ptatc

After the past 2 seasons it's a reasonable first step..... for 2025.

Unbelievable.

But the true discussion has nothing to do with the owners being swindlers or whatever name you want to call them. It has to do with the disparity between them. No matter what you believe from them you can't honestly believe that Kansas City or Milwaukee can compete with LA or NY in an unlimited system.

Until you see the books, your whole discussion is supposition. Evenso, as was stated earlier what incentive is there when you know you can't compete with the high revenue teams. You said to have a better chance at the playoffs. That's true but the odds really won't improve that much unless they really spend. You like to use JR as an example and look at some of his repvious quotes comparing MLB and NBA ownership. The NBA is much more viable with cost certainty due to the salary structure.

Welcome to union life. Been part of one for nearly 30 years.

That's fair. Everyone should stick to their ideals.

Sports teams are not hobbies for the owners. To expect them to run at a loss is not practical or realistic. You might think they should be hobbies but they aren't. They don't spend billions to lose money.

Because none of the other sports were started by bookies who shared everything to take advantage of gamblers.

Why shouldn't the owners of a business make a profit? That just isn't realistic.

Its as much the union's fault as the owners. The won't agree to a salary cap. The owners have tried and they won't even discuss it.

It fairly obvious that there is a massive discrepancy in revenues. I don't what you think they may be hiding the difference is far too large for competition.

True, the chances improve but by how much? It's minimal compared to the high revenue teams. Its not worth the chance to run the team into the red only to need to cut payroll and players. Until baseball gets a salary cap and floor, it won't change. The teams with the revenue will always have the best chance.

Correct. Maybe some could spend more but where would it get them if it's still 50% of what the top 3 can spend?

This is 100% acurrate. That's why the deal is crazy. But they can absorb it.

True, scraping out a run with a poor offense will win if you keep the other team off the board. And as I said that doesn't apply in the post season when they will be facing the good pitching more often.

It would.

Fair point. I look at it the other way. With the variation in pitching it needs to be built first. Pitching wins the at bat more ofter than the hitter. Start with the pitching/defense, then build offense.

I disagree. It's still pitching that will get you to the promise land. You can focus on regular season. I'll focus on post season. They obviously need to improve both but like the oline in football, start with the foundation.

No. It's just click bait. There aren't people who will buy teams and spend the team into the red every year.

What incentive does an owner have to spend 250 million on a payroll, pay luxury taxes, maybe lose draft picks and still not stillnot be able to compete with the top 2-3 revenue teams?

Nope. He is focusing on pitching because it is what is needed to win in the playoffs and the Sox have no TOR pitcher. Also other than a couple of no name social media posts has there been any reliable information that he is focusing on pitching?

Austin mock has fantastic prediction models if you like gambling.

I would agree and would doubt that is his intention either. I think the reports we've heard is he is focusing on pitching. If the number one prospects they get in the trade is not as good as the ones theyve acquired it would be gross negligence.

It's not just the wealth of the ownership, it's the revenues that are generated being drastically different as well.

There is such such thing as an unhealthy obsession with pitching in baseball. Just look at the injury rates.