Dodgers Are Ruining Baseball

[jad]

Apparently, no one has mentioned Bobby Bonilla (for a while during Covid, wasn't he the highest paid player in the league?  even though he's been retired for a decade?).   Back-loaded contracts are not new.

 

[JoeBrady]

27 minutes ago, jad said:

 Back-loaded contracts are not new.

Deferrals are not only not new, they are also something any team can do.  Not everyone can pay Tucker $60M.  But even with a $10M contract, if you can afford to pay someone $10M this year, then you can afford to pay them $10.45M next year.  That's a certainty.

[Behindenemylines]

On 1/13/2026 at 10:47 AM, Duran Is The Man said:

now do the last couple of years.

The Dodgers spending is what is going to lead to the lockout! Right or wrong other teams don't or can't spend like them.  What they are doing is what the Yankees use to do. A team that spends like that can cover up for mistakes (players not playing up to their contracts) and injuries . The Dodgers had a lot of salary that didn't make their playoff roster last year. 

[Duran Is The Man]

48 minutes ago, Behindenemylines said:

The Dodgers spending is what is going to lead to the lockout! Right or wrong other teams don't or can't spend like them.  What they are doing is what the Yankees use to do. A team that spends like that can cover up for mistakes (players not playing up to their contracts) and injuries . The Dodgers had a lot of salary that didn't make their playoff roster last year. 

something is gonna hafta give or they'll keep buying World Series championships for here on.

[mvp 78]

12 hours ago, Behindenemylines said:

The Dodgers spending is what is going to lead to the lockout! Right or wrong other teams don't or can't spend like them.  What they are doing is what the Yankees use to do. A team that spends like that can cover up for mistakes (players not playing up to their contracts) and injuries . The Dodgers had a lot of salary that didn't make their playoff roster last year. 

No, the lockout was predetermined no matter what the Dodgers did. They will lockout every time the contract ends from here to eternity. 

We can feel better about the owners and say the lockout is to fight against the Dodgers, but it's really to fight against the fans who want to watch baseball. 

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

No, the lockout was predetermined no matter what the Dodgers did. They will lockout every time the contract ends from here to eternity. 

We can feel better about the owners and say the lockout is to fight against the Dodgers, but it's really to fight against the fans who want to watch baseball. 

A lockout was baked in as soon as the owners smartened up that they couldn't leave the timing of a strike to the players.  Smart move, but it took way too long for them to figure it out.

And I think the narrative is that both the owners and the players are pure as the driven snow, and have nothing but the fans' interest at heart.  And both sides are still concerned about putting food on the table.

I'm guessing that both sides will wait until March 31, incur the ire of fans from both sides, to sign a deal that was 99% complete on February 28.

[notin]

On 1/27/2026 at 3:30 PM, jad said:

Apparently, no one has mentioned Bobby Bonilla (for a while during Covid, wasn't he the highest paid player in the league?  even though he's been retired for a decade?).   Back-loaded contracts are not new.

 

Bonilla has been retired for a quarter of a century!

I remember reading an article about that contract and how it actually did benefit the Mets as well as Bobby..

[notin]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

No, the lockout was predetermined no matter what the Dodgers did. They will lockout every time the contract ends from here to eternity. 

We can feel better about the owners and say the lockout is to fight against the Dodgers, but it's really to fight against the fans who want to watch baseball. 

Lockouts when the CBA expires are one of two things you can count on in perpetuity.  The other is that the save icon will always be a floppy disk…

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

No, the lockout was predetermined no matter what the Dodgers did. They will lockout every time the contract ends from here to eternity. 

We can feel better about the owners and say the lockout is to fight against the Dodgers, but it's really to fight against the fans who want to watch baseball. 

If Im being honest, Im not sure there is unanimous animosity against the Dodgers by all other owners.  If Im a small market team that hasnt been relevant and wont be relevant, the Dodgers stacking WS championships isnt really affecting me - but I am certainly loving my piece of their tax bill.

Im not sure most owners even want to go from a soft cap (with financial penalties) to a hard cap (cant go over no matter what) because they like their cut of financial penalties.  I would imagine theres at least some owners that cheer when dodgers spend

[JoeBrady]

57 minutes ago, notin said:

how it actually did benefit the Mets

Too many people don't understand the value of deferrals.  Like 40% object to owners giving them and 40% object to the players getting them.  To me, it isn't much more than one of us buying an annuity.

[jad]

6 hours ago, notin said:

Bonilla has been retired for a quarter of a century!

I remember reading an article about that contract and how it actually did benefit the Mets as well as Bobby..

i know.  That's what made it so astounding.  For a while, he was the ONLY mlb player drawing any kind of salary and hadn't been on the field for decades.  

[moonslav59]

Didn't we hear the Dodgers and Mets were why there was going to be a lockout last time?

[jad]

21 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Didn't we hear the Dodgers and Mets were why there was going to be a lockout last time?

Probably so.  Because it's never us or 'our guys' who are responsible for strikes/lockouts in sports ,  nor for any other bad thing.

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, jad said:

Probably so.  Because it's never us or 'our guys' who are responsible for strikes/lockouts in sports ,  nor for any other bad thing.

Like sign stealing and cheating... LOL.

[jad]

18 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Like sign stealing and cheating... LOL.

Exactly.  We would NEVER do such a thing.  Nor would we offer more for a player who already had an offer o the table, because we believe in competitive balance and a level playing field would NEVER try to  use our wealth to give us an advantage.

[moonslav59]

44 minutes ago, jad said:

Exactly.  We would NEVER do such a thing.  Nor would we offer more for a player who already had an offer o the table, because we believe in competitive balance and a level playing field would NEVER try to  use our wealth to give us an advantage.

You do know that when negotiations are ongoing, the Cubs and Sox are not in the room together. The other team's offer is not known. Posturing, bluffing and lines in the sand are the nature of the game.

It's very frustrating to watch us miss out, time-after-time, and Breggie was a key piece to the 2026 team's needs. It sucks we lost him due to misjudging the "bluff" or turning Breggie off with our attitude and negotiation tactics. To me, we already went past the limit of a fair offer, and I prefer Suarez, anyway. This isn't as bad as missing out on Alonso by a mile.

This isn't as bad as the decision to add a #2 SP'er AND a #3, instead of spending more on hitting, and this one is not on JH, for once. It's on Brez. While there is still time for him to add a bat (2B/3B) I'm not seeing a bat that meets out needs being mentioned.

 

[jad]

7 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

You do know that when negotiations are ongoing, the Cubs and Sox are not in the room together. The other team's offer is not known. Posturing, bluffing and lines in the sand are the nature of the game.

It's very frustrating to watch us miss out, time-after-time, and Breggie was a key piece to the 2026 team's needs. It sucks we lost him due to misjudging the "bluff" or turning Breggie off with our attitude and negotiation tactics. To me, we already went past the limit of a fair offer, and I prefer Suarez, anyway. This isn't as bad as missing out on Alonso by a mile.

This isn't as bad as the decision to add a #2 SP'er AND a #3, instead of spending more on hitting, and this one is not on JH, for once. It's on Brez. While there is still time for him to add a bat (2B/3B) I'm not seeing a bat that meets out needs being mentioned.

 

Bluffing? Posturing? Lines in the sand?  No way.  I, like most sports fans, believe in COMPLETE transparency and openness and trust that all organizations feel the same way.  Not for one minute do I believe such dastardly things as you suggest go on in sports.

 

[mvp 78]

Thanks Bres, you stiff. 

[notin]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Thanks Bres, you stiff. 

I cannot understand that move.

The Dodgers were fairly obviously contenders.  Contending teams rarely (never?) shed pitching on July 31st trading deadlines to acquire minor leaguers.  And this logic goes back to a time when baseball had the waiver deadline.

So why didn’t Dustin May’s availability on its own raise a few red flags?

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, notin said:

I cannot understand that move.

The Dodgers were fairly obviously contenders.  Contending teams rarely (never?) shed pitching on July 31st trading deadlines to acquire minor leaguers.  And this logic goes back to a time when baseball had the waiver deadline.

So why didn’t Dustin May’s availability on its own raise a few red flags?

Sox needed pitching and liked his pitch mix. They probably could have traded for him using a much lesser prospect though. Tibbs wasn't hitting well in POR, but was trying to adjust his mechanics to the Sox program and didn't have a long leash. It's clear that the guy can hit. Maybe they just thought he was really low on the depth chart? They probably would have dealt him by now, but I think it would have been better to get more than Dustin May out of the deal.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Sox needed pitching and liked his pitch mix. They probably could have traded for him using a much lesser prospect though. Tibbs wasn't hitting well in POR, but was trying to adjust his mechanics to the Sox program and didn't have a long leash. It's clear that the guy can hit. Maybe they just thought he was really low on the depth chart? They probably would have dealt him by now, but I think it would have been better to get more than Dustin May out of the deal.

Same as always.  If we don't make a move, fans will ask why we didn't trade a stiff like Tibbs for an SP.  The most important and popular RS player will always be the guy that we just traded away.

And, FWIW, the 20 Ks in 45 ABs still seem really high.

[Duran Is The Man]

6 hours ago, notin said:

I cannot understand that move.

The Dodgers were fairly obviously contenders.  Contending teams rarely (never?) shed pitching on July 31st trading deadlines to acquire minor leaguers.  And this logic goes back to a time when baseball had the waiver deadline.

So why didn’t Dustin May’s availability on its own raise a few red flags?

whoever suggested they trade for May should be launched into the sun. 

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

whoever suggested they trade for May should be launched into the sun. 

Maybe the same guy who liked Buehler?

[Duran Is The Man]

33 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Maybe the same guy who liked Buehler?

Breg Creslow?

[moonslav59]

8 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

Breg Creslow?

Or Clex Aora?

[mvp 78]

17 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

Same as always.  If we don't make a move, fans will ask why we didn't trade a stiff like Tibbs for an SP.  The most important and popular RS player will always be the guy that we just traded away.

And, FWIW, the 20 Ks in 45 ABs still seem really high.

No, that trade was in question the second it was made. Nobody in their right mind was excited for Dustin "headed for the pen" May.

[notin]

19 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Sox needed pitching and liked his pitch mix. They probably could have traded for him using a much lesser prospect though. Tibbs wasn't hitting well in POR, but was trying to adjust his mechanics to the Sox program and didn't have a long leash. It's clear that the guy can hit. Maybe they just thought he was really low on the depth chart? They probably would have dealt him by now, but I think it would have been better to get more than Dustin May out of the deal.

But my issue was the fact that the Dodgers - the team that controlled May and knew him best - gave up on him during a pennant chase. And with like 75 games left in the season and a rotation far from immune to injury.  Yet they still traded May and traded him not for any immediate help, but for an A-ball first baseman.

My point is - May’s availability should have superseded his pitch mix…

[JoeBrady]

41 minutes ago, notin said:

And with like 75 games left in the season and a rotation far from immune to injury

IMO, this is the first question behind every trade, both in BB and in real life.  When you acquire a guy like Crochet, you understand exactly why the WS are trading him.  I understood exactly why StL was trading Gray and Contreras.

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, notin said:

But my issue was the fact that the Dodgers - the team that controlled May and knew him best - gave up on him during a pennant chase. And with like 75 games left in the season and a rotation far from immune to injury.  Yet they still traded May and traded him not for any immediate help, but for an A-ball first baseman.

My point is - May’s availability should have superseded his pitch mix…

The Dodgers had so much starting pitching that we just had to swoop in and capitalize on it. 

[mvp 78]

"You can never have too much starting pitching."

"Uh, actually." - The 2025 Dodgers