some perhaps true, about scouts who shoved players along because they were considered elite at their craft.

[Joeyjection19]

I'd rather the playoffs be shortened than the regular season.

[*BaseClogger*]

More games = more money. Idk where this idea they would come up with a drastically shorter regular season if designing it today comes from. Hell, the NFL just lengthened their regular season and their injury situation is significantly worse.

[Falls City Beer]

More games = more money. Idk where this idea they would come up with a drastically shorter regular season if designing it today comes from. Hell, the NFL just lengthened their regular season and their injury situation is significantly worse.

Doesn’t mean it’s making the NFL product better. Sure it’s a money grab, but again, I don’t think longer seasons are better. Honestly, I pretty much stop following the Reds after August 1st most years because they simply don’t have the horses. That’s boring. Why would I want to watch a bunch of meaningless games with spare parts and September call ups? It’s truly unwatchable. Create a scenario where teams can make it interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd rather the playoffs be shortened than the regular season.

What’s the benefit of a 162 game season? For 18 teams a season it’s simply dead air for 2 months. Terrible product.