Tnetennba

Holy s%*#. This is both awful and hilarious!

Still time for Getz to Scott Skiles his sorry ass…

Here’s to hoping JR was visited by three ghosts last night…

Is it possible that Chris Getz has continually failed upwards and would be unqualified for any of the jobs he’s had in any other org, while also already doing organisational things KW/RH didn’t or were very bad at? Again, we aren't talking about a high bar here. Getz has, at best, a rather questionable track record of success as a baseball executive. What is or isn’t on him is as murky as who was responsible for what in the asymbiotic KW/Hahn quagmire, while also being involved in and or complicit in those failures. I’m all for giving him a fair shot, even with all of those red flags surrounding him, red flags that really aren’t debatable in my opinion. A fair amount of skepticism that anything will be better is quite warranted after what we just went through as fans. Ultimately we know who is pulling his strings, so my expectations certainly are not high that Getz will bring lasting change or can bring this club back from the laughingstock that it is.

While this might be a stretch, or genuine sarcasm, it's difficult to see anyone turn this organization around while the same failed ownership group only grows more entrenched in their backwards ways. Getz being more organized and installing a new org philosophy sounds great, but it isn't a high bar compared to the previous regime. The best GM in the game could only do so much while appeasing and being handcuffed by ownership.

Ha ha I still don't love Joe Kelly and I'm happy he's elsewhere. If anything it makes me love Shohei even more.

With the exception of the insane revenue that allows LAD to sign seven hundred million dollar contracts.

As to the article, the Sox had a very top heavy system after the Sale, Q, Eaton trades and failed to build any sort of depth behind it. Once that singular "wave" graduated, the system was barren and they found themselves back where they had been for the previous 15-20 years. Just not good enough with no means to improve. They half-assed the rebuild and sat on their hands expecting it all to work. Then JR TLR'd the org, and a rebuild set up to fail was completely fucked. Happy Fucking Holidays to you to JR...

I can vomit at home for free, thank you!

Before being run into the ground by ownership, the A's seemed much more random in their up and down years. Outside of the Moneyball era, they can't hold a candle to how the Rays operate. That's my general point. Few teams can pull off what the Rays do year after year and remain relevant in a tough division.

I agree with you on all of that. It is a scam, and ownership profits far outweigh the cost of labor or the value of said labor. I work for myself and have lived those realities. I know it all too well. I'm simply arguing that the realities of market size create discrepancies in available cash flow, despite small market teams receiving competitive balance subsidies from luxury tax. Team revenues are not an even playing field, and no amount of idealism, my own included, negates that.

While true, I wouldn't say they operate with the same success as the Rays.

MLB has to want that first. They are still too tied to cable dinosaurs.

I'm as anti-owner and anti-owner profit as anyone, but genuine question, have you ever taken a course in economics? There is a lot of assumption in your argument, some not very grounded in fact. The Dodgers are likely raking in profit despite what they are spending. I doubt even the A's or Pirates or any ownership group is actually losing money. I'd imaging they are pocketing quite a lot. But that doesn't mean they have the extra revenue to spend like the Dodgers do. It's simply not realistic to argue that. The sheer number of interested spectators in the greater Los Angeles area dwarfs that of Milwaukee, even with two teams in the LA area. Owners making bank across the board does not mean they have the same spending power as the Dodgers or Yankees. Should every owner spend every dollar they make? I say yes. But saying the Brewers can spend like the Dodgers is absurd, and you start to lose credibility. It's a simple matter of massive revenue discrepancies between two very different market sizes.

A lot of that regional TV money is in jeopardy thanks to cord-cutting too. The available TV dollars are not a level playing field across the board.

The Rays are a fucking unicorn. How many other teams successfully do what the Rays do? Cleveland trades away veterans when they are about to get expensive. How often is Cleveland a legit threat to win anything but the shitty AL Central? How has that worked out for AZ, Colorado, Cincy, The Marlins, The A's, etc etc over the years?

Like I said, that is my personal belief, not one I expect anyone else to espouse. It is also specific to sports team ownership. I am 100% on the side of labor and believe in people over profit. I also believe that billionaires shouldn't exist. These are my beliefs, but I'm well aware that it's not how the business of baseball or sports work. We live in a capitalist society, my anti-capitalist ideals just that, ideals.

I'm aware. I would need to see the caveats to those proposals before holding that against the union.

While there is likely some truth to the bolded, the spending power of the Brewers simply isn't that of the Dodgers or Yankees. Those teams can spend a billion with a B dollars on free agents in one offseason and still make a profit. There is simply no way a media market as small as Milwaukee can generate the same revenue. I agree that the owners should spend every available dollar to put competitive teams on the field, but let's at least argue within the parameters of reality. I personally don't believe baseball owners should make a single dollar in profit above their purchase price paid, but it would be absurd to expect any multiple billion dollar industry to function like that. I hate it, but its simply not realistic.

Those leagues' players unions won these things through brutal CBA fights and work stoppages. Baseball owners don't because they don't have to under the CBA. The commissioner of baseball works for the owners and not for the overall health of the league. It would take at minimum an entire lost season to bring the owners to the brink of such concessions, and being that they are very wealthy, they can afford to lose the baseball revenue longer than the average player can live without game checks. That is the unfortunate power baseball owners have.

But that doesn’t help their thin rotation.

Which is why they almost have to trade from their abundance of prospect capital, since they won't be handing out $300M contracts any time soon. That is if ownership is actually serious about contending for World Series titles instead of a few AL East crowns.

Santander is a fan favorite and is likely worth more to them than he is in trade. Even good young teams need to have veterans around. They can't trade away every vet and expect to fill their holes with talent equal to their prospects.