almagest

You need a good head coach, good coaching staff and a franchise QB to keep sustained success in the NFL. It looks like we have them now. I like our odds to sustain continued success.

Yup. I misread the trade savings on OTC. I’d take a 4th rounder to save some $. Rome, Burden, Loveland and Kmet are enough, and I think Jahdae Walker is worth keeping around.

I’m not cutting him either, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Bears take a running back and cut him. Ben Johnson already did that in Detroit.

They can probably push some of Sweat's money next year into 2027. He'll likely still be here and still be reasonably effective. They can do the same with DJ but I don't know if I want an older WR to be a big cap hit if cut. I'd probably just eat one more year with him and then move on. They could push some of Odeyingbo's cap hit to 2027, but who knows if he recovers from his injury, so he's probably best left alone and cut in 2027. They could push some of JJ's money into 2027 too. Cutting Edmunds saves $15 million, so you'll likely see that. Cutting Swift saves $7.5 million - if they draft an RB this might happen.

Yeah, I was misreading that. He's here for another year.

I like DJ. He dogs it on way too many plays though. It's been an issue all year and it bit him big time in a huge moment tonight. I'm guessing he's traded this offseason. Probably won't get a ton for him but they'd open up $20 million for other areas.

CJ Stroud said "intercept my beer"

Until they actually sign him I'm not going to worry about this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes. Local revenue for revenue sharing includes ticket sales.

No, they didn't.

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.

Jags are my second team now, though it's more of a passive following. Jags defense really blew this one - guy wide open 30+ yards down the field set up a touchdown. Can't give up those plays when you have a late lead. Very Packers-esque.

What else we gonna do? Bears won already.

I'm not as high on Quero as some due to his lack of power and ehh defense so far. I'd look to maximize his value in a trade. Shaw was hyped, but he had a decent first year and there are apparently some makeup concerns, plus they have nowhere to play him right now unless he can play RF, where his current hitting would hurt his productivity unless he really turns it on. There's a lot of factors you can argue will reduce Shaw's value in a trade, though it's still probably not likely they move him for Quero + some low level guy like I'd want. I'd still be calling the Cubs. I'm not trading any pitching right now. They need too much of it.

No, but the Cubs don't have enough money for both, and they certainly could have signed Tucker with the money they have. Bregman is a damn good player but he's already 32. He's been a 3.5-4.4 fWAR guy for the last three years, and I don't expect that to go up at 32. He's probably still a 4ish WAR guy next year but he's in his decline. Tucker is 4 years younger and has been a consistent 4.5 fWAR guy. You're likely going to get that production for a few years longer than Bregman, and RF is a bigger hole than 3B was for them. They also spent a lot of resources to only get Tucker for one season.

I get it, but you'd end up with Shaw as your 3B/2B with Vargas at 3B occasionally (or you trade him for something). Shaw has a shot to be a good player, and they could always look to trade him or trade some of their infield prospects down the road for help in other areas. I try to never assume a team has "too much" of anything.

Shaw for Quero sounds good to me

That trade was so dumb.

It would have to be