Look at Ray Ray Run

Those two scandals involved teams cheating internally, not cheating with another legal business entity that knowingly goes into an agreement with a team against the bylaws of the league. "Interesting in analytics" lol. "People fail governance all the time so I guarantee an MLB team will" is not really something I agree with, but then again you guaranteed it so this discussion rests.

None of these sports are remotely close to baseball. Those things you listed are all within the rules that everyone abides by. Theyre all accessible at fair market prices. I'm not sure what you or ss2k are arguing. Baseball has a significant parity problem that is exasperated by the inequality throughout the sport. I have no idea why any fan would want the richest ownership group to have the advantage. The richest owners will always live in one or two cities. The green bay packers are one of the most successful organizations in the NFL and you think the NFL and MLB are similar in that regard.

LOL, Mark Walter alone is worth 6 times more than Jerry Reinsdorf. The fund itself manages almost 400 billion in assets. Jerry could afford to field a much more competitive team than he does, and the White Sox could make much more money than they do, but in no world could Jerry Reinsdorf compete financially with the Guggenheim fund if there are n restrictions in place.

It will have been 22 years since they had a payroll as low as they're about to have. League revenues have tripled since then. Adjusting for inflation and revenue growth, this will be the lowest White Sox payroll since I have a record.

Picking up the option and immediately trading it would be hilarious. Pushing the Sox payroll under 50 million. Then Getz would get to go make his big splash and sign some bum like Luis Arraez.

I'm not sure what the obsession is with this free-market philosophy in baseball. Of course technology and data should be normalized, and teams should be forced to compete on the same grounds. That is how it is in every other major sport in the world. This idea that money should buy infinite edge is bad for competitive balance in athletics. Pretending that Reinsdorf has the same resources as Guggenheim is laughable, and I love to hate on Jerry as much as the next guy. The fact is that some brands will always have greater value and market share (Yankees, Dodgers) and that brand equity shouldn't generate a competitive advantage for their clubs. It's bad enough the sport has no salary cap or floor, but add in all those other little edges and you see competitive balance deteriorate.

There is no reason to institute this if you aren't going to take it seriously. Do you think teams are currently cheating and using proprietary technology to gather data/measurements at the MLB level? I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it's very unlikely and these rules already exist there. NBA and NFL have approved data partners and approved technologies as well. As we've seen with the Kawhi Leonard situation, an approved vendor doesn't mean a reputable one, but I would guess it's much less likely than not that teams will circumvent the rules and use unapproved technology or partners. Especially when the gains you derive from it will be so marginal. Now.... where there's money, there's rule stretching but in this case it seems pretty unlikely that teams will be signing contracts with non-approved vendors. Your second point doesn't align at all with any governance or controls at any reputable organization. Third party organizations, with any credibility, won't circumvent enterprise-wide rules and make back alley deals. And a start-up that did would quickly be a failing organization.

I just wonder if maybe the dope has learned his lesson from jumping out in front to sign Austin Slater before anyone else could get him... only to realize the rest of the market has made veterans who don't warrant big guarantees wait until later in the off-season to even be considered.

If there are actual penalties for this, and defined bylaws within the MLB organization, any third party vendor who circumvented those would be liable for the agreements just as much as the team would be. No smart or viable vendor would risk their company to do under-the-table deals with individual teams.

There's a lot of really good reasons for normalizing tech and data accumulation in athletics. One of those reasons being privacy and reducing overall liability for the league and franchises. The other reason is promoting competition through the means of leveler playing field where performance is improved by your internal team and not third party vendor agreements whom the league has no control over which is a big risk.

Limiting data actually still gives a huge advantage to teams at the top. While it limits their ability to find novel proprietary data, what it does is allows them to benefit more greatly from their internal talent. Most novel ideas and data are snuffed out in under a year in athletics before everyone is copying. Now the unique findings will be harder to discover as they'll be deriving from the same data set as the Sox can use, but the Sox will have less internal talent to find their own unique value.

"Someone once felt highly of this guy before? Well, I cant develop him but maybe I cant sell him like its 2018 baby!!"

At least he was bad in the minor leagues too, so he's consistent! Getz saw a first round pick available and just couldn't help himself!

Love that the org wouldnt trade him out of respect for his family issues, but they'll release him to nickle and dime him out of a few dollars.

"Say it's great to have a rule 5 pick leading your team or you're not a Sox fan!"

Johan Santana had a WAR of zero his rookie year, which was 11th on their team. If it was the same as Shane Smith's that year, he'd have been their 4th best pitcher. You can really tell a Getz apologists by how defensive they get when you make a basic joke about building your team through the Rule 5 draft.

Crazy or hilarious. Depends on how you look at it! Yes, the Sox are so good at scouting and coaching that they needed another teams castaway to lead them.

He led the pitching staff in fWAR and was second on the team in fWAR to a guy who wasn't on the team at the All-Star break. You OK?

Shane Smith, literally, would not have led another pitching staff in baseball in WAR - Only the White Sox. Shane Smith is a nice piece, him leading the team is an obvious indictment on the quality of players you have in your organization. That's the point. No one is mad at Shane.

Mad? It's hilarious. I like Shane Smith, but there's no situation where an entire organization should be incapable of turning out a player better than a player another team let go of for free.

Yeah, I would have traded him yesterday if the plan going perfect was for it to take 4 years of service time (without injury!) for him to be a reliable starter every 5th day.

The math just doesn't math much for me. He'll be lucky to touch 90 innings this year (and that would be a lot!) as a reliever. No relievers throw that many innings these days without spot starts in there. Meaning at most if he moved to starter next year he's a 140 guy (have big doubts he would move next year). So he wouldn't be able to be a full-time starter until year 4 of his 6 years of control at the earliest and that's with everything going right and them suddenly moving him. They also claimed that his release and arm action were preventing him from being a starter today, and from what I saw at end of last year his release and angle of attack hasn't changed at all from when he came up so if he wasn't ready when he came up, how is he ready now? Maybe we'll see some change this year, but again I'm pretty skeptical. The Sox also don't exactly have a surplus of starters either, so him not being capable of even being a part-time guy this year doesn't bode well for his future in the space. This feels more like the Sox saying one thing for value purposes, but their actions show they've pigeon holed him as a reliever. The Crochet comparison is actually a terrible one too, IMO. Crochet was a reliever because the team needed one and they were competitive. The Second they became terrible, he was moved to a starter. Taylor is a reliever when him being one adds no value to the team. They should have stretched him out and kept him on starter schedule in the minor leagues.

Where did they claim that? I haven't seen anything this year implying Taylor will be a starter again. I see next to no chance that Taylor moves into a starter capacity for the White Sox at this point. The Crochet path is not normal and shouldn't be expected of others. All I heard is elite closers have value too so it's not a loss to have him in the bullpen, but he's not even the closer lol. I'm also just sick and tired of spending significant % of our payroll on the f'ing bullpen.

So the Sox are investing in a closer while keeping Grant Taylor in the bullpen. Make it make sense.

The fact that you don't realize how embarrassing it is to have your All-Star and "best player" for the first half be the 41st man on other teams is hilarious at bare minimum.