Look at Ray Ray Run

They're not paying a net negative tax rate really, that may have been a slight exaggeration unless we're talking about people who started industries and businesses which were heavily subsidized by government dollars and then also had the government subsidize the sale of said product by covering a base of the cost with government dollars promoting sales and growth; this could be argued to be a negative tax rate because effectively they're receiving more in government subsidies in one way or another than they're giving back in tax dollars. I'm not going to pretend that I know the business backgrounds of every MLB owner or that they fit that bill but it is possible if you reach with the definition. That said, there have been plenty of studies done that show what you're saying is misrepresenting the reality of the situation. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/09/23/what-is-the-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-on-the-wealthiest-americans/ "New OMB-CEA Report: Billionaires Pay an Average Federal Individual Income Tax Rate of Just 8.2%" Now you can argue that those loopholes are available to everyone, but that would be an incorrect proclamation when you actually account for this thing called reality. Players can't skirt the idea that their earnings are revenue; for example, they can't be paid in stock holdings. Effective tax rates are really the conversation here, and frankly it's all that matters. The proclamation that they're merely following the tax code is incredibly misleading, as they're actually using their wealth to exploit the tax code to levels of which we've never experience. As an example, from the chart above, in the 40's and 50's, following the mass labor movements, effective tax rates for the elite in the country reached as high as 90%+ in the highest bracket. I'm not going to derail the conversation much further, and while SSH is exaggerating slightly your proclamation that the tax code is somehow based in fairness and equality available to all American's isn't actually true or honest in execution.

Politicians have more leverage over baseball than other sports because of the anti-trust exemption. A threat to remove that exemption could certainly expedite the process. Who knows if they would go that way.

How weird do you have to be to side with billionaires who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire over the players who are the entire reason you watch the game? Jerry Reinsdorf is undoubtedly leading the charge and trying to break the union, just like in 1994, during the middle of a White Sox contention window... despite having made billions of dollars as an owner in professional sports while the players are simply trying to play baseball and be compensated fairly in relation to the revenue they generate... There's no bias here. The game is not the game without the players. The entertainment does not exist. Even a 50/50 split has always felt absurd, given the importance of the actual product and the rarity of the assets, yet in baseball the split has moved closer to 44/56... People who side with big corporate employers over employees are just brainwashed sheep, frankly.

2011 lockout and I think big baby got fat and boris draw grew an additional human

Median and average salaries are up around 75% while revenue is up around 180% during that same window, what's happened is top end salaries have gone up a bit but most of salary escalation has been driven by minimum increases and top end talent. That said, it's also just been that owners have pocketed a higher share of revenues than they once did since there's no guaranteed split/revenue sharing like there is in basketball and football. This is why people talk collusion because in unison ownership stopped paying the middle class players, gave out big contracts to high end talent to say (see were giving out big money), and have decreased the share of revenue to players by possibly as much as 5-7%. This is why I've said baseball players would honestly be better off going to a cap because at least the cap forces owners to open their books and increases payrolls every year as revenue grows. As of now, a higher % of that revenue growth is just going into ownerships pockets. Used thos comparison the other day but if you scaled the sox 2008 payroll with revenue growth in the sport and nothing else, they'd be sitting at 215 million today.

How can something not be true when it hasn't happened? Who knew you'd start carrying water for white sox leadership this off season. Saying the sox will add shit players instead of high end free agent targets (that you said they were after) somehow isn't true yet they haven't added any of those targets. Amazing

weren't you telling us the Sox work within a very tight budget and fans should understand that when evaluating potential signings? If the Sox had 20-25 million to spend, they just spent 20-25% of it on a utility player.

You don't have to read my posts. Not sure if you knew that, but hope you understand now! I think I've said it about 96.8 million times so not quite as often as the Sox sign shitty players.

No one thinks the Sox will add no more players, jfc. The thought is they'll add shit players that they hope to strike gold with... you know, like they've done the past 97 million years.

For a while I was certain Maloney was him, but after your adamant dishonest defense of him the past few days it's 1000% gotta be you. At this point you have just made up countless scenarios where he was "first" on something that is 100000% false. Good to have you around, Steve! Pull up a chair and stay a while.

The Sox ranked 29th in baseball in payroll in 2018 at 72 million. 24th in 2017 26th in 2019 "Their payrolls were somewhat high."

This argument is so damn tired and pointless I don't really know what to say anymore. The White Sox have more contracts committed than pretty much every other team too. That's why their payroll is higher in November. November payrolls are completely meaningless; people who cite it as a reason the Sox aren't cheap are exhausting. And yes the figure you cite IS taking into account the expected Arb raises for players like Giolito.

But Danny Duffy would be a horrible innings eater given that he's always hurt. I get he was just an example, but he's an example of the poor strategy the Sox have used in FA for decades now. Danny Duffy isn't a "see, the Sox pushed payroll up to 190 million" celebratory guy. He's a reminder of the poor philosophy this team has operated within during FA forever. At this point, it's really Conforto or bust and that's a scary thought given that I think Conforto gets more than most of us expect.

Why would I want the payroll to go up 10 million dollars by signing Danny Duffy though? That's just the Sox spending on bad players to push up the payroll.

Danny Duffy is terrible.

Jimmy, you know I knew the entire time the Sox weren't signing any of the guys that have signed. I just found it odd that you came by after blasting Sox fans for having expectations after you wrote that is all.

Conforto technically still there, but I found it funny that half of Soxtalk was asking why anyone was dumb enough to think the Sox would be in on Scherzer or Semien.... "Max Scherzer and Marcus Semien should be realistic targets of the club" Maybe because people like Jimmy, and other "insiders", were saying just that? Then Jimmy comes by the forum after those guys and half the other FA's sign and complains that Sox fans expectations were too high and they'll never be satisfied. LOL you honestly can't make that shit up..

Alex Cobb is a starting pitching. Lol you say some of the weirdest things.

58 million. 14.5 per.

He had an 82 wRC+ in 2019 when he played 140 games. He had a 98 wRC+ this year and a 98 wRC+ in 2017. I don't know if he's really improve substantially. His plate discipline is a little better. Just my thoughts.

I care about giving bad players little sums of money because it continues to emphasize that this team hasn't changed the way they operate and will continue to invest small sums in bad players instead of investing one bigger sum in a good player.

I've heard this a lot, but he's not good at it. He averages less than .8 WAR per 162 games in his career. He's the definition of a replacement player. He has a career wRC+ of 80. I expected Leury to be back, so not surprised or angry but giving him 3 guaranteed years over 5 million a year would be crazy for a guy who just isn't good. Being bad but versatile doesn't really make you valuable imo. For a penny pinching organization they certainly love to give away 5-7 million a year to players who suck.

classic white sox. fill a hole with a player who is replaceable by a lot of minimum salaried players and give the player 6-7 million a year as one of their acquisitions. this is how they allocate wages. I wouldn't even hate Garcia at 1 year, maybe with a 2nd year option... but giving him 3 guaranteed years is wild. He was fine last year, homer was great so I give him a pass somewhat, but he's not a good player. His entire career tells us that.

3 years for Garcia, my goodness.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect Leury Garcia to perform pretty similarly to his YTD performance through 474 PA's through an additional 90 PA's. Even if he regressed towards his career averages, the overall impact of difference between his career averages and his production in 2021 through the course of 90 PA's is negligible and not meaningful in the given assessment.