50 or 81?

[Bobthe4th]

Huh? You think Gurriel is going to make the jump from high-A to the majors in one year? Man you guys are crazy lol

 

He has a chance to yes. He's 23 and was given a 7 year contract, he's not a freshman drafted out of college.

 

A lot of people believed he could make it this year, but having a year out last year likely delays that. Obviously he has to succeed in the minors first, the same as any other prospect.

[AdamGreenwood]

This is a very straightforward exercise. You calculate the value of a first overall pick over a 15th overall pick and compare it to the lost attendance, television, and other revenue of a .500 team over the worst team in baseball.

 

Tanking to obtain an incremental increase in draft position for a team that just led the league in attendance and has the largest television market in baseball makes ludicrously bad business sense. We can build for the future without carpet bombing all the positive value the franchise has built up.

 

There's a couple of other factors too.

Having a 50 win team makes it very difficult to sign quality free agents next year, unless we significantly overpay them.

On the other side, assets like Donaldson and Estrada will depreciate over the year, so we'll get less value back if we trade them now.

 

Personally, I'm all for starting the rebuild, but I still want to do our best to put a competitive team out there, or even a team filled with young, talented guys who just need a little more seasoning. This can be easily done by trading good players away for bad contracts + minor league talent. Stick the bad contracts on the field and hope they rebound (ie Liriano), and if not we bought ourselves some decent prospects.

[Maahfaace]

Absolutely. He will be fast-tracked barring major injury or a complete bed-s***ing.

 

I second this, he's not young, and if he plays well I think the idea was always that he would be up this Sept. Wasn't he only left back to start in high A because of the weather?

[Brownie19]

Depends.

 

If we could be a .500 club and still sell off a bunch of our assets for farm talent, then sign me up.

This isn't like fantasy baseball. Having a terrible club and finishing dead last has repercussions.

 

Fans stop going and watching on TV, resulting in less dollars, resulting in Rogers not wanting to spend on free agents or retain current players.

The better draft pick doesn't make up that much difference.

 

Hasn't there been a massive drop off in attendance this year already? The second home game attendance was down 17K or something like that. If this is a .500 ball club - I think we see a massive drop off in attendance anyway. If we're only a 50 win club - does it get much worse?

[GD]

You don't need to tank to rebuild in baseball. Given just the two, 81 wins.

 

That said, there's something to be said for finishing just inside the top 10 and protecting our first round pick for a potential retool in free agency in next year. The Angels had the 10th worst record with 74 wins. That might be more preferable than either.

[Dick_Pole]

Obviously 81. I will always pick the higher number.

 

The loser mentality wins again. Because the Astros and Nationals shamed their franchises with multiple 100+ losing seasons and are kinda ok now, that means the Jays should too right? No. How about competent drafting, player development and roster management where the team is competitive EVERY year?

[Brownie19]

Obviously 81. I will always pick the higher number.

 

The loser mentality wins again. Because the Astros and Nationals shamed their franchises with multiple 100+ losing seasons and are kinda ok now, that means the Jays should too right? No. How about competent drafting, player development and roster management where the team is competitive EVERY year?

 

I tend to agree with this. Unlike the other major sports, there are superstar players drafted outside of the Top 10 - and even outside of the 1st couple of rounds regularly. There are also superstars signed as international FA's. Talent can be found in numerous areas outside of the Top 10 draft picks.

 

I will say though that I hardly remember the Nationals being 100 loss teams that embarrassed the franchise...

[AdamGreenwood]

You don't need to tank to rebuild in baseball. Given just the two, 81 wins.

 

That said, there's something to be said for finishing just inside the top 10 and protecting our first round pick for a potential retool in free agency in next year. The Angels had the 10th worst record with 74 wins. That might be more preferable than either.

 

Pretty sure the new CBA did away with that anyways. This was the final year for those kind of comp picks. It's a lot less going forward.

[Terminator]

Well here's the thing, in a vacuum getting the lower pick and tanking for one season only isn't bad. But 50 pretty much means Stroman and Sanchez get hurt and everything goes wrong. When everything goes wrong it doesn't go back to being right next season. So I picked 50 but I only did so because this hypo is in a vacuum. If the question encompasses everything that comes along with winning 50 or winning 81 I'd take 81.

[Governator]

Hasn't there been a massive drop off in attendance this year already? The second home game attendance was down 17K or something like that. If this is a .500 ball club - I think we see a massive drop off in attendance anyway. If we're only a 50 win club - does it get much worse?

 

 

Of course it would be lower, at least revenue would be down the toilet. Tickets were bought after a postseason berth in the offseason, whether they show up or not is irrelevant. This is Toronto... after a 50 win season you can be damn sure no one is buying in again until they are winning and if you're the owner the possible difference of 500,000+ in attendance per year to rebuild with the off chance you find future success is tough investment to commit to. The average ticket price for Jays is what $40-$50? Multiply that by lets say 500,000 less tickets and you're losing millions year over year, let alone the TV advertisements. I mean... owners see that and think God damn if that takes us 8 years to make the post season again do we even break even with a WS win?

[Orgfiller]

Anyone who picked 50 needs to reevaluate themselves.

[glory]

You don't even have to tank in baseball. You can have a good farm system and good big league team at the same time. THe only reason this is a discussion is because AA sacrificed one for the other, which has lead to the reality that the team was going to age before its next group of prospects were ready, forcing a rebuild.

 

The amount of skill it takes to only win 50 games is pretty special. I mean, you'd have to purposely tank and get major injuries to the best scrubs on your team to be that bad, and even then you might win about 55 games.

[Krylian]

Anyone who picked 50 needs to reevaluate themselves.

 

I'm a Leafs fan. I know exactly what it looks like when your team isn't bad enough for management to commit to a full on rebuild. And yes, I get that baseball and hockey are different, but the principle of building through drafting and developing applies to both sports. I don't have faith that this group will commit to strip it down and start over unless they're really that bad.

[Governator]

I'm a Leafs fan. I know exactly what it looks like when your team isn't bad enough for management to commit to a full on rebuild. And yes, I get that baseball and hockey are different, but the principle of building through drafting and developing applies to both sports. I don't have faith that this group will commit to strip it down and start over unless they're really that bad.

 

 

It's just not comparable though.

 

- Top players drafted in hockey can impact your team in just 2 years or less

- First round picks are much less a crapshoot in hockey than baseball

- Leafs are sold out for the next decade or two, a low risk high reward

- 50% of the league makes the postseason

 

 

Here's an example why:

 

2009 MLB Draft

 

Look past Strausberg

 

1 Stephen Strausberg

2 Dustin Ackley

3 Donavan Tate

4 Tony Sanchez

5 Matt Hobgood

6 Mike Minor

7 Mike Leake

8 Drew Storen

9 Tyler Matzek

10 Aaron Crow

11 Matt Purke*

12 Alex White

13 Bobby Borchering

.

.

.

20 Chad Jenkins Toronto Blue Jays

.

.

25th Mike Trout LA Angels

 

Bunch of s*** piled on s*** with Mike Trout going to the Angels who finished the 2008 season with.... 100 wins.

 

Crapshoot.

[Brownie19]

I'm a Leafs fan. I know exactly what it looks like when your team isn't bad enough for management to commit to a full on rebuild. And yes, I get that baseball and hockey are different, but the principle of building through drafting and developing applies to both sports. I don't have faith that this group will commit to strip it down and start over unless they're really that bad.

 

Massive difference in hockey. More often than not, you only find star players early in the draft. Heck, by the 20th overall pick you're lucky if you find someone who will have an NHL career on a regular basis.

[metafour]

Here's an example why:

 

2009 MLB Draft

 

Look past Strausberg

 

1 Stephen Strausberg

2 Dustin Ackley

3 Donavan Tate

4 Tony Sanchez

5 Matt Hobgood

6 Mike Minor

7 Mike Leake

8 Drew Storen

9 Tyler Matzek

10 Aaron Crow

11 Matt Purke*

12 Alex White

13 Bobby Borchering

.

.

.

20 Chad Jenkins Toronto Blue Jays

.

.

25th Mike Trout LA Angels

 

Bunch of s*** piled on s*** with Mike Trout going to the Angels who finished the 2008 season with.... 100 wins.

 

Crapshoot.

 

I mean, you just kind of proved why you want to pick #1 overall LOL. Getting a Mike Trout at #25 is a freak occurrence and is pure luck; its not a case of "smart scouting" (ie: if it was obvious that he was that good, 24 other teams wouldn't have missed it). The draft that you just referenced had one sure-fire talent and that guy went #1 overall. Crapshoot? Not really.

[GD]

The difference between the first and fifteenth pick is like $40 million. That isn't worth alienating fans.

[GD]

I mean, you just kind of proved why you want to pick #1 overall LOL. Getting a Mike Trout at #25 is a freak occurrence and is pure luck; its not a case of "smart scouting" (ie: if it was obvious that he was that good, 24 other teams wouldn't have missed it). The draft that you just referenced had one sure-fire talent and that guy went #1 overall. Crapshoot? Not really.

 

[TABLE=width: 134]

[TR]

[TD=width: 67]Year[/TD]

[TD=width: 67]Player[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2006[/TD]

[TD]Luke Hochevar[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2007[/TD]

[TD]David Price*[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2008[/TD]

[TD]Tim Beckham[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2009[/TD]

[TD]Stephen Strasburg*[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2010[/TD]

[TD]Bryce Harper៛[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2011[/TD]

[TD]Gerrit Cole*[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2012[/TD]

[TD]Carlos Correa[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2013[/TD]

[TD]Mark Appel[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2014[/TD]

[TD]Brady Aiken°[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2015[/TD]

[TD]Dansby Swanson[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]2016[/TD]

[TD]Mickey Moniak[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

Drafting #1 overall is just as likely to get you a UTIL or LOOGY as it is a sure-fire stud. 4 studs since '06. 3 guys too early to tell, but none look like sure-fire superstars (which is what we're looking for here). 3 busts. And then whatever you want to call Gerrit Cole at this point.

[King]

Massive difference in hockey. More often than not, you only find star players early in the draft.

 

This is blatantly false. Good players come from outside the top 20 picks every year.

[King]

This thread is terrible. Jonn deserves a ban just for starting it.

[King]

I don't care, ban Jonn anyway.

[King]

Good Grief!

[vic city]

What if we all just PVR'd the games so the TV ratings stay high, but not actually watch them? We can pretend to be interested in a 50 win ball club.

 

Personally, I don't mind that they suck so early in the season. I feel like I dedicate way too much of my life to watching the Jays. So if we're going to be terrible, just get it over with. Plus the NHL playoffs are on so I can just watch that.

[metafour]

They've already done the research geniuses.

 

Drafting #1 overall (or #1-5) gives you a significantly higher chance of finding a player that actually makes the league, as well as a significantly higher chance of finding an impact player.

 

Yes, its an imperfect science. No s***. Its not as much of a crapshoot as you all seem to think however. You're also completely discounting the MLB's slotting system in which teams picking #1 overall are given massive advantages over every other team, which means that its not just about who you pick at #1, but also about the fact that you have an advantage in getting MORE players later as well if you play it smart.

 

MLB drafts are a year-to-year case. For instance, I felt that last year was a very poor year to have the #1 pick. Why? No consensus top player led the Phillies into taking a somewhat-toolsy, somewhat-polished HS center fielder that doesn't exactly have superstar potential even if he makes it. Next year actually looks like a strong year to have the #1 pick as you already have several very good college prospects who have been performing at high rates much earlier than expected. Barring some sort of total collapse, whoever picks #1 next year isn't likely to be settling for a Mickey Moniak type player at #1.

[Jonn]

This thread is terrible. Jonn deserves a ban just for starting it.

 

I don't care, ban Jonn anyway.

 

I didn't even start the thread lol

[Governator]

They've already done the research geniuses.

 

Drafting #1 overall (or #1-5) gives you a significantly higher chance of finding a player that actually makes the league, as well as a significantly higher chance of finding an impact player.

 

Yes, its an imperfect science. No s***. Its not as much of a crapshoot as you all seem to think however. You're also completely discounting the MLB's slotting system in which teams picking #1 overall are given massive advantages over every other team, which means that its not just about who you pick at #1, but also about the fact that you have an advantage in getting MORE players later as well if you play it smart.

 

MLB drafts are a year-to-year case. For instance, I felt that last year was a very poor year to have the #1 pick. Why? No consensus top player led the Phillies into taking a somewhat-toolsy, somewhat-polished HS center fielder that doesn't exactly have superstar potential even if he makes it. Next year actually looks like a strong year to have the #1 pick as you already have several very good college prospects who have been performing at high rates much earlier than expected. Barring some sort of total collapse, whoever picks #1 next year isn't likely to be settling for a Mickey Moniak type player at #1.

 

 

I was really pointing out the difference between hockey & baseball drafts. We can't just trade our best players for draft picks, then tank and pick Austin Matthews and be a postseason contender in 2 years. Baseball just doesn't work that way.

 

It'd be different if we could trade players for draft picks and load up on a strong year but until that happens I'd rather focus on getting the right haul for my best pieces if I'm a .500 team. It's much easier to project the players you're getting back via trade compared to drafting HS students 4 years away from development.

[GD]

They've already done the research geniuses.

 

http://www.breakingblue.ca/2014/03/12/the-value-of-draft-picks/

[Maahfaace]

http://www.breakingblue.ca/2014/03/12/the-value-of-draft-picks/

 

Is Chris Carruthers JFaS?

[P2F]

Is Chris Carruthers JFaS?

Yes.

[StubbinHub]

50......they made flex packs terrible, ruined the flexibility and expected people to pay more for tickets for a team of aging turds whose window for a WS was close - all as they made these greedy, shite decisions. Let the attendanxe and Rogers' wallet suffer a little.