Eminor3rd

Here’s another way to look at it: I think many would agree with me that one of the largest issues facing our nation today is the vastly widening “wealth gap.” Every cent the players wrest from the owners widens the wealth gap. The “pie” that the owners/players are fighting over is the liquid operating revenue of each franchise. They are NOT fighting over the masses of illiquid wealth and equity that the owners hold. An increase in the percentage of the operating revenue that goes to the players is a decrease in the percentage of the revenue that goes to paying for everything that makes the game happen, which includes the money that pays for the salaries of every worker in the organization. I can tell you, firsthand, that the teams will not operate beyond their means for any significant period of time. I can also tell you, firsthand, that the bottom line is a direct input on the available player payroll in a given year. If the operating revenue is lower in favor of the player payroll, this means fewer seasonal workers, fewer salaried benefits, fewer infrastructure investments (which puts franchise money into the hands of local businesses), etc. Note that I am NOT defending ownership with this argument. I’m simply illustrating that a “win” for the players union is not a “win for labor” in the sense that people imagine it is. I am all for supporting better wealth distribution in this country. Wealth distribution between one-percenters is NOT that. Narratives that make the financial “struggles” of one-percenters seem like the struggles of the average person are PR campaigns.

I will say that one of the things that would surprise almost every fan (it certainly surprised me), is how much smaller the profit margins are in sports than we assume. The revenue is massive and growing, but the operating costs are also massive and growing. The owners are getting rich off of long-term, illiquid asset growth. A VERY high percentage of the liquid profit goes back into the team, because doing so drives long-term value. A lot of that reinvestment is in the form of product improvements like stadium renovations, etc., but changes in payroll are part of it, too.

Yes, mindless generalizations. Exactly what I meant by “childish” and “beneath us all.” That sort of Neanderthal-level simplification is precisely what tilts me about this conversation. “You’re either union or you’re not” is some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen. Can one “be” pro-union and consider any given union demand as an overreach, or is that to high-brow? Or would that thought, by definition make someone “anti-union”? If you want to see an example of a union being allowed to bury its own members and ruin tens of thousands of careers by doing EXACTLY what it wanted to do, look into the story of the Bethlehem Steel corporation. That’s one real world example of what happens when you insist things are as simple as “always push on one direction no matter what.” Everything requires context, and context shifts. Insisting things are black and white when they aren’t makes for easy platitudes, but it isn’t reality. Also, if you don’t see the difference between a MLBPA labor (where the “labor” is only wealthiest fraction of the actual workers affected, and its interests are in direct opposition with the interests of the rest of the labor) dispute and a public teacher labor dispute (where the “labor” actually represents the bottom of the rung, and the market has provided no means of leverage for the workers involved), I don’t know what to tell you.

I’m sorry, this subject tilts me when people start getting righteous in either direction, It makes absolutely zero sense to give a shit about this on an emotional level. The very concept of “are you for the owners or for the players? Are for the millionaires or for the billionaires??” is insultingly childish and should be beneath all of us. There is NO moral high ground here. These are two extremely wealthy, extremely prepared private interest groups engaged in pushing their own interests as far as they can possibly push them. They do not care about you AT ALL. They do not care about fairness; they do not care about morals. They are both simply trying to take as much of the “pie” as they can. There is nothing moral or ethical about it, and they will make no concessions for your interests whatsoever. The fan matters only to the extent that it affects the negotiation. If you find yourself being appealed to by either side, understand that, EVERY TIME, the side you’re hearing from is trying manipulate you for leverage. It is cringey af to act like your stance on this says something about your virtues. Why would you even HAVE a stance? These are two departments in an entertainment mogul trying to decide how to divide YOUR money. “Labor vs. the man”? GMAFB. This is like virtue signaling in favor of car salesmen vs. car manufacturers. Who would ever give a shit about that that wasn’t directly involved? Please, for the sake of humanity, have more self respect than that. Everyone involved in this in this negotiation is living better than you and has everything they need to ensure they’ll keep doing so, however the chips fall. And if you read this and find yourself angry at me for not understanding or respecting the “greater narrative” about the importance of labor unions, get back to me when you start giving a shit about teachers unions, or nurses unions, or any other group that is actually important and could actually use the support of your moral outrage.

Oh lord it took us two weeks to go into full counterfactual mode?

I was at this winter meetings attending seminars, it was fun having it be such a topic on everyone's mind at the hotel bars. I also saw KW at the trade show. He was walking around like someone who had been very stressed and was intentionally trying to find a way to appear less stressed.

Agreed, they can spend or trade their way to success still, certainly. And they might.

It's true that we (I) need to remember that you can't always line everything up in the order you want it. Maybe Leury was on the verge of signing somewhere else, etc. As of today, though, I'd rather have seen them walk away from that than compromise the other stuff. But, time will tell if it really might compromise the other stuff.

This sentiment only makes sense outside of context. It doesn't matter where you "start," you have to includes everything to actually judge a deal. No one has a problem with the idea of paying a useful backup $5.5m a year. It's the $5.5m on top of the $7m on top of whatever you end up eating on the Kimbrel deal and how all of that adds up to a big chunk of what we know the Sox are going to spend but all the big holes remain.

The point is that they'll be better off without someone like Leury than they will be without someone like Chris Taylor. So if signing Leury might prevent you from signing Chris Taylor, you're doing it wrong. If signing Chris Taylor turns out to prevent you from signing Leury, you're in a better position. You can find SOME version of Leury Garcia if you HAVE to, on a minor league or one year MLB deal when spring training starts, even if he's inferior to Leury. But you can't find an extra $10m a year to win the bidding for the starter you need. Having a good bench replacement is definitely important, but it isn't more important than having the starter that he might need to replace. EDIT: But point taken on bench still being a legitimate "need." I probably should have characterized is a significantly SMALLER need, such that it belongs in a lower tier.

Yes, Leury is a good player to have on the roster. Nice to have, trust the process, etc. I believe that the White Sox intend to get a better second baseman still. Here's the problem, as I see it: When you're operating on a limited budget and prices are not fixed or determinable, it makes NO sense to buy things you DON'T need before you buy things you DO need. This deal (years/dollars) is fine in a vacuum, but it's only fine in context if it comes on the heels of having your necessities covered. This is a deal that should have come at the end of the offseason IF the Sox found themselves with budget remaining. Everyone pretty much agrees that the Sox have three substantial roster holes to fill: (1) RF, (2) 2B, (3) SP. As it stands the White Sox have now committed (conservatively) at least a third of their likely budget space (~$12.5m to Graveman/Garcia) and filled NONE of those holes. This reduces their leverage for filling those holes, and if they fail, it will be at the expense of the major pieces for the benefit of covering the minor "nice to haves." If Sox ended up having to overpay for a starting caliber RF/2B and it left them "scrambling" for a bench piece, they would be in drastically better position than if the opposite were true. To me, to make this deal on this date is yet another inexplicably inefficient application of limited resources. They may very well fully intend to acquire real solutions for their problems this offseason, but they've put themselves in a great position to fail at doing so. Maybe the CBA will shake things up and make this a good move, or maybe they'll pull the right deals off anyway. but it won't be because it was "smart," it'll be because it was lucky. It's finally looking clear to me why this team seems to miss on its targets so frequently. They're getting in their own way and I can't understand why.

Such as the void that emerges when you don’t acquire a starter at a position over the offseason?

Lmao

Right, my post was assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that this was proposed by the league at least partially in response to the union's demand to incentivize winning. I'm reading between the lines, but admittedly just making hot takes.

It might, especially at first. But I suspect that the feeling of "watering down" the playoffs will reduce interest in the earlier rounds too. The playoffs are a boon because they're exciting, and a big part of them being exciting is that they're rare. I'm talking out of my ass here, of course. This is just my gut mixed with generic econ.

There just isn't enough difference between an elite team and a mediocre team, in terms of chances to win a given game, for this many teams to make sense in the playoffs in baseball, IMO. I also think it's ridiculous to expect something like this would increase spending. If you lower the talent bar necessary to make it in, you just make it more realistic for young, cheap teams to gamble on hitting on a couple breakouts to make it in. With a couple small market exceptions, bad teams already regularly spend each year on a token veteran or two to plug a big hole. I don't know what the solution is for making those teams spend, but it isn't this.

Well, most of it wasn't with the Rangers, but A Rod produced like 80 WAR during that deal or something

I know NYY considers SS to be their biggest need by far. I'd only slightly revise your comment to, "I'd be surprised if the Tigers didn't land either Correa or Baez" and obviously the impact is pretty different between those two outcomes.

I mean I've got doubts, too. I do expect that they'll try trade for at least one. But I expect that, when all is said and done, their definition of "significant" will differ from mine.

This was never really an option for the White Sox. But this being the price is why I've been concerned about missing on the smaller pieces like Frazier/Escobar. At some point, Romy becomes the best option. And that's fine IF they get a real hitter in RF and sign a significant starter (or two).

Both?

You’re right that elite relievers are worth more at the deadline. But my point is that ALL relievers are. Already having an elite closer, the Sox were not in a position to extract the maximum value from Kimbrel as a top of the line closer, but we’re willing nonetheless to pay an incredibly steep price to buy one and absorb all the risk with it, instead of paying a much lower price for a good middle or setup man, who was nearly just as likely to produce a similar value or bust. Was it possible that Kimbrel would have settled into the setup role well, and performed peak Kimbrel feats in huge moments in the playoffs, making all the difference? Yes. But it was very nearly just as likely that someone like, idk Kendall Graveman would perform just as well in the same situations. The aggressiveness of the move wasn’t the problem — if Hendriks had been lost for the season, for example, the Sox could have made the same trade and it would have made sense even if Kimbrel ended up sucking just as much. Because the Sox would have been in a much likelier position to benefit from the difference between Kimbrel and the next best thing. But in the situation they were in, they made a massive gamble to acquire an asset in which there were simply many more scenarios where it either busted, or it wasn’t going to make a meaningful difference compared to other available, and quite frankly more appropriate options that cost less. It was a desperate move in a situation that did not require a desperate move. Anyway I don’t know if the point I’m making is the one you’re arguing with Balta against, and if so I apologize for derailing (I know how frustrating that is), but it does sound to me like he is arguing more about the logic than about Kimbrel himself.

You didn’t have to “know it was coming” to judge the deal, even when it happened. It was a bad deal because relievers are wildly inconsistent over half seasons, and the difference between elite ones and merely good ones over half season is very small. It was a bad deal because they traded a core piece of their team for a luxury player that was only ever going to be marginally better than more affordable alternatives, and had a high likelihood to bust all along. It wasn’t about Craig Kimbrel specifically. You can’t expect anyone to predict the future, but you should expect them to know how to play the odds.

Fo-wul-kowah

Foal-k