Balta1701

They have? Are we talking about the Guardians?

If you’re dumping a guy for salary relief, you are dumping a guy for salary relief. If you thing you can demand a strong return for Robert then you have to hold him. You only get to insist on a better deal If you’re willing to say no, wait for it, and get the player better this season. The Phillies 4 and 6 prospects is better than paying him $15 million this season and nontendering him next November. Do you have confidence you can fix him and get him his first healthy season? I’ll hang up and listen.

Eh…if you’re not sure if the guy is going to stick at SS then the thing you want for him is time to focus on being a SS. Reps at SS, drills and practice at SS. Play him there until you decide you’re moving him, because once you move him, he should spend all his time improving at that position. Id also worry that playing 3b even part time might be an issue for his back, if that is the problem.

Considering the Phillies have 3 top 100 prospects, and their #4 prospect is an 18 year old catcher who is probably years away from even qualifying for the MLB pipeline list, this actually seems like a reasonable ask. My guess is that the Phillies would probably like to hold onto their #5 prospect, Mick Abel, who could see big league action this year and who is on their 40 man roster so that part is not a good match, but their number 6 prospect is a 20 year old outfielder taken 27th overall last year in the draft. Catcher Eduardo Tait and outfielder Dante Nori for Robert, I could see the Phillies not scoffing at this.

Yes I think the $85 million per year new MLB deal with Apple TV went very well for the White Sox. Free moneys.

however, the #1 things driving growth for most teams are no longer local boosts, they are increased revenue from streaming services, deals with service providers, national TV deals, and so forth. Those are hard to know, but they are solid league-wide revenue boosters.

That's also not how it works. The board might be able to complain, but they cannot force that to happen. The only person who can decide that, per everything we understand about the rules of the White Sox ownership, is Jerry Reinsdorf.

Based on the Forbes numbers, the franchise value should have increased by $450 million since 2019, basically a return of 30%. If specific board members are expecting improved investment returns, the simple answer is to sell their investment.

If the White Sox aren't able to get a star for him but are able to get something, I could be talked into that depending on the player. You could convince me that a Drew Thorpe type is a good return for Robert right now, while I didn't like that return for Cease. However, the idea that Reinsdorf needs to move the contract off the books when basically they have the 2nd lowest payroll in baseball is nuts. That's not any sort of mandatory decision either. That's either them needing the money for something not baseball related, like a moving company, or Reinsdorf really, really, really wanting a big takehome payday.

1. This low of spending could easily be them saving up to move the team. 2. More than half of this spending has been moronic, with Getz bringing in his precious field generals for the great leadership of 2024 or blocking players because he doesn’t understand the needs of his roster. The spending has been poor. 3. There would actually be an opportunity here to build for the future if we targeted guys who were tradeable. Take advantage of the low payroll and use it to accumulate talent. Sign guys coming off injury or down years to 1 year deals with options, sign a couple of relievers to 1 year deals. Trade away any at the deadline you can - look what “shot through the garage Chapman” did for the Royals. Instead we are trading away 18 year olds to bring in 32 year old pitchers with career 1.5 whip numbers in the minors or 22 year old pitchers away for nontender candidates and those have taken up all the available roster spots.

If he really has a back problem, 3b seems problematic to me for different reasons.

Which is why those two teams have so many trophies. How many do they have of the last 10 since they're unstoppable? It must be like 5 for the Dodgers and 4 for the Yankees right?

Yeah, I mean with the record of 10 straight World Series going to the Dodgers and Yankees, how could you deny this?

But that system is making all of these owners rich. While there are flaws, every one of them except maybe Cohen is taking home tens of millions of dollars per year, and Cohen is the exception because he’s trying for an even more lucrative gambling license in NYC which could easily evaporate if there’s a loss of games.

And at least for now, it's 100% my right to say that Mike Clevinger is obviously a domestic abuser, MLB conducted a shoddy investigation that they wouldn't have run at all had she not come forward in public because they were trying to bury it, and Chris Getz signing him was disgusting.

No, that means you have not been proven to have stolen my beer at the appropriate legal standard. It is entirely possible that you 100% did steal my beer and did so in a way where I couldn't prove it. You could be 100% guilty of stealing my beer, but for whatever reason it did not meet the legal standard required.

as is the belief that he was exonerated. What I can tell you is that no other team wanted him at any price, he managed to drag the organization and even his fellow players into his personal matters all before Getz signed him, all of which should be sickening. The fact that Colas was somehow roped into this as a rookie should be completely disqualifying even if Clevinger was falsely accused. Furthermore, in terms of the actual allegation, there was at least one other woman we found out about last year who had issues with Clevinger as is commonly the case with domestic abusers - they don’t do it only once. Furthermore, in terms of him not being suspended, an investigation conducted 6 months or more after the event is challenging and basically set up to fail, as memory doesn’t work that way. Finally, it takes a ton of bravery for a woman to come forwards and publicly make an abuse accusation against a rich public figure, because the deck will be stacked against them and people will claim that their accuser is “exonerated” even if it’s a he-said she said case and she’s fully telling the truth but it can’t be fully proven. Thus, I see zero reason to believe that a lack of charges is an actual exoneration, and I find the accuser much more credible.

No, I believe the accuser’s publicly published story.

Nothing you cited supports your opinion that the accusations were proven false.

I’ll even grant that the Fedde deal was super smart either way, but yeah this is a lot to spend to rebuild. That’s like 30% of their payroll on their field generals/guys added in the offseason. Also they made sure to have an option on Maldonado because of their confidence they’d want him back at the same price.

If that’s the case, it is really weird that they spent so much money on Maldonado, Lopez, Brebbia, Pham, DeJong, Soroka, Hill, and Clevinger. Those are not the moves you make if you think you are a 60 win team.

Mike Clevinger was not proved innocent and you are choosing your words very carefully so as to lie. He was not suspended. We do not know what went into this determination. We do know that interviewing witnesses half a year after an incident is a terrible investigative practice and we know that happened in that case. Why the investigation was not handled promptly when the report came in and was seemingly only done when the victim went public should seem like a major question to anyone who has an issue with domestic abuse. As an outside observer, I feel that should absolutely color any views of what his lack of suspension means. we also know that Clevinger continued contacting the victim while a member of the white Sox and somehow dragged teammates into this, including Oscar colas, which is super f***ed up and should really have told everyone to stay away.

Never said it wasn't. Just want people to add links when they excerpt blocks of text. Not only is it one of those old standing internet rules, but come on how do I know where it came from? I can't even try to read the rest of the article without a link.

They were also missing Taylor Rapp, who could have made a big difference in limiting the KC running game and/or limiting a couple of those bigger catch and runs.

The Bills came darn close to dropping 30 on the Chiefs again when most teams don't do that - they made a couple mistakes on key plays and that stopped them. I honestly don't have that many complaints about the offense "Other than the couple of play calls that needed to be smarter and had huge leverage". I do think the weakness in their pass defense was exposed a little bit, and I think that came straight out of injuries.