almagest

I'm trying to factor in popularity, revenue and neighboring captured markets (beyond just physical market size, which is why the Royals are still a small market to me), but sure. We can call them small as an example. That makes it two teams and four total championships since 2006 for small markets in the NFL. Hell, add the Saints too if you want. Three teams, five championships. Doesn't change the point. If I go back through the MLB list and just rank them by pure market size, then the Rangers move to mid market.

Big market teams have won 13 of 20 NBA championships since 2006. Only four of them were small market teams. In the NFL, only one small market team has won (Packers in 2010). Eight won by large market teams and eleven by mid market (KC counts as a mid market for the NFL). So yes, you DO see this in other sports.

You can value profit, but understand that you can still build a good team and be profitable. Profit and quality are not inversely proportional. If you want to grow team revenue you basically have to be good, especially if you don't have a major market to rely on. Maybe MLB needs to have stricter approval processes for team purchases, but it's going to be hard to do that, because there are only a few people in the world rich enough to afford an MLB team, and who have the desire to do so. Unfortunately you're kind of stuck with the luck of the draw as a fan. I agree about revenue sharing. It's a terrible idea and it's pretty clear it doesn't lead to a better product.

They're two of the other major sport examples we have in the US, so feel free to find ones you think are more applicable. Baseball does not have a significant parity problem compared to the other sports. Of the three sports I referenced: The NBA has had 13 different teams win the championship since their soft cap began in 1985 (32.5%). There are seven teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Lakers 9, Bulls 6, Spurs 5, Warriors 4, Celtics 3, Pistons 3, Heat 3), which account for 82.5% of the total championships. The NFL has had 15 teams win the Super Bowl since the salary cap began in 1994 (48.4%). There are three teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Patriots 6, Chiefs 3, Broncos 3), which account for 38.7% of the total championships. MLB has had 14 different teams win the World Series since the luxury tax began in 1997 (50%). There are four teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Red Sox 4, Yankees 3, Giants 3, Dodgers 3), accounting for 46.4% of the total championships. MLB has the the largest % of different teams win, and is in the middle of the three for 3+ championships won by a team. If anything it seems like more restrictive salary caps are harmful to parity, or at best don't make a difference.

Yes, no one is doing anything against the bylaws of MLB going into an under-the-table agreement for analytics because those bylaws don't exist yet, so the only examples we have are in other areas, like sign stealing. Sign stealing is ubiquitous in MLB, and there were two big scandals about it that were particularly egregious. If teams are bending MLB's rules with this then they're for sure going to try to bend them in other areas. Also, you brought up enterprises treating governance as sacrosanct, not me. You're flat out wrong about that, and there's no reason to assume baseball teams would act any differently. If you don't think someone with interesting data or a new way of measuring things is going to take a bunch of money to provide that info or tool to an MLB team under the table as a "trial" or whatever nonsense phrasing they invent to justify it then BOY do I have a crypto deal that's perfect for you!

Sports with a salary cap still have a collection of consistently hopeless teams and a collection of consistently good teams. You don't solve for parity by restricting spending. Teams hire cap wizards and test all sorts of other tactics to navigate those restrictions. The salary cap is seldom an issue for good NFL teams if they want to keep a player or sign one. The NBA has been a super team league for most of the years since the mid 80s when they instituted a soft cap - if teams want to sign or trade for someone, they will. I think only one trade was ever vetoed by the commissioner's office. Baseball has the luxury tax, but smart teams are deferring money to work around that. All a hard cap would do is change how the Dodgers structure contracts to sign or trade for whoever they want.

Teams cheat with organizational backing all the time - we saw two huge scandals with the Astros and Red Sox in the last 7-8 years, and there have been rumors about a bunch of others. You've also said it yourself - advantages are often small and very difficult to come by, so there's a ton of pressure to seek them wherever you can, even if it's in an area that's technically "cheating" (like relatively sophisticated sign stealing). If someone out there is doing something interesting with data or analytics but they're not approved by MLB, I guarantee a team is still going to talk to them and figure out a way to leverage that data to see if it's useful. I'm sure they're doing it in other sports, too, though we don't ever hear about it - you can't wear unapproved wearables during a game in the NBA, for example, but who knows what they're doing at practice during simulated games. That data over the course of a full season's worth of practices is going to have some value. This is well beyond the scope of this discussion, but governance and controls for "back alley deals" and other similar violations fail ALL THE TIME in enterprise organizations. It's so common that questions about what to do if you find yourself in this situation are part of every security and compliance training.

Mauricio and Acuña seem like utility guys. Not super interested there. Vientos maybe? He's 26 and could be a nice 2-3 WAR guy at first (he's bad defensively at 3rd). I think Vientos was also available during the season if the Sox wanted him, which they apparently didn't. If Vientos is the best you're going to get I'd probably hang onto Robert and see what he does during the season though. I'm not much for making trades for limited value, which these three guys are IMO

Yup. All of these rules exist to be broken. Some teams are better at it than others, and some teams stick to the letter of the law to their detriment (but moral sense of superiority I'm sure).

Depends on how severe MLB makes any penalties, how closely they watch, and if they actually enforce any big time penalties. My guess is lots of lip service but not a lot of actual teeth behind any enforcement. Also, if it's relatively easy and smooth to get approved as a vendor then you'll limit the number of back-alley deals. If its a bureaucratic nightmare (which it almost certainly will be), then you'll absolutely see tiny startups with interesting data/approaches take a shot with a team if offered.

Teams are still going to try out new vendors and compile data from them on the down low. This will only stop the teams who are not creative enough to hide their unapproved tech.

Shedeur navigates the pocket pretty well, and he's got a nice deep ball. That's about it. He's got a long way to go to be good, and it's not gonna happen in Cleveland.

“To make such a deal happen, the White Sox almost certainly would need to include cash to make Robert more affordable. They are open to doing that as a way of enhancing the return, according to a club official.” It also talks about how the Mets don’t want to trade any of their good prospects and would likely only offer a marginal return for Robert.

The numbers don't lie!

Worlds tiniest violin begins playing

As long as he doesn't end up at the center of a gambling scandal like the last 100 mph cutter guy I can think of.

Not in favor of policing anyone's thoughts, but some of you could sure use a helping hand based on some of the posts here.

Yeah, fair, and neither of them spent much time in the minors here. I'll call that "talent evaluation" then.

I am absolutely going to be watching UCLA baseball games this year

We've got some of that on the offensive side. Montgomery and Teel look like potential fixtures. Quero and Meidroth came up and showed some promise. Sosa looked pretty solid for a guy who swings at everything. Baldwin could be a nice bench piece. They've got some potential reinforcements coming from the minors and the draft, too - they might still lack that big time, Bobby Witt Jr. type, but maybe that's Cholowsky. The pitching landscape is rougher, but there's still a lot of guys to work through. One or two of the current starters (Smith? Burke?) could end up being long term answers, there's still hope with Smith and Schultz, Oppor looks like a potential dude, there's some other positive pieces throughout their top 30 as well. I feel better about their system now than I did in 2019, for sure. They had more top flight talent then, but absolutely nothing behind it. If they can add/develop some of that top flight talent then I'll really be encouraged.

Yeah, and an fWAR of zero wouldn't have led the 2025 White Sox either. Once Santana figured it out he led the 2002 Twins with an fWAR of 3.4 (which is not some insurmountable ace-like number), so by your own standards that 2002 team was terrible, because a rule 5 guy was their best pitcher. Probably even worse than the Sox, because it was three years after he was picked. If Shane Smith is leading the Sox staff with a 3.something fWAR in two years you guys are gonna have an absolute FIT.

People are encouraged we got some pretty solid, potentially projectable value out of a rule 5 pick, and a waiver claim from a rule 5 pick that didn't work out. Hopefully that bodes well for their talent selection and development in the future, even if rule 5 claims are a total crap shoot and they never hit on another one. I also don't see how this indicates a major talent gap in the Sox system. They were a top 7? system that's now middle of the pack because they just promoted a bunch of talent to the majors. I'll give you a major lack of talent in the majors pre-promotions, because we all know the Sox are an objectively terrible team. The hope is that we're moving in the right direction.

Maybe we should give them more than one season to do so? Shane Smith may end up being lightning in a bottle, or he may end up being a consistently solid starting pitcher. Some of the hurt pitchers might come back and be good. Some of the guys on the staff now might end up being good. There's a long way to go with a lot of young players. Johan Santana was a rule 5 pick by the Twins. I doubt they were too torn up by him being their best pitcher by fWAR in 2002.

It's good that he wasn't actually the best player on the roster by b or fWAR, then.

How stupid are the Guardians, to guarantee a roster spot to a guy that a 121 loss team wouldn't even protect? Worst run organization in MLB.