5 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

Mets have infinite money and are just deciding to not spend it.

Orioles are absolutely refusing to spend on pitching.

48 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

A 20 to 30 year sample is completely irrelevant to the modern baseball environment.  It’s been proven there is a significant advantage in the MLB today being a large market team vs. a small market team in terms of making the post season.  There is a much lesser issue in the NBA and almost non existent in the NFL.  You’re confusing a much different issue which is teams with stars in the NBA and elite QBs in the NFL are more to make the playoffs, but that has very little to do with market size because all teams have the chance of acquiring and retaining them unlike in baseball.

As Kenny would say (and did): "It is what it is..."

The system isn't changing so I guess you either (not you directly but a franchise) adapt or dies.

Sox are getting new ownership sooner rather than later. That's all that matters to me.

No sense arguing about a system that isn't changing.

I applaud the teams that are willing to take chances, go out on a financial limb and do anything they can, regardless of market size to try to win.  

There is one way I'd come over to your side of the discussion though.

The owners open their books to an independent auditor or accountant someone well versed in these areas and let's see who is making money, how much, who really isn't, who is making a choice not to compete but is making money and so forth.

If it is anything like was shown during the labor impasse of 1994-95, when for the only time they did so, a number of teams are making a deliberate choice not to try to compete blaming their issues on outside factors. 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2025Dec 10 by Lip Man 1

4 hours ago, Quin said:

Yeah, a lot of us deal in facts and objective anecdotes like California teams, NYC teams and Toronto signing free agents to massive deals over places like Miami, Tampa Bay and Houston.

Rangers have doled out some deals, but nothing comparatively.

The fact is, your 170 M would go a long way further in most cities with teams.  I wasn't trying to make the point that no one likes New York.  Believe it or not, the standard of living on your combined incomes would be much higher in many places around the country.  Housing, groceries, taxes, gas etc, all count in the equation just like your "cultural capital" beliefs.

1 minute ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

Excellent…and it should be given our tiny payroll at the moment.

oops

Edited December 10, 2025Dec 10 by WestEddy

Just be happy with your new lefty ace and move on, Boston

55 minutes ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

If they can sign O'Hearn and trade for Meyers that will then allow them to move Robert and his salary which should open up more payroll for other FAs.

 

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

The fact is, your 170 M would go a long way further in most cities with teams.  I wasn't trying to make the point that no one likes New York.  Believe it or not, the standard of living on your combined incomes would be much higher in many places around the country.  Housing, groceries, taxes, gas etc, all count in the equation just like your "cultural capital" beliefs.

#1, you only play half your games in your home city, and you are taxed based on where you play games at.

#2, if you are making $170 million, and you need to worry about the difference in groceries and taxes between different cities, you have much bigger problems than the price of gasoline.

$170,000??? Or million?

1 hour ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

Just be happy with your new lefty ace and move on, Boston

The f***? Sure, trade him back, ask for like 50 million in cash and their top 3 prospects. Deal.

17 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

#1, you only play half your games in your home city, and you are taxed based on where you play games at.

#2, if you are making $170 million, and you need to worry about the difference in groceries and taxes between different cities, you have much bigger problems than the price of gasoline.

Again, you miss the point, but I don't care enough to debate with you.

11 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Again, you miss the point, but I don't care enough to debate with you.

No I got the point, you are just acting like this dudes are making a poverty wage.  There are plenty of reasons athletes don't want to play in a place like NYC, but the taxes on $170 million isn't it.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

No I got the point, you are just acting like this dudes are making a poverty wage.  There are plenty of reasons athletes don't want to play in a place like NYC, but the taxes on $170 million isn't it.

If you think people making big money don't care about taxes, you are more naive than I think.  When you get rich and move to New York, I'll be happy for you.  Warren Buffett lives in Omaha, Nebraska, even though he could live anywhere in the world.  Get it now.  Not every baseball player wants to live in NY or LA.  Some would prefer to play for the Chicago just because that's how they want to do it.  You're insisting that everyone wants to avoid the White Sox is just bull.

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

No I got the point, you are just acting like this dudes are making a poverty wage.  There are plenty of reasons athletes don't want to play in a place like NYC, but the taxes on $170 million isn't it.

I agree with you that the price of groceries doesn't come into play but I disagree on taxes.  The difference is millions of dollars.  These guys for sure have accountants and business managers crunching those numbers before signing.  

7 minutes ago, poppysox said:

If you think people making big money don't care about taxes, you are more naive than I think.  When you get rich and move to New York, I'll be happy for you.  Warren Buffett lives in Omaha, Nebraska, even though he could live anywhere in the world.  Get it now.  Not every baseball player wants to live in NY or LA.  Some would prefer to play for the Chicago just because that's how they want to do it.  You're insisting that everyone wants to avoid the White Sox is just bull.

https://www.thelist.com/463799/the-shocking-truth-about-warren-buffetts-marriage/

And his wife/ex preferred California for the majority of her lifetime.

There's a reason recruiting college athletes to Nebraska or Iowa is so much harder than the SEC ACC California etc.

Heck, even North/eastern students are flocking to the SEC schools just to have "experiences" like Bama Rush.

Edited December 10, 2025Dec 10 by caulfield12

5 minutes ago, poppysox said:

If you think people making big money don't care about taxes, you are more naive than I think.  When you get rich and move to New York, I'll be happy for you.  Warren Buffett lives in Omaha, Nebraska, even though he could live anywhere in the world.  Get it now.  Not every baseball player wants to live in NY or LA.  Some would prefer to play for the Chicago just because that's how they want to do it.  You're insisting that everyone wants to avoid the White Sox is just bull.

If this were even remotely true, the Yankees, Dodgers, and Mets wouldn't lead the world in payroll. If the Sox were willing to pay up, we'd be there too.  We see it on the Northside currently.  

If what you were saying was true, teams would be fighting to be in places like Tampa and Miami, and that isn't it 

Just now, caulfield12 said:

https://www.thelist.com/463799/the-shocking-truth-about-warren-buffetts-marriage/

And his wife/ex preferred California for the majority of her lifetime.

There's a reason recruiting college athletes to Nebraska or Iowa is so much harder than the SEC ACC California etc.

 

Didn't say it wasn't.  I'll bet I would like Warren more than his ex.  Just a guess.

1 minute ago, poppysox said:

Didn't say it wasn't.  I'll bet I would like Warren more than his ex.  Just a guess.

There are always going to be counter examples, like the Walton family in NW Arkansas/Ozarks.  Or Tyson Chicken conglomerate.

Heck, New Mexico/AZ always seems enticing at this time of year when winter starts to set in.

And Kansas City is one of the best cities in the country for living in the suburbs and raising a family affordably.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

If this were even remotely true, the Yankees, Dodgers, and Mets wouldn't lead the world in payroll. If the Sox were willing to pay up, we'd be there too.  We see it on the Northside currently.  

If what you were saying was true, teams would be fighting to be in places like Tampa and Miami, and that isn't it 

I'm rebutting the idea that all things being equal...EVERYONE...would pick those other places.  If two people made the same amount of money and could live in either Denver or New York,  don't tell me most people will pick New York.  It's pretty obvious that the Dodgers and Yankees have advantages based on their owners' willingness to spend.  Most athletes have large enough egos to think they can turn teams like ours into winners all by themselves.

3 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

There are always going to be counter examples, like the Walton family in NW Arkansas/Ozarks.  Or Tyson Chicken conglomerate.

Heck, New Mexico/AZ always seems enticing at this time of year when winter starts to set in.

And Kansas City is one of the best cities in the country for living in the suburbs and raising a family affordably.

Agreed!

13 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said:

I agree with you that the price of groceries doesn't come into play but I disagree on taxes.  The difference is millions of dollars.  These guys for sure have accountants and business managers crunching those numbers before signing.  

But at the same time, a major market like NYC or LA offers significantly more endorsement potential.

Just now, poppysox said:

I'm rebutting the idea that all things being equal...EVERYONE...would pick those other places.  If two people made the same amount of money and could live in either Denver or New York,  don't tell me most people will pick New York.  It's pretty obvious that the Dodgers and Yankees have advantages based on their owners' willingness to spend.  Most athletes have large enough egos to think they can turn teams like ours into winners all by themselves.

New York has 8.5 million people in it.  Denver has a touch over 700,000.  Despite taxes, the price of groceries, gas, rent and everything else I would say that a random person is about 12 times more likely to live in NYC vs Denver.  Don't believe me, look at their populations.

8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

New York has 8.5 million people in it.  Denver has a touch over 700,000.  Despite taxes, the price of groceries, gas, rent and everything else I would say that a random person is about 12 times more likely to live in NYC vs Denver.  Don't believe me, look at their populations.

You win...everyone wants to live in New York except me.

9 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

But at the same time, a major market like NYC or LA offers significantly more endorsement potential.

Agree.  I'm sure they look at all that stuff in addition to non-monetary stuff (Do I like being in this city? Is the team good? Do I have friends in the organization? Is it close to my family/Offseason home?)