Leaderboard

Good for the Dodgers, they care about winning unlike a bunch of other teams.

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.

Conforto is a washed player. He has been for past many years.......let Baldwin play instead of bringing in crap like conforto

This is an absolutely absurd post. The Dodgers have a regional TV deal that lets them outspend the competition and the dumb MLB has limited rules in place that prevent them from doing so. Glad you think it’s cool a sport has no market size parity.

More like Canfarto.

Cags will (probably) be fine, but the rush by some to crown him as the one that got away while calling Colson a bust is funny in retrospect

42 million a year for Bo Bichette? Yeah, we're getting a lockout.

3/4 is generous

In a world where Tucker gets $57 mil per year and Bichette is getting $40 is Robert even overpaid? $20 mil for a good defensive cf who might hit 20 dongs in 100 games is not bad. I’d rather keep him than watch Ryan Clifford in the of. But that’s me. I am on a quest to not lose 100 games again.

Then how the hell are you boldly proclaiming that the Dodgers are ahead of everyone?

Again, two things can’t both be a problem. Got to stick to one thing and blame that at all costs…it’s the American way!

Sox fans have major PTSD. Instead of being mad at our lazy owner for shutting the door on tons of different ways to try to win, we are pissed at the teams who are trying to win in every way possible. It's wild.

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.

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.

Look, if the choice is Conforto, or the Getz failed prospect special, I would take the failed 'spect over Conforto, every single itme.

Again, why is this an either/or thing? Both are fucking problems and should be addressed.

Everyone associated with the Dodgers organization including their fans and minor league teams, and Japan, which in turn is good for MLB. And theoretically it should make other teams also want to do and spend more to win, but greed is a powerful thing. I don't think the reality of Ohtani can be ignored here though. If there is no Ohtani I'd bet the Dodgers wouldn't be spending on players like they are. They get so much more money from him just being on the team. It's just like with Jordan and what he did with the Bulls. Made them a global sensation and that has lingered even to this day as they've been completely mediocre since his last days. The Bulls have money like they do today because of MJ (they just have a cheap ass owner that is also incompetent). The Dodgers have money because of Ohtani.

Hahahahaha

The teams in forever rebuilds have more problems than just money. Its ineptitude. Pittsburgh, Colorado, Angels. I think the Sox are finally making the right moves and are digging themselves out of the hole. When Jerry is no longer invested in the team and Ishbia comes on the scene, we will be in much better shape. The foundation is being laid for long term success. On the topic of viewership, while it has risen, the league does need to make it less difficult to watch. Honestly this extends beyond just baseball, but there's no reason MLB can't be the leaders in this. Make every team accessible to watch no matter where someone lives and put it on one source. Stop dicking around with all the different media companies. (I know, obviously that's where the money is at).

The Cubs dumped Tucker for an older and less expensive bat. The White Sox think spending $34 million plus a posting fee on a player is a big deal. The fact is that all of these teams could spend more if they wanted to but still aren’t. You should be more upset with those teams than the Dodgers who make their fans happy by spending big.

Viewership has actually increased in recent years, with 2025 showing significant gains. The sport is getting more popular. Plus, the Dodgers didn't exactly dominate last season when talking wins and losses. They also barely, by the skin of the skin of their teeth, won the WS. They are still beatable. Without Tucker last year, they won 93 games. That's not exactly earth shattering. It's not like Tucker is going to make them even a 100 win team. Let them spend if they have the money. There's enough good players to go around at the moment.

This thread need a ConfortNo

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'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.

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.

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

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

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.

Heyman says that Cardinals and Mets are also interested in Griffin Canning. Paywall. No link. New York Post. I'd imagine the Sox would look elsewhere. They don't seem to like to be in a crowd when they're pursuing a player.

Or don't understand the revenue's of a team is a direct result of the investment made into the team, just like any other business.

Don’t get too excited! The only reason Meidroth is not in the OD lineup is because I expect him to be injured. He’ll be right back at 2B and lead off when healthy!

Hey, let's make it about that: https://www.mlb.com/news/top-100-mlb-players-for-2026-by-mlb-network Colson #88. I choose to believe this is as low as he'll be on this list for several years. Obviously no other Sox crack the list.

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.

looooooooooo 🤮 🤮 🤮 ooooool

My guess is they haven’t offered a prospect like Clifford just yet. That being said, they desperately need a CF and there is no one out there of Robert’s caliber. And if we’re being honest, Clifford is a good not great prospect. Enough warts there that he’s theoretically attainable for Robert. The only challenge is the Mets don’t really need money, so absorbing part of his contract probably doesn’t help.

Yeah. He’s here now but a 2-year deal isn’t “long-term.”

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.

At this point, I'm ready to roll the dice on a platoon of Pereira and Kelenic/Peters/Harris/Conner/Nishida

Pretty sure fathom has sources

Why do they want infielders though?

What you’re ignoring is the fact that the Dodgers have essentially bought themselves a guaranteed playoff spot every year. No go look at the bottom 10 clubs and see how frequently they make the playoffs. When you’re rocking a sub $100M payroll, your margin for error for development, health, & even luck is basically zero. The Dodgers don’t deal with these same challenges the can afford insane levels of depth. They can also build a team that is optimized to win World Series and reduce a lot of the volatility that is the MLB playoffs. Let me frame this another way…why is is this a good thing? Who is benefiting from the Dodgers outspending many teams but a 4x to 5x ratio?