2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Gotcha…so you dislike market size parity in sports.  Unfortunately for everyone else, both are huge problems.  And to say a team with significantly more revenue is trying more because they spend more is like saying I’m a better dad because I buy my kids more Christmas gifts than someone with less means.  It’s a ridiculous argument that ignores a key underlying element of the broader situation.

Good lord, really, you are comparing Billionaire team owners to Christmas presents?  It is a ridiculous argument for sure.  Team ownership consists of one job.  Winning.  Yes, I will judge a team as trying to win harder than it's peers as "better". Spending money isn't the only thing by far, but it sure freaking helps.

9 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

If it’s NorthsideBob, we have confirmed he’s not all that he claims to be.

We almost had Tatsuya Imai locked up for about 5 minutes on New Year’s Eve.  NorthsideBob has Getzy on speed dial.

NEVER FORGET.

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Good lord, really, you are comparing Billionaire team owners to Christmas presents?  It is a ridiculous argument for sure.  Team ownership consists of one job.  Winning.  Yes, I will judge a team as trying to win harder than it's peers as "better". Spending money isn't the only thing by far, but it sure freaking helps.

This is a good fan prospective. The owners view it differently. Sure they want to win but they dont want the team to lose money year after year either. The evil billionaires didn't get to be billionaires by losing money.

The value of a franchise significantly decreases if there is significant debt upon the sale.

17 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Good lord, really, you are comparing Billionaire team owners to Christmas presents?  It is a ridiculous argument for sure.  Team ownership consists of one job.  Winning.  Yes, I will judge a team as trying to win harder than it's peers as "better". Spending money isn't the only thing by far, but it sure freaking helps.

VERY WELL SAID!

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Good lord, really, you are comparing Billionaire team owners to Christmas presents?  It is a ridiculous argument for sure.  Team ownership consists of one job.  Winning.  Yes, I will judge a team as trying to win harder than its peers as "better". Spending money isn't the only thing by far, but it sure freaking helps.

Again, the Dodgers are spending more based on a larger revenue base than all of their peers. They aren’t absorbing massive losses each year in an attempt to win at all costs.  If you want to celebrate their amazing regional TV contract and attribute that to trying harder, by all means have at it. 

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

This is a good fan prospective. The owners view it differently. Sure they want to win but they dont want the team to lose money year after year either. The evil billionaires didn't get to be billionaires by losing money.

The value of a franchise significantly decreases if there is significant debt upon the sale.

And the easiest way to increase it is to win.  

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Again, the Dodgers are spending more based on a larger revenue base than all of their peers. They aren’t absorbing massive losses each year in an attempt to win at all costs.  If you want to celebrate their amazing regional TV contract and attribute that to trying harder, by all means have at it. 

Why are we acting like they are the only loaded franchise?  

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

This is a good fan prospective. The owners view it differently. Sure they want to win but they dont want the team to lose money year after year either. The evil billionaires didn't get to be billionaires by losing money.

The value of a franchise significantly decreases if there is significant debt upon the sale.

Fair but until unbiased individuals with economic expertise are allowed to examine MLB team books it is debatable if they are in fact, "losing money."

Just adding up the existing and new media rights deals MLB is taking in around two billion a season just from that part of the business. 

11 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

We almost had Tatsuya Imai locked up for about 5 minutes on New Year’s Eve.  NorthsideBob has Getzy on speed dial.

NEVER FORGET.

Oh I will never forgot.  Someone has to hold that dude accountable.  And don’t get me wrong, he obviously has some connection, but as with most “insiders” like him they love the attention and tend to overplay their hand.

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Again, the Dodgers are spending more based on a larger revenue base than all of their peers. They aren’t absorbing massive losses each year in an attempt to win at all costs.  If you want to celebrate their amazing regional TV contract and attribute that to trying harder, by all means have at it. 

There’s no communism in baseball!

It’s all capitalism, baby!

1 minute ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

There’s no communism in baseball!

It’s all capitalism, baby!

A league with an anti-trust exemption....

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

And the easiest way to increase it is to win.  

SS2K5 is giving Lip some massive lumber 🪵.

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Why are we acting like they are the only loaded franchise?  

They are far and away the most loaded.  They make $330M a year on their regional TV deal alone.  That alone is more than what Forbes estimates the Pirates made in total revenue in 2024.

4 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Fair but until unbiased individuals with economic expertise are allowed to examine MLB team books it is debatable if they are in fact, "losing money."

Just adding up the existing and new media rights deals MLB is taking in around two billion a season just from that part of the business. 

The teams have more costs than just salary. I think most agree with the reports that JR brought in Ishbia to pay debts and Ishbia turned down the twins deal due to the debts.

However, you are correct that we do not know for sure and never will unless there is a cap and/or floor for salary that requires it.

7 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

And the easiest way to increase it is to win.  

Not at all costs and going into debt. There is a tipping point where the costs will out weigh it. 

A cap is great for 95% of the players. A cap is great for 90% of fans. A cap is great for the sport. 

Problem is the 5% are leading the union, and the owners of the 10% had been loud and influential for a while but those tides have turned. Other owners are on board now. 

The players have undoubtedly lost out on money over the last decade because of the lack of revenue and profit sharing. Fans have lost out on interest. 

10 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

A cap is great for 95% of the players. A cap is great for 90% of fans. A cap is great for the sport. 

Problem is the 5% are leading the union, and the owners of the 10% had been loud and influential for a while but those tides have turned. Other owners are on board now. 

The players have undoubtedly lost out on money over the last decade because of the lack of revenue and profit sharing. Fans have lost out on interest. 

A cap and floor with revenue sharing is what this league needs.  I’m sure someone will say “the players will never agree to it”, but I feel like there are enough small market clubs who will take a hard stance this time and such a construct will help the broader player’s union if negotiated fairly.

22 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

A cap is great for 95% of the players. A cap is great for 90% of fans. A cap is great for the sport. 

Problem is the 5% are leading the union, and the owners of the 10% had been loud and influential for a while but those tides have turned. Other owners are on board now. 

The players have undoubtedly lost out on money over the last decade because of the lack of revenue and profit sharing. Fans have lost out on interest. 

Agreed

41 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

A cap and floor with revenue sharing is what this league needs.  I’m sure someone will say “the players will never agree to it”, but I feel like there are enough small market clubs who will take a hard stance this time and such a construct will help the broader player’s union if negotiated fairly.

Obviously we will see what happens. But historically the owners has collapsed every single time. The MLBPA is the strongest union in the world and I don't expect things to radically change this time around. 

And just as a reminder revenue sharing is already taking place in a number of areas among MLB. And of course said owners are using that money to help their bank accounts instead of improving on-field produce which is why that system isn't working either. 

Owners have been saying players make to much money literally since the 1880's. Even WITH a salary cap, that attitude won't change.

Just my opinion it's time for the White Sox to start acting like a big market team and look out for themselves if they really want to compete.

 

57 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

A cap is great for 95% of the players. A cap is great for 90% of fans. A cap is great for the sport. 

Problem is the 5% are leading the union, and the owners of the 10% had been loud and influential for a while but those tides have turned. Other owners are on board now. 

The players have undoubtedly lost out on money over the last decade because of the lack of revenue and profit sharing. Fans have lost out on interest. 

A cap is great for 100% of the owners and that's as far as it goes in my opinion.

Which is why the union will never agree to one and wait for the owners to fold their tents as historically they have every time. 

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

They are far and away the most loaded.  They make $330M a year on their regional TV deal alone.  That alone is more than what Forbes estimates the Pirates made in total revenue in 2024.

They aren't though.  Take a lot at what the Yankees make on paper.

19 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

A cap is great for 95% of the players. A cap is great for 90% of fans. A cap is great for the sport. 

Problem is the 5% are leading the union, and the owners of the 10% had been loud and influential for a while but those tides have turned. Other owners are on board now. 

The players have undoubtedly lost out on money over the last decade because of the lack of revenue and profit sharing. Fans have lost out on interest. 

The big problem with a cap is that MLB isn't like the other sport in that they have an anti-trust exemption, and the lions share of money comes from local deals, and not national ones.  You can't build a model that works the same way, because the revenues aren't the same way,  The problem isn't that the Dodgers are spending, its that so many teams who can, are not.

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The big problem with a cap is that MLB isn't like the other sport in that they have an anti-trust exemption, and the lions share of money comes from local deals, and national ones.  You can't build a model that works the same way, because the revenues aren't the same way,  The problem isn't that the Dodgers are spending, its that so many teams who can, are not.

Agreed. And people forget the Dodgers were almost destroyed by Frank McCourt's ownership.

Smart, savvy ownership along with a good front office and organization goes a long way towards leveling out the playing field and so many of these teams don't have that nor do they seem willing to invest in it. But they'll complain about inequalities.

Sorry that doesn't move me at all. If you can't compete or choose not to, simple solution, get out, sell and let someone else try. 

2 hours ago, ptatc said:

This is a good fan prospective. The owners view it differently. Sure they want to win but they dont want the team to lose money year after year either. The evil billionaires didn't get to be billionaires by losing money.

The value of a franchise significantly decreases if there is significant debt upon the sale.

Yeah, they count wins and losses differently. A city of drunken bro-dudes being able to walk around a street for an eveniong with throw-up on their shirts, high-fiving all the other drunks is just a by-product of the real game. 

7 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Yeah, they count wins and losses differently. A city of drunken bro-dudes being able to walk around a street for an eveniong with throw-up on their shirts, high-fiving all the other drunks is just a by-product of the real game. 

The Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field would like a word with you