All Activity

3/4 is generous

He's not worth it when he only plays 3/4 of every season. If you can't stay on the field, your talent is useless.

The point is that baseball is a zero sum game when it comes to players. If more teams actually spent money on free agents then you wouldn’t have this problem. 20 of 30 teams have a payroll below $200 million. 7 below $100. There’s easily a billion dollars per year in potential salary pool to pry these guys away from LA. And if these other teams truly can’t afford to sign an Ohtani or Tucker away from LA, even with potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue sharing money per year, then they’re clearly terrible business people and should be forced to sell.

The Sox should be way closer to the Dodgers than the freaking Pirates and As. The freaking Padres can do it.

There are definitely some, for sure. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. But there are also many that simply can’t. Jerry could be the owner that we all wish, and he simply couldn’t do what the Dodgers are doing.

There are plenty of teams that can compete. That's ridiculous.

I took the 2024 revenue figures from Forbes for all teams but the Dodgers and backed out ~$100M for non-local revenue sources. That got me to about $300M on average. Unfortunately, I don’t have audited financials for each team, so this is about the best I could do. All that being said, I’m not sure what point your are arguing with. Could some of these clubs spend more money? Of course they could, cheap owners is a problem and they need to be addressed. But it doesn’t change the fact the Dodgers would still be able to outspend them by 2x to 2.5x and still not go into the red. You can try to argue this any way you want, but my point will continue to hold true.

I'll need a better source than "probably" on that number, because that would mean the teams around the median are pulling in ~$312 million local revenue (and getting it all back). If you add national broadcast revenue per team ($60 million in 2022, probably more now), competitive balance money (if they qualify), and whatever other revenue sources they have, you're looking at over $400 million in revenue. Easily enough to afford a payroll at the luxury tax if not higher.

I think their concern is more with his health. As a league average hitter with his defense and base-running value, he’s easily worth his $20M salary if he give you 140 starts in CF.

Yes exactly this. The Yankees are the one team close to them. There are a handful of other teams that are within the same stratospshere. And then 20+ teams that aren’t even remotely close.

That’s a lot of coin bro! But in all seriousness, saying they are paying $256M in core revenue sharing is not accurate because they are probably receiving $150M back from all the other teams. Even with that and their luxury tax payments, they can still rock a $400M payroll and rock a profit. You can argue this any way you want, but my point doesn’t change. The Dodgers have a huge financial edge over almost very club, even with them being burdened by revenue sharing.

Not wrong unfortunately. But if there was a scenario where they could keep him around long term at a reasonable rate and hit him towards the bottom part of the lineup, I would be happy. He’s a difference maker with the glove alone.

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.