@baconhound said:

Tanking is purposefully losing to get the highest draft pick possible.  Suck for Luck. Trust the Process.  Teams thought Andrew Luck was the next greatest NFL QB so they lost to try to get him.  The 76ers lost to draft Noel, Embiid & Simmons.

Trading veterans for young talent in MLB for smaller markets is simply smart administration, the losing is simply a byproduct of the trades.  The Orioles traded Machado because they weren’t going to pay him and they wanted to get something in return.  The Raiders didn’t trade Mack to lose and draft his replacement, they did so because they weren’t going to pay him.

Nah when the Raiders traded Mack, they knew they were leaving a hole as wide as the Grand Canyon in their defense- then they followed that up unloading Amari Cooper. Tank. Period. 

Tanking in MLB as opposed to the NFL are two different critters, apples to oranges. MLB essentially doesn't have a hard salary cap, the NFL does....  

@mark-o said:

You're arguing semantics.  It's the same in every sport.   The Orioles sold off Machado for prospects.  The  Padres are doing the same thing.  Houston, KC, and Chicago all did the same thing.  Sold off all their veteran talent to acquire prospects.  They weren't fielding the best team they could in those seasons now were they since they are trading away proven talent for minor leaguers.  

What they're getting back isn't the same, but the result of the season certainly is the same.    The raiders are trading away proven players for unknown college players (in the form of draft picks)  The Orioles trade away Machado for a bunch of minor league potential.  It's exactly the same thing.

Tanking is purposefully losing to get the highest draft pick possible.  Suck for Luck. Trust the Process.  Teams thought Andrew Luck was the next greatest NFL QB so they lost to try to get him.  The 76ers lost to draft Noel, Embiid & Simmons.

Trading veterans for young talent in MLB for smaller markets is simply smart administration, the losing is simply a byproduct of the trades.  The Orioles traded Machado because they weren’t going to pay him and they wanted to get something in return.  The Raiders didn’t trade Mack to lose and draft his replacement, they did so because they weren’t going to pay him.

Here’s a good read

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/163874706/rebuilding-tanking-whats-the-difference-colts

@baconhound said:

Now you want to argue semantics. I figured you, being a sports guy, would understand the context of the word “tanking” meaning losing to increase your draft prospects.  The NBA teams tank  because the talent disparity in the draft outside number 3-5 is typically significant and in any given year a franchising changing player is available in the top 3.

MLB teams will “strip” their roster, trade vets for young prospects, take shots other teams waiver, etc on the cheap to build a winning team but the Orioles aren’t tanking draft a single player.  When big trades are made prospects are included not draft picks.  In the NBA and NFL top picks are talked about years in advance.  Can you name the top 3 players taken in last years MLB draft, again rhetorical.

Tanking is about intentionally losing to increase draft stock not trading bets for young prospects.

You're arguing semantics.  It's the same in every sport.   The Orioles sold off Machado for prospects.  The  Padres are doing the same thing.  Houston, KC, and Chicago all did the same thing.  Sold off all their veteran talent to acquire prospects.  They weren't fielding the best team they could in those seasons now were they since they are trading away proven talent for minor leaguers.  

What they're getting back isn't the same, but the result of the season certainly is the same.    The raiders are trading away proven players for unknown college players (in the form of draft picks)  The Orioles trade away Machado for a bunch of minor league potential.  It's exactly the same thing.

@mark-o said:

Doesn't change the fact that every one of those teams tanked and lost over 100 games and stripped their teams down to nothing and built them back up.   You said it makes no sense to tank in MLB and I gave you 3 recent examples of teams tanking that ended up winning the world series after stripping their team of the veteran talent to build up the minor leagues and acquire young talent in the minors and then also higher draft picks.

I don't think any of those teams will admit that they were "tanking", they were still trying to win games but they had a plan in mind to build a winning organization and involved stripping the roster down of any high priced veterans and acquiring young talent for those veterans.   

You can dismiss it all you want...but all 3 of those examples involved teams trading away veterans for young players and knowing they had no way to win anything while they built their organization back up.   So I'll say again.  In baseball, it makes perfect sense in a small to medium market to follow the model set forth by those 3 recent examples.   All of which would be called tanking by people on the outside of those organizations.

Now you want to argue semantics. I figured you, being a sports guy, would understand the context of the word “tanking” meaning losing to increase your draft prospects.  The NBA teams tank  because the talent disparity in the draft outside number 3-5 is typically significant and in any given year a franchising changing player is available in the top 3.

MLB teams will “strip” their roster, trade vets for young prospects, take shots other teams waiver, etc on the cheap to build a winning team but the Orioles aren’t tanking draft a single player.  When big trades are made prospects are included not draft picks.  In the NBA and NFL top picks are talked about years in advance.  Can you name the top 3 players taken in last years MLB draft, again rhetorical.

Tanking is about intentionally losing to increase draft stock not trading vets for young prospects.

@baconhound said:

How many players on the Royals, Cubs and Astros World Series winning rosters were top 10 picks of their organizations?

Let’s make that rhetorical.  On a World Series roster most teams will have a handful of homegrown guys and maybe 1 or 2 that were top 10 picks.  Very good MLB players come from all over the draft and from other teams. 

Doesn't change the fact that every one of those teams tanked and lost over 100 games and stripped their teams down to nothing and built them back up.   You said it makes no sense to tank in MLB and I gave you 3 recent examples of teams tanking that ended up winning the world series after stripping their team of the veteran talent to build up the minor leagues and acquire young talent in the minors and then also higher draft picks.

I don't think any of those teams will admit that they were "tanking", they were still trying to win games but they had a plan in mind to build a winning organization and involved stripping the roster down of any high priced veterans and acquiring young talent for those veterans.   

You can dismiss it all you want...but all 3 of those examples involved teams trading away veterans for young players and knowing they had no way to win anything while they built their organization back up.   So I'll say again.  In baseball, it makes perfect sense in a small to medium market to follow the model set forth by those 3 recent examples.   All of which would be called tanking by people on the outside of those organizations.

@mark-o said:

Tell that to the Kansas City Royals and Houston Astros and Chicago Cubs.    All 3 sold off all their veteran players for prospects and built up their minor league systems and all 3 won the world series after tanking.

The Cubs GM has even said in interviews, if you can't make the playoffs, you would be better off finishing last.   Going 81-81 and missing the playoffs doens't do any organization any good.   Hard sell to your fans but if you make the right trades for the right prospects and draft the right guys, within a few years you have a competitve team and then you add parts to put you over the top (Astros trading for Verlander last season as an example).

With no revenue sharing in baseball, tanking and building your team from the ground up with young talent is the only way for some markets to have a chance to compete with the LA's and Bostons and New Yorks of the world. 

How many players on the Royals, Cubs and Astros World Series winning rosters were top 10 picks of their organizations?

Let’s make that rhetorical.  On a World Series roster most teams will have a handful of homegrown guys and maybe 1 or 2 that were top 10 picks.  Very good MLB players come from all over the draft and from other teams.

@baconhound said:

Tanking in MLB makes no sense.

Tell that to the Kansas City Royals and Houston Astros and Chicago Cubs.    All 3 sold off all their veteran players for prospects and built up their minor league systems and all 3 won the world series after tanking.

The Cubs GM has even said in interviews, if you can't make the playoffs, you would be better off finishing last.   Going 81-81 and missing the playoffs doens't do any organization any good.   Hard sell to your fans but if you make the right trades for the right prospects and draft the right guys, within a few years you have a competitve team and then you add parts to put you over the top (Astros trading for Verlander last season as an example).

With no revenue sharing in baseball, tanking and building your team from the ground up with young talent is the only way for some markets to have a chance to compete with the LA's and Bostons and New Yorks of the world. 

@browns149 said:

The Raiders have become the second team to BLATANTLY try to lose

The Browns did it for the last 2 years. No one said anything. People even felt sorry for Hue. But then the Browns hired a “football” man...and all of a sudden we should start winning.

Just get both the owners out of the way, and let the FOOTBALL people make the decisions, we might start to win

The old suck for luck

Tanking in NBA makes total sense.

Tanking in the NFL makes some sense but not a lot.

@darren15 said:

Raiders have 3 first round picks ....at least the draft will be fun for them ...... as will Raiders fans playing the first pick draft game

And fun for their remaining old loyal fans, they can do hundreds of mock drafts and endless "discussions" online about who are the can't miss rookies.

They can just refer to the BROWNS on how not to do a first round draft......except maybe 2018, TBD.

AND Hard Knocks 2019 or 2020, Vegas style?

@darren15 said:

Raiders have 3 first round picks ....at least the draft will be fun for them ...... as will Raiders fans playing the first pick draft game

I'm taking the Raiders in our annual draft game.?

@gumby73 said:

who do you feel made the choices of putting Williams & Kitchens in position over maybe Sampese or Saunders? Am not even sure Jimmy H. knew who Ryan Lindley was ?.. 

...and therein lies the hope.  The hope that he will listen to Dorsey.....

@orion said:

 Jimmuh is a dope and can't / won't keep his meddling fingers out of the kitchen.

@browns149 said:

Jimmy has proven he won’t let the football decisions go

@vikingdawg said:

 But yes, Haslam needs out of the way... Sadly it doesn't seem like he will be changing. 

who do you feel made the choices of putting Williams & Kitchens in position over maybe Sampese or Saunders? Am not even sure Jimmy H. knew who Ryan Lindley was ?.. 

@brownpile said:

Won't be but a few years before gambling pads are available at every seat in every stadium, let alone on your phones.

So, when you see those shots of QBs on the sidelines with a pad, you can be sure they'll be checking the current line, placing a bet, then trotting out for the next offensive series...  ?

So, yeah...  greatest thing to happen to sports since sliced bread...

Cell phone and a password, while you're at it you can buy points or bet on the next play pass or run. 

......and then you can sleep in your car because you're now totally broke.

@mjp28 said:

I normally don't buy into these conspiracy-type things anymore than bigfoot or who really killed Kennedy and all of that -but- it might be tempting......not that I'm saying they (whoever they is/are) did anything. But how many decision makers or key players nedd to be involved (a DB blows a coverage and a guy runs 80 yards for a TD)?  A nearby $1.5 Billion stadium getting ready, want to make a big splash?

A rookie QB steps in and just lights it up, one side or maybe both involved....if they could prove it, if someone talked it could ruin the sport.

And I heard just tonight the River's Casino in Pittsburgh a short drive from me will be up and running for sports gambling in November. What now especially in basketball just a few guys needed to shave points, a backer puts a few million on one side, pays off 2 or 3 guys?

NAH, that could never happen.  Never. 

Won't be but a few years before gambling pads are available at every seat in every stadium, let alone on your phones.

So, when you see those shots of QBs on the sidelines with a pad, you can be sure they'll be checking the current line, placing a bet, then trotting out for the next offensive series...  ?

So, yeah...  greatest thing to happen to sports since sliced bread...

@browns149 said:

Watching the raiders tonight.  It is obvious they are not trying to win.

Tanking in the NBA is normal. Baseball not so much. It takes way to long to get a 1st round pick to the majors

But the NFL would be the best league to tank for. They only play 16 games. Most teams can’t win unless they have a good QB........

I normally don't buy into these conspiracy-type things anymore than bigfoot or who really killed Kennedy and all of that -but- it might be tempting......not that I'm saying they (whoever they is/are) did anything. But how many decision makers or key players nedd to be involved (a DB blows a coverage and a guy runs 80 yards for a TD)?  A nearby $1.5 Billion stadium getting ready, want to make a big splash?

A rookie QB steps in and just lights it up, one side or maybe both involved....if they could prove it, if someone talked it could ruin the sport.

And I heard just tonight the River's Casino in Pittsburgh a short drive from me will be up and running for sports gambling in November. What now especially in basketball just a few guys needed to shave points, a backer puts a few million on one side, pays off 2 or 3 guys?

NAH, that could never happen.  Never. 

@browns149 said:

Watching the raiders tonight.  It is obvious they are not trying to win.

Tanking in the NBA is normal. Baseball not so much. It takes way to long to get a 1st round pick to the majors

But the NFL would be the best league to tank for. They only play 16 games. Most teams can’t win unless they have a good QB

I have a feeling that this is going to be the norm from now on

The teams that need a QB will lose until they get a QB that they don’t have to pay for 5 years

And after 5 ears the Qb will either price himself out of the team, or the team will have already paid him 

Your assumption is only valid if the team is dedicated to building through the draft - such as Haslam has stated numerous times since he bought the Browns.  (therefore, implied 'no costly free agent signings')

From what I've read, there's only one guy available in the draft next year who could be an NFL "franchise" QB.  Even if they get him, it's pretty long odds that he actually IS a "franchise" QB  - ironically appropriate for a team moving to Vegas.

@browns149 said:

The Raiders have become the second team to BLATANTLY try to lose

The Browns did it for the last 2 years. No one said anything. People even felt sorry for Hue. But then the Browns hired a “football” man...and all of a sudden we should start winning.

Just get both the owners out of the way, and let the FOOTBALL people make the decisions, we might start to win

3rd team, the Colts were somewhat open they were tanking for Luck. 

But yes, Haslam needs out of the way... Sadly it doesn't seem like he will be changing. 

I don’t think the Raiders wanted it to go down like that.

@browns149 said:

Jimmy has proven he won’t let the football decisions go

I know.  But we can hope...

@orion said:

UNLESS.................he actually listens to Dorsey....instead of The Homeless Guy.

Jimmy has proven he won’t let the football decisions go

@browns149 said:

Then we are SCREWED

UNLESS.................he actually listens to Dorsey....instead of The Homeless Guy.