Players may boycott spring training?

[mission27]

Also both guys played the first seven years of their career for the AL Central team that drafted them and then became free agents. 

Tony Clark signed a short term deal for a few million bucks.  Eric Hosmer wants to be paid like Kevin Durant. 

Who's fault is the fact that he isn't signed.

[TLO]

Hosmer and Moustakas are both ltbifb

[LuckyNumber11]

4 minutes ago, mission27 said:

Player A, first seven years: .277/.355/.502, .857 OPS, 112 OPS+, 156 HR, 11.5 fWAR

Player B, first seven years: .284/.342/.439, .781 OPS, 111 OPS+, 127 HR, 9.9 fWAR

Who's better?

Eric Flea Hosmer has a career sub-.800 OPS as a first baseman and has been statistically the worst defensive first baseman in baseball over the past two seasons.  The guy was worth -0.1 wins above replacement the year before last.  And he wants to be paid like Kevin Durant.  But sure, the owners are really screwing the players over.

2012 Eric Hosmer was a typical sophomore slump. 2014 was a year where Hosmer struggled with a wrist injury that severely affect his hitting style, as well as his defense. The decline in numbers that year, having watched him for most of the season, I recall attributing the majority of his struggle due to the nagging injury which began early in the season and caused him to miss a large chunk of the year. The 2016 version of the Kansas City Royals resembled the titanic sinking, while that isn't an excuse as to his decline in play, the environment that someone plays in certainly has to be taken into account.  

While Hosmer is certainly inconsistent, Tony Clark never even sniffs Hosmer at Hosmer's peak performances. Or if we look at a business perspective, Hosmer is an incredibly marketable player, and has a certain clutch pedigree that can't be denied. It's no secret that Hosmer has been hated by sabermetrics his entire career but when you look at the bigger picture with Hosmer, there are certainly some things that explain why. I am not arguing at all that Hosmer is worth 200M, but a Tony Clark comparison is laughable at best. 

[mission27]

Just now, LuckyNumber11 said:

2012 Eric Hosmer was a typical sophomore slump. 2014 was a year where Hosmer struggled with a wrist injury that severely affect his hitting style, as well as his defense. The decline in numbers that year, having watched him for most of the season, I recall attributing the majority of his struggle due to the nagging injury which began early in the season and caused him to miss a large chunk of the year. The 2016 version of the Kansas City Royals resembled the titanic sinking, while that isn't an excuse as to his decline in play, the environment that someone plays in certainly has to be taken into account.  

While Hosmer is certainly inconsistent, Tony Clark never even sniffs Hosmer at Hosmer's peak performances. Or if we look at a business perspective, Hosmer is an incredibly marketable player, and has a certain clutch pedigree that can't be denied. It's no secret that Hosmer has been hated by sabermetrics his entire career but when you look at the bigger picture with Hosmer, there are certainly some things that explain why. I am not arguing at all that Hosmer is worth 200M, but a Tony Clark comparison is laughable at best. 

Tony Clark 1998: .291/.358/.522, .880 OPS, 126 OPS+, 34 HR, 3.3 fWAR

Eric Hosmer 2017: .318/.385/.498, .882 OPS, 132 OPS+, 25 HR, 4.1 fWAR

I really don't see how Hosmer's 2013, 15, and 17 is any better than Clark's 97, 98, and 99 tbh.  He has a sexy batting average but he doesn't walk and has no power.  He's won a couple Gold Gloves but the numbers say he's the worst defensive player in baseball.  

And marketable in the midwest =/= marketable in a big market.  He's boring and no casual fan knows who he is.  He's Tony Clark.

[NewAge]

51 minutes ago, mission27 said:

Isn't that what you'd want your team to do?  Isn't that what smart baseball fans would advocate?  Its not just baseball, tanking is the new reality in every sport.  It's not about the owners.  It's about smart people realizing the best way to build a sustainable winner in most markets is to be bad for 2-3 years and get a bunch of good young players. 

Honestly, baseball is out of whack with the other two major American pro sports leagues.  Eric Hosmer wants to be paid like Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Cam Newton, etc.  Thats ridiculous.  Eric Hosmer would generate basically no incremental revenue for the Boston Red Sox.  He might make them marginally more likely to make the playoffs, but only marginally, and there is not a single human being on the planet who would go to a Red Sox game to see Eric Hosmer who doesn't already get family tickets from Eric Hosmer.  Why should he get $200 million?  Just because of the salary as a % of revenue formula?  

I have sympathy for the low man on the totem poll in the minor leagues.  But I'd actually rather see owners keep their money than pay sorry *** players like Eric Hosmer more money.  If I had my way, guys like Hosmer would be taking a pay cut.

No, tanking is bad for the sport. 

[NewAge]

If I was appointed GM of a treadmill/mediocre/crossroads team, I would not tank. Not with like 12 teams currently tearing down.

I'd buy players at a discount rate and have a really good shot at making the playoffs.

[mission27]

Just now, NewAge said:

No, tanking is bad for the sport. 

That doesn't address my question.  Its a prisoners dilemma.  Tanking is bad for the sport.  But its good for your team.  

There are ways to address tanking, but under the current rules, its the only rational strategy for mid to small market teams.  The alternative is perpetual mediocrity.

[mission27]

Just now, NewAge said:

If I was appointed GM of a treadmill/mediocre/crossroads team, I would not tank. Not with like 12 teams currently tearing down.

I'd buy players at a discount rate and have a really good shot at making the playoffs.

No, you'd spend a bunch of money on fleas, your team would go 5 games under .500 for a couple years, your farm system would atrophy, and you'd get fired like every other flea GM from Cornell.

[mission27]

Point me to a team that has built a consistent contender without tanking, and without a huge payroll. 

The Nationals tanked.  The Cubs tanked.  The Astros tanked.  The Indians basically tanked. 

Billy Beane is a very smart man, he never tanked, and look where his team is now that small market teams are tanking.  There's no other way right now. 

[TLO]

Tony Clark was a CS in 2005. Much better than that pos Eric Hosmer 

[NewAge]

Just now, mission27 said:

Point me to a team that has built a consistent contender without tanking, and without a huge payroll. 

The Nationals tanked.  The Cubs tanked.  The Astros tanked.  The Indians basically tanked. 

Billy Beane is a very smart man, he never tanked, and look where his team is now that small market teams are tanking.  There's no other way right now. 

Yes, it was smart when those teams tanked because they were alone or close to it. You zig when everyone else zags. There are like a dozen teams tanking right now. You could blow your team up right now Cubs-style and end up with like the 8th pick. 

[mission27]

Just now, NewAge said:

Yes, it was smart when those teams tanked because they were alone or close to it. You zig when everyone else zags. There are like a dozen teams tanking right now. You could blow your team up right now Cubs-style and end up with like the 8th pick. 

But what's the alternative? 

A mid market team can't afford to go out and sign a bunch of $25 million players anyway.  They could maybe sign one ****ty $25 million Eric Hosmer type, fill around him with a bunch of below average starters, and hope to sneak into the playoffs as an 85 win team.  But that's just as big of a risk as tanking and wont lead to any sustainable success.  

[NewAge]

3 minutes ago, mission27 said:

But what's the alternative? 

A mid market team can't afford to go out and sign a bunch of $25 million players anyway.  They could maybe sign one ****ty $25 million Eric Hosmer type, fill around him with a bunch of below average starters, and hope to sneak into the playoffs as an 85 win team.  But that's just as big of a risk as tanking and wont lead to any sustainable success.  

You can be the D'backs, Twins, or Brewers.

There are so few teams trying to win right now that even an average-seeming team can win 87 games and a Wild Card with not even ridiculous look. There were 12 teams in the majors last year with a winning record. Clear path to grabbing a playoff spot and at that point a lot can happen. 

[mission27]

Just now, NewAge said:

You can be the D'backs, Twins, or Brewers.

There are so few teams trying to win right now that even an average-seeming team can win 87 games and a Wild Card with not even ridiculous look. There were 12 teams in the majors last year with a winning record. 

To what end?  The difference between those guys and the elite teams in baseball is so large at this point that usual adage that the playoffs are a crapshoot doesn't hold in these matchups.  The D'Backs went for it just to get steam rolled by the Dodgers.  The Dodgers win that series 9 out of 10 times.  And with JDM gone and the age of some of their core players, they could be back to square one in a year or two.  The chances of them staying competitive all year, winning the WCG, beating the Dodgers / Nationals / Cubs in consecutive 5 and 7 game series, and then taking down a team like the Astros or the Yankees are pretty remote.  Probably like 2-3%.  If your goal is just to be competitive then fine.  But it would take a once in a generation fluke for that kind of team to win the World Series, given how talented the top tier of teams are in baseball right now.

As to your other examples, the Twins lost 90+ games 5 of the last 6 years, got Miguel Sano and Byron Buxton and Jose Berrios, and now they are trying to win in their window.  It wasn't quite as dramatic as the Cubs or Astros but it was absolutely a conventional rebuild.  The Brewers have stayed a little more competitive but still been under .500 3 of the last 5 years and built a top-5 farm system.  They sold off Lucroy, Seguar, Gomez, etc.  They've shopped Braun.  That's another clear rebuild.  Now that they have a top-5 farm system and some young talent, like the Twins, its time to try to win in their window. 

Even if trying to be perpetually competitive was an effective strategy, as soon as a few more teams pick it up, its no longer an effective strategy because we are back to normal.  Under the current system there's no way 30 MLB teams can simultaneously try to compete and be run by rational front offices.  The bottom feeders are always going to have an incentive to tank.  Until you have a real incentive not to tank, you can't blame teams for doing what works.  I don't know what the answer is, but players striking because Eric Hosmer didn't get a mistake contract isn't going to solve that.  

[Thelonebillsfan]

The incentive in tanking is to acquire a high pick and increase your potential draft pool. Tanking when 12-14 other teams are tanking is just stupid, it's gambling that you'll be the worst of the bunch which is like the short bus version of building a team to fight for the 2nd WC. There's no reason at this point for a mid-market team not to hit  a payroll of $100-120M and play to make the playoffs. The brand value building and additional revenue from drawing a team that's de facto in contention is clearly more valuable than the 10th pick and a gutted team that you're now stuck without being able to reload.

And Beane's issue isn't that he never tanked, it's that he is stuck in the AL in a division wherein there are just unfortunately too many quality teams ahead of the A's, despite the A's being everything they should be. Young, cost effective, with their two best projected players being long term cost controlled.