Jack Parkman

The Sox are in a different point in their contention window. Cleveland's is closing, Tampa does what it does as a small market team attempting to be competitive. The Sox should be aggressively adding, and even if they wanted to be frugal because of the pandemic there were better ways to do that. Blowing their entire budget on a closer probably wasn't the best idea.

With the way they've approached the offseason this year they could have confused me. Either a) trade him or b) re-sign him. c) letting Giolito walk shouldn't be an option, depending on his performance over the next 3 years.

I don't care if they're in the middle of a window or not, you can't let a player like Giolito walk. In 2025-26 The Sox are going to be right where the Cubs are now, hopefully with their players coming off of good seasons.

What if all 3 of those guys are at least as good as Giolito is now? In that case, unless there is new ownership by then, they'd be really dumb not to do something like that.

They won't trade him now, but depending on what Kopech/Cease/Crochet do over the next 2 seasons, I could see them trading Giolito over after 2022 if he hasn't extended by then.

Hostetler's first draft was 2017. He got hired shortly before the 2016 draft and whoever the guy was before him(Laumann?) did that one. So he's responsible for: Burger, Sheets, Madrigal, Vaughn, Crochet, Kelley, Stiever, Heuer, Thompson, Dalquist, etc. A lot of these guys it's too early to say one way or another whether or not he hit. You can't blame him for Burger's injury and I thought I heard in the BA report that Sheets could possibly stick in LF.

I don't really think the Bears can afford to trade for Watson given that they're coming off of 2 years of having no 1st round pick and simultaneously being in cap hell. It would be one thing if they had a lot of cap space to fill holes but they don't so it's an issue. Trading for Watson would only result in the Bears being where the Texans are now in 2-4 years. Especially with the defense aging and entering contract years.

What if those teams decide they'd rather roll the dice with the guy they have or a high pick this year? Save the assets and move from there? Not that I'm saying that the Bears still have a shot, but I think that if Watson is traded it's more likely to be to the 49ers or Broncos. Both teams have a relatively high pick and a defense ready to win now, along with a better cap situation than the Bears.

@Chisoxfn Markkanen's last few games made you change your mind at all? He's had 30 pts 2 games in a row.

I could open up a can of worms here but I'm not going to do it. It's already been decided that the Buster is closed for good so I'm not bringing it here. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further.

Ray's point was the one I was trying to make the entire time. If anyone is goalpost moving it's you. Anyone with a brain knows that total dollars spent in payroll have increased over the last 5 years. I argued payroll inflation a while ago.

Too much talking about inflated payrolls and not enough talking about inflated profits.

That is exactly what I was trying to sell. Total dollars is a bad measure. Percentage of revenue is a much better one.

I completely agree here. The players have to realize that even a 50-50 revenue split would be beneficial. Also, as I've said multiple times, the owners have the best of both worlds. A de facto cap(in the form of punitive luxury tax penalties) and no floor. Since they made the punitive tax rules, I don't think that anyone has exceeded the tax for more than 2 years because that's all that's allowed before penalties start.

Thanks, Ray Ray.

There's no comparison between baseball and the other leagues because of the lack of a salary floor. Even though the luxury tax threshold isn't officially a salary cap, the penalties for repeat overages make it a de facto one. The MLB owners have the best of both worlds. They have a cap and no floor.

I just looked up the floor in the NFL and NBA and they're both roughly 89% of the cap. That means that if the cap was 200M, every team MUST by the rules of the CBA, spend 178M on payroll. The MLB "cap"(luxury tax) is 210M for 2021, so that would require each team to spend 186.9M on payroll to be at an equivalent level to the NBA and NFL.

The NBA and NFL have a salary floor. Baseball doesn't. Massive difference. The NFL's floor is 89% of the cap. The NBA's is 88.8% of the cap. Every team in those leagues must spend as a minimum 178M of a 200M cap. It's apples and oranges.

The issue isn't that baseball tickets are too expensive, it's that the average joe/jane isn't getting paid enough. Yes, baseball players are millionaires and it's really easy to dismiss it as millionaires vs billionaires, but the dynamic is the same one that's happening in everyday life. It's on a much larger monetary scale in baseball, and it might fall on deaf ears, but the basic struggle is the same as all of us go through every day. I know on a practical level the average person is much less financially well-off, but pointing it out anyway.

It would suck if the best teams were in the 88-92 win range and the lower level playoff teams were in the 80-82 win range. What I think would happen is that most seasons there's a blob between 80-89 wins and those are your playoff teams.

I suggest all of you who think that expanded playoffs are a good idea, read this thread.

Ok, there's a misunderstanding here. The teams at the top compete with each other. They spend. The teams in the middle to the bottom....what are they doing? Are they trying to get to the top or the bottom? I think we know what's happening there. I also don't think that we can have an honest discussion about this unless we have some sort of inflation indicator for MLB payrolls and CPI itself. 100M in 2011 is not the same as 100M in 2021. In that span we've had the best players go from getting 200M in a contract to nearly 400M.

I think overall payroll league wide is a misleading measure. I'd run it into 3 groups: 1) consistent playoff teams 2) teams that have won 78+ games 3) tanking teams I think looking at groups 2 and 3 will give a more accurate reflection of what's happening league wide. Teams may be spending more on payroll, but the competitive balance sure isn't there. Also, how much have revenues expanded from 2014-2019?

How much of that is because the higher salaries of the stars have moved the goalposts in arbitration? Aren't 3rd to 6th year players getting higher arbitration awards as well? IIRC someone set a new record for an arbitration award every year from 2016-20. We'd have to dig into this and see how much is by choice and how much is the system doing what it's intended to do. I'm open to the possibility that it isn't eaten up by the top FA or top arbitration eligible players, but I'm pretty skeptical.

That's due to salary inflation. The best players are getting paid more, the average players are getting paid less or squeezed out. I've pretty much had it. We can agree to disagree here. In 2015 Max Scherzer got a 7 year, $214M deal. In 2020, Gerrit Cole got a 9 year, $336M deal. That's where the increase is happening. At the top. Just like everywhere else.