Some people are worried about tanking. I'm not really one of them, but it got me thinking. Teams tank because they don't think they can compete and they don't feel like spending the money to be mediocre while they rebuild and rebuilding is both quicker and easier if you finish with a terrible record.
What if it weren't?
What if instead of incentivizing finishing with a terrible record, we incentivized finishing at .500?
The #1 draft pick doesn't go to the team with the worst record, but to the team that is closest, but not over .500. I don't know exactly how the international bonus money is distributed and I don't feel like looking it up, but I'm pretty sure it's also based on record.
I'm imagining a system where we rank teams by absolute value of the distance from .500 with the best teams (top 6, say) automatically slotted at the bottom even if they're further from .500 than the worst teams, and a tiebreaker that goes to the bad team.
So for 2017, there's a tiebreaker between LAA, KCR, and TBR for the first pick because they all finished at 80-82. The fourth pick would go to STL who finished at 83-79.
The idea is to incentivize teams to be competitive even when rebuilding. The second wild card generally goes to a team that is a little bit above .500 so if you're trying to optimize your rebuild, you're aiming for a team that's fringe competitive and depending on where exactly you are in the standings come the deadline, you're going to have to make some hard decisions about trading vets to get minor league talent, or trading minor league talent to make a run.
I think the obvious risk here is that it will cement some teams as being terrible year after year after year, but I don't think it's really that hard to be mediocre. It requires spending a bit more money which is good from a revenue sharing perspective--nobody wants revenue sharing money to go to teams not trying to be competitive.
What if it weren't?
What if instead of incentivizing finishing with a terrible record, we incentivized finishing at .500?
The #1 draft pick doesn't go to the team with the worst record, but to the team that is closest, but not over .500. I don't know exactly how the international bonus money is distributed and I don't feel like looking it up, but I'm pretty sure it's also based on record.
I'm imagining a system where we rank teams by absolute value of the distance from .500 with the best teams (top 6, say) automatically slotted at the bottom even if they're further from .500 than the worst teams, and a tiebreaker that goes to the bad team.
So for 2017, there's a tiebreaker between LAA, KCR, and TBR for the first pick because they all finished at 80-82. The fourth pick would go to STL who finished at 83-79.
The idea is to incentivize teams to be competitive even when rebuilding. The second wild card generally goes to a team that is a little bit above .500 so if you're trying to optimize your rebuild, you're aiming for a team that's fringe competitive and depending on where exactly you are in the standings come the deadline, you're going to have to make some hard decisions about trading vets to get minor league talent, or trading minor league talent to make a run.
I think the obvious risk here is that it will cement some teams as being terrible year after year after year, but I don't think it's really that hard to be mediocre. It requires spending a bit more money which is good from a revenue sharing perspective--nobody wants revenue sharing money to go to teams not trying to be competitive.