Non-White Sox Off-Season Hot Stove

[southsider2k5]

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.

[Texsox]

I am certain there are some shareholder owners that invest to lose money and win, but I'm guessing the majority are in it to make a profit. Same as every other business owner. 

[Squirmin' for Yermin]

2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

If it’s NorthsideBob, we have confirmed he’s not all that he claims to be.

Yes, Fathom has sources

[fathom]

12 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

Yes, Fathom has sources

This one is going mostly off of what others in the know have said, nothing I’ve heard personally 

[kitekrazy]

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

A cap is great for 100% of the owners and that's as far as it goes in my opinion.

Which is why the union will never agree to one and wait for the owners to fold their tents as historically they have every time. 

allows cheap owners to stay cheap owners

[Chicago White Sox]

34 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

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.

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!

[Chicago White Sox]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

They aren't though.  Take a lot at what the Yankees make on paper.

I don’t have access their financials…not sure how you do either.

[southsider2k5]

13 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I don’t have access their financials…not sure how you do either.

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

[ptatc]

54 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

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.

Or some just dont understand or purposely ignore the reality of the revenues of the teams.

[Chicago White Sox]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

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

Because I do know the value of their regional TV deal and I can see their attendance figures and average ticket prices.  I also know they have made a fuckton through Japan.  The Forbes estimates seem to back all this up (beyond not accounting for Ohtani benefit).

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

Or some just dont understand or purposely ignore the reality of the revenues of the teams.

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.

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Because I do know the value of their regional TV deal and I can see their attendance figures and average ticket prices.  I also know they have made a fuckton through Japan.  The Forbes estimates seem to back all this up (beyond not accounting for Ohtani benefit).

And we know those things for other teams too.

[champagne030]

3 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

They are far and away the most loaded.  They make $330M a year on their regional TV deal alone.  That alone is more than what Forbes estimates the Pirates made in total revenue in 2024.

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.

[almagest]

4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Because I do know the value of their regional TV deal and I can see their attendance figures and average ticket prices.  I also know they have made a fuckton through Japan.  The Forbes estimates seem to back all this up (beyond not accounting for Ohtani benefit).

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.

 

[champagne030]

32 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Because I do know the value of their regional TV deal and I can see their attendance figures and average ticket prices.  I also know they have made a fuckton through Japan.  The Forbes estimates seem to back all this up (beyond not accounting for Ohtani benefit).

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

[WestEddy]

Free-agent catcher Victor Caratini and the Minnesota Twins are in agreement on a two-year contract, according to sources familiar with the deal.

— Robert Murray (@ByRobertMurray) January 16, 2026

[Chicago White Sox]

4 minutes ago, champagne030 said:

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.

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.

[Chicago White Sox]

25 minutes ago, champagne030 said:

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

No

[Chicago White Sox]

27 minutes ago, almagest said:

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.

 

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

[almagest]

5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

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

No, they didn't. 

[almagest]

16 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

No

Yes. Local revenue for revenue sharing includes ticket sales.

[Chicago White Sox]

7 minutes ago, almagest said:

Yes. Local revenue for revenue sharing includes ticket sales.

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

[almagest]

3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

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

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.

[Chicago White Sox]

2 minutes ago, almagest said:

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.

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.