Dodgers defenestrating Sox, Snell signs 5 years, $182 million

[Quin]

34 minutes ago, T R U said:

What's broken?

Are we supposed to shame the Dodgers for doing what other teams choose not to do?

I hope they sign Soto next and JR gets all butt hurt about it. "Look at these guys just spending money on good players, what the hell is that about??"

What's broken is other teams' front offices. The Dodgers are simply taking advantage of that.

Franchises that are willing to spend money on farm systems, free agents and analytics will catch-up - not surprisingly, those teams include the Yankees, Mets, Phillies and Padres.

Think of what team has historically fought those trends.

*Edit: Forgot to put "free agents" in there. Whoops.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Where were you when baseball destroyed itself from within?

[WestEddy]

19 minutes ago, flavum said:

I’d be for a fan strike until there’s a salary cap and floor, but it’s not going to happen. 

There are complete salary caps in the NBA and NFL. I haven't seen a championship parade in Chicago for either of those sports for a while, now. 

[flavum]

5 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

There are complete salary caps in the NBA and NFL. I haven't seen a championship parade in Chicago for either of those sports for a while, now. 

The sports are too different to compare. A floor and cap in baseball would help the product along with a few other things. 

[hi8is]

35 minutes ago, wegner said:

Did I miss the part where the White Sox were in on Blake Snell??

Yawn

[Chicago White Sox]

2 hours ago, ChiSox59 said:

Baseball is broken. 

100%.  At least there is some being a White Sox fan if/when Jerry passes.  Imagine trying to be a Pirates fan or some other small market team competing against the likes of Dodgers.

[Chicago White Sox]

51 minutes ago, T R U said:

What's broken?

Are we supposed to shame the Dodgers for doing what other teams choose not to do?

I hope they sign Soto next and JR gets all butt hurt about it. "Look at these guys just spending money on good players, what the hell is that about??"

The Dodgers can do more than any other team because their insane TV deal and candidly speaking it’s bullshit.  The parity in the NFL is incredible and it’s much more enjoyable sport as a result.

[nrockway]

46 minutes ago, T R U said:

What's broken?

Are we supposed to shame the Dodgers for doing what other teams choose not to do?

I hope they sign Soto next and JR gets all butt hurt about it. "Look at these guys just spending money on good players, what the hell is that about??"

Yes. It shouldn't even be a choice. It should be like every other sport. Why should we have faith that the team owner is going to 'do the right thing'? He should be compelled to 'do the right thing' and one team shouldn't be able to sign every single good free agent.

The Dodgers are such an overrated team. When was the last time they actually produced a homegrown player that's any good? Miguel Vargas? Michael Busch? Pages? Lux? The only guys on their playoff roster that they can be credited for 'developing' weren't very good. It's easier to win at baseball when you can pay unlimited money to every superstar in the league. It isn't the 'only' thing, you can certainly win without spending a ton of money, so why isn't it a rule that every team has to spend within the same window? It objectively produces a non-competitive environment. It's the worst thing about professional baseball honestly.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

The Dodgers are gonna have another roster crunch.  They will be at 37 after signing Snell and they're likely not done adding players.  They also have 4 pitchers on the 60 day DL they will eventually have to make a decision on.   They could swing a Michael Busch-like trade but if they dfa someone the Sox are first in line.  

[Quin]

8 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The Dodgers can do more than any other team because their insane TV deal and candidly speaking it’s bullshit.  The parity in the NFL is incredible and it’s much more enjoyable sport as a result.

I know I'm defending the Dodgers flexing on the rest of baseball, but for the sake of arguing the other side: The NBA saw the super teams break the league and addressed it with new salary cap rules.

Since the LeBron-Warriors faced off 4 straight times:

Warriors vs. Raptors*
Lakers* vs. Heat
Suns vs. Bucks*
Warriors* vs. Celtics
Nuggets* vs. Heat
Mavericks vs. Celtics*

[ChiSox59]

1 hour ago, T R U said:

What's broken?

Are we supposed to shame the Dodgers for doing what other teams choose not to do?

I hope they sign Soto next and JR gets all butt hurt about it. "Look at these guys just spending money on good players, what the hell is that about??"

I am not shaming the Dodgers, but when 1 of 30 teams buys ALL the free agents, its not exactly a competitive atmosphere.  I wish my team did what they do. 

[Lip Man 1]

11 minutes ago, nrockway said:

Yes. It shouldn't even be a choice. It should be like every other sport. Why should we have faith that the team owner is going to 'do the right thing'? He should be compelled to 'do the right thing' and one team shouldn't be able to sign every single good free agent.

The Dodgers are such an overrated team. When was the last time they actually produced a homegrown player that's any good? Miguel Vargas? Michael Busch? Pages? Lux? The only guys on their playoff roster that they can be credited for 'developing' weren't very good. It's easier to win at baseball when you can pay unlimited money to every superstar in the league. It isn't the 'only' thing, you can certainly win without spending a ton of money, so why isn't it a rule that every team has to spend within the same window? It objectively produces a non-competitive environment. It's the worst thing about professional baseball honestly.

Just curious...how many different teams have won the World series say in the past 20 years? How many different teams have made the playoffs in that time frame? (Even the Sox were able to do it...)

Baseball isn't as broken as many think.

What's broken is ownership that decides profit is more important than winning. 

[Kyyle23]

54 minutes ago, wegner said:

Did I miss the part where the White Sox were in on Blake Snell??

The notification was defenestrated 

[southsider2k5]

59 minutes ago, wegner said:

Did I miss the part where the White Sox were in on Blake Snell??

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, GreenSox said:

Isn’t this a good thing, as it tightens the  supply of the elite available left-handed starters?  And the size of the contract versus Crochet’s also should enhance his demand.  

It should be for Chris Getz.  Let's see if he can take advantage this time.

[southsider2k5]

42 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

There are complete salary caps in the NBA and NFL. I haven't seen a championship parade in Chicago for either of those sports for a while, now. 

The Golden State Warriors are in the same market as the A's... well at least they were.

[nrockway]

3 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Just curious...how many different teams have won the World series say in the past 20 years? How many different teams have made the playoffs in that time frame? (Even the Sox were able to do it...)

Baseball isn't as broken as many think.

What's broken is ownership that decides profit is more important than winning. 

Well, of course they will do that. You could make a similar point about any business, the point is to make money, and 'winning' and 'making money' are not necessarily connected. Seems to be the case in most industries that profit is closer connected to cost-cutting than to improving the product or service. 

I don't think you could really expect any corporation to regulate itself effectively which is why society makes rules for them to follow. I'm just suggesting that MLB be regulated more like the NBA or NFL, it's not a wild assertion. Basketball would be incredibly boring (well, more boring than it already is) if the Lakers trotted out five guys making $50mil a year versus 15 teams emulating 'The Process' Sixers. It also adds a fun dimension to team-building where giving out bad contracts actually matters. What if retained salary counted against a team's ability to sign free agents? Maybe the Mets don't pay $35mil to Scherzer to play for a different team, maybe they aren't rewarded with a great prospect in exchange for a bad contract.

Also the 20 year cutoff seems a little arbitrary. Why not mention the Yankees? I think it's unfortunate that pretty much every 'great' player from eras past played for the Yankees. Yes, you can win at baseball without spending a ton of money, but why shouldn't every team be compelled to follow the same standards? Why should the system be laissez-faire when it has an impact on the quality of the sport? Disparate spending on payroll obviously has an impact on how teams perform and it makes the league less competitive. 

[Lip Man 1]

50 minutes ago, nrockway said:

Well, of course they will do that. You could make a similar point about any business, the point is to make money, and 'winning' and 'making money' are not necessarily connected. Seems to be the case in most industries that profit is closer connected to cost-cutting than to improving the product or service. 

I don't think you could really expect any corporation to regulate itself effectively which is why society makes rules for them to follow. I'm just suggesting that MLB be regulated more like the NBA or NFL, it's not a wild assertion. Basketball would be incredibly boring (well, more boring than it already is) if the Lakers trotted out five guys making $50mil a year versus 15 teams emulating 'The Process' Sixers. It also adds a fun dimension to team-building where giving out bad contracts actually matters. What if retained salary counted against a team's ability to sign free agents? Maybe the Mets don't pay $35mil to Scherzer to play for a different team, maybe they aren't rewarded with a great prospect in exchange for a bad contract.

Also the 20 year cutoff seems a little arbitrary. Why not mention the Yankees? I think it's unfortunate that pretty much every 'great' player from eras past played for the Yankees. Yes, you can win at baseball without spending a ton of money, but why shouldn't every team be compelled to follow the same standards? Why should the system be laissez-faire when it has an impact on the quality of the sport? Disparate spending on payroll obviously has an impact on how teams perform and it makes the league less competitive. 

The Yankees last won a World Series in 2009. Just saying. 

Seems to me the quality of the sport hasn't been impacted as much as you think again given the different number of World Series winners and the lack of repeat champions. 

And I have no issue with a business making a profit, they take the risks, they deserve something...but when profit turns to greed, especially in sports, that's where I draw the line. 

The Braves, Cardinals, Brewers, Rays and Guardians aren't large market franchises yet they make the post season on a regular basis or at least have a winning record pretty consistently. They seem to do fine without a salary cap or salary floor.

The White Sox have more built in advantages than those franchise do by far, they don't succeed, not because there isn't a salary cap/floor but because the organization itself is incompetent, dysfunctional and inept. A cap/floor won't change that in my opinion. 

Edited 54 minutes ago by Lip Man 1

[T R U]

1 hour ago, ChiSox59 said:

I am not shaming the Dodgers, but when 1 of 30 teams buys ALL the free agents, its not exactly a competitive atmosphere.  I wish my team did what they do. 

I wish they did too, and they could if they wanted to but the man in charge does not want to. Its not about not having the money, its just a flat out refusal to pay players what they are worth on the market or even to keep your own.

All these guys are making stupid money and I won't entertain any argument that every team in the league couldn't have just signed Snell to the same contract as the Dodgers all things considered. "Oh but we don't make enough profit to spend like that." The White Sox are worth over $2 Billion dollars, businesses that don't make any money aren't worth billions of dollars. Every team in MLB is worth over $1 billion minimum. Its not a baseball problem, its a crusty old geriatric owner problem.

Edited 25 minutes ago by T R U

[nrockway]

48 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

The Yankees last won a World Series in 2009. Just saying. 

Seems to me the quality of the sport hasn't been impacted as much as you think again given the different number of World Series winners and the lack of repeat champions. 

And I have no issue with a business making a profit, they take the risks, they deserve something...but when profit turns to greed, especially in sports, that's where I draw the line. 

The Braves, Cardinals, Brewers, Rays and Guardians aren't large market franchises yet they make the post season on a regular basis or at least have a winning record pretty consistently. They seem to do fine without a salary cap or salary floor.

The White Sox have more built in advantages than those franchise do by far, they don't succeed, not because there isn't a salary cap/floor but because the organization itself is incompetent, dysfunctional and inept. A cap/floor won't change that in my opinion. 

There is no risk in professional sports, I think we discussed on this forum how a pro sports franchise is a safer investment than the S&P 500, offering at least double the return. It seems to be the safest investment there is. Reinsdorf mismanaged $20mil into $2il, he didn't successfully run a business, he was rewarded for being incompetent and for gettin' in when the gettin' was good. What does Reinsdorf deserve? A pat on the back for his hard and intelligent work running the White Sox into the ground? For being old and independently wealthy? Seemingly he did some intelligent things to initially make his fortune, but he became a billionaire while failing to run the Sox. Professional sports ownership is basically just failing up, I think it's the antithesis of a meritocratic and democratic society.

Think about what the city or state could do with that revenue, the taxpayer foots the bill for anything actually 'risky' in sports regardless, such as stadium construction. The public is taking a risk, the owner isn't, thus it might be nice to see some of that publicly-created wealth, maybe there could be a stream of revenue for public services besides property taxes.

America has such incredible sports leagues and talented players because the public places a lot of cultural importance on it. The team owners don't need to do a thing to develop their workforce, the public does it for them. Sport is fundamentally a public good and it always has been in 'western' society, there is really no rational argument to make in favor of team owners. Your point is fair, if you're taking a risk, you might expect some financial reward. I just don't see what 'risks' the owners are taking. They are leeches on the public, welfare queens really, and leeches on the sport.

I also am not claiming that the sport is broken, I love watching and talking about baseball, I just think there should be rules in place that support a competitive and fair environment, for the sake of the fans. World Series victories is not a particularly good way to measure parity either. They play 162 games for a reason and the playoffs are a crapshoot. It definitely helps though when your entire roster is highly-paid superstars. It's a band-aid for being unable to develop players internally, only a few teams can do it, and it tends to work. Ohtani wasn't particularly good in the postseason, neither was Judge. So does that mean a winning strategy is cross your fingers and hope your roster gives their best David Freese impression? You can still enjoy the sport and also not be blind to something pretty glaring. As previously mentioned, the other major leagues in the USA operate this way, why shouldn't the MLB?

[Kyyle23]

2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Where were you when baseball destroyed itself from within?

Posting right here 

[T R U]

3 minutes ago, nrockway said:

There is no risk in professional sports, I think we discussed on this forum how a pro sports franchise is a safer investment than the S&P 500, offering at least double the return. It seems to be the safest investment there is. Reinsdorf mismanaged $20mil into $2il, he didn't successfully run a business, he was rewarded for being incompetent and for gettin' in when the gettin' was good. What does Reinsdorf deserve? A pat on the back for his hard and intelligent work running the White Sox into the ground? For being old and independently wealthy? Seemingly he did some intelligent things to initially make his fortune, but he became a billionaire while failing to run the Sox. Professional sports ownership is basically just failing up, I think it's the antithesis of a meritocratic and democratic society.

Think about what the city or state could do with that revenue, the taxpayer foots the bill for anything actually 'risky' in sports regardless, such as stadium construction. The public is taking a risk, the owner isn't, thus it might be nice to see some of that publicly-created wealth, maybe there could be a stream of revenue for public services besides property taxes.

America has such incredible sports leagues and talented players because the public places a lot of cultural importance on it. The team owners don't need to do a thing to develop their workforce, the public does it for them. Sport is fundamentally a public good and it always has been in 'western' society, there is really no rational argument to make in favor of team owners. Your point is fair, if you're taking a risk, you might expect some financial reward. I just don't see what 'risks' the owners are taking. They are leeches on the public, welfare queens really, and leeches on the sport.

I also am not claiming that the sport is broken, I love watching and talking about baseball, I just think there should be rules in place that support a competitive and fair environment, for the sake of the fans. World Series victories is not a particularly good way to measure parity either. They play 162 games for a reason and the playoffs are a crapshoot. It definitely helps though when your entire roster is highly-paid superstars. It's a band-aid for being unable to develop players internally, only a few teams can do it, and it tends to work. Ohtani wasn't particularly good in the postseason, neither was Judge. So does that mean a winning strategy is cross your fingers and hope your roster gives their best David Freese impression? You can still enjoy the sport and also not be blind to something pretty glaring. As previously mentioned, the other major leagues in the USA operate this way, why shouldn't the MLB?

From what I looked up, the White Sox made $288 million dollars in revenue in 2023. And that was with a 100 loss team that was total dogshit. You could probably double that number by investing into your roster to get the stadium filled and a good product on the field. This isn't Wrigley, people aren't going to come to White Sox games for a historical stadium regardless of how bad the team is. The whole angle of attendance is low so payroll needs to be low makes no sense to me in a world where the product you put on the field is directly related to the money that goes into your pocket for 99% of these teams.