Non-White Sox Off-Season Hot Stove

[almagest]

33 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

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.

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.

Edited 16 hours ago by almagest

[chitown87]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

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

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. 

[Chicago White Sox]

20 minutes ago, almagest said:

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.

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.

[Chicago White Sox]

27 minutes ago, chitown87 said:

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. 

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.

[almagest]

10 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

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.

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.

[Chicago White Sox]

12 minutes ago, almagest said:

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 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.

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, chitown87 said:

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. 

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

[chitown87]

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

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

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.

[southsider2k5]

6 minutes ago, chitown87 said:

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.

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

[almagest]

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

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.

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.

[chitown87]

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

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

Is that true though? The padres are nearly $150 million behind the dodgers in 2026 payroll according to what I found via spotrac, and I’m not even sure if that includes all of LA’s deferrals. 
 

The gap between SD and LA is bigger than the gap between SD and nearly every single other team in baseball. 

[Timmy U]

Super teams get built with Max contracts and salary caps too. Competitors want to play for winners. A salary floor probably fixes nothing.

[Chicago White Sox]

5 minutes ago, Timmy U said:

Super teams get built with Max contracts and salary caps too. Competitors want to play for winners. A salary floor probably fixes nothing.

Why would the NFL model not work for the MLB?

[Timmy U]

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Why would the NFL model not work for the MLB?

It might if you get to 100% revenue sharing, which might lead to a 3 year lockout. Also, draft picks transform franchises much more quickly and completely than they do in baseball, so free agents in baseball are probably more valuable than they are in football.

[southsider2k5]

53 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Why would the NFL model not work for the MLB?

Because their revenue model is completely different. 

[southsider2k5]

10 hours ago, chitown87 said:

Is that true though? The padres are nearly $150 million behind the dodgers in 2026 payroll according to what I found via spotrac, and I’m not even sure if that includes all of LA’s deferrals. 
 

The gap between SD and LA is bigger than the gap between SD and nearly every single other team in baseball. 

In 2023, the Padres led the Dodgers.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

58 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Why would the NFL model not work for the MLB?

NBA probably more likely. Cap complex, floor assures veterans getting paid. Nba would actually work pretty well on mlb too because issue in basketball is 2 elite guys are enough to carry. Thats not the case in baseball.

[WhiteSox2023]

 

Edited 57 minutes ago by WhiteSox2023