caulfield12

They were attempting to compete 2010 through mid 2016…

Right, very few can win an argument for public stadium financing anymore, unless they’re possibly in a red state….and choose to support the billionaire/“job creators” side. Historically, one would think it would be the exact opposite, but not so much in the last 4-5 years. Definitely progressives would throw a major fit, one can argue whether they are right or wrong but the arguments are well-known.

However, I was shocked to read Tuesday that about 65% of MLB players make $1 million or less. Maybe I'm just dumb and naive, but I would've guessed that figure would be around 20-25%. Now, before you get ready to send me an angry tweet about those 65% of players still making a great living, I'm well aware. The lowest paid player makes more than $500,000, so nobody should cry a river for anyone playing Major League Baseball. https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2020/05/27/mlb-2020-player-salaries

But if you look at all the rosters across baseball…a majority of the players who receive ANY big league playing time aren’t. Look at every single player who played for the Sox last year, not just the current roster.

The philosophy underpinning the primary disagreements about the value of publicly funded sports facilities hasn’t…besides the fact that the other article is more contemporaneous. By that argument, Veeck as In Wreck isn’t helpful at all to modern day sports marketers. How to Win Friends and Influence People, just as relevant. In fact, it’s 5x more difficult now to get public funding for stadiums than in 1997…and increasingly challenging moving forward.

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/ Unfortunately, the subsidies have not created the local impact that they promised. To understand why, let’s consider the Atlanta Falcons’ new stadium, which cost $2 billion for construction—$700 million of which was paid by local taxpayers. While proponents may talk about a multiplier effect, several theoretical and empirical studies of local economic impact of stadiums have shown that beliefs that stadiums have an impact that matches the amount of money that residents pay are largely unfounded. The average stadium generates $145 million per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community. As such, the prevalent idea among team owners of “socializing the costs and privatizing the profits” is harmful and unfair to people who are forced to pay for a stadium that will not help them. Further, a study by Noll and Zimbalist on newly constructed subsidized stadiums shows that they have a very limited and possibly even negative local impact. This is because of the opportunity cost that goes into allocating a significant amount of money into a service like a stadium, rather than infrastructure or other community projects that would benefit locals. Spending $700 million in areas like education or housing could have long-term positive consequences with the potential for long-term increases in the standard of living and economic growth. Additionally, it is important to consider that public financing is largely helping billionaires pay less for a service that they can afford. This dangerous precedent is an unnecessary privilege rather than a necessity. These sports teams are supported by successful owners who are capable of funding stadiums themselves. The owners will be compensated handsomely through the profits received through ticket sales, corporate advertising, and concessions over the next several decades. Public subsidies are an unfortunate power play used by these influential teams on local communities that are emotionally attached to sports teams, and a shift to making these projects private is going to be important moving forward. Furthermore, stadium construction in college sports is indicative of the precedent in professional sports. For example, the University of Alabama’s football program brought in $174 million in revenue in 2018, which is comparable to professional sports teams. College sports, especially in historic, blue-blood programs, can affect communities just as strongly as professional sports teams can. However, Alabama was funded entirely by the school, carefully racking up profits before deciding to invest in a new stadium. Starting something similar in professional sports could lead to a system of self-sustenance and owners considering stadium costs when deciding to purchase a new team. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/ One promotional study estimated that the local annual economic impact of the Denver Broncos was nearly $120 million; another estimated that the combined annual economic benefit of Cincinnati’s Bengals and Reds was $245 million. Such promotional studies overstate the economic impact of a facility because they confuse gross and net economic effects. Most spending inside a stadium is a substitute for other local recreational spending, such as movies and restaurants. Similarly, most tax collections inside a stadium are substitutes: as other entertainment businesses decline, tax collections from them fall. Promotional studies also fail to take into account differences between sports and other industries in income distribution. Most sports revenue goes to a relatively few players, managers, coaches, and executives who earn extremely high salaries—all well above the earnings of people who work in the industries that are substitutes for sports. Most stadium employees work part time at very low wages and earn a small fraction of team revenues. Thus, substituting spending on sports for other recreational spending concentrates income, reduces the total number of jobs, and replaces full-time jobs with low-wage, part-time jobs. A second rationale for subsidized stadiums is that stadiums generate more local consumer satisfaction than alternative investments. There is some truth to this argument. Professional sports teams are very small businesses, comparable to large department or grocery stores. They capture public attention far out of proportion to their economic significance. Broadcast and print media give so much attention to sports because so many people are fans, even if they do not actually attend games or buy sports-related products. A professional sports team, therefore, creates a “public good” or “externality”—a benefit enjoyed by consumers who follow sports regardless of whether they help pay for it. The magnitude of this benefit is unknown, and is not shared by everyone; nevertheless, it exists. As a result, sports fans are likely to accept higher taxes or reduced public services to attract or keep a team, even if they do not attend games themselves. These fans, supplemented and mobilized by teams, local media, and local interests that benefit directly from a stadium, constitute the base of political support for subsidized sports facilities.

You want more future owners of the Chicago White Sox, the answer's likely among those listed here at the bottom of this letter as signatories... https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-d6c1-dca5-a3f7-dff713a40000 Marcus Lemonis, CEO of Camping World, has been mentioned numerous times, but he's "only" worth around half a billion, haha.

This, for example, was from May 10th...hinting at her name. https://www.awesemo.com/sideaction/30-percent-of-the-chicago-white-sox-have-allegedly-been-sold-to-mystery-buyer-for-a-boatload-of-money-bjs/ Along with this somewhat interesting tidbit... Back in March, it was reported by Crain’s Chicago that Jerry Reinsdorf’s sons, Michael and Jonathan, were actively trying to purchase shares of the White Sox. “Over the years, several limited partners have sought to sell their White Sox partnership interests, and in many cases, they have been able to sell to other partners,” Reinsdorf wrote in the letter, obtained by Crain’s. “These sales have been infrequent. Recently, I have become aware that additional partners are seeking liquidity because of the death of partners or to accomplish various estate planning goals. My adult sons, Michael and Jonathan, are part of a small, but well-funded and credible, investment group that wishes to purchase White Sox limited partnership interests.” https://www.chicagobusiness.com/consumer-products/more-reinsdorfs-want-stake-sox?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D04035061536488459413099681381699703648|MCORGID%3D138FFF2554E6E7220A4C98C6%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1620695737&CSAuthResp=1%3A%3A186547%3A359%3A24%3Asuccess%3AA65AE5DE542F0C5A988AF94F4AF19ABA This is from they (Lucas & Hobbson) got married back in 2013 in Hyde Park. No mention of KW and Hahn sightings, haha. https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130630/hyde-park/george-lucas-mellody-hobson-reception-galaxy-of-stars-turn-out-for-bash/ The greatest cheer from the crowd came for actor Robin Williams, who gave a "royal wave" from the back of his golf cart. Other celebs spotted were Grammy-winning R&B artist Ne-Yo, Oprah BFF Gayle King and "Today" show weatherman Al Roker. Chicago notables attending the event were newly minted Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, former White House Social Secretary and Johnson Publishing Company CEO Desiree Rogers, businessman Christopher Kennedy (son of late Senator Robert F. Kennedy), the Rev. Jesse Jackson, former Mayor Richard M. Daley and his brother and Illinois gubernatorial candidate Bill Daley. Also spotted were Bulls and White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, radio host Tom Joyner and former NBA star and senator Bill Bradley. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel drove to the event directly from Lake Shore Drive, where barricades separating the Lake Front Trail had been removed. Emanuel left before the night's music guest — Prince — took the stage, a police officer working security said. Prince kicked off his set just before 10 p.m., diving into "1999." Lights flashed from inside the huge covered tent, which a dozen passersby could just barely see from across South Lake Shore Drive.

We had a thread on it....but it was very surreptitiously announced.

On a new stadium OR selling under 1,200,000 or 800,000 or whatever the number of tickets required to qualify for state subsidies?

Along with Williams, San Diego Padres pitcher Joe Musgrove, Chicago White Sox pitcher Lucas Giolito, New York Yankees pitcher Jameson Taillon and Mets pitcher Taijuan Walker were among the first players to change their profile pictures on Twitter. NEW YORK -- Within minutes of locking out players Thursday amid contentious negotiations on the next collective bargaining agreement, Major League Baseball scrubbed all remnants of player likenesses off its official properties such as MLB.com, replacing player photos with generic silhouettes. In response, players decided to lean all the way in. Players started to change their profile pictures on Twitter to the generic player silhouettes in solidarity and as a response to the league's action. The decision to do so was not an organized, calculated move by the Major League Baseball Players Association but rather started off as a joke in a small player text group chat, according to New York Mets pitcher Trevor Williams, one of the first to change his profile picture. "It was just being silly," Williams told ESPN. "It's a meme. When you think about it, by us posting a picture of what MLB does, we're doubling down on what they're doing. It's not supposed to be serious."

If they do want to change to six years of control (or total years from signing date), they definitely have to balance it...because Latin American prospects starting at age 14-16 are on totally different timelines than a junior or senior NCAA All-American who hits the big leagues within 1-2 years of being drafted, but usually debuts at 23-24. Of course, the real key for the majority of players is having team control at ages 25-29.

RoberT The biggest loss, other than to Year 1-3 players being woefully underpaid, has been low to mid 30's veterans being priced out of the market (replaced by cheaper youth) and the general unfairness of the international free agency system, guys like Ohtani in particular. Capable relievers, starters and superstar position players are much better off. Catching salaries have fallen for all but the most elite, and that's only 5-7 guys.

Of course, the Mets and Yankees both messed up with Quintana...although there were extenuating circumstances attached. Also doesn't include Bassitt. Montas came from Red Sox or Rangers? Dodgers?

Hopefully, a more modern, analytics-based approach to the game. And less LaRussa. Seems like she has Out-Hahned Hahn and KW in the social networking/high society crowd. “As Co-CEO, Mellody is responsible for management, strategic planning and growth for all areas of Ariel Investments outside of research and portfolio management. Additionally, she serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ariel Investment Trust—the company’s publicly traded mutual funds. Prior to being named Co-CEO, Mellody spent nearly two decades as the firm’s President. Outside of Ariel, Mellody is a nationally recognized voice on financial literacy. Her leadership has also been invaluable to corporate boardrooms across the nation. She currently serves as Chair of the Board of Starbucks Corporation. She is also a director of JPMorgan Chase. She previously served as Chairman of the Board of DreamWorks Animation until the company’s sale and was also a long-standing board member of the Estée Lauder Companies. Mellody’s community outreach includes her role as Chairman of After School Matters, a Chicago non-profit that provides area teens with high-quality after school and summer programs. Additionally, she is vice chair of World Business Chicago; co-chair of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art; and a board member of the George Lucas Education Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies. She also serves on the board of trustees of the Center for Strategic & International Studies, and of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA). Mellody is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, The Rockefeller Foundation Board of Trustees, and serves on the executive committee of the Investment Company Institute. Mellody earned her AB from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of International Relations and Public Policy. In 2019, she was awarded the University’s highest honor, the Woodrow Wilson Award, presented annually to a Princeton graduate whose career embodies a commitment to national service. She has also received honorary doctorate degrees from Howard University, Johns Hopkins University, St. Mary’s College, and the University of Southern California. In 2015, Time Magazine named her one of the “100 Most Influential People” in the world.” source: Ariel Investments website/bio And probably Starbucks at GRF, haha…along with a renaming deal with JPMorgan Chase, instead of a tacky mortgage company.

We’re a Top 5 payroll or Top 2 committed for 2023…that still might never go over $68 million on an individual player and would hardly even allow fans the joy of speculating on adding Baez, Story or Semien, let alone Correa and Seager. Obviously not how much money you spend (see 2006-2011/Dunn), it’s how you allocate your payroll that matters the most. So saying we’re actually not THAT cheap, we’re just not that good at talent evaluation, isn’t much to crow about, either.

That leaves our starting pitching depth woefully short…basically Lopez or Crochet, but you might have to trade one of them, too. Sheets, Vaughn (maybe) and Burger on the positional side…and money added to payroll, when we could have just spent money. Not a great idea with our minor league depth and continuing to take pieces away from future teams. Might be better just to wait until midseason if that’s the very best we can do. And Castillo would come with a much higher cost, the only one to really be excited about turning things around with Katz.

Carlos Correa, of course! In an alternative Sox-Verse.

If they are still Top 5 on Opening Day I will officially join Ron’s Cubs quest. It’s not going to happen with Kimbrel removed…and it would take a lot even with Conforto because they might try to dump Keuchel as well and reinsert Lopez into the rotation.

Minuses - Fathom says he is mopey and has bad vibes Lacks power Expensive money wise Is that the recent Phillies version, Seattle or Milwaukee one? Apparently not quite so easy to find a 2B as has been repeated over and over again since Kimbrel trade. Certainly not one you can pretty much guarantee a 2.5 fWAR, at least. Take another shot at Villar, but then is he going to be any better than Leury? McNeil is going to cost too much talent to acquire…off the big league roster in all likelihood. Also, we should do this for all the teams looking at Conforto for RF.

Somehow I have a feeling the Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, Dodgers, Astros, Angels, Mets, Padres, Blue Jays, Nats (maybe), Mariners, Cardinals, Rangers, etc., will have something to say about those rankings before Opening Day. Also, Braves being so low is pretty impressive for a WS winner, Brewers, Rays, etc. It also goes to show how far from automatic the addition of Conforto is at this point.

Why would being forced to pay Segura or god forbid Gregorious be a positive value, compared to simply having $15 million free to allocate however they wanted? It seems pretty apparent they perceive fair market value production at 2B (in this current landscape) as closer to $5.5-$6.0 million, rather than paying almost three times that to get (arguably) 1 additional util of fWAR. Adam Frazier is another good example, as a 2ish fWAR “All-Star” player at an expected $7.5 million salary…that got quite a mediocre minimal return back. And he possesses positional versatility as well as hitting LH.

Nothing in the Houston Chronicle yet. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/texas-sports-nation/astros/article/Astros-Sara-Goodrum-director-player-development-16665849.php Astros hired a female exec and there's a 2024 option for reliever Hector Neris, that was it.

To sign Hendriks or offer the QO to Kimbrel, or both? That was a bit of a head-scratcher for the White Sox to spend top of the market rates for a closer...of course, ultimately, it went from a perceived strength to a not a weakness, but a definite vulnerability (see bed wetting against Astros by pretty much everyone but Tepera.)

Team Assured Mutual Destruction (not necessarily nuclear in variety)