The worst part about the last few days....
by rook34 on Dec 12, 2009 1:20 AM EST
12 comments
is that the naysayers have been proven right.
For most of the last few years, really, since the Tigers re-signed Guillen, signed Sheffield, and went full-bore after the 07 world title, many in the national and local media said that Detroit couldn't continue to do this. They couldn't continue to spend money on players due to the economy or the ridiculous claim that Detroit was a small market. Detroit is not a small market. Smaller than 30 years ago, sure, but it's not Portland or Kansas City or even Minneapolis. It just isn't.
Anyway, with every move, the good (Miggy), the bad (Robertson), and the insane (Willis), people said we wouldn't be able to do this and eventually we'd have to adopt the Twins model of going with kids, counting on your scouting, and hoping the Yankees had an off year. With the trade this week, that has been proven correct in my opinion. A lot of people on this site who are very knowledgable about baseball are putting a happy face on this deal, but I just don't agree. The team, as built today, is riddled with holes. A team that was offensively challenged in 09 has lost its 1 and 2 hitters for 2010, and no replacements are coming. No left handed hitter is coming. Not one that costs anything. Matt Stairs or Scott Podsednik might be coming, but that's it. The lineup is downright horrifying, especially when you start thinking ahead to the inevitable injuries.
The problem with the Twins model? Well, our scouting people and minor league system aren't as good. We made some progress there by stealing Rick Knapp, but that's one guy. And for all the loveable, cuddly feelings the small-market Twins engender, they haven't won a playoff series since 1991. They've won some divisions, and that's to their credit. But they don't advance-ever.
Perhaps the so-called irrational spending since 2004 has been just that, and Detroit has to accept what we are. But that's not what we were told, not by Mr. I or anyone else. Weren't we just on the cover of Sports Illustrated under the heading of The Righteous Franchise? Was it all just spin?
Maybe I'm wrong-fellow BYBers note my pessimism with good reason. But I don't have a lot of faith in this operation right now. There were baseball reasons for Grandy to go, sure. But it's pretty tough in my mind to justify dumping the guy for a couple of lefty relievers and a minor league strikeout machine. There had to be a better deal somewhere. Didn't there? Or was it not about better deals, just cheaper, league minimum deals? I know it's not my money, but this was not what we've been sold by the organization for the last four years.
And the biggest alarm bell going off for me is as follows: What makes everyone think we're just going to spend money like crazy in the 10 or 11 offseasons when the attendance will go through the floor? How are we going to re-sign Verlander? Does he want to stay, even if he gets a $100 million deal? To keep him, we'll have to overpay in the next 12 months, and isn't that what got us into trouble in the first place?
It's not the moves that have shaken my faith in the franchise. It's the way they were conducted, as if they had to be made right away, and what they brought back. It's the worst I've felt as a Tigers fan since, well, before Pudge came. And no one wants to remember those days-at least I certainly don't. I hope I'm wrong and that there's a grand plan already in motion.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Bless You Boys writing staff.
0 recs |
12 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
a few thoughts on your thoughts
If the worst part is that some people were proven right, your priorities are wrong. The worst part is that the situation happened, and I could care less how it relates to the media.
But I have to say, it didn’t take an advanced degree to see it coming. All summer, I was pointing out the payroll was unsustainable and 2010 would have big problems. Few baseball teams can sustain themselves in that manner. Even the Red Sox have a plan that allows them to keep their payroll at a reasonable place.
It’s not the Twins the Tigers have to shoot for though. It’s the White Sox. That is a club that carries itself right. They had a lot of great young talent. Some came along to contribute to the effort — Beckham. Some were traded — McCarthy, Richard come immediately to mind. And they mix in veterans at the right times and right places. Their payroll is consistently around the upper third in baseball. Kenny Williams looks insane, and yet he’s finding bargains. And now they appear to be favorites to make a third playoff trip since 2005.
Re-signing Verlander should not be a prioritiy. Actually, far from it. Especially if he costs 20M a year for 5 years. That’s the kind of contract that got Detroit in trouble in the first place. And how are you supposed to compete for a World Series if two players cost $45M of your payroll? Especially given what we see now, a rebuilding period and a more modest budget. Verlander should be every bit the trade commodity Halladay is. Detroit should concentrate on filling the other holes in the organization and do this rebuild right by moving him. That’s why they don’t care what trading Granderson does to the likelihood of Verlander’s re-signing. … I just hope they actually make the right deal when it comes time. Because they’re not going to spend their way out of this, not with that free agent market next winter.
They got off track after 2006. I think it was actually the owner myself, but we’ll never know. They got playoff window fever and went crazy. Who traded the franchise for Cabrera and Willis? I seem to remember a lot of stories with Mr. Ilitch asking Dombrowski to get those players. And I wouldn’t doubt if it was at his behest they got contracts to justify the trade of the future.
But I’m not feeling a lot of trust in Dombrowski right now either.
I’m not happy about things. That’s the worst part of the last few days.
In terms of priorities....
you have a point. Primarily as a function of where I live (Chicago), I get pretty defensive about my home city and tend to focus on the negative impressions it gets. Pretty much every time I hear the word Detroit here it’s followed with the word “sucks” and that carries through the media. I get a bit oversensitive, I suppose.
But you make many good points here. It was indeed apparent that things would change in terms of the business model, but I suppose I got blinded a bit by the spin and my opinion that Ilitch wants a World Series above most anything else at this point in his career. And the White Sox are a good example. They aren’t a small market, though smaller than the Cubs, but have sort of a hybrid approach that seems to work.
As far as Verlander goes, I guess the question would be as follows: If power pitchers are impossible to re-sign, why do we keep on drafting them? Is it because they are good trade chips? And I’m not trying to be snarky-it’s a genuine question. If we can’t keep Verlander, are we going to be able to keep Porcello or Crosby someday?
No
But who cares if you can’t keep Verlander (or Porcello or Crosby) if you keep developing more of them?
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Dec 12, 2009 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
Cost control
Why would you want to pay $12, $15, $20 million a year for a power arm when you could pay pay for five years of a power arm at that cost?
In four seasons with Detroit, Verlander has collected $6.8M. He had a signing bonus of $3.15. So that’s four seasons at $10m total. Pretty cost-economical way to build a team, yes? Who cares where he finishes his career if you have more young, powerful pitchers following in line?
by Kurt Mensching on Dec 12, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
I see your point Kurt...
But Verlander is a legitimate ace. The similar contracts Detroit has given have been to guys who you could not call ace’s and each one of them was a risk. I’m not saying a big contract to JV has no risk but he’s legitimate and every rotation needs a legitimate ace. He’s learned to be more than just a power arm, he’s learned to pitch a good game every 5th day. He’s allowed his game to develop so far, it’s highly reasonable to believe that he will continue to do so throughout his career.
Unless someone else steps up and proves they are also legitimate ace’s real soon than I think the Tigers must resign Verlander.
My Music: Some Sorta Giant
My Blog: Inside A Head
I disagree with you to my core values
Verlander needs to get signed, but there’s no reason we couldn’t get him for 5 years around 15 million per season or a little less. If you think Porcello or Crosby or any of those new pitchers we got in the trade will be a Verlander your way off. Verlander hasn’t won a CY yet so barring the Redsox or yankees wanting to throw 20 million per season his way I think he’ll be a Tiger. And if you think Verlander isn’t worth 15 million a season then detroit will have to wait a long time for another ring. P.S. congrats on taking over the site.
I was waiting for this...
Congrats to you for being the first writer/blogger(or whatever) to suggest trading Verlander. The problem is that he has shown what extremely few pitchers haven’t….He can have incredible control, insists on pitching late into games, and is very resilient. That last bit I think is the most important….Also, after that NO-HITTER he threw, and his whole second year, I think he was just looking to strike every guy out. This year, I actually saw him pitching to contact when an at bat count started to get high….leading to a huge improvement in efficiancy…So, while he will never be Halladay, I think he is one of the closest things in the game, and the Tigers need to build the team around Verlander.
by Fien SHOULD CLOSE on Dec 12, 2009 8:53 PM EST reply actions
As far as I know, the first bloggesr to suggest it
were Mike Rogers at Tigers by the Numbers, and Eddie Bajek, who doesn’t exactly blog much any more but does do a lot of baseball work, such as cracking the Elias rankings formula.
I guess Detroit could keep Verlander around for two years and wave goodbye when he leaves for one of the major media market teams that can pay him, help him make the next step of stardom and consistently put top teammates around him.
This is about looking at it serious. If you can’t get Verlander to sign a long-term deal that doesn’t hurt the club’s budget, great. But if you can’t — or if you’re tying up 40 to 50 percent of your club’s budget in two players — you’ve got to move him to rebuild properly.
by Kurt Mensching on Dec 12, 2009 9:18 PM EST up reply actions
I guess if we can't resign him....
Yep, I guess if we can’t get him to sign long term for fifteen or less…..its inevitable….So the countdown begins, can’t wait for the Yankees to be so happy w/Grandy that they come back knocking on our door, asking for more…..
by Fien SHOULD CLOSE on Dec 13, 2009 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
The points to trade JV make sense, I suppose.
But as a fan, it would just be another example of us not being able to keep a homegrown player and keeping him throughout his dominant years. He’s been a tremendous bargain, I get that.
From a baseball standpoint, sure, it makes sense. But they’d have to do it soon, or other teams would lowball us, knowing we were desperate to move him. We’d then end up with major league players with question marks, and/or prospects other teams wouldn’t want anymore. Well, that’s happened already, hasn’t it?
Verlander's contract
I don’t know how much longer he’s under contract with us but if the front office sits him down and offers him 5 years for 75 million and he say’s he’ll bet back with us then yes I would agree to let the trade rumors begin… If we ever trade him I doubt we’d get close to getting equal value for him.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
