4 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

It's all a stupid game. Owners could break the union, but the effort to do so would break the game. No one has learned from past mistakes, but the players get far less percentage wise than they used to. Many teams don't even try to win. It's time the players got something. I wonder if they did, how it would effect franchise values.

I agree that many teams don't try to win, but they lay this guilt crap on fans about coming out to see these losing teams no matter what. The hell with that shit. I wonder how much Jerry Reinsdorf cares about winning at this point or how much he ever truly cared about it. The value of the White Sox franchise has skyrocketed although he doesn't seem all that happy about it. Regardless, this is 1994 all over again. If there is a long work stoppage, it will hurt the White Sox the most. 

42 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I agree. I think the debate is in defining keeping it healthy. If we just are looking at the financial health we should line up with the owners and profits. There aren't too many businesses that failed while turning a profit. The owners "winning" keeps the game going without any threats. But I think for most fans healthy also means every market having a chance to win once in a while. Healthy means a team being able to draft and hang onto a talented player and watch them develop into a superstar while playing at least a season or two for them before leaving. Healthy to me is all the employees earning a livable wage (I'm looking at you MiLB).  Based on the growth in value for most MLB teams and the profits that most report, there is room to make the non owners "healthier" while not risking the long term financial health of teams and the game itself. 

You smooth talker.  I agree as usual.

45 minutes ago, NWINFan said:

I agree that many teams don't try to win, but they lay this guilt crap on fans about coming out to see these losing teams no matter what. The hell with that shit. I wonder how much Jerry Reinsdorf cares about winning at this point or how much he ever truly cared about it. The value of the White Sox franchise has skyrocketed although he doesn't seem all that happy about it. Regardless, this is 1994 all over again. If there is a long work stoppage, it will hurt the White Sox the most. 

I think we have to define winning. Some fans prefer multiple years of above .500 records without a World Series others want that World Series and will accept multiple sub .500 seasons to get there. I think what most fans want, even those in advantaged situations like LA and NY,  is every team having a shot to win once in a while. Having a few franchises that are set up to be the Washington Generals of baseball tarnishes the game. Contraction is one answer, but taking away teams from small markets seems harsh. 

I believe one league tried this, perhaps in football. Have all players be employees of the league and basically redraft players every year. It can't work on the MLB level and is brutal for players, especially those with families, but imagine how competitive it would be every year. 

3 hours ago, Texsox said:

It's like the NBA, nothing matters until the end.

But in the end it doesn't even matter

27 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I think we have to define winning. Some fans prefer multiple years of above .500 records without a World Series others want that World Series and will accept multiple sub .500 seasons to get there. I think what most fans want, even those in advantaged situations like LA and NY,  is every team having a shot to win once in a while. Having a few franchises that are set up to be the Washington Generals of baseball tarnishes the game. Contraction is one answer, but taking away teams from small markets seems harsh. 

I believe one league tried this, perhaps in football. Have all players be employees of the league and basically redraft players every year. It can't work on the MLB level and is brutal for players, especially those with families, but imagine how competitive it would be every year. 

It always changes to whatever we don't have. When Soxtalk started, it was people would give up everything for a title. Then we got it, and it turned into we need multiple playoff appearances.  Now we did that, and it is on to the next thing.

28 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I think we have to define winning. Some fans prefer multiple years of above .500 records without a World Series others want that World Series and will accept multiple sub .500 seasons to get there. I think what most fans want, even those in advantaged situations like LA and NY,  is every team having a shot to win once in a while. Having a few franchises that are set up to be the Washington Generals of baseball tarnishes the game. Contraction is one answer, but taking away teams from small markets seems harsh. 

I believe one league tried this, perhaps in football. Have all players be employees of the league and basically redraft players every year. It can't work on the MLB level and is brutal for players, especially those with families, but imagine how competitive it would be every year. 

Let me put it this way: What the White Sox did during the 2010s was not winning. Not even close to it. The only serious effort they made was when they decided to tank.

9 minutes ago, NWINFan said:

Let me put it this way: What the White Sox did during the 2010s was not winning. Not even close to it. The only serious effort they made was when they decided to tank.

Was that from not trying or incompetence? 

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Was that from not trying or incompetence? 

Yes.

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes.

?

8 hours ago, hi8is said:

Some thing in life aren’t worth worrying about.

I need to know 

3 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I need to know 

This sucks.

23 hours ago, poppysox said:

I would be curious to know what "one" issue those of you who support the players feel is a must-win.

Getting back to this now - MLB has an incentive problem. The rewards for losing teams are too big and the penalties for building a winning team are too big. 

Because of that, fewer teams are spending money every winter, creating the broken FA market. Because of that, teams that could put themselves over the top with a signing…don’t, hurting quality of play. Because of that, teams that could be competitive…rebuild and tank. Because of that, draft picks and minor leaguers are overvalued, making trades harder and less interesting. Because of that, a notable portion of the league is stranded as losing franchises and that hurts the league as a whole since those fans never get to cheer for anything.

I could start giving examples of teams this has affected if you want. It’s a fundamentally problem with the competitiveness of the league, it causes a lot of the audience’s biggest complaints and holds the whole sport back, and it exists because the owners want to hold salaries down.

You don’t have to fix every problem in the market to fix this, all you need is to rebalance things somewhat. There’s also no single way to fix it, any of them could work - penalties for low spending or rebuilding teams, reducing the value of young players, any of those could work.

37 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Getting back to this now - MLB has an incentive problem. The rewards for losing teams are too big and the penalties for building a winning team are too big. 

Because of that, fewer teams are spending money every winter, creating the broken FA market. Because of that, teams that could put themselves over the top with a signing…don’t, hurting quality of play. Because of that, teams that could be competitive…rebuild and tank. Because of that, draft picks and minor leaguers are overvalued, making trades harder and less interesting. Because of that, a notable portion of the league is stranded as losing franchises and that hurts the league as a whole since those fans never get to cheer for anything.

I could start giving examples of teams this has affected if you want. It’s a fundamentally problem with the competitiveness of the league, it causes a lot of the audience’s biggest complaints and holds the whole sport back, and it exists because the owners want to hold salaries down.

You don’t have to fix every problem in the market to fix this, all you need is to rebalance things somewhat. There’s also no single way to fix it, any of them could work - penalties for low spending or rebuilding teams, reducing the value of young players, any of those could work.

So...competitive balance.  Dick Allen also had this answer.  I agree with both of you that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.  Most owners would probably agree that this is a major problem so perhaps it's not an insurmountable issue to find some agreement on.

55 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Getting back to this now - MLB has an incentive problem. The rewards for losing teams are too big and the penalties for building a winning team are too big. 

Because of that, fewer teams are spending money every winter, creating the broken FA market. Because of that, teams that could put themselves over the top with a signing…don’t, hurting quality of play. Because of that, teams that could be competitive…rebuild and tank. Because of that, draft picks and minor leaguers are overvalued, making trades harder and less interesting. Because of that, a notable portion of the league is stranded as losing franchises and that hurts the league as a whole since those fans never get to cheer for anything.

I could start giving examples of teams this has affected if you want. It’s a fundamentally problem with the competitiveness of the league, it causes a lot of the audience’s biggest complaints and holds the whole sport back, and it exists because the owners want to hold salaries down.

You don’t have to fix every problem in the market to fix this, all you need is to rebalance things somewhat. There’s also no single way to fix it, any of them could work - penalties for low spending or rebuilding teams, reducing the value of young players, any of those could work.

It's not the penalty for a winning team, is the penalty for a mediocre team that is the problem.  The incentives are all at the top, and at the bottom, but if you can't get to the top, that's when the problems come in.

8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It's not the penalty for a winning team, is the penalty for a mediocre team that is the problem.  The incentives are all at the top, and at the bottom, but if you can't get to the top, that's when the problems come in.

This is why I like the team with the best record who didn't make the playoffs to get the top pick. Stop rewarding the last place team. If they can't try to win through the draft they will have to spend money and try the FA route to get out of the hole.

14 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It's not the penalty for a winning team, is the penalty for a mediocre team that is the problem.  The incentives are all at the top, and at the bottom, but if you can't get to the top, that's when the problems come in.

If the penalties for winning aren’t too big, then the White Sox will have zero problem going into the luxury tax to sign Conforto and add a 2b. They saved huge amounts of money in ‘18-19 so I’m sure that will be no barrier for this team.

Right?

10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If the penalties for winning aren’t too big, then the White Sox will have zero problem going into the luxury tax to sign Conforto and add a 2b. They saved huge amounts of money in ‘18-19 so I’m sure that will be no barrier for this team.

Right?

Let me C/P this again

The incentives are all at the top, and at the bottom, but if you can't get to the top, that's when the problems come in.

12 minutes ago, Texsox said:

This is why I like the team with the best record who didn't make the playoffs to get the top pick. Stop rewarding the last place team. If they can't try to win through the draft they will have to spend money and try the FA route to get out of the hole.

I don’t hate strategies to alter the draft like this, but I think that it leaves the fundamental problem untouched.

If MLB gives each team $100 million in shared revenues before they sell a single ticket, and a team can field a roster for $40 million, then an owner can pocket the difference year after year. If that owner doesn’t get a high draft pick, he says oh well, I made my money, and they stay bad.

That is bad for baseball as a whole because you can’t grow a fan base in an area like Miami if the team wins 60 games every single year. Why cheer for that team? Why buy your kids merchandise from that team? Why go to more than a game every couple years?

There are multiple questions here, each with long answers.

I've watched games (like most people here) from low level to high. I go to games without a team to root for because I enjoy the game. That's why they should go. It's what has kept me a Sox fan through the shitty stretches. I just enjoy the game. But that ignores the bigger point you make.

With TV being the main driver and most people not living next to a local team, perhaps they don't care. 

I agree about the revenue sharing. At first glance I'm thinking it should be at least 50%,  or less, of a team's payroll. 

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Let me C/P this again

The incentives are all at the top, and at the bottom, but if you can't get to the top, that's when the problems come in.

If you can't be first, be last. Last in payroll. Last in record.

you think we will have a season?

14 hours ago, Texsox said:

Was that from not trying or incompetence? 

The not trying was getting complacent. The team was old everywhere from the front office to the broadcast booth to the field management. The Tribune did an article on the team's state in mid-summer 2013. The paper talked to Board members who basically said leave everything to Jerry. Why not? They were making money. Who cared if the team was on its way to its worst season in 43 years? It began with an awful series against the Cubs, and it just got worse. I saw no urgency from the FO to even address the situation. I remember the 1970 team that lost 106 games. I liked that team better than the 2013 club. The 2013 team was left to rot on the vine, and the rest of the horrible decade was nothing but losing. Ah, the memories.

57 minutes ago, poppysox said:

So...competitive balance.  Dick Allen also had this answer.  I agree with both of you that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.  Most owners would probably agree that this is a major problem so perhaps it's not an insurmountable issue to find some agreement on.

Do you think most owners would prefer to win or to profit?  That is the fundamental issue I have with ownership in sports.  And I have a hard time seeing ownership as a whole agreeing to something that puts a league wide competitive balance standard in place that penalizes teams that choose to remain in a low cost perpetual rebuild while banking gobs of money.  In a perfect world ownership would be pouring profits into trying to win every year, thus helping their own popularity and their own bottom line, and would keep the game as a whole healthy and competitive.  But some owners would rather run out an inexpensive 60 win team and reap the windfall of profit sharing. 

8 minutes ago, joesaiditstrue said:

you think we will have a season?

Yes, but I don’t see how it starts on time. I don’t see ownership coming to the table any time soon willing to negotiate in good faith until games and dollars are lost.  

8 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Do you think most owners would prefer to win or to profit?  That is the fundamental issue I have with ownership in sports.  And I have a hard time seeing ownership as a whole agreeing to something that puts a league wide competitive balance standard in place that penalizes teams that choose to remain in a low cost perpetual rebuild while banking gobs of money.  In a perfect world ownership would be pouring profits into trying to win every year, thus helping their own popularity and their own bottom line, and would keep the game as a whole healthy and competitive.  But some owners would rather run out an inexpensive 60 win team and reap the windfall of profit sharing. 

Like most things in life, you have owners from both positions I would imagine.  The majority of owners have been winners in life so I suspect they consider winning games the object of playing the game.  Most of these owners can make money in just about anything they touch so baseball is more a hobby than a business with most of them.  JR being a baseball nut since childhood is a well-documented fact.  For the most part...the teams spending the most money are the teams in the largest markets.  Baseball...in my view has over-expanded and more or less set up some teams to fail.  Surprisingly, some teams like Tampa and Minnesota have frequently succeeded in spite of being economically disadvantaged.  Pretty obvious that some teams have really good people in the FO.