Look at Ray Ray Run

OK Ptatc, you got me there; my agenda is to show the average man that they aren't lesser than the wealthy people who take advantage of them and have further degraded their worth by not properly compensating them for the work they do; for example, production is up 60% per employee since 1978 but wages are up a meager 3-4% after inflation. So my agenda is absolutely to educate on inequality and the causes of it, and express the fact that it's not talent or knowledge that separates the wealthy; it's money that they use to lobby away workers rights (Prop 22 for example) and beyond. Just as medicine is your life work, you could argue this is mine.

A chart? I'll trust the Cornell University study, among others if you'd like me to link those as well, done over your personal beliefs. I have no agenda. https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068 "It is very well known that intelligence or talent exhibit a Gaussian distribution among the population, whereas the distribution of wealth - considered a proxy of success - follows typically a power law (Pareto law). Such a discrepancy between a Normal distribution of inputs, with a typical scale, and the scale invariant distribution of outputs, suggests that some hidden ingredient is at work behind the scenes...... In this paper, with the help of a very simple agent-based model, we suggest that such an ingredient is just randomness. In particular, we show that, if it is true that some degree of talent is necessary to be successful in life, almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals."

I agree here but as an employee, I still find his way of operating to be honorable.

Being wealthy does not directly correlate with being intelligent. https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/so-youre-smart-but-youre-not-rich-this-eye-opening-new-scientific-study-tells-you-why.html And Jerry spend less than his wealthy peers so...

Yes, I frequently compare my spending habits to that of someone who has more money than the average net worth of over 2100 households. It's actually been argued by some studies that rich people are significantly cheaper than poorer people. https://www.sciencealert.com/lower-status-people-more-likely-to-share-wealth-than-higher-status-people It's an inexact science though and there are conflicting reports.

This was the speculation, but upon their last agreement. the cap will not stay flat after this year. https://nba.nbcsports.com/2020/11/06/report-nba-salary-cap-will-increase-at-least-2-annually/ That said, they are still going to hold 18% of player salaries in escrow. As you said, it's all complicated but with the cap guaranteed to grow 2% each of the next three years after this one, that escrow amount ends up shrinking down to under a 13% reduction in current salary (potentially) over that time period. To compare that with MLB, last year players took a 73% reduction in salaries and if owners hold firm again this season and push the season back to say June or July, you're looking at another 50% cut in their pay. So you are correct that the NBA is cutting back somewhat, but they are not cutting back in the way that the MLB did or is doing due to fans not being in the stands. And the interesting thing to me is that the cap actually gave owners much more leverage in the NBA because salaries are directly tied to revenue. I guess it also makes making a deal a bit easier as well though. MLB owners are exploiting players because players don't have a cap so they can't tie their earnings to revenue like they do in the NBA. Lastly, as NBA revenue grows so do players salaries to the same proportion; in baseball, that has not been the case the last 10-20 years. Which is really what drives me crazy; MLB player revenue has declined as revenues grew, but now that revenue declines MLB wants the players to subsidize that. It's bullshit.

So that settles it; don't spend money, because it's not like money spent directly correlates to success over the past 20 years of the game.

I think the Phillies laying off 80 front office people during the pandemic is much more damning of them as a perspective incoming Director of Baseball Ops than their willingness to spend big money. I have been critical of Reinsdorf plenty, but the loyalty he showed to much of his team during the pandemic is commendable.

I think you are misreading; Dombrowski turned down the offer three times. No where does it say that Hahn turned down anything. I would doubt Jerry would grant Hahn permission to interview for a job while he was under contract; I can't recall him ever doing so in the past but I could be mistaken.

It's really obvious that the only sport that has owners who main objective is to not pay players is the MLB. I don't know why people are refuting this. The majority of revenue in sports does not come from the gate. The NBA is playing 72 games because they had to push last year back and they couldn't give the proper time for players to heal their bodies. It had nothing to do with money, unless you think the players association in the NBA is lying. edit: And the salary cap is staying the exact same as it was last year, despite playing only 72 games and assuming fans won't be there for much of the season.

The Phillies spent 455 million on two players in the last two years. The Sox biggest contract in their history was for 74 million. The two are nothing alike.

How do you figure? Hahn is under contract; he would need permission to interview.

Both teams also violated the protocols that were in place.

This is national TV revenue. Baseball is driven by local TV revenue more than any other sport. The 2nd biggest local deal in the nba pays the rockets 45 million. The bulls deal is worth 25 million. Even when you add the extra 50 million to the bulls from the national deal they're still short nearly 50 million from the sox. The white sox make 120 million a year in local tv revenue.

When evaluating bullpens, I typically remove the 2-3 worst arms. The real problem is blow up outings can cause guys to go negative and they never recover. By removing the front end guys who aren't that good, I think you get a better look at the impact of the bullpen. Mainly because you want to know how good bullpens are at keeping games close or closing games out. You don't really care how good your bullpen is in games that are pretty much out of hand.

Yup, never a health concern with Yu. Mr reliability!

This is actually a really good point. If you sign a cheaper arm and he fails, you're forced to use someone like Bummer there. Relief pitching arbitration really only rewards closers and saves. By failing and forcing a young guy in the role, you're potentially making him very expensive which negates the savings you made by not signing the tops arms. There is financial risk to not signing the top arm.

I think the worse your team is the more low leverage situations your RP's pitch in, the more likely you are to trade RP's, the more likely you are to use inexperienced arms in games, and the more likely you are to have middle relievers in games who are typically the lesser of arms. Haven't really looked at that though and it's an interesting point for sure.

Maybe because you asked why I was being so negative and then told me to go root for the Dodgers or Mets? Last I checked, I merely asked you why you continue to give the team the benefit of the doubt. Have a good one.

But the Sox were supposed to be spending the money they accumulated throughout the rebuild; not the money they made last year. I get this POV, but they had money accumulating interest for years, now that money is gone?

I hear you Jimmy, I'm just afraid they wasted a massive opportunity to put themselves ahead of the pack. As of right now, I think they sit right in the middle of the top 5-6 teams, and that is frustrating for a team who is all-in. Time could change that, and maybe they make a big splash but if they do I'd bet it's via trade which means the surrendering of more assets. I hope I'm wrong, and I'll hold your spot in the pitchfork line while you wait.

what? Maybe Rick Hahn should go cheer for the Mets too: But his most relevant message was a promise that the financial flexibility created by the ongoing rebuilding process will not go to waste. "At the end of the day, we made what we felt was not only a very aggressive offer, a very compelling offer and one that helped balance and represent the risk and the upside for both sides. Didn’t work, which is obviously disappointing. But it does not change the fact that we are going to once again be in this market when the time is right and hopefully, at that time, convert. "The money will be spent. It might not be spent this offseason, but it will be spent at some point. This isn’t money sitting around waiting to just accumulate interest. It’s money trying to be deployed to put us in best position to win some championships." That quote was two years ago now. Let me know when all that money Hahn told us he saved in the rebuild is going to go to work as opposed to "sitting around... accumulating interest." If you don't like the White Sox being cheap, Go cheer for another team! Brilliants takes on Soxtalk. Maloney told us all to "wait and see" on Springer too before complaining lol. So when is it OK to complain exactly, Maloney?

The Sox should keep their own star players; the extensions were only great because they added "financial flexibility." If the Sox aren't actually going to spend the money they "saved" by extending their core, then it's all for naught. Am I happy they're here for a while? Absolutely. Am I going to applaud a major market team for not not allowing their star players to leave in FA? Not really.

I think fans are whining because before the off-season even got into full swing, the White Sox were said to be out on Brantley, Springer, and Bauer because they were "too expensive." Given how weak the FA pool is this year, it's kind of hard to get excited about shopping in the discount aisle for the 97th year in a row.

What is negative about not being ecstatic about giving out one contract for 74 million dollars? I have higher expectations for the ball club than you do apparently, which is fine.