Morosi: White Sox interested in "both Machado and Harper"

[Baker]

Shouldn’t us, the customers, have a place at the table. Let the owners and players make less and mandate lower ticket prices. The sport is losing young fans because it’s too expensive to go to a game. 

[Bigsoxhurt35]

1 minute ago, Baker said:

Shouldn’t us, the customers, have a place at the table. Let the owners and players make less and mandate lower ticket prices. The sport is losing young fans because it’s too expensive to go to a game. 

That’s not why the sport lost most young fans

[Chicago White Sox]

10 minutes ago, Baker said:

Shouldn’t us, the customers, have a place at the table. Let the owners and players make less and mandate lower ticket prices. The sport is losing young fans because it’s too expensive to go to a game. 

Baseball has to be the cheapest sport to attend out of the big four.  Young fans are losing interest because they have limited attention spans and the game admittedly is slow as fuck.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Chicago White Sox

[GenericUserName]

40 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Baseball has to be the cheapest sport to attend out of the big four.  Young fans are losing interest because they have limited attention spans and the game admittedly is slow as fuck.

It might be the cheapest, but the price for the actual importance of each game is much less. When no one game really matters because there are so many, people might not feel compelled to go to any one game thinking they could feasibly go to a game at a different date with the same relative importance. The problem that MLB has is that people then don't go to as many games because they find alternatives and by the time the actual importance of the games is increased, most of the teams are out of the playoff race so there is even less reason to go. 

And the game being slower and more boring now is a problem. From a basic economics standpoint, for any given price point, your utility is now lower while the utility obtained from competition at the same price point is likely higher because of the vast amount of entertainment options younger generations have. And on top of all of that, teams are actually raising prices when they should probably be lowering them to compete with the other options available to young fans.

To me, teams are making a mistake and are sacrificing potentially exponentially higher future profits for current profits by trying to find the absolute most they can get out of people for tickets, merch, and TV viewing. You might be able to make more money by using higher prices to offset (and more) the lower customer base, but you are losing fans in an asymmetrical manner such that you are losing the fans with the highest potential future spending (young people who have more years to spend money) while retaining those who will likely drop out of the consumer base sooner (older people who will no longer be able to attend games/die) while also doing almost nothing to replace those who are lost. 

The worst part is that I don't think the owners even care. They are now getting so much from TV deals that they can make money even with poor attendance while the values of their franchises continue to rise seemingly partly because they do nothing but rise in value. As long as there aren't a ton of sales where they actually lose money on their investments or they all start losing money every year I don't think anything drastic will change. People suck at changing in small ways when something could possibly happen in the future. They are much better at reacting to drastic situations. While I don't know if my doomsday thought process will actually happen, I really fear it will. 

/end rant

[wrathofhahn]

Per MLBTR

• Meanwhile, NBC’s Vinnie Duber takes a look what the oft-suggested fit between the White Sox and Machado. While the Sox undoubtedly have the long-term payroll capacity and an opening at third base, Machado’s preference is to play shortstop, where Tim Anderson made positive strides in 2018 after being signed as a long-term option there. Duber also notes that Machado’s “Johnny Hustle” comments wouldn’t sit well with recently extended manager Rick Renteria, who has previously benched multiple players for failure to adhere to fundamentals such as running out grounders and pop-ups. GM Rick Hahn recently praised the “culture of accountability” that Renteria has created (link via Duber), adding that it’s important for the organization that its players buy into said culture.

Seems like the FO has many of the issues I do. The guy is a jackass and would be a bad influence on our younger players. It's also no secret why he had a career year right before FA whomever signs this guy longterm to big money is going to regret it

[wrathofhahn]

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Baseball has to be the cheapest sport to attend out of the big four.  Young fans are losing interest because they have limited attention spans and the game admittedly is slow as fuck.

That's a nice way of saying it

[Chicago White Sox]

11 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Per MLBTR

• Meanwhile, NBC’s Vinnie Duber takes a look what the oft-suggested fit between the White Sox and Machado. While the Sox undoubtedly have the long-term payroll capacity and an opening at third base, Machado’s preference is to play shortstop, where Tim Anderson made positive strides in 2018 after being signed as a long-term option there. Duber also notes that Machado’s “Johnny Hustle” comments wouldn’t sit well with recently extended manager Rick Renteria, who has previously benched multiple players for failure to adhere to fundamentals such as running out grounders and pop-ups. GM Rick Hahn recently praised the “culture of accountability” that Renteria has created (link via Duber), adding that it’s important for the organization that its players buy into said culture.

Seems like the FO has many of the issues I do. The guy is a jackass and would be a bad influence on our younger players. It's also no secret why he had a career year right before FA whomever signs this guy longterm to big money is going to regret it

I’m sorry, but Vinnie Duber’s opinions don’t reflect those of the front office.  Furthermore, we know the Sox are high on Machado and are planning to pursue him aggressively in free agency.

As for this career year nonsense, his offensive results were better than his 2015 & 2016 seasons but not substantially.  To think a young, talented player won’t continue to improve as he enters his prime is quite frankly absurd.  It’s clear that your dislike of the player has caused you to be unobjective.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Chicago White Sox

[Jose Abreu]

1 hour ago, wrathofhahn said:

Per MLBTR

• Meanwhile, NBC’s Vinnie Duber takes a look what the oft-suggested fit between the White Sox and Machado. While the Sox undoubtedly have the long-term payroll capacity and an opening at third base, Machado’s preference is to play shortstop, where Tim Anderson made positive strides in 2018 after being signed as a long-term option there. Duber also notes that Machado’s “Johnny Hustle” comments wouldn’t sit well with recently extended manager Rick Renteria, who has previously benched multiple players for failure to adhere to fundamentals such as running out grounders and pop-ups. GM Rick Hahn recently praised the “culture of accountability” that Renteria has created (link via Duber), adding that it’s important for the organization that its players buy into said culture.

Seems like the FO has many of the issues I do. The guy is a jackass and would be a bad influence on our younger players. It's also no secret why he had a career year right before FA whomever signs this guy longterm to big money is going to regret it

I’d take anything Vinnie Duber says with a grain of salt

[Dominikk85]

2 hours ago, GenericUserName said:

It might be the cheapest, but the price for the actual importance of each game is much less. When no one game really matters because there are so many, people might not feel compelled to go to any one game thinking they could feasibly go to a game at a different date with the same relative importance. The problem that MLB has is that people then don't go to as many games because they find alternatives and by the time the actual importance of the games is increased, most of the teams are out of the playoff race so there is even less reason to go. 

And the game being slower and more boring now is a problem. From a basic economics standpoint, for any given price point, your utility is now lower while the utility obtained from competition at the same price point is likely higher because of the vast amount of entertainment options younger generations have. And on top of all of that, teams are actually raising prices when they should probably be lowering them to compete with the other options available to young fans.

To me, teams are making a mistake and are sacrificing potentially exponentially higher future profits for current profits by trying to find the absolute most they can get out of people for tickets, merch, and TV viewing. You might be able to make more money by using higher prices to offset (and more) the lower customer base, but you are losing fans in an asymmetrical manner such that you are losing the fans with the highest potential future spending (young people who have more years to spend money) while retaining those who will likely drop out of the consumer base sooner (older people who will no longer be able to attend games/die) while also doing almost nothing to replace those who are lost. 

The worst part is that I don't think the owners even care. They are now getting so much from TV deals that they can make money even with poor attendance while the values of their franchises continue to rise seemingly partly because they do nothing but rise in value. As long as there aren't a ton of sales where they actually lose money on their investments or they all start losing money every year I don't think anything drastic will change. People suck at changing in small ways when something could possibly happen in the future. They are much better at reacting to drastic situations. While I don't know if my doomsday thought process will actually happen, I really fear it will. 

/end rant

This is true. Attendance is getting lower but TV deals more than offset that. With billion dollar tv deals they can afford 10k empty seats.

And it is true that people don't act according to what could happen in the future, just see the real estate bubble or the stock market. Business people say make money now and deal with the loss/crisis when it happens especially because the very richest tend to get bailed out if something bad happens.

[GenericUserName]

15 minutes ago, dominik-keul@gmx.de said:

This is true. Attendance is getting lower but TV deals more than offset that. With billion dollar tv deals they can afford 10k empty seats.

And it is true that people don't act according to what could happen in the future, just see the real estate bubble or the stock market. Business people say make money now and deal with the loss/crisis when it happens especially because the very richest tend to get bailed out if something bad happens.

I agree. I just see it happening where the TV deals are no longer massive because there aren't enough fans, and even among those fans not enough that have cable, to let the companies justify spending crazy amounts for live content, especially when there are other new options that seem to work better. A while back I heard about a study done that advertising through TV had some of the lowest ROI while podcasts were really effective. Now there also might be movies on youtube for free but that have unskippable ads. If something like that is similarly more effective than TV ads, then even the larger numbers with sports might not be enough to justify the huge cost when podcasts and youtube is cheaper. 

[Dominikk85]

44 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

I agree. I just see it happening where the TV deals are no longer massive because there aren't enough fans, and even among those fans not enough that have cable, to let the companies justify spending crazy amounts for live content, especially when there are other new options that seem to work better. A while back I heard about a study done that advertising through TV had some of the lowest ROI while podcasts were really effective. Now there also might be movies on youtube for free but that have unskippable ads. If something like that is similarly more effective than TV ads, then even the larger numbers with sports might not be enough to justify the huge cost when podcasts and youtube is cheaper. 

Cable will die, the future is internet streaming like netflix. This will be a big challenge for the clubs because the streaming means more individual marketing as people want more tailored packages instead of subsiding shows they don't like. This could drive down the prices as you can't as easily justify high prices from the customer.

Streaming revenue will grow but sustaining the cable prices won't be easy, netflix is way cheaper than most cable networks for example because competition in streaming is high.

Edited November 24, 2018 by dominik-keul@gmx.de

[Big Hurtin]

6 hours ago, Moncada said:

Don't you wish baseball would get away from the chase of the money.  Why can't a player go to a team bc he likes the city, the players, the coaches, and wants to win for that team.  

Take less money but enjoy your career.  It doesn't have to always be about who will pay the most money, it shouldn't be.

Peace in the Middle East will happen sooner.

 

[caulfield12]

But live sports provide limitless content where they don’t have to pay performers, writing and production staff, etc.

If you look at the ROI required for a new Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Hulu or even YouTube original content show, it’s quite substantial.

You also have to consider the legalizing of sports gambling adding $250 million to upwards of $1 billion to franchise values, and then the competition to be an owner of any pro sports franchise with so many newly-minted billionaires in the last ten years.

Finally, football has peaked and will gradually lose fans and players over issues like concussions and career longevity being vastly greater in other sports.

AI and VR and AR will not only make e-sports a threat, it will enhance spectator experiences and help increase participation levels for live sports.   Not all of that growth will go to basketball and soccer.   Not to mention baseball provides twice as many opportunities to make it to the highest level as the NBA.

Edited November 25, 2018 by caulfield12

[The Sir]

8 hours ago, Moncada said:

Don't you wish baseball would get away from the chase of the money.  Why can't a player go to a team bc he likes the city, the players, the coaches, and wants to win for that team.  

Take less money but enjoy your career.  It doesn't have to always be about who will pay the most money, it shouldn't be.

If you were 26 and your primary talent could get you hired for $400 million, paid out until you were 36, would you take less than that in favor of some other intangibles? It’s not like he’s choosing between Paris or Kabul- the city should be irrelevant. Personally, I think Philly is lame as hell, but it’s got plenty of places to buy or build an estate, some fancy restaurants, etc. So Philly vs. Chicago vs. New York, who cares?

Bryce Harper is going to maximize his skill so that, if he wanted to, he’d never have to work again. His children will have the option to never work at all. I don’t blame him a bit.

[Dominikk85]

14 hours ago, The Sir said:

If you were 26 and your primary talent could get you hired for $400 million, paid out until you were 36, would you take less than that in favor of some other intangibles? It’s not like he’s choosing between Paris or Kabul- the city should be irrelevant. Personally, I think Philly is lame as hell, but it’s got plenty of places to buy or build an estate, some fancy restaurants, etc. So Philly vs. Chicago vs. New York, who cares?

Bryce Harper is going to maximize his skill so that, if he wanted to, he’d never have to work again. His children will have the option to never work at all. I don’t blame him a bit.

Also the union  doesn't like players giving hometown discounts. The other players don't look favorably at you if you don't take the highest bid because you hurt the market (the same happens among owners, if an owner decided to pay minor leaguers better the other owners would hate him).

Of course they don't burn you at stake but there is a pressure to take the highest you can get because the players already feel getting ripped off and nobody wants to give away even more ground to the owners for no reason.

So if machado signed a 7 year, 200M deal because he likes the city instead if taking 10/350 with two opt outs the others will that see as the owners winning another fight.

[SCCWS]

23 minutes ago, dominik-keul@gmx.de said:

Also the union  doesn't like players giving hometown discounts. The other players don't look favorably at you if you don't take the highest bid because you hurt the market (the same happens among owners, if an owner decided to pay minor leaguers better the other owners would hate him).

Of course they don't burn you at stake but there is a pressure to take the highest you can get because the players already feel getting ripped off and nobody wants to give away even more ground to the owners for no reason.

So if machado signed a 7 year, 200M deal because he likes the city instead if taking 10/350 with two opt outs the others will that see as the owners winning another fight.

 

[SCCWS]

I think though some  players may take the lesser offer( if close in  number) to play for a contender. Somewhat different, since he had a contract,, but we saw Stanton hold the Marlins hostage last year when his list was only 4 contenders.  I think Harper will take the best deal but I see Machado wanting to play for a contender after seeing Baltimore vs LA. 

Edited November 25, 2018 by SCCWS
sp

[ptatc]

21 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I’m sorry, but Vinnie Duber’s opinions don’t reflect those of the front office.  Furthermore, we know the Sox are high on Machado and are planning to pursue him aggressively in free agency.

As for this career year nonsense, his offensive results were better than his 2015 & 2016 seasons but not substantially.  To think a young, talented player won’t continue to improve as he enters his prime is quite frankly absurd.  It’s clear that your dislike of the player has caused you to be unobjective.

I think there is a legitimate concern here and the FO needs do to more than the normal due diligence for a record breaking deal. Is he the type of guy who will get the big pay day and coast for end of his career? He already admits he's  not the Johnny hustle type of player at 26. What is he going to be like at 30 when everything now aches and is sore nearly everyday after June? 

I don't  know the answers but it is a legitimate concern.

[bmags]

20 hours ago, GenericUserName said:

I agree. I just see it happening where the TV deals are no longer massive because there aren't enough fans, and even among those fans not enough that have cable, to let the companies justify spending crazy amounts for live content, especially when there are other new options that seem to work better. A while back I heard about a study done that advertising through TV had some of the lowest ROI while podcasts were really effective. Now there also might be movies on youtube for free but that have unskippable ads. If something like that is similarly more effective than TV ads, then even the larger numbers with sports might not be enough to justify the huge cost when podcasts and youtube is cheaper. 

I would bet that is a measurement issue.

[Jake]

Single most important question with Machado is whether he wants to remain at shortstop and whether he should remain at shortstop. His value could be seriously diminished at shortstop if his defense is as bad as it often looked last year, but conversely if he really made strides toward the end of the year as some believe then his value increases tremendously.

[pcq]

On 11/24/2018 at 11:57 AM, GenericUserName said:

It might be the cheapest, but the price for the actual importance of each game is much less. When no one game really matters because there are so many, people might not feel compelled to go to any one game thinking they could feasibly go to a game at a different date with the same relative importance. The problem that MLB has is that people then don't go to as many games because they find alternatives and by the time the actual importance of the games is increased, most of the teams are out of the playoff race so there is even less reason to go. 

And the game being slower and more boring now is a problem. From a basic economics standpoint, for any given price point, your utility is now lower while the utility obtained from competition at the same price point is likely higher because of the vast amount of entertainment options younger generations have. And on top of all of that, teams are actually raising prices when they should probably be lowering them to compete with the other options available to young fans.

To me, teams are making a mistake and are sacrificing potentially exponentially higher future profits for current profits by trying to find the absolute most they can get out of people for tickets, merch, and TV viewing. You might be able to make more money by using higher prices to offset (and more) the lower customer base, but you are losing fans in an asymmetrical manner such that you are losing the fans with the highest potential future spending (young people who have more years to spend money) while retaining those who will likely drop out of the consumer base sooner (older people who will no longer be able to attend games/die) while also doing almost nothing to replace those who are lost. 

The worst part is that I don't think the owners even care. They are now getting so much from TV deals that they can make money even with poor attendance while the values of their franchises continue to rise seemingly partly because they do nothing but rise in value. As long as there aren't a ton of sales where they actually lose money on their investments or they all start losing money every year I don't think anything drastic will change. People suck at changing in small ways when something could possibly happen in the future. They are much better at reacting to drastic situations. While I don't know if my doomsday thought process will actually happen, I really fear it will. 

/end rant

If pitching staffs grow any further along with strategy for each match-up during the final three innings, then something will have to give. I get sort of restless at games because I cannot change the channel during down time. 

[Dominikk85]

2 hours ago, Jake said:

Single most important question with Machado is whether he wants to remain at shortstop and whether he should remain at shortstop. His value could be seriously diminished at shortstop if his defense is as bad as it often looked last year, but conversely if he really made strides toward the end of the year as some believe then his value increases tremendously.

Maybe the I want to stay at short thing was to get a better contract. In the end his defense became a little better because the Dodgers  positioned him better. Still this could of course be a red flag as the Dodgers great analytics crew might have hidden his lack of range a little.

But I could see him being ok to stay at third once he has the big contract in his pocket. Could be wrong of course.

[spiderman]

On 11/24/2018 at 9:28 AM, NCsoxfan said:

Will it not come down to the highest bidder? I’m sure there’s a number that brings Harper here, but how outrageous are Reinsdorf/Hahn willing to get?

Most believe that it will come down tot he most money, not the best situation or team most likely to win, etc

All of the secondary reasons will be given once he eventually signs, but it would be a major surprise if he leaves money on the table.

[spiderman]

3 hours ago, Jake said:

Single most important question with Machado is whether he wants to remain at shortstop and whether he should remain at shortstop. His value could be seriously diminished at shortstop if his defense is as bad as it often looked last year, but conversely if he really made strides toward the end of the year as some believe then his value increases tremendously.

While I agree that's definitely been discussed, he'll also take the most money and then settle in with his new team.

[pcq]

Generally the bigger the contract the greater the write-off although Machado is young enough to actually play through. Cabrera's contract in Detroit is pretty much a joke at this point.