Tanking is bad

>Tanking is bad
When will this stupid mindset stop existing? If the end game is to win a championship, and teams that do it often end up putting themselves in better positions to do that, why is it not a smart thing to do?
THe Spurs put themselves in a much better position tanking to get Tim Duncan. The Colts put themselves in a better position tanking to get Andrew Luck. The Astros put themselves in a better position tanking for 4 straight years to end up with a stacked roster and one win away from a championship this year.
How is any of this bad? Is it because poorly run teams can't do it since they're so bad at talent evaluation?

Because owners are scared of losing money with a bad team despite the possibility to make much more once the team becomes good later on.

>introduce promotion and relegation system
>no more tanking

But all of these leagues have revenue sharing. It's very hard to lose money in these leagues. The 76ers fielded some of the worst teams ever between 2013-2014 and 2016-2017, yet still made money each of those years. ANd now they're in a very interesting position with 3 potential superstars, including a generational talent in Embiid and a generational passer in Simmons

>Is it because poorly run teams can't do it since they're so bad at talent evaluation?
Browns in a nutshell

>have the same 4 teams on top forever

Why not just rebuild and be good at the same time? The Yankees are doing it.

0 owners would support a system that
>Costs them revenue
>Centralizes most of the talent to a select few teams

because very few teams are ever in a position to get two prospect hauls for two relief pitchers

Tanking is pointless if you don't have a competent front office. That's where the real disparity is. Nothing wrong with tanking in itself, but you need to build a good organization first.

>The Colts put themselves in a better position tanking to get Andrew Luck.
Huhhhhhh

It's not that it's not strategically smart, its just wrong. Shit play shouldn't be rewarded. Teams need punished for losing not rewarded. This team went 162-324 from 2011-13 and overall is the worst team in the last decade and I'm suppose to view them as a successful franchise if they win a world series?

Luck carried the miserable Colts to three 11-5 seasons. He's so much better than the team he plays for it's not even funny. Imagine if they had actual talent evaluators and scouts instead of Irsay's drinking buddies

That's not what causes it. It's the obscene money disparity that is solely responsible.

>The team that outsmarted other teams by starting from complete scratch and loading their farm with as many quality prospects as possible should be viewed as successful?
Yes

Promotion/relegation does enhance this, though.

>poorer team gets relegated
>all decent players jump ship to richer teams
>poor team now has even less money to work with (smaller crowds, less tv/sponsor revenue)
>meanwhile the richer teams pick up the poorer team's lost players and keep getting richer

The effect is a lot more dramatic with the massive tv contracts of American sports. Imagine going from getting your cut of MLB's revenue to your cut of AAA's revenue. You'd be lucky if you could maintain the stadium, let alone pay the players.

>be worst at something out of 30 for 10 years
>Nothing of consequence comes of it
Again not saying it wasn't smart just that it shouldn't go without punishment in some form

The relegated teams get a massive sum of money called parachute payments. Their players aren't going to get picked up by the richest teams anyway, generally they're all too shit which is why they went down. Some mid or lower table teams might get their best players, or the teams that just came up. Teams that do better than expected are normally the ones to lose their players to much richer clubs.

Pic related - Sunderland's transfers out since they got relegated in May.

forgot pic

>Lowest attendance and lowest revenue sharing % isn't punishment

Baseball is one of the few sports where Tanking actually works because of how the Farm System develops players.

This is 100% correct. In baseball, the guys that are now on the major league team spent the tanking years in the minors improving against equal competition. The best soccer example is teams like Barcelona and Real Madrid that have lower teams in lower leagues that can bounce players back and forth while being separate entities. This isn't the nba where the players being tanked for were still in college and their pro status is relatively unknown at the time, these guys are already showing PRO potential but are being groomed to be completely ready so they're not playing against guys that are going to stunt their growth or kill their morale past the point of no return.

Nobody went to Astro games during those 100 loss seasons LOL

>generally they're all too shit which is why they went down
mike trout, arguably the best player in baseball, is on a horrible team. if the angels were relegated, I assure you he wouldn't want to play below MLB, it would be a complete waste of talent.

I did

He should have went to the Panthers in 2011.

first off, it's not "tanking" if by that you mean intentionally losing, because it is not that. it is sacrificing the "now" in favor of the long-term strategy. trading good "now" talent for a gross profit of up-and-coming talent, is a hard pill to swallow and is simply a long term (unconventional) strategy. when you're already the worst and poorest team in baseball, you have to find an unconventional strategy, because working your way up traditionally with incremental improvement is NOT viable to dig yourself out of the hole unless you want to be a useless organization long enough to get sold. jeff luhnow may very well have saved the astros franchise.

also, this strat means ABSURD revenue loss. using big data to find true return on investment in young talent is the smartest evolution of this sport in half a century.
it's an extremely risky strategy that can only be pulled off by an extremely talented front office operation.

it's like a beautiful managerial triple play, and yes, that should be admired.

The first thing mlb should do is stop reverse order drafting. You win it all you get first pick. It's not insurmountable in any sense to overcome like the nba for example either you just need to gut gud fagit.

Same, only because I hate crowds and it was so comfy during summertime.

fans want to see competitive baseball, not dynasties. despite what you think "deserves" to be rewarded, that fact will always trump.

it's hard to argue this series between doyers & asstros isn't one of the most sensational series for the sport ever.

Tanking in baseball doesn't really have to do with the draft. It has to do with selling all of your players for prospects and keeping your payroll low. And some teams are miserably bad at it, like the Athletics, who can't sustain any success and trade away the wrong players.
Draft order doesn't really matter. Maybe give the #1 overall pick to the World Series winner but after that order of finish is fine.

>You win it all you get first pick.
Why even watch the game if you don't balance the scales?

ignore the pretend retards