KC Royals: Did Royals GM Dayton Moore Tank To Win?

 Is Tanking A Problem Even If Teams Really Are Doing It?

The best argument that tanking is harmful to the game comes from a 2014 analysis by Dan Farnsworth on Fangraphs.com that concluded “rebuilding” wasn’t profitable (which he defined as completely tearing down a team to acquire prospects) unless: 1) a team can cut 40% of their payroll, or 2) manage to pair rebuilding with a new stadium.

Otherwise, tearing down the team reduces team revenue over the long-term. Farnsworth’s analysis does not include potential losses to the visitor’s pool of team attendance and national TV contracts. “Tanking” could also hurt the team’s local TV contract revenue, 34% of which is shared with other teams.

What critics forget, however, is that for every loss that a tanking team “gives” away, ANOTHER TEAM gets wins. Those wins increase fan interest in other teams, and the marginal victories for winners could very well provide a greater boost to league revenue than the decline from losers.

This issue merits further research.

Aside from revenue projections, accumulating a “wave” of prospects is almost the only way for small-market teams to win in a world where their competitors can buy main roster pieces on the free-agent market. Dropping 10 more games in a lost season isn’t what kills a fanbase. What destroys all hope is losing for decades, and even generations.

The current labor agreement has yielded a reality where baseball has recently enjoyed more parity than any other major sport in North America.

Why does this laudable state of affairs need fixing?

Nothing creates more fans for small market franchises than winning a title, as anyone who has seen the KC Royals recent run of success renew the fanbase should know. Without hope of loading up and winning a title, fans from small market cities are doomed years of mediocrity.

Eventually, apathy sets in.

Critics of tanking also forget that it’s a self-limiting strategy. Only the top draft spots give access to either: 1) elite prospects, or 2) disproportionate slot money at the top of the draft that can allow a team to load up on depth if the draft lacks a “great” player when their pick comes. If, say 10 teams tank, only five will get top picks with big slot money attached.

It seems to me that the (inevitably) big market teams that complain about tanking don’t care about the health of the game. Instead, they’re unhappy that their market size no longer guarantees them a place among the game’s elite.

Next: Five Groundhog Day Do-Overs For Dayton Moore

To me, the teams complaining about tanking sound like they’re afraid to compete. They’d be better served to stop whining about their lost aristocratic privileges, and slug it out with everyone else.