All Activity

Feels like you’re being a bit obtuse here. The core argument here isn’t that the Yankees can’t compete with the Dodgers, the argument is that the Guardians, Pirates, White Sox, etc can’t compete with the Dodgers.

But they are paying 48%. $200 million of their TV revenue deal is subject to the deal, as you mentioned, so $96 million there. They're also chipping in ~$160 million of their ticket revenue (looks like they pulled in ~$350 million in ticket sales). So $256 million (minus various costs that every team can take out) into the pool, and there's no way 3.3% of the pool is anywhere near that much. They're also sending $150 million+ this year in luxury tax, so the Dodgers are paying $350 billion+ to the other teams.

Yet CNBC reported the Yankees led MLB in revenue last season.

I live in the area and can report that Phillies fans are going to riot on Dombroski if the Phillies don’t make a move after losing Bo to the rival Mets. If they miss on Bellinger it would be nice if Dombroski feels the pressure and makes a move for Robert.

Sure, but that’s very different than saying they are giving up 48% of their TV deal. The reality is they have a massive edge over pretty much every single team.

I actually don’t disagree with you if it was reasonable, but zero chance the Sox consider a Robert extension and I doubt we’d like the terms Boras would ask for.

They are getting the same 3.3% everyone else is, but they're still paying out way more, even with some of the exemptions they have.

Just me and @Bob Sacamano trying to will it to fruition

Looking at this lineup written out, I’d honestly rather keep Robert and hopefully extend him and just sign a veteran masher to DH. It’s a lot easier to find a DH than a CF with Robert’s defensive abilities.

Yes, but my point is then are also getting 48% of everyone’s else’s revenue.

I love AJ Ewing, but not sure if they’d give him up. Where is the Clifford talk coming from? Is it a thing, or just speculation on the board?

Yes. Local revenue for revenue sharing includes ticket sales.

I’d love to have a DH (or 1B) that is actually a potential thumper. 29 HR’s as a 21 year old in the upper minors is impressive, even if there isn’t a lot more physical projection left and he comes with contact warts. I think it’s a prospect profile that is a bit undervalued by major league front offices in this day & age.

No, they didn't.

Didn’t the Blue Jays offer him significantly more than the Dodgers? What am I missing here.

No

Lol…what am I salty about? I like market size parity in sports, some of you guys like having super teams in large markets. Personally I think the NFL is hands down the best sports league and that’s because little shitholes like Green Bay & Buffalo can have consistently good teams. For some reason, certain posters here struggle to understand that market size generally leads to higher revenues and therefore higher spending and that alone does not mean those organizations have a greater desire to win. Very few owners (if any) routinely go into the red because they want to win more than anyone else. A handful of small market owners suck and live off their profits. The trust fund Ricketts do the same, but can still outspend small market teams by 2x to 3x. Some of the best run organizations like the Rays and Guardians simply can’t overcome this level of inequality on a consistent basis. Also, you are really missing the mark with this 48% revenue sharing figure. Each team contributes that much of their local revenue and then it’s redistributed equally across all 30 teams. So no, the Dodgers aren’t giving away 48% of their $330M deal, it would just a subset of that. And lucky for them, about $130M of this TV deal was exempt from revenue sharing last year it’s so significantly less. No matter how you want to slice or dice this, the Dodgers have a material economic advantage almost every other club. No other major sport is built this way and they are all the better for it from a parity perspective. I find it odd that so many Sox fans take this stance on this issue, but they are so salty about Jerry being cheap & risk adverse (rightfully so) that they ignore the broader inequality of the league.

As a flyer 1b, not horrible. He’s not an outfielder. That puts a lot of pressure on the bat. Best case scenario he’s lotta power, lotta walks, lotta Ks. So, not that many pathways to success for him.

The Dodgers also share 48% of their fanny’s in the seats revenue with everyone else.

Ohtani would get 100 mil per year now

Signing Ohtani was an investment for them that paid off big time. Any other team could have signed him for the same money or more, because they apparently would make it all back. But those teams didn't. The only one that even tried was Toronto. The Dodgers are also smart enough to use deferred money, which they put into escrow and can use for investments. They're making money off these contracts. They also haven't increased their payroll overall - $413.5 million in 2026 down from $416.7 million in 2025. MLB teams also contribute 48% of their TV revenue to a pool that is shared with each team (3.3% to each). The Dodgers might have the best TV deal, but they also pay the most back to the rest of MLB.

The Dodgers already share 48% of that annual $330M with all the other teams. How much more do you want them to share? Sure, they own a portion of Spectrum SportsNet LA and they don’t have to share any profits that company makes after that $330M outlay, but who knows what that is (feel free to scour the K’s of Charter Communications if you’re that bothered). BTW - The Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, ect. get to shield their network profits too and we don’t know how bad those clubs cook the books by having the team receive below market revenue and shield broadcaster profits from being shared. You should be thankful that we know the Dodgers got paid upfront and need to share that money. When that contract expires is when you will really be salty.

Want nothing to do with him anyways

I take it you aren’t a Ryan Clifford fan.