Look at Ray Ray Run

If you want a company to run and operate exactly as you want, go open your own. When you sign up to work for someone, you don't always get what you want. You may think you're right but the bottom line is, it's not your decision. The company has no obligation to agree with your position whenever you're "right." That's work. Other people have opinions and you don't run the entire show. Work on your messaging and fight for the next one.

Freedom of speech protects you against government prosecution pal, it has nothing to do with work. You don't deserve the right to blast your employer in a public setting. They're paying you to support and represent the company - read every handbook in the history of existence. You think it's OK to bite the hand that feeds you publically? Business is an internal matter the second you sign on the dotted line. If you have a problem with where you're working philosophically or opions wise then quit - no one made you work there.

And for those quoting Matt Lisle's South Carolina work history, he was the hitting coach of the softball team. It's not really the same thing.

Here's my take: 1. There's zero chance that's why he isnt working for the sox anymore. 2. It's stupid he would like a tweet, in a public position, ripping his employer even if it was complimenting him.

What is the corporate world to posters citing it?

Maybe. Or maybe Lisle wanted more money and a bigger position. He was making real good money as a private instructor (there's a lot of money in that at the tippy top) and if the Sox job took up time and wasn't enough status I could see him moving on

Midseason? He's not a MLB coach. He didn't even have a seasonally directed role. It's not as if he's the hitting coach of a particular team. He's an advisor basically.

No one here has any idea what Lisle did, why he was let go or etc.

Nice guys? No matter how many times you say it, this is not in lines with the agreement.

No it isn't, they still deserve to have rights. It's laughable that you think you shouldn't have the same workers rights if you make more money.

Yes, because many justify it by saying he makes more money than me and etc. I don't care how much money you make, you should never be exploited by your employer to be paid less. As I said, if this was you and your job I doubt you'd be as understanding. It doesn't matter what the CBA looks like - all players under the current agreement would be grandfathered in. They cannot retroactively change the rules and time left a player has before becoming a FA. MLB has, by far, the strongest union in professional sports. The mistake they made is they thought teams would want their best players on the roster - they didn't account for deliberate tanking and the suppressing of talent to elongate their control. Never trust your employer - document and define everything. That's the lesson learned.

Yes, and I have stated numerous times that service time exploitation is a load of garbage, and fans that support it are supporting the exploitation of workers. It is against the rules but IMPOSSIBLE to prove - I'm not sure why people continually state it's not. It is very clearly against the rules as you can file a grevience against it. It's just impossible to prove when a player is "ready" because that is subjective and not universally defined.

That's great, but I certainly would never be angry about an employee being treated more fairly than before. People have a hard time separating their entertainment from the fact that these are employees. They shouldn't be exploited regardless of how much money they make.

I honestly cannot fathom why it would anger you that an employee is treated fairly by their employer. Can you imagine if some internet strangers got angry because your boss gave you the promotion you deserved instead of exploiting you to pay you less for another year?

Yeah, and it's harder to be really productive in a bad lineup.

The White Sox own a majority share of NBC sports Chicago.

Because they didnt give Frank Thomas permission to report on his conversation with Hahn, and he works for the team so when he delivers messages (while being paid by them) they get to control the message. It's really a simple concept. Frank can only report on the conversations that take place on the record when he's operating as a representative of the team.

How would that video help a grevience. That's an interesting conclusion you came to not based on reality of course... but a negative spin on the FO none the less. You'll always find a way.

I just want to say that theres 0% chance Alex Wood gets 4 years 60 million. 0%

I think that would be a reasonable and smart deal for both parties involved. Soto is also slightly more proven than Moncada at this point but he also may age less gracefully as his defense is already below average at a non-premium position and he doesn't add any real Bsr value.

120 million is a lot more than 30 million. Moncada seems to be a "fun" spender too. Money is all relative and 90 million does mean less to someone with 30 million, but it still holds a lot of value. I'd lock up Moncada right now for 10 years, 180 million. Over the next 4 years let's say his expected earnings are 60 million. That would be a 6 year 120 million dollar extension which is under market for his talent ceiling but is also security for life. So while he may miss out on an additional 60 million if he bet on himself, he could also lose 120 million if something happens that derails his career. The key is finding that dollar that makes moncada not want to risk losing it. The last thing a player wants to be is the next Ian Desmond.

What is their to dispute. You've made your point 1000 times. We all understand your position and opinion. We all understand your expectations. What is the point in parroting them in every single thread. Here's exactly why it's over the top obnoxious at this point: You will never admit that the front office is changing. Despite rebuilding, increased spending on analytics, increased modernization of the organization and other new avenues they have entered. When the Sox offer 250+ million to someone, and finish second, you cite that as a fact that the White Sox arent serious about spending and investing in this core. You are basically implying that the offer was fake and they knew it wouldn't be accepted; so you're stating that the White Sox put in all those hours knowing it wouldn't get done just so they could say they tried. Zero big businesses operate that way, period. They showed a willingness to spend A LOT of money on a premium talent - something they hadn't shown in their franchises history. You cite that failure as proof they haven't changed despite it being proof of the contrary opinion. I already see this offseason and your responses Sox go out and spend 200-300 million this off season on 2-3 players but they don't sign Cole. You'll use that as proof of your assumption that this team can't get the mega deals done. They could sign the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best FA's on the market and you'll be parroting how they once again missed out on the top free agent. This is why there's no point in giving your posts any credence, because they're not tied to logic at all and are based on an abnormal and irrational amount of hate and anger towards a baseball team you're supposedly a fan of. Its outrageous.

I imagine that would be buying out quite a few FA years. 10 years 180 wouldn't really be a similar extension - you'd have to guarantee more for the additional free agent years. If its 6-7 years and 180 then yes, that would change the extension expectations throughout baseball by quite a bit.

A GM exuding confidence about his team? What a dumb SOB! How dare he display a sense of optimism and hope instead of the doom and gloom some Sox fans live and breathe everyday!

Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same nonsense over and over again?