spiderman

I'm not sure if that's too much. Just thinking as a starting point. I think a floor of $150M forces around half the league to increase spending. You're going to need a higher cap for players to get those larger deals in big markets. Maybe the idea of franchise players (players in the NFL don't like being tagged although they do get paid in the top 5 or 10 based on tag for 1 year) could be part of this also...Maybe you start with the 150/250 but both are raised up, but you have levers built into allow the floors to rise faster (not sure what those would be).

Agreed. Just not sure either side would be willing to budge or, even if they conceded, will the floor be high enough? Interested in how a cap would be phased in also with some teams spending probably way higher than what the owners would want. There are currently 9 teams over $200M and a few (Dodgers/Mets) over $300M. Would think a cap would need to allow some level of spending over for a period of time (similar to a floor), but I'd be ok with a salary cap of $250M and a floor of $150M as a starting point - that would require 15 teams to spend more than they currently are and only 4 teams to cut back.

I think the NFL has some average of $$ spent on some rolling average so it allows for a team to reset/rebuild. I'm ok with that too. Establish a salary cap floor, tie it to revenues, etc. I think that can be an instant game changer if teams that currently don't spend much (say under $100M) are now spending more. There are 5 teams spending under $100M currently. and 10 under $120M. Realistically, I think you would want the salary floors to be at least $150M as a starting point. If owners offered something like that, I think that would be a huge concession to players.

That seems to be the case - a lockout for 2027 and players being against a salary cap. I thought they have also been against a salary floor also, but could be mistaking. Owners have never been able to stay together - they have their own battles with large vs small market teams.

I don't think any of that counts as baseball income. A lot of teams have built up entertainment around the stadiums and I thought (could be wrong) that this is not counted as baseball income.

Are owners against a salary floor? If they were to agree to that, would there be any chance of a salary cap agreed to by the players?

The bullpen is brutal. They didn't have many good options and the pitchers didn't perform.

I never know how good our positional coaches (in any sport) truly are. When things are going well and the team is winning, everyone is smart, and the daggers come out when teams stink. In Chicago, the media overhypes anyone who is able to speak and can put together a complete sentence. They call these people "one of the best" in their roles, but probably couldn't name the same coach on 25 other teams. Not saying Katz is good or bad, just always find it humorous to see how the media overrates coaches who speak to them.

This is more of an organizational issue than Getz. If the team won't spend money in free agents, pay pitchers, etc. Getz is always going to be limited in how he can build a team. His most logical bet of sustained success is to build a minor league system with depth. They have a ways to go, but have made progress here. It wasn't long ago that they had only 5 starters in the majors with nothing behind them. They now have 10-12 options, but questions around the top end of the rotation. Offensively, they got positive contributions from their young talent. They don't have enough and it's not realistic to assume that they can do this without supplementing with major league free agents. Getz can do a great job in drafting or trading for young players, but if he can't keep them or can't add to it, he'll just be in a rebuild every 3-4 years.

It's possible, maybe even expected, to do that again, but they shouldn't assume that the current roster will be able to improve without making external improvements. The roster looks much more stable (and encouraging), but players don't always progress in a positive manner, injuries or underperformance happen Right now, I think it's fair to project next year's team, with no changes, to be somewhere been 68-72 wins.

There's hope. That's the difference this year. The record doesn't matter - it's all about the progress of the younger talent and I think most people would say the Teel's, Quero's, Montgomery's, Vargas's, Meidroth's all showed promise and hope going forward that this lineup has the makings of a good lineup. The pitching lacks star power, but they have developed good overall depth and now it's about if the organization wants to start adding to the current talent. Right now there's hope, but the problem is the ownership sentiment is anything but. These will eventually run up against one another.

He's more than likely to revert back to what we see in Chicago during his career. We also don't know if he'll be playing every day down the stretch if he cools off and Milwaukee starts playing matchups more. Hoskins will be back soon also.

Gotcha. I just think it's part of the business; I don't think there would be agreement from players/teams to not be able to make trades outside of what's already available in no-trade contracts for a limited group of star type players; productive player knows he may get traded if he is on a team that isn't competing. When he signed with the White Sox, Houser was probably just hoping to get an opportunity to get back to the majors, and it's worked out much better than anyone could have anticipated.

Stone is going to end his career with the White Sox. I doubt he's changing teams. Maybe after he retires, he shows up in the Cubs booth for a few innings, but not for a job. He's already doing less games as the season goes along. Schriffen is a cheerleader who tries way too hard to be excited over what has been a horrific team during his time here. Just be honest - don't try to sell us on things that aren't happening. I don't need to hear how great the clubhouse is or how hard everyone is working when the team is likely to lose 100 games for 3 seasons in a row. I also suspect that he'll sound better with an improved team to call, but he needs to relax and just call the game. No screaming and yelling, no exaggerating of what's happening, etc.

He did have a rough outing at Pittsburgh in his first start of the 2nd half and then pitched well vs the Cubs (got hit in the later innings). I think his advanced metrics have hinted at a regression. I would guess he'll provide innings for the rest of the season, but won't come close to the performance that he had in the first 9 starts. Sox were smart to get a few players back for him and hopefully he'll pitch well enough to get a major league contract for next season.

What's the issue? The White Sox signing a player to trade him if he can help another team?

No. They have an awesome logo. Teams have alternate uniforms, hats, etc. That's fine. Who is suggesting that the logo be changed? It doesn't change the history or mean that the future will be improved. Spend money. Improve the culture of the organization. That's how you show change, not a new logo.

I guess they are trading here based on track record vs. Houser being seen as more of a gamble/flash in the pan

Yep, I agree. I think he's a #4 type starter and maybe he can go higher based on how that team's rotation finishes the season. Lots of variables, but he's depth for any team acquiring him now.

Sure, but he's got a track record of not being this pitcher. A lot of teams need starting pitching. I don't even know that teams are worrying about whether he'd be part of a playoff rotation vs. getting there. He can help based on his performance this season and they wouldn't have to give up a ton given that he's not a high end starter.

He could be a #3 IF he continues to pitch at his current level. Pitchers get injured, teams will go with a hot hand, but I don't think any teams are acquiring him as a front-line starter. He's probably a depth piece, #4 type BUT one who has been getting results more towards the top of the rotation.

They are trading for spare parts. Maybe McMahon is better than that description, but no major impact moves for them yet.

Appears to be a flyer like was expected. Maybe can compete for an end of rotation spot at some point. Never can have enough arms so I'm fine with adding a lower end prospect.

I've never heard of this pitcher, but I will have strong opinions on him within an hour.

Brace yourself for getting next to nothing in return! Which should be expected!