The MLB lockout is lifted!

[Harold's Leg Lift]

If games are missed I really hope the players are able to hold out for some significant changes.  Baseball is broken and it's beyond obvious the owners couldn't give a shit less.  They're making obscene amouts of money and that's all they care about.  If the players hold out and are able to address tanking and service time manipulation to me it will be worth it. If the players are not able to make the game a better product for the fans then this will all be a giant waste of time.  

[greg775]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Let's be honest here.  Expanded playoffs are  happening, almost certainly.  The players will trade it for something they want.  Better arbitration, higher minimums, something.  They will get some cash, and the owners will get their new money.

Expanded playoffs is insane. If baseball does this it's going to be so hard for the Sox to win it all ever again. And so boring with all relievers pitching an inning or two at a time game after game. If baseball expands the playoffs and game after game I have to watch an opener go two innings, then followed by six more pitchers, I'm going to give up on my sport sadly. I am not enjoying baseball right now. For me it used to be compelling.

[chitownsportsfan]

18 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

If games are missed I really hope the players are able to hold out for some significant changes.  Baseball is broken and it's beyond obvious the owners couldn't give a shit less.  They're making obscene amouts of money and that's all they care about.  If the players hold out and are able to address tanking and service time manipulation to me it will be worth it. If the players are not able to make the game a better product for the fans then this will all be a giant waste of time.  

With the stuff coming out about tanking in the NFL you gotta wonder how prevalent it's been in MLB the past few seasons. Have owners offered to pay management to lose games? With the local ticket revenues not nearly as important anymore and the revenue sharing MLB has created a scenario where yes, I think "broken" is a good description. 

Tanking might be a legit strategy for SOME clubs in SOME situations but too often it's just an excuse not to spend any money and just rake in the guaranteed revenue.  And of course as you mentioned the other component to tanking is service time manipulation. How convenient is it for the owners that they can (literally) afford to keep their best prospects off the team and save money at the same time? A little too convenient.

I'm not exactly rooting for an entire season to be wiped out because I'm a fan of baseball and I enjoy baseball but if that is what it takes to fix these issues maybe it will be worth it. 

[Balta1701]

27 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

If games are missed I really hope the players are able to hold out for some significant changes.  Baseball is broken and it's beyond obvious the owners couldn't give a shit less.  They're making obscene amouts of money and that's all they care about.  If the players hold out and are able to address tanking and service time manipulation to me it will be worth it. If the players are not able to make the game a better product for the fans then this will all be a giant waste of time.  

Aside from the tiny increase in the minimum salary, it doesn't seem like there's anything right now that would address this issue coming from either side.

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

With the stuff coming out about tanking in the NFL you gotta wonder how prevalent it's been in MLB the past few seasons. Have owners offered to pay management to lose games? With the local ticket revenues not nearly as important anymore and the revenue sharing MLB has created a scenario where yes, I think "broken" is a good description. 

Tanking might be a legit strategy for SOME clubs in SOME situations but too often it's just an excuse not to spend any money and just rake in the guaranteed revenue.  And of course as you mentioned the other component to tanking is service time manipulation. How convenient is it for the owners that they can (literally) afford to keep their best prospects off the team and save money at the same time? A little too convenient.

I'm not exactly rooting for an entire season to be wiped out because I'm a fan of baseball and I enjoy baseball but if that is what it takes to fix these issues maybe it will be worth it. 

For whatever reason, it is more acceptable in MLB and NBA.

[Balta1701]

22 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

For whatever reason, it is more acceptable in MLB and NBA.

Well one "Whatever reason" in this case is obviously gambling. That's probably why the NFL will want to make this go away as fast as humanly possible with a settlement - because they don't want to face lawsuits from people gambling on those games.

[Texsox]

23 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

For whatever reason, it is more acceptable in MLB and NBA.

Why do you think that is? I'm thinking it's the length of season and how close most NFL teams are to making the playoffs. I also suspect that gambling is a factor as well. 

[Dick Allen]

23 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

For whatever reason, it is more acceptable in MLB and NBA.

Many fanbases almost demand it at some point.  But actually paying a coach a bounty to lose is something a bit out there. The Sox sent out emails today reminding everyone on their list that individual tickets go on sale next week. OK. 

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Well one "Whatever reason" in this case is obviously gambling. That's probably why the NFL will want to make this go away as fast as humanly possible with a settlement - because they don't want to face lawsuits from people gambling on those games.

There's gambling in baseball too. They will probably have a sports book at GRF in the next year or 2.. Already building one at Wrigley and the United Center.

[Balta1701]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

There's gambling in baseball too. They will probably have a sports book at GRF in the next year or 2.. Already building one at Wrigley and the United Center.

Yeah, but the amounts risked on a single game in MLB compared to the amounts risked on a single game in the NFL differ a whole lot. 

Say you found in discovery that the Dolphins had in fact paid our a $100k bonus for a coach losing a specific game, and thus everyone who had bet on that game could join a class action lawsuit. Then you found out the same thing about a single baseball game. How do the 2 lawsuits compare? 

[southsider2k5]

16 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Many fanbases almost demand it at some point.  But actually paying a coach a bounty to lose is something a bit out there. The Sox sent out emails today reminding everyone on their list that individual tickets go on sale next week. OK. 

Tickets for what?  Scabs?

[chitownsportsfan]

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Tickets for what?  Scabs?

I mean I get it, you gotta send the email, but FFS. @Dick Allen was there any acknowledgment of you know, a labor stoppage in the email?

[Texsox]

26 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yeah, but the amounts risked on a single game in MLB compared to the amounts risked on a single game in the NFL differ a whole lot. 

Say you found in discovery that the Dolphins had in fact paid our a $100k bonus for a coach losing a specific game, and thus everyone who had bet on that game could join a class action lawsuit. Then you found out the same thing about a single baseball game. How do the 2 lawsuits compare? 

Great point. Horse racing is in the middle of a suit for doping and gambling. I wonder if a human was found to have been using a banned substance if bettors could sue? It's a novel concept. 

One obvious difference here is the NFL does not put on the games for gamblers, while horse races are run for the gambling. I'm not certain a gambler could sue the NFL because they bet with a casino.  

[Balta1701]

Just now, Texsox said:

Great point. Horse racing is in the middle of a suit for doping and gambling. I wonder if a human was found to have been using a banned substance if bettors could sue? It's a novel concept. 

One obvious difference here is the NFL does not put on the games for gamblers, while horse races are run for the gambling. I'm not certain a gambler could sue the NFL because they bet with a casino.  

I feel like there was a lawsuit filed against some league along these lines but I can't find it on Google. Am I crossing this up with another lawsuit filed by gamblers? 

[Dick Allen]

40 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yeah, but the amounts risked on a single game in MLB compared to the amounts risked on a single game in the NFL differ a whole lot. 

Say you found in discovery that the Dolphins had in fact paid our a $100k bonus for a coach losing a specific game, and thus everyone who had bet on that game could join a class action lawsuit. Then you found out the same thing about a single baseball game. How do the 2 lawsuits compare? 

Of course, but throwing a game is throwing a game. but like was pointed out, tanking has been excepted by many fanbases in baseball, including the White Sox. In the NFL, with only 17 games, and as quickly as fortunes can change, and as quickly as players careers can end, not so much.

This is going to be a huge black eye for the NFL. Gambling and fantasy football is what makes it the most popular of sports IMO.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

Of course, but throwing a game is throwing a game. but like was pointed out, tanking has been excepted by many fanbases in baseball, including the White Sox. In the NFL, with only 17 games, and as quickly as fortunes can change, and as quickly as players careers can end, not so much.

This is going to be a huge black eye for the NFL. Gambling and fantasy football is what makes it the most popular of sports IMO.

There's a difference between "putting together a roster that won't win a lot of games but trying your best" and "trying your best to actually lose". The former is accepted and understood in each league, because sometimes teams do need to rebuild and get cheaper, younger, etc. The latter is what is alleged here. 

[Dick Allen]

17 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I mean I get it, you gotta send the email, but FFS. @Dick Allen was there any acknowledgment of you know, a labor stoppage in the email?

No but they did mention opening day tickets will be available.

[Dick Allen]

19 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

There's a difference between "putting together a roster that won't win a lot of games but trying your best" and "trying your best to actually lose". The former is accepted and understood in each league, because sometimes teams do need to rebuild and get cheaper, younger, etc. The latter is what is alleged here. 

People on this board where praying the Sox would lose many games when they were rebuilding. It was all about the draft picks. There are a lot of people that would rather have the Sox go 55-107 than 83-79 and just miss the playoffs, and not trying to win by manipulating how the game is run by the manager is encouraged in these parts when the team is not a contender, even if not a contender by choice.

 

In the NBA they call it hell when you are good enough to have a decent record, but not good enough to win it all. And NBA games and NFL games are IMO far easier to tank by coaching than a MLB game.

 

Tanking is not just having a shitty roster. Not trying to win games probably happens a lot more than we all realize. But as long as the system rewards you for being bad, teams are going to try and be bad in more ways than one.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Dick Allen

[Tony]

13 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

People on this board where praying the Sox would lose many games when they were rebuilding. It was all about the draft picks. There are a lot of people that would rather have the Sox go 55-107 than 83-79 and just miss the playoffs, and not trying to win by manipulating how the game is run by the manager is encouraged in these parts when the team is not a contender, even if not a contender by choice.

But there is a major difference here. 

A Front Office can have the objective to tank/lose for better draft positioning. That has become standard in almost every professional sport, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. 

The coaching staff and players should always be expected to do everything in their power to win as many games as possible. They shouldn't be concerned about what is happening upstairs, they should be focused on the game itself and performing to the best of their abilities. That shouldn't change, ever. 

When an owner is telling a coach to lose, that crosses a major line from the Sox (or anyone else) tanking/rebuilding. If RH/KW ever told Renteria that he should lose on purpose, or he would receive a bonus if they lost X amount of games, that would be wrong on many levels. 

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

But there is a major difference here. 

A Front Office can have the objective to tank/lose for better draft positioning. That has become standard in almost every professional sport, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. 

The coaching staff and players should always be expected to do everything in their power to win as many games as possible. They shouldn't be concerned about what is happening upstairs, they should be focused on the game itself and performing to the best of their abilities. That shouldn't change, ever. 

When an owner is telling a coach to lose, that crosses a major line from the Sox (or anyone else) tanking/rebuilding. If RH/KW ever told Renteria that he should lose on purpose, or he would receive a bonus if they lost X amount of games, that would be wrong on many levels. 

If I'm a gambler, I can also evaluate public information like "Their roster" when deciding to place bets. Daniel Palka is on the roster and the White Sox want to see if he could be a useful long term player - so he's likely to get playing time somewhere, even if that puts him out in RF, and him in RF increases the chances of a game-costing error. I can evaluate that when deciding my wager, or when figuring out the odds on each gam! Rick Renteria gets a secret bonus if he loses today, so Daniel Palka just moved over to CF - this seems difficult to assess in advance. 

[Dick Allen]

3 minutes ago, Tony said:

But there is a major difference here. 

A Front Office can have the objective to tank/lose for better draft positioning. That has become standard in almost every professional sport, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. 

The coaching staff and players should always be expected to do everything in their power to win as many games as possible. They shouldn't be concerned about what is happening upstairs, they should be focused on the game itself and performing to the best of their abilities. That shouldn't change, ever. 

When an owner is telling a coach to lose, that crosses a major line from the Sox (or anyone else) tanking/rebuilding. If RH/KW ever told Renteria that he should lose on purpose, or he would receive a bonus if they lost X amount of games, that would be wrong on many levels. 

I don't disagree with you, but there are many people who do. Posters here were mad the Sox won some games. If they knew Renteria put a reliever in because he knew he was tired and would get lit up, I think there are a lot of White Sox fans that would have been OK with that.

[Dick Allen]

On the other hand, gamblers probably have to know, and have either started the process themselves or know how to find out , that the fix is in.

[Tony]

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I don't disagree with you, but there are many people who do. Posters here were mad the Sox won some games. If they knew Renteria put a reliever in because he knew he was tired and would get lit up, I think there are a lot of White Sox fans that would have been OK with that.

Right, but again, LARGE difference between the fans and coaches/players. Most fans are looking at the long-term vision for the team rather than that days game. And I'm OK with that. Fans have 0 impact on outcome.....so if they want their favorite team to lose so they can get that prized No. 1 pick, that makes sense (to me.)

A coach and the players on the field are in a totally different category. 

[Balta1701]

6 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I don't disagree with you, but there are many people who do. Posters here were mad the Sox won some games. If they knew Renteria put a reliever in because he knew he was tired and would get lit up, I think there are a lot of White Sox fans that would have been OK with that.

I think Jimmy Cordero's arm just twitched. 

[Dick Allen]

3 minutes ago, Tony said:

Right, but again, LARGE difference between the fans and coaches/players. Most fans are looking at the long-term vision for the team rather than that days game. And I'm OK with that. Fans have 0 impact on outcome.....so if they want their favorite team to lose so they can get that prized No. 1 pick, that makes sense (to me.)

A coach and the players on the field are in a totally different category. 

Yes but public sentiment is what is going to make this a big story. Flores wasn't the first coach asked to do this, and probably wasn't in the first 20. This coming out, might help make him the last.

Like in the NBA when they sit good players for weeks and months before they get traded so they won't get hurt. Is it that, or playing them might help them win games?

Edited February 3, 2022 by Dick Allen