Dodgers Are Ruining Baseball

[illinoisredsox]

3 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

 

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, notin said:

… and we can have more 2024 postseasons where teams get in because they play the White Sox 30-40 times…

... or we can have the NL West teams get a bunch more revenue than other divisions simply by proximity to LAD. 

Similarly, the AL East teams would see a lot of revenue from playing the Sox and Yankees. Teams in middle America would continue to not really get much. 

[notin]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

... or we can have the NL West teams get a bunch more revenue than other divisions simply by proximity to LAD. 

Similarly, the AL East teams would see a lot of revenue from playing the Sox and Yankees. Teams in middle America would continue to not really get much. 

Those teams are already playing LA and San Diego more times and competing for wild card spots with teams playing the Pirates and Reds 26 times…

[mvp 78]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

Those teams are already playing LA and San Diego more times and competing for wild card spots with teams playing the Pirates and Reds 26 times…

I'm saying, your model gives even more of an unfair advantage to the teams in LAD's division.

[notin]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

I'm saying, your model gives even more of an unfair advantage to the teams in LAD's division.

Or does it compensate for weaker schedules thr Midwest teams get?

[mvp 78]

Just now, notin said:

Or does it compensate for weaker schedules thr Midwest teams get?

That was remediated somewhat when they adjusted the schedules a few years ago.

[notin]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

That was remediated somewhat when they adjusted the schedules a few years ago.

True, but the AL central out 3 teams in the postseason in 2024 and had a fourth in the cusp.  Were those teams really among the best in the AL?

 

[Kimmi]

15 hours ago, Tedballgame said:

I started this thread after the WS and today just proves my point. The Dodgers have an unlimited budget and can afford to OVERPAY for whoever they want and this is an overpay. The guy hit .218 in  July and .244 in August. Got benched for a while. 60 million a year? Give me a break! Ted Williams would be worth 150 million a year by today's standards. 

This thread needs to be bumped often to remind baseball fans, near and far, just how much the Dodgers are ruining baseball.

I'll give the Dodgers credit though, the deal is only for 4 years.  🙄

[Old Red]

Just now, Kimmi said:

This thread needs to be bumped often to remind baseball fans, near and far, just how much the Dodgers are ruining baseball.

I'll give the Dodgers credit though, the deal is only for 4 years.  🙄

It may be for only two though with the opt-outs.

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

True, but the AL central out 3 teams in the postseason in 2024 and had a fourth in the cusp.  Were those teams really among the best in the AL?

 

2025: 1

2023: 1

2022: 1

2021: 1

Where's this secret advantage? 

[notin]

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

It may be for only two though with the opt-outs.

And in two years the Dodgers can sign him for a 4 year $500mill extension…

[mvp 78]

Just now, notin said:

And in two years the Dodgers can sign him for a 4 year $500mill extension…

With 3 opt outs. 

[Kimmi]

3 minutes ago, Old Red said:

It may be for only two though with the opt-outs.

True, but that doesn't make me feel any better regarding the Dodgers.

The $40M we pain Bregman was bad enough.  

[notin]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

2025: 1

2023: 1

2022: 1

2021: 1

Where's this secret advantage? 

In the year you skipped.

Or we could keep the current system where the Dodgers now have, what, SIX players making $27mill or higher this season?  How many are there in the rest of the NL West combined?

Do the Dodger have an anyone in their lineup making under $12mill? 

[notin]

7 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

With 3 opt outs. 

And one opt-back-in…

[mvp 78]

17 minutes ago, notin said:

In the year you skipped.

Or we could keep the current system where the Dodgers now have, what, SIX players making $27mill or higher this season?  How many are there in the rest of the NL West combined?

Do the Dodger have an anyone in their lineup making under $12mill? 

I skipped the year because you mentioned it. That year was clearly an anomaly. 

Other teams need to figure out how to catch up.

Andy Pages

[notin]

19 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I skipped the year because you mentioned it. That year was clearly an anomaly. 

Other teams need to figure out how to catch up.

Andy Pages

It’s fun how you refute the “starters under $12mil” with one name…

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Not every team has their own local tv deal. Not fair to make the Dodgers, Sox, Yankees shared theirs TBH. 

Having an 88 win team to get the first overall draft pick and the most draft pick $$$ makes no sense.

Oook ook oooook. 

How is it fair for the Sox to play on away TV and not get a penny?

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, notin said:

Stop rewarding losing teams and reward the teams that are trying.

The best way to ensure small market teams won't spend is to make sure they don't get good picks.  Teams like Pitt and Cincy 'might' spend if they have a shot.  If they are locked into 65 wins, because they don't have any high draft picks, then they will default to spending the least amount possible.  I have almost no doubt about that.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Those teams are already playing LA and San Diego more times and competing for wild card spots with teams playing the Pirates and Reds 26 times…

Sure they play the LAD and SDP 26 times, but they only had 183 wins.  Cincy and Pitt had to play Mil and the Cubs, who combined for 189 wins.

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

One area I think the union should go hard after is to bring up the min wage. Shortening the arb years would help the lower/mid-tier players make more.

While I agree with that, then the players will have to kick extra someplace else.  Most unions don't reward the newer members at the expense of the older members.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Or does it compensate for weaker schedules thr Midwest teams get?

The NLC is baseball's 2nd strongest division after the ALE.

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

While I agree with that, then the players will have to kick extra someplace else.  Most unions don't reward the newer members at the expense of the older members.

The vast majority of MLB players make min wage or arb wages.

I used to bargain as a union rep, and the company often exploited the fact that the majority of members had seniority, so they had tiered pay schedules, but one the company took off and hired a ton of new workers, they flipped the script and offered the majority newer members jumps in tiers much earlier, and a contract was accepted that gave no raises to the senior most members.

It happens. I can happen.

Yes, something would have to "give" to get owners to significantly play lower tiered players more money and to establish floor levels for teams' spending budgets, and maybe that would be some sort of limiting higher level contracts of limiting the spending by top teams. Perhaps there are other "gives" the union give to get a more balanced reward system for the majority of their members most likely at the expense of the higher paid players.

[jad]

Yes, and the Yankees ruined baseball in the 20s!  I mean who ever talks about that era?  Then ruined it again in the 50s and 60s.  No one watched baseball for years after that.  And the Lakers?  Celtics?  Don't get me started.  They made Bb unwatchable:  Bird vs. Magic?  Who wants to see that s***.  As for those sold-out Dodger Stadium games?  Those 50,000+ fans are obviously fools and don't know anything about sports.  I'm amazed the league doesn't throw them out so baseball can go back to the way it was when ... well, when ...  I forget when.

[alsoason]

At some point some of these long term signings are going to come to bear on the Dodgers. What teams need to do is not bail them out in any shape or form, not money, not players. Let them have the entire 10 years of Betts. By the way has anyone else noticed the difference between 1st year Ohtani and present day Ohtani, he would never juice though just like he was clueless about the gambling that surrounded him.

[notin]

2 hours ago, jad said:

Yes, and the Yankees ruined baseball in the 20s!  I mean who ever talks about that era?  Then ruined it again in the 50s and 60s.  No one watched baseball for years after that.  And the Lakers?  Celtics?  Don't get me started.  They made Bb unwatchable:  Bird vs. Magic?  Who wants to see that s***.  As for those sold-out Dodger Stadium games?  Those 50,000+ fans are obviously fools and don't know anything about sports.  I'm amazed the league doesn't throw them out so baseball can go back to the way it was when ... well, when ...  I forget when.

Yeah those teams and their $57mill contracts…

[illinoisredsox]

23 hours ago, illinoisredsox said:

4 years, $240M

No word on how much is deferred, but I’m guessing a hefty amount.

Prediction: Bichette back to the Jays.

Well, that didn't age well.

Memo to self:  no lottery number or stock picks.

[jad]

14 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

The vast majority of MLB players make min wage or arb wages.

I used to bargain as a union rep, and the company often exploited the fact that the majority of members had seniority, so they had tiered pay schedules, but one the company took off and hired a ton of new workers, they flipped the script and offered the majority newer members jumps in tiers much earlier, and a contract was accepted that gave no raises to the senior most members.

It happens. I can happen.

Yes, something would have to "give" to get owners to significantly play lower tiered players more money and to establish floor levels for teams' spending budgets, and maybe that would be some sort of limiting higher level contracts of limiting the spending by top teams. Perhaps there are other "gives" the union give to get a more balanced reward system for the majority of their members most likely at the expense of the higher paid players.

Do you think the problem is exacerbated in sports, where 'union reps' aren't blue-collar guys who 'came up through the ranks' but celebrity/stars (e.g., as when Chris Paul was heading the NBA union).  When super-max players lead the union, super-max contracts are the primary focus?  I assume rookies have even less leverage than young workers have in ordinary businesses.

[notin]

17 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

The best way to ensure small market teams won't spend is to make sure they don't get good picks.  Teams like Pitt and Cincy 'might' spend if they have a shot.  If they are locked into 65 wins, because they don't have any high draft picks, then they will default to spending the least amount possible.  I have almost no doubt about that.

The best way to make sure they don’t spend is not hold them accountable for their revenue spending.  Status quo.

Givibg them high picks just gives them players they hold until arbitration gets too pricey and they trade them away for a handful of minor leaguers that eventually result in getting a utility infielder…

[moonslav59]

4 hours ago, jad said:

Do you think the problem is exacerbated in sports, where 'union reps' aren't blue-collar guys who 'came up through the ranks' but celebrity/stars (e.g., as when Chris Paul was heading the NBA union).  When super-max players lead the union, super-max contracts are the primary focus?  I assume rookies have even less leverage than young workers have in ordinary businesses.

I'm not sure the reason why the union doesn't push for more balance. I think they believe when a player gets $400M, the rest of the players will naturally get more.

I think I read somewhere that the avg MLB salary is about $5M, but the median is like $1.4M. That means over half the players in the union make less than $1.5M. If they were a forceful voting block, which they could be if they flexed a unified position, some sort of changes could be made to bring the median closer to the mean.

I've thrown a few quick ideas out there without much prior thought, but doubling the min wage would be a big plus. Min wage is NOT just for rookies: it's for all pre-arb players to benefit. I'm not sure how many that is, but it is a pretty big percentage. Many Arb 1 and 2 players make near or less than that $1.4M, so add them to the percentage and maybe they could force the change.

Owners could probably absorb paying the lower half of players a lot more, but they won't do it without getting something back, of course. Let's just say the bottom 13 paid players on each team get this raise, that's about 360 players (13 x 30 teams=360.) If they all get a $500K raise that goes up to $1M by the end of the new CBA, we're talking $180M year one to $360M year ??? Hell, maybe the top 10-15 players make more than that by themselves!

The theory makes too much sense to just discard out of hand, but making it happen would be more complicated, and it would have to involve limiting the top pay, somehow, or the players giving something else back.