View Poll Results: 50 or 81

Voters
85. You may not vote on this poll
  • 50

    34 40.00%
  • 81

    51 60.00%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 33 to 48 of 97

Thread: 50 or 81?

  1. #33
    Big Leaguer Maahfaace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    3,119
    Thanks
    1,594
    Thanked 643 Times in 462 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by P2F View Post
    Absolutely. He will be fast-tracked barring major injury or a complete bed-shitting.
    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?
    I don’t suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.

  2. #34
    All Star Brownie19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Wasaga Beach
    Posts
    5,535
    Thanks
    1,799
    Thanked 1,488 Times in 976 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamGreenwood View Post
    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?

  3. #35
    ECJF Level GD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    26,349
    Thanks
    12,049
    Thanked 4,809 Times in 3,444 Posts
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by o2cui2i View Post
    climate change (lol)

  4. #36
    All Star Dick_Pole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,664
    Thanks
    300
    Thanked 1,326 Times in 811 Posts
    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?

  5. #37
    All Star Brownie19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Wasaga Beach
    Posts
    5,535
    Thanks
    1,799
    Thanked 1,488 Times in 976 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dick_Pole View Post
    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...

  6. #38
    All Star AdamGreenwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5,554
    Thanks
    302
    Thanked 1,840 Times in 1,094 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by GD View Post
    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.

  7. #39
    All Star Terminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    6,948
    Thanks
    2,218
    Thanked 2,196 Times in 1,367 Posts
    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.

  8. #40
    Moderator Governator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Barrie
    Posts
    11,007
    Thanks
    2,922
    Thanked 5,195 Times in 2,338 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brownie19 View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stangstag View Post
    The Governator is a man's man.

  9. #41
    Hall of Famer Orgfiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    19,189
    Thanks
    3,471
    Thanked 4,546 Times in 2,887 Posts
    Anyone who picked 50 needs to reevaluate themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by LetTheBallFly View Post
    Synder is mediocre at best this year. Let me know when Synder is giving up less runs per game than Sanchez, until then I'll take Sanchez

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Orgfiller For This Useful Post:

    Governator (04-21-2017)

  11. #42
    All Star
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,799
    Thanks
    343
    Thanked 1,048 Times in 695 Posts
    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.

  12. #43
    All Star Krylian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4,768
    Thanks
    617
    Thanked 1,293 Times in 875 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Orgfiller View Post
    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.

  13. #44
    Moderator Governator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Barrie
    Posts
    11,007
    Thanks
    2,922
    Thanked 5,195 Times in 2,338 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Krylian View Post
    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 shit piled on shit with Mike Trout going to the Angels who finished the 2008 season with.... 100 wins.

    Crapshoot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stangstag View Post
    The Governator is a man's man.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Governator For This Useful Post:

    GD (04-21-2017),Orgfiller (04-21-2017)

  15. #45
    All Star Brownie19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Wasaga Beach
    Posts
    5,535
    Thanks
    1,799
    Thanked 1,488 Times in 976 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Krylian View Post
    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.

  16. #46
    Blue Chip Prospect
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    880
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 492 Times in 274 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Governator View Post
    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 shit piled on shit 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.

  17. #47
    ECJF Level GD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    26,349
    Thanks
    12,049
    Thanked 4,809 Times in 3,444 Posts
    The difference between the first and fifteenth pick is like $40 million. That isn't worth alienating fans.
    Quote Originally Posted by o2cui2i View Post
    climate change (lol)

  18. #48
    ECJF Level GD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    26,349
    Thanks
    12,049
    Thanked 4,809 Times in 3,444 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by metafour View Post
    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.
    Year Player
    2006 Luke Hochevar
    2007 David Price*
    2008 Tim Beckham
    2009 Stephen Strasburg*
    2010 Bryce Harper៛
    2011 Gerrit Cole*
    2012 Carlos Correa
    2013 Mark Appel
    2014 Brady Aiken°
    2015 Dansby Swanson
    2016 Mickey Moniak


    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by o2cui2i View Post
    climate change (lol)



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •