Look at Ray Ray Run

Their bid was "here's what we might offer," which was 60% of what it sold for.

And a team in Nashville would rank near the bottom in team values. This isn't a complex equation. Take into account that expansion teams are cheaper to start/buy than buying a current franchise and moving it, AND the fact that MLB expansion is to grow the game not trade one larger market for a micro one. People that compare Oakland are either struggling with scale or don't know the math. Oakland had 450k people and the entire bay area has HALF the population of the Chicago area. The White Sox almost have the same market share as the Giants do WITHOUT the A's in the Bay Area. Las Vegas is larger than Oakland, and the Las Vegas metro is 65% the size of the Bay Area so Oakland is acquiring a higher market share with their move.

People that get rich enough to buy baseball teams don't make financial decisions that are being implied here. The sox are an original franchise, they're not the a's. Happy to place something with you if you think this is a possibility.

Shame we can't bet on these things, because I'd bet NBB any amount of money that someone else is not going to buy the Chicago White Sox and then move them. That scenario makes zero sense.

So a new owner is going to pay the Chicago market price to buy the team and then move it to a market significantly smaller hurting the value of the purchase. Brilliant logic all around.

Maybe, but he's not selling to Dave Stewart's group that much I'm sure of.

This is crazy talk to me. Zero guarantee this happens.

Bought an antenna and canceled hulu. Saving $100/mth and getting the three teams I watch for free. Do they need to get a comcast deal? Yeah. Should they worry about other streaming? No. They should go direct to consumer with streaming, which is what I've been saying about baseball for a couple years. With streaming why force your way through a middle man?

Here's an old public article. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/herm-schneider-and-the-immense-value-of-health/ I know of Herms old shoulder program and his primary success was on the pitching side. It's funny for him to be ripped in that article given the universal praise he had received by many.

Who cares? My beef with Jason is he cried that this was his dream job but needed them to make concessions for him to stay. Which is fine if he says this is his career and he needs to treat it as such, but instead he acted like the Sox took his dream job away lol.

Jason thought his s%*# didn't stink just like the rest of those ego maniacs.

Herms documented success was on the pitching side and i don't doubt that tubby sob didn't give a s%*# about the position player side. Still, anyone arguing his success with pitchers is just delusional... probably all the modern guys who love injuries and innings limits.

Paulie, you've lost your mind in this thread.

I can't tell if you're joking, but most tvs have an antenna built in. Also, countless new channels and services have launched without full deals in place, this isn't unique to the Sox. The Sox just gave access to their games to almost anyone with a TV in the Chicago area and that makes them also bad?

Pitching has been solid, I guess, but the problem is that was already the one possible + in this org so it's not like he has made a significant improvement.

I haven't watched a single full inning in months. I've watched less than 4 games this year and it's September. This team is so bad that it's not even enjoyable to just watch baseball. They're a disgrace to the game. Anyone glass half fulling this is either paid, reliant on them for income, or not all there.

Jimmy, please I ask you to never change. One day all these baseball people you have supported and excused by placing all blame on ownership will die and by then people will have forgotten about your weird infatuation with believing the conmen that work for said owner you hate..... over and over. Chris Getz is not turning the White Sox around and he's done absolutely nothing to warrant any optimism.

Lol what in the world????

It's amazing how someone as analytically inclined as you could still fall for the fallacy of my personal experience means this isn't a problem because I'm fine.

So, why can't you punch your kid in the face? Raise your kids how you want is a wild statement. We abide by plenty of other laws. If you read the studies, this creates a similar response in the brain as sexual assault which I doubt you'd justify as raising your kids how you want.

Huh? No one wanted clevinger which is why he ended up here.

You think it's OK to hit your children? Can someone please show me one piece of evidence or data that viable supports spanking as anything more than a way to teach your child violence? Add in the fact he doesn't have primary custody and the mother clearly is against it, and of course this is child abuse. Hilarious that people think spanking or using a belt on your kid is different than punching them or other forms of physical violence. “The findings are one of the last pieces of evidence to make sense of the research of the last 50 years on spanking,” says researcher Jorge Cuartas, a Ph.D. candidate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who coauthored the study with Katie McLaughlin, professor at the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. “We know that spanking is not effective and can be harmful for children’s development and increases the chance of mental health issues. With these new findings, we also know it can have potential impact on brain development, changing biology, and leading to lasting consequences.” The study, “Corporal Punishment and Elevated Neural Response to Threat in Children,” published in Child Development, examined spanked children’s brain functioning in response to perceived environmental threats compared to children who were not spanked. Their findings showed that spanked children exhibited greater brain response, suggesting that spanking can alter children’s brain function in similar ways to severe forms of maltreatment. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/21/04/effect-spanking-brain

No one in the sport would ever do this because it would go against the collusion that exists across all industry. Baseball analytics/leadership has an expected pay-band same as any other profession and those pay bands are the culmination of - in my opinion - illegal salary setting guidance from "survey" data gathered by consulting agencies and etc. I know because I work in this space. There are some legal challenges finally coming forward very recently about pay bands and survey gathering. This does two things - it assures that employees don't ever have the ability to do exactly what you're stating, because no competitor would ever pay 200-300% of a given pay band range because you then don't fit in the range, and it artificially suppresses wages across all industry as it sets your value to a company not based on what you provide, but based on what people that are not you provide in completely different roles in different orgs. So while this is a great idea, the reality is the Sox can offer maybe 25% more than the median salary of that position and Jerry is probably the guy fighting to keep those bands lower.

Most of those things are a joke in the first place. Arm strength is built and maintained through usage. Not gradual builds and sudden stops. The computational analytics used in the pitching space has been hyper focused on spin/pitch shape and velocity at the demise of everything else. The industry needs to be forced to change because they're driving these kids over the edge into unsustainable territories as has been proven over and over again.

They're trying to stop the March towards max effort and velo for as long as you can and then well bring in the next guy. Endurance needs to be considered for SPs, not just max effort. Guys in college football go from playing 12 games to possibly 21 in the NFL.