Transmogrified Tiger

not to mention that they have a tv station that they cant afford to completely cripple with a long tank + rebuild, unsustainably high (much higher than what they were in 2011-14 when they also had the good will of people buying in to the theo rebuild) ticket prices that nobody will pay to watch a rebuild (and a season ticket base that isn't just going to stick around in hopes of getting to see that first world series like they might have in the past), and just flat out the fact that the landscape has changed - hoyer himself has said the sign and flip stuff they did back then would not fly today. all that said, horsefeathers ptr and his stupid horsefeathering letter. I believe the majority of the TV revenue comes from people who pay for it as part of their normal cable package, which was always the plan. Seeing rumors online that season ticket prices will drop a very small amount, which, combined with the 6 digit waiting list and your standard stream of Chicago tourists, will be more than enough to keep ticket revenue high. I can see there being some pressure just in terms of keeping the surrounding area lively, but it's pretty much a locked in cash cow at this point. Attendance was down to just under 2 million this year, even in the valleys of 2012-2014 it didn't dip below 2.6 million. Yes, Covid was a big factor, but this is also still stated attendance v. actual, which matters a lot more when the cash cow relies on the gameday experience with all the stuff they just finished building in and around the park. There was also this bit from Mooney recently that indicates it's ownership that won't have the patience for a 2012-2014 level rebuild I don't think we can be all that certain what 'trying' looks like in terms of payroll, but increasingly it seems like the more concerning estimates of 125 million or so are not going to be accurate. Whether that's 150 million or 175 million, and what the FO's appetite is to use that flexibility on longer term contracts/QO recipients remains to be seen.

I think this is a bit overblown, partially because of what you say in your subsequent post about the nature of the international game. If you look at the teams we aspire the US to match the level of dominance doesn't look terribly different. You used Italy in an example, they're in a qualifying group with FIFA ranks 15, 47, 70, and 137(for comparison, the Ocho ranges from 9 to 68). They've scored more than 2 goals once, in the home game against #137. France has 3 draws and 8 goals in 6 games in a group with 27, 55, 57, and 120. I want the US to be more goal dangerous and there's definite room for improvement(from Berhalter and the players), but CONCACAF is improving too and international soccer is often a slog, doubly so in these condensed windows that forces a choice between fatigue or losing cohesion. Mopping the floor with non-Mexico opponents shouldn't be a baseline expectation.

I'd be more interested in Goodrum if I was confident he was a plus defensive SS, or if his platoon split was heavy on the left side instead of the right. As it stands even the good version of him seems redundant with the infielders already on the roster.

Yeah I don't begrudge anyone being wary about it, especially overall. I think where I try to point out the bright side is when we talk about what a good v. bad window looks like. It seems like people at times can miss that there's a gap between what a reasonable expectation is given the opponents, and what would truly be damaging to their qualification chances.

I'm usually going for what's required for 3rd place. In the Hex, it took an average of 15.2 points for third and 13.2 for 4th, which is 21.2 and 18.4 for the 14 game round. I was kind of figuring it might be on the higher end of those since we're bringing in two worse teams into the qualifying that the better teams would theoretically be able to pick up more points against. UMFan also posted the chart, don't know how legitimate it is, a couple days back that showed our chances for auto qualification based on point totals. 23 points was a 95.6% chance, 22 points was 82.2%, 21 points was 61.4% and 20 was 53.5%. So I've kind of stuck with the 22-23 point range as where we need to get to so we're probably good for 3rd. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was talking about aiming for 3rd place too. Yes, extrapolating the hex will get you to 21 and there was that table that said 23 was needed for absolute confidence, but thus far it looks like that was underselling the lack of stratification in the central american teams that are keeping any of them from pushing that high. Panama is the only central american team above a point per game and they've had The US, Mexico, and Costa Rica all at home, while getting smacked @Canada and being the only team to lose @El Salvador. This can go the other way, for example if Jamaica can get their full team in future windows they've already gone to Mexico, US, and Costa Rica, but the US also has a 6 point head start there. All that said, another caveat would be that the US hasn't played any of their 3 most difficult games(home/away v. Mexico and @Canada) and if you like Costa Rica you can extend that to 4 with that away game too. However, two of those 4 are in the last window and if they take care of business in the next couple windows those are likely to be low stakes.

4th place is currently trending at just under 19 points right now, and the only team at that level is Panama, who still has to go to Mexico and the US. One of the central american teams could get hot, but its looking like if the US can manage 4+ points next window then they’ve functionally qualified. Once you're to the point where you can stay above the line with 1 ppg then you need a miracle to miss.

I don’t have issues with his qualifications and he seems as good a bet as any candidate to help the org, but it’s a real missed opportunity to break up the homogeneity of the FO’s decision makers. Especially since the Epstein executive tree has not covered itself in glory on or off the field recently.

I don't think they'll have the Cubs specific decline, only that the most likely outcome is this is their best team of the competitive window. They may not have the specific components that led to the Cubs decline, but regression to the mean comes for everyone. Will they still be division favorites? Probably next year at the least. But it only takes one pop up team to knock you to the wild card if you aren't in that 'best 2-3 teams in MLB' tier(and sometimes even then like this year's dodgers), and even if they don't they still have to beat the best in the AL to win a title in all likelihood. If this sounds bearish it doesn't mean to be, I like the White Sox roster for the most part and think Hahn is capable of supplementing it further, but there's an actuarial reality, especially when it comes to pitching, and I think it's fair to question if they can replicate that for the foreseeable future. But doesn't the 'actuarial reality' come for every team? By that logic, won't the Astros be worse next year too? I get that pitching is more susceptible than offense, but this was still a 6th in offensive fWAR, 3rd in wRC team with every major piece coming back next year. I don't see why regression is a White Sox unique concept, and so if you set that aside, the core they have (Robert, Moncada, Eloy, Anderson, Vaughn, Sheets, Gio, Cease, Kopech, plus the guys in their 30s), don't need to improve much on 6th best offensive team, best pitching (by fWAR) team to have as good a chance as anyone the next couple years. Yes, but they needed a 2016 Cubs level of good outcomes to be the 7th best team in MLB(beating 9th by a game), and they don't have the financial resources of many of those teams to stay there nor the farm system(Fangraphs has the Sox system as 30th by a non-trivial margin) to keep up on that axis. And again, the implication isn't that the Sox are doomed, I like lots of their players and I'd be surprised if they don't have multiple other playoff appearances in the next 3-5 years. But in terms of the probability of winning a championship, I don't think those teams will be as strong as this year, similar to how the 2017-2020 Cubs turned out to not be as strong as 2016.

I don't think you can necessarily take the Cubs 2016-2020 gradual decline and slap it onto the Sox though. They don't have a Heyward, they hopefully don't have a Russell, and they have 2 top 20 fWAR pitchers, ages 27 and 26, locked up for 2 and 4 years, even ignoring Lynn (and to a lesser extent Kopech). Why can't they be the 2017 (or 2015) Astros? Or even the 2015 Cubs? And I guess it depends on how much weight you place on being among the best 2-3 teams in baseball, vs just being in a position to take as many shots at the post-wild card playoffs as possible. I think they're in a good spot to carry their division for a few years. I don't think they'll have the Cubs specific decline, only that the most likely outcome is this is their best team of the competitive window. They may not have the specific components that led to the Cubs decline, but regression to the mean comes for everyone. Will they still be division favorites? Probably next year at the least. But it only takes one pop up team to knock you to the wild card if you aren't in that 'best 2-3 teams in MLB' tier(and sometimes even then like this year's dodgers), and even if they don't they still have to beat the best in the AL to win a title in all likelihood. If this sounds bearish it doesn't mean to be, I like the White Sox roster for the most part and think Hahn is capable of supplementing it further, but there's an actuarial reality, especially when it comes to pitching, and I think it's fair to question if they can replicate that for the foreseeable future.

I think the way to say this is that this was the Sox equivalent of 2016 and they bowed out quickly in the DS instead of winning it all. They'll still have the talent and resources to be competitive, and your best teams aren't always the ones that win it all, but they won't have a better shot again unless something happens that is not the most likely outcome(Vaughn or Eloy become Edgar Martinez, they find a new Lynn, etc).

3 games in a week means you need to rotate, and unlike the last window its more important to win the 3rd game than the 2nd. You can quibble with a couple of the choices but from my view it’s on the margins given that theyre clearly saving their bullets, and this team is good enough to beat this panama group.

Since it’s nigh impossible to know exactly how good someone would be in the role, my enthusiasm is mainly around how much the hire would diversify the backgrounds in the front office. Harris and Rodriguez are clear winners on that axis, Zoll is pretty meh, and Hawkins’ “Vanderbilt to intern and on up” path would be the worst of the 4.

Excited for the MMA midfield, bummed I’m gonna miss most of it playing softball

..it is? teams that paid money for proven talent last winter seemed to somehow do pretty well generally, in spite of their lack of restraint [attachment=0]Capture.PNG[/attachment] As with the previous comparison, the pandemic offseason makes this not a great illustration, and counting dollars committed instead of say AAV added isn't ideal, but yes. The Jays got phenomenal value for their spending, and Realmuto was great for the Phillies, but for others it was far more mixed. The Yankees got great value for a half season from Kluber but most of their spend is to have LeMahieu be the 17th best 2B. Similarly, the Braves got great value for Morton but most of those dollars were for Ozuna to be below replacement until he wasn't allowed to play due to legal trouble. Most of the Mets spend was to get less than 2 wins combined from McCann and Walker. And maybe most importantly, if the Cubs even have a 125 million payroll(a 20 million drop from this year!), they'd be spending to the level that they'd almost certainly show fairly high on a list like this, so the extent of the opportunity being missed is really for the select few getting mega contracts. The Klubers and Mortons and Rays of the world didn't sign deals beyond the '22 Cubs price range.

Yes in a literal sense they have to 'win the offseason', Jed's point is that the teams that actually did win the offseason didn't do it by spending the most or having the most public praise for their acquisitions, which is 1) true and 2) useful for his purposes of setting expectations about the Cubs offseason regardless of if they up the payroll by 15 million or 150 million. Having a Dodgers/Yankees payroll would give them more margin for error, but ultimately if you don't trust the front office to build a winning roster with a sub-200 million payroll, then the headline is you don't think they're up for the job(not an indefensible position) since you can't spend your way past incompetence into repeat championship contention.

This past year's market is not going to be a great comparison point for obvious reasons, but looking at the ESPN FA tracker, only 10 SP got more AAV in free agency than Arrieta. 2 were very good in a full season(Morton, Ray), 2 were very good in half a season(Bauer, Kluber), and of the remaining 6 the only one who exceeded 1 fWAR was Mike Minor and his 5.05 ERA. Trevor Williams had 1.2 fWAR in 91 IP. This is the point, the unspoken inference to 'if only they weren't so cheap' is that they'd have done better if they had just spent more money, when the guys further up the ladder are a pretty big minefield themselves. This is tedious. The lesson is not 'nothing matters, don't try', it's that what matters is the team gets good players, whether they spend 1 dollar or 100 million to get them. Spending more on an individual player has never been less correlated with that player's success. They need to use their financial muscle if they're going to get better quickly, but you need to be able to separate distaste for the system ownership is responsible for from the best decisions to have a winning team within that system too.

ah, numbers, the letters of math

US Soccer's website says tonight is ESPN2, Panama is Paramount+, and Costa Rica is back to ESPN2.

This past year's market is not going to be a great comparison point for obvious reasons, but looking at the ESPN FA tracker, only 10 SP got more AAV in free agency than Arrieta. 2 were very good in a full season(Morton, Ray), 2 were very good in half a season(Bauer, Kluber), and of the remaining 6 the only one who exceeded 1 fWAR was Mike Minor and his 5.05 ERA. Trevor Williams had 1.2 fWAR in 91 IP. This is the point, the unspoken inference to 'if only they weren't so cheap' is that they'd have done better if they had just spent more money, when the guys further up the ladder are a pretty big minefield themselves.

Yes, and I would guess that goes doubly so heading into an offseason where they don't really know what the rules will be. The other part of this that is the main tension of the offseason is that the Giants and Rays comment isn't wrong! Free agency has never been a worse deal(especially below the superstar/mega-contract line) and it's never been easier to DIY your way to good players(note: not "it's easy", but "it's never been less difficult"). So if the new CBA's environment is similar to what is in place now, the path to getting better(especially for multiple seasons) does not really run through free agency. That's a problem! One because the owners made it this way and it leads to all sorts of perverse incentives. The problem more specific to the Cubs is that even if they aren't running a 170 million payroll, money is the one thing they have a surplus of to make the team better. You can take on contracts in trades but at a certain point you have to deal with that misalignment. If the below the surface point is "free agency is a bad deal and we don't think dollars spent will correlate with how much we can improve the team", I think that's true(again, given the current CBA) and mostly fine. If the below the surface point is "free agency is an extra bad deal when you have no plans to compete before 2025 so you might as well not spend and hunt for long term diamonds", that's where I'm gonna get aggravated.

I think you leave one spot for those three to fight over, and fill the other two with vets. I hate what seems to be already crystalizing as the conventional wisdom that we need 3 vet SPs. I don't want to hear any more whining about not developing starters if we're not going to give any starters an actual opportunity to develop. Alzolay's dong problem is probably a fluke, while Steel (prior to yesterday) and Thompson haven't really looked like viable starters. I think you go into ST expecting Adbert in the rotation but keep an open mind. Steele and Thompson are both already 26, Thompson will be 27 by opening day next year. Neither of them were top 100 draft picks, or have really shown anything in the upper levels of the minors that would lead you to believe they can turn into quality starters. Maybe if they had a full year last year to show something, but they didn't. Alzolay will also be 27 by opening day next year, has shown some success, but still holds a FIP and xFIP above 4 as a starter (FIP above 5) and continues to not be able to get lefties out. Finding three MLB quality starters to sign with us is pretty difficult, so I'm sure someone is going to get a chance, but these are not guys to build around. I don't disagree that the odds are not in the favor of any of those guys individually, but at the same time I think they're fine enough candidates. Yes, Thompson and Steele weren't Top 100 picks, but Thompson was a slot pick at 105, and Steele was a 5th rounder who got a 2nd round-caliber bonus. They aren't absent of pedigree. And yes, all 3 are not young or what we think of when we think of traditional prospects breaking into an MLB rotation, but the improvements to player development across the league means none of them are a long shot based on age alone. They aren't a Schwindel/Ortega type either where you have to be very worried about imminent decline eating at their development in the next few years. If the roster and rotation were in a different place I might be more aggressive coming over the top of them, but given the current state of things I think those 3 are a perfectly viable approach to the 5th SP spot.

The Paul Riley story was about as much terrible as I could stand this morning, but the hits are gonna keep coming in the soccer world today.

If there's enough space(IIRC there's not a ton but it's been 6 years since I lived in that area), you'd still need to get some more events/tenants to justify that, right? 10 Bears games a year wouldn't sustain those businesses I would think, and Arlington Park was a higher foot traffic baseline than an empty lot. the Arlignton site is 326 acres, there is more then enough room. for comparison, here is Foxborough including the shopping areas (outlined in red) over the Arlington site (unofficial 1000' google meter comparison): laptop resolution check Oh if there's enough space in the existing Arlington Park footprint then never mind me, I was mostly thinking of the surrounding streets.

If there's enough space(IIRC there's not a ton but it's been 6 years since I lived in that area), you'd still need to get some more events/tenants to justify that, right? 10 Bears games a year wouldn't sustain those businesses I would think, and Arlington Park was a higher foot traffic baseline than an empty lot.

So nice to have the Champions League back so we can watch the best teams in the world and also their opponents, Real Madrid.