77 Hitmen Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 (edited) 23 hours ago, joejoesox said: zero chance of salary cap, would be stupid to miss the start of a season for something that the players union will never agree to 23 hours ago, Bob Sacamano said: I think we're risking the full thing here. I've said this before - since I'm stuck in baseball hell as a White Sox fan, I'm not going to lose sleep if the 2027 season is wiped out. As far as I'm concerned, the last 3 seasons have been a total loss to me with an unwatchable team anyway. I don't expect many Sox fans to be the ones lying in front of the proverbial bulldozers to stop the 2027 season wrecking crew begging MLB to keep the status quo at all costs. Edited October 22 by 77 Hitmen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrittBurnsFan Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 36 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: I've said this before - since I'm stuck in baseball hell as a White Sox fan, I'm not going to lose sleep if the 2027 season is wiped out. As far as I'm concerned, the last 3 seasons have been a total loss to me with an unwatchable team anyway. I don't expect many Sox fans to be the ones lying in front of the proverbial bulldozers to stop the 2027 season wrecking crew begging MLB to keep the status quo at all costs. In general I would hate this...but not because of the current state of the White Sox! One thing this recent "run" of White Sox baseball has done to me is it has opened me up to enjoying following other teams (Padres are an example). I just love baseball in general and would sorely miss the sport if I had to wait 15 or so months between seasons! But I certainly get what you are saying! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 I wonder what the fans reaction would be if the entire 2027 season was wiped out and nothing was settled with the prospect of no baseball in 2028. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said: I've said this before - since I'm stuck in baseball hell as a White Sox fan, I'm not going to lose sleep if the 2027 season is wiped out. As far as I'm concerned, the last 3 seasons have been a total loss to me with an unwatchable team anyway. I don't expect many Sox fans to be the ones lying in front of the proverbial bulldozers to stop the 2027 season wrecking crew begging MLB to keep the status quo at all costs. And worth pointing out that MiLB season still happens, except for players on 40-man rosters. I looked this up before because I was curious. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 1 hour ago, WBWSF said: I wonder what the fans reaction would be if the entire 2027 season was wiped out and nothing was settled with the prospect of no baseball in 2028. It would no doubt be very damaging to the sport. It won't be like 1994 for Sox fans since JR's leadership in tanking what could have been a World Series season for his team totally sunk support for the Sox, but it would be bad for the sport as a whole. I'm not rooting for a lockout, but I also don't want the status quo to be maintained either. We currently have about half the league doing well and have the league in perpetual rebuild-at-best mode. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 22 Author Share Posted October 22 2 hours ago, WBWSF said: I wonder what the fans reaction would be if the entire 2027 season was wiped out and nothing was settled with the prospect of no baseball in 2028. I would be shocked if the entire 2027 season was wiped out myself. The owners will cave long before it gets to that point. They have always done so in the past and I don't foresee that changing now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 22 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: It would no doubt be very damaging to the sport. It won't be like 1994 for Sox fans since JR's leadership in tanking what could have been a World Series season for his team totally sunk support for the Sox, but it would be bad for the sport as a whole. I'm not rooting for a lockout, but I also don't want the status quo to be maintained either. We currently have about half the league doing well and have the league in perpetual rebuild-at-best mode. Which I personally believe is one of the main issues they need to solve, among a few others. There is not going to be one solution to baseball's problems, because it isn't that simple, but I believe most of this falls on the current group of owners in the sport. There have already been articles written about the Brewers possibly shopping Freddy Peralta because of his incredibly team friendly deal, as well as the Tigers considering the market for Tarik Skubal, a year before he hits free agency. Both teams made the playoffs in 2025 and have a solid foundation, and both Peralta and Skubal are huge parts of their teams, respectively. Both players are in the primes of their career, but Milwuakee and Detroit believe they don't have a good chance to keep either, so why not get some prospects? We've seen it for a long time, and it's simply not good for baseball. The Crochet deal was slightly different, but certainly in the same ballpark of moves that shouldn't happen on regular basis. The problem isn't the Dodgers or Mets. The problem is the White Sox and Pirates. The sport has evolved and you have owners with deep pockets that view their organizations more than an incredible investment. On the other hand you have someone like Jerry who literally laughed with reporters during Ohtani's free agency tour, that the White Sox wouldn't be making an offer. Yet they all play in the same league, competing against each other. Some teams have tried to keep up, while others are seemingly content to keep trotting out payrolls that look like they are from 2004. And history has shown us small market teams can be ultra competitive, even with lower payrolls. If owners don't want to keep up with 2025 prices, then get out of the game. Sell your team, make billions in profit, and go home. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted October 23 Share Posted October 23 23 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: It would no doubt be very damaging to the sport. It won't be like 1994 for Sox fans since JR's leadership in tanking what could have been a World Series season for his team totally sunk support for the Sox, but it would be bad for the sport as a whole. I'm not rooting for a lockout, but I also don't want the status quo to be maintained either. We currently have about half the league doing well and have the league in perpetual rebuild-at-best mode. It could've been a world series team, but it was just as likely Cleveland passed the Sox up and the Sox were the wild card and got bounced by the Yankees, who had a better record. The Expos were also likely a better team than the Sox, so even if they got to the WS it's not a given they win. The worst part of the 1994 strike was how bad the team was from 95-99. If they were competitive in those years I doubt we'd be as angry about 94. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 24 Author Share Posted October 24 5 hours ago, almagest said: It could've been a world series team, but it was just as likely Cleveland passed the Sox up and the Sox were the wild card and got bounced by the Yankees, who had a better record. The Expos were also likely a better team than the Sox, so even if they got to the WS it's not a given they win. The worst part of the 1994 strike was how bad the team was from 95-99. If they were competitive in those years I doubt we'd be as angry about 94. Interesting speculation. To me the difference was the White Sox pitching. The starters: Jack McDowell, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez, Jason Bere, Scott Sanderson. The bullpen: Roberto Hernandez, Paul Assenmacher, Dennis Cook, Jose DeLeon, Kirk McCaskill That's pretty hard to beat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Interesting speculation. To me the difference was the White Sox pitching. The starters: Jack McDowell, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez, Jason Bere, Scott Sanderson. The bullpen: Roberto Hernandez, Paul Assenmacher, Dennis Cook, Jose DeLeon, Kirk McCaskill That's pretty hard to beat. Expos offense was worse but their pitching was better. Cleveland had worse pitching, but they had Lofton on pace for over 10 WAR and the beginning of that murderer's row lineup. They were also only one game back and had played the Sox pretty evenly all year from what I remember. Would've been a good race but no guarantee the Sox finish in first. Yankees had worse pitching but scored over 100 more runs than the Sox during the season. Regardless, if the window didn't slam shut after '94 this wouldn't be such a big "what if". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 https://www.yahoo.com/sports/article/shohei-ohtani-best-baseball-player-120000576.html “Beyond even his contract, Ohtani has laid the deficiencies of the MLB so horribly bare that it will be unable to ignore them anymore. There won’t be another Shohei anytime soon, but there’s a Paul Skenes. There’s a Tarik Skubal. There will be bigger numbers and more big names traded because the team that drafted them could not or would not pay them what they were worth. His dominance and cultural supernova has the unfortunate byproduct of proving that fewer and fewer teams will ever be able to hold onto a player like that. It used to be that a group of eight-to-ten teams could compete for the biggest names. Now we’re down to essentially two, and it feels like it’s just one. None of this is Ohtani’s fault. Rather, the structure that he has blossomed in can no longer support the financial reality of its own popularity. He will almost certainly dazzle the World Series, and we will all feel lucky we got to watch. But behind the scenes, his very success may push the MLB into the great labor dispute that has been brewing for decades. And it may cost Ohtani and his contemporaries one of the seasons of his physical prime. I don’t care who wins this World Series. Ohtani and his team of super-soldiers have already won it all, and baseball players’ legacies aren’t even measured by postseason success so much as their statistical performance over time; lots of the “greatest players of all time” never won a World Series. But while Ohtani is the bringer of his own legacy, he may also be the symbol of baseball’s greatest impending conflict. Only time will tell how big this will all get.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 (edited) Since 1980 NBA has had 15 different franchises win the championship out of 30 and they have a salary cap The NFL with the most hardened cap over the same period has had 17 of 32 win the Super Bowl. MLB with no cap has had 23 different franchises win since 1980. The richest team in baseball has not won since 2009, the Mets with NY revenues have not won since 1986, the Dodgers themselves have only won twice (maybe a 3rd this year). Chicago in the 3rd largest revenue market have had just 1 for each of their teams. Kansas City has 2. Same with the Marlins. https://www.yahoo.com/sports/article/haters-whine-dodgers-payroll-la-100814444.html Edited October 24 by caulfield12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falstaff Posted October 24 Share Posted October 24 (edited) If there is a strike in 2027 it will be interesting to see how many current players are richer than the net worth of the previous owners at the time of the last strike. The owners of the 28 MLB teams involved in the 1994–95 strike included: Acting Commissioner: Bud Selig (also owner of the Milwaukee Brewers) Atlanta Braves: Ted Turner Baltimore Orioles: Peter Angelos (who famously refused to use replacement players during the strike) Boston Red Sox: John Harrington, representing the Yawkey Trust California Angels: Jackie Autry and Gene Autry Chicago Cubs: Tribune Company (owned the team) Chicago White Sox: Jerry Reinsdorf Cincinnati Reds: Marge Schott Cleveland Indians: Richard Jacobs Colorado Rockies: Jerry McMorris, Oren Benton, and Richard Monfort Detroit Tigers: Mike Ilitch Florida Marlins: Wayne Huizenga Houston Astros: Drayton McLane Kansas City Royals: Ewing Kauffman Los Angeles Dodgers: Peter O'Malley Milwaukee Brewers: Bud Selig Minnesota Twins: Carl Pohlad Montreal Expos: Claude Brochu New York Mets: Fred Wilpon and Nelson Doubleday Jr. New York Yankees: George Steinbrenner Oakland Athletics: Walter Haas Jr. Philadelphia Phillies: Bill Giles, owned by a group of partners Pittsburgh Pirates: Kevin McClatchy St. Louis Cardinals: Fred Kuhlmann, later sold to William DeWitt Jr. in 1995 San Diego Padres: Tom Werner San Francisco Giants: Peter Magowan Seattle Mariners: Jeff Smulyan Texas Rangers: George W. Bush and Edward W. Rose Toronto Blue Jays: Labatt Brewing Company, which was owned by a subsidiary of Interbrew in 1995 Edited October 24 by Falstaff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted October 25 Share Posted October 25 On 10/23/2025 at 4:13 PM, almagest said: It could've been a world series team, but it was just as likely Cleveland passed the Sox up and the Sox were the wild card and got bounced by the Yankees, who had a better record. The Expos were also likely a better team than the Sox, so even if they got to the WS it's not a given they win. The worst part of the 1994 strike was how bad the team was from 95-99. If they were competitive in those years I doubt we'd be as angry about 94. Wild Card didn't become a thing until after the strike. Sox and Cleveland weren't in the same division until the AL Cental arrived in 1995. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 25 Share Posted October 25 20 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: Wild Card didn't become a thing until after the strike. Sox and Cleveland weren't in the same division until the AL Cental arrived in 1995. The Indians were definitely the team on the rise at that point...those mid to late 90s offenses were like Murderer's Row, modern day version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted October 25 Share Posted October 25 29 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: Wild Card didn't become a thing until after the strike. Sox and Cleveland weren't in the same division until the AL Cental arrived in 1995. These were the final standings of the 1994 season. I think you're a year off. East Division Tm W L W-L% GB New York Yankees 70 43 .619 -- Baltimore Orioles 63 49 .563 6.5 Toronto Blue Jays 55 60 .478 16.0 Boston Red Sox 54 61 .470 17.0 Detroit Tigers 53 62 .461 18.0 Central Division Tm W L W-L% GB Chicago White Sox 67 46 .593 -- Cleveland Indians 66 47 .584 1.0 Kansas City Royals 64 51 .557 4.0 Minnesota Twins 53 60 .469 14.0 Milwaukee Brewers 53 62 .461 15.0 West Division Tm W L W-L% GB Texas Rangers 52 62 .456 -- Oakland Athletics 51 63 .447 1.0 Seattle Mariners 49 63 .438 2.0 California Angels 47 68 .409 5.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted October 26 Share Posted October 26 23 hours ago, Tnetennba said: Wild Card didn't become a thing until after the strike. Sox and Cleveland weren't in the same division until the AL Cental arrived in 1995. No, it was instituted in 1994. Just didn't have one for obvious reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrockway Posted October 26 Share Posted October 26 On 10/24/2025 at 7:50 AM, caulfield12 said: Since 1980 NBA has had 15 different franchises win the championship out of 30 and they have a salary cap The NFL with the most hardened cap over the same period has had 17 of 32 win the Super Bowl. MLB with no cap has had 23 different franchises win since 1980. The richest team in baseball has not won since 2009, the Mets with NY revenues have not won since 1986, the Dodgers themselves have only won twice (maybe a 3rd this year). Chicago in the 3rd largest revenue market have had just 1 for each of their teams. Kansas City has 2. Same with the Marlins. https://www.yahoo.com/sports/article/haters-whine-dodgers-payroll-la-100814444.html Sure, but baseball is not like football or basketball in this regard. In the latter two sports, the better team usually wins and this is reflected in the win percentages. The White Sox's "worst team of all time" has a winning percentage similar to 4 or 5 NBA teams every year. There are multiple NBA teams every year that would win 130+ games if they played 162 games a season. MLB playoffs are a crapshoot, bad teams can beat good teams in a 5 or even 7 game series, hence teams can 'sneak' into the World Series. I mean, our Sox swept the 92 win Guardians in 2024, that doesn't make them a good team. Financial parity is objectively good for any league. Take it out of the owners' hands. NBA and NFL players and owners make money hand over fist too with a salary cap. They also have a salary floor. Leveling out spending is simply good for the quality of the product. If the NFL was like MLB, teams like Buffalo, Kansas City, Green Bay (especially) would not be any good at all because they'd have no money to spend relative to the J-E-T-E Jets, Giants, Chargers, etc. In the NBA, Oklahoma City and Indiana are not playing each other in the NBA Finals under the MLB financial system. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 26 Share Posted October 26 1 hour ago, nrockway said: Sure, but baseball is not like football or basketball in this regard. In the latter two sports, the better team usually wins and this is reflected in the win percentages. The White Sox's "worst team of all time" has a winning percentage similar to 4 or 5 NBA teams every year. There are multiple NBA teams every year that would win 130+ games if they played 162 games a season. MLB playoffs are a crapshoot, bad teams can beat good teams in a 5 or even 7 game series, hence teams can 'sneak' into the World Series. I mean, our Sox swept the 92 win Guardians in 2024, that doesn't make them a good team. Financial parity is objectively good for any league. Take it out of the owners' hands. NBA and NFL players and owners make money hand over fist too with a salary cap. They also have a salary floor. Leveling out spending is simply good for the quality of the product. If the NFL was like MLB, teams like Buffalo, Kansas City, Green Bay (especially) would not be any good at all because they'd have no money to spend relative to the J-E-T-E Jets, Giants, Chargers, etc. In the NBA, Oklahoma City and Indiana are not playing each other in the NBA Finals under the MLB financial system. Aren't MLB and the NBA pretty close to par on yearly total revenues, with the NBA holding the tv rights advantage but MLB international tv making huge progress in Canada and Japan with the Blue Jays and Dodgers? And now the NBA has an even bigger issue with the FBI gambling investigation. Not to mention the growth trend in China has been blunted by political considerations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 27 Author Share Posted October 27 From The Athletic today, I think this story has been unlocked: “There’s opportunities for all 30 teams to be excellent. Some are investing in that excellence, some aren’t. “The issues that we see in the system we know can be addressed without (a salary cap).”-Tony Clark MLBPA Director https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6748385/2025/10/24/dodgers-world-series-spending-salary-cap-tony-clark/?source=athletic_thewindup_newsletter&campaign=15401221&userId=602876 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.