Look at Ray Ray Run

Yeah, the Cubs shouldn't be trading Bryant. The fact that you think they should, while generating elite revenue levels, in the name of saving a couple tax dollars over the next three years is absolutely hilarious. If you don't want to invest in the best in the business, then you shouldn't be in the business.

I'd take it a step further and ask, why the heck are we comparing the White Sox to the Indians, and why do we want White Sox ownership to act like the cheap ass Indians? Indians likely could have won a World Series if they stopped sitting on their damn wallet, and actually invested in the on the field product. Some Sox fans are envious of teams like the Indians and Rays. Who the hell wants to be a fan of a team that has a revolving door of players and talent. Part of being a fan is gaining a connection to players and people. Excusing ownership for being cheap has always baffled me.

It's truly amazing. Some fans will carry water for Reinsdorf as if it's their money, and as if Reinsdorf is dumpster diving on the weekends. If Moncada becomes a Superstar, and the White Sox lose him because they don't want to pay him I will be the first person lighting up ownership. They just spent 6 years not spending money or trying to win. The point was to gain flexibility and retain pieces that matter in the future. If they're not going to reinvest into their assets they acquired by not spending money, then the fans were simply fleeced by the organization and misled with complete garbage.

Because the Cubs are complete morons?

1. No, it's not the new reality at all. It's only the new reality if you want to accept billionaires crying poor with unprecedented revenue gains year over year going on a decade! 2. The Red Sox and Cubs should be flat out EMBARRASSED that they are crying poor and potentially moving on from two HOF caliber players. Absolutely embarrassed. 3. Please stop with your nonsense. This is nauseating to read. Absolutely amazing to watch fans carry weight for ownership groups and their propagandist bullshit pertaining to player salaries and paying your guys what they're worth. If you can't afford to keep one of the best employees in your market, then you should get out of the game. Period.

You literally say right here that if they havent extended him by year 4, they need to trade him. What the hell has happened to baseball fanhood? The White Sox aren't poor and if they become more successful, they'll be one of baseballs most profitable franchises. There is zero excuse for the White Sox to lose their best player due to financial limitations and any fans promoting that as OK, or good strategy, has absolutely lost their mind and way ad a fan. I love data. I love analytics. I love the implementation of it in baseball. I absolutely hate the fans that view every single thing transacationally and excuse front offices and ownership groups for not ponying up when the time comes. I'm a white sox fan. I love watching Yoan Moncada play. I dont excuse or accept the team I am rooting for trading a star in the name of maximizing return under the guise that we "can't afford him." Its a joke and I'll never ever accept ownership telling me I can only have nice things for 6 years. This conversation is laughable. Theres no excuse for it.

Why are you dopes talking about trading Moncada? What is wrong with you people?

This has nothing to do with paying a player more in an arbitration type process because he brings intangibles. You said the problem with a value being set with metrics is players wont be paid for things you cant measure. Players already aren't paid for those things in an arbitration process, so it's irrelevant.

This is not perceived value.

Not sure what this means, but perceived value has nothing to do with how people are paid.

It cracks me up, because I do care about personalities and I like to fill my department with people who I value tangibly and intangibly, but my personal opinion of them doesn't make them "more valuable" on the open market nor does it make them more valuable to my CEO. I'm not anti-intangible, I just think people attach these absurd monetary values on them when value is driven by skills and production and not opinion or thought.

Moncada and Anderson were both + on the bases last year, Madrigal is supposed to be a very smart base runner (he was in college), and Robert is TBD but he might be one of the three fastest players in baseball. Abreu is a tard on the bases for sure.

The value of non-statistical variables isn't quantifiable and really shouldn't be much of a problem; unless you think that's worth some significant amount of money (it's not).

the number is set; there is no arbiter process. Another team can then offer the max that is set, and the team can decide to match or not.

This is an incredibly misleading and not really accurate number based on what should be accounted for in the revenue split. Don't even get me started on how shady some of these owners are with local TV revenues either. Also players used to get 60+%

I think the Sox should rank higher, not lower.

I posted a quote that you responded to in which he very clearly states they're going to use technology to determine when fatigue is setting in.

Sure, they take a combination of a bunch of metrics (some trash and others not) and grade you vs your peers to determine your value. I'm simply replacing the slow moving arb process that scales poorly with a valuation progress that pays you what your worth once you hit year 3.

Exactly, they already have a system to evaluate the value of a player that is used by all teams in arbitration. Taking away arbitration while using the same process in a RFA landscape would be a big win for younger players and a more fair way to pay players for their production.

They already do it - it's called arbitration - so I'm not sure what you mean.

I used WAR because it's a metric everyone understands; I'm sure baseball can come together and use a value level based on multiple factors. Most teams have their own proprietary valuation models, and baseball could easily come together to develop one in agreement with most. WAR was just a metric I used to push forward my concept. I actually like the RFA concept for a few years - it gets young players money faster than the scaling of arbitration, and it allows teams to protect themselves from losing their guys by paying them market value while not allowing others to greatly out bid the market just to steal a player from another team. If you don't want to pay your players market value by their 3rd year in the league, too bad so sad.

They really shouldn't have to give up anything, given that ownership already agreed that Manipulation is against the rules.. It's defining what is manipulation that is the hurdle. The PA lost a CBA for the first time in a long time - they punished FA's as well as maintaining the punishment for young players. Arbitration should likely be done away with, and I think the league should move more towards a restricted free agent concept instead of arbitration... where a team has the right to match and maintain any young player in a R-FA concept. If you want to cap the salaries in R-FA to match the average salary of a player with a similar WAR or etc via the FA process, that would be fine with me as well. So when Moncada is set to become Arb eligible, he simply because RFA eligible. You take his previous two years WAR/Perceived Value, compare it to the FA market price for that value, set a ceiling on that value that matches the FA market, and then allow teams to match any other teams offer and retain that player.

I imagine it will be difficult, but a comparison to peers could be a start. Prospect rankings compared to minor league level. Or you can simply push the date back far enough that a team who wants to manipulate time will be harming the team in the current year, and would force them to keep their top prospect down through, let's say, July 30th or something similar. Defining readiness will be a very big hurdle for the PA, as it is defined differently by everyone, but there are certainly ways that could force teams to call up prospects when they are ready.

I think the way this organization is laid out now, and the way Paddy operates in general, it will always be quantity over perceived quality. Paddy would rather have 6 guys near the back end of the top 30 or into the 40-50 range than 2 guys near the top unless that guy is a generational talent like Robert.

Haven't read through the thread, so apologies if this was discussed, but Bryant lost this grievance due to the ambiguity of "readiness" as laid out within the current CBA. Because it was not defined, and could be assumed to have multiple meanings, the arbiter is required by contract law to side and agree with any explanation of readiness or lack-there-of that is presented to them by the team. The only way in which a team could lose a grievance like this, is if they explicitly state that they held a player down to obtain another year of service. No team is ever going to say that, so until there is a new CBA in which "Readiness" is clearly defined and not ambigious, the arbiter is required to rule in the teams favor. Now one could argue that the team is not acting in good faith, but that lawsuit would take ages if brought by the PA and any resolution would be nearly impossible to monetarily define. The PA is just better off negotiating and defining it in the next CBA.