Dodgers Are Ruining Baseball

[Hugh2]

44 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Jazz and a prospect.

Jazz is under contract for one more year, no? I'd prefer a player with some control. 

[Hitch]

10 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Mind boggling. 11 teams have lower budgets that LA's tax, and somehow JH not spending more is the main issue.

15 teams have less revenue than the Dodgers TV income. 

It's utterly pointless comparing ourselves to them in anyway. Them and the Mets are in a different galaxy if Cohen wants to invest.

There's some luck that they're both in the NL at least.

[notin]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Jazz and a prospect.

What was the last Sox-Yankees trade involving two players of that caliber?

[drewski6]

10 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

With the 110% CBT, Tucker is costing them $115,000,000 a year.  It makes you wonder why they wouldn't trade almost anyone from their minor leagues for someone like Duran or Abreu.  They won't be as good, but will likely be no less than about 1.5 WAR worse.  It's like the LAD are paying another $100,000,000 to have Tucker instead of Duran or Abreu.

I think that they envision Mookie, Freeman, Muncy, Smith to continue to decline and they want to do something like late 90s yankees or maybe even 2007 sox where you have guys who were the stars for one championship aging, and you want to keep the party going, but you need someone who packs a real punch because your former elites have aged past the point of being able to be your main contributors (on an A++ team) and you want them to be more complimentary pieces.

Or said another way:

They might have wanted to bring in someone who they perceived to be good enough to make up for Mookie, Freeman, Munch, SMith aging to keep it going , and they may have considered Abreu/DUran not that but Tucker that.

You dont bump Muncy,Smith,Freeman down the order for Abreu/Duran but maybe you do for Tucker.

[drewski6]

I will agree that we have now crossed the line into absurdity regarding the dodgers.  I use to always retort: small market teams are ruining baseball not the dodgers!  BUt at some point you (and by you I mean I) have to reassess.

[drewski6]

4 minutes ago, notin said:

What was the last Sox-Yankees trade involving two players of that caliber?

Adam Ottavino?

[drewski6]

I like Jazz, I like his story. I like how he learned baseball from his grandMOTHER who was like captain of the Bahama mama national softball team until she was like 65. Like a modern day softball satchel paige.  

I like that Jazz has been on the cover of MLB the show (video game) and had a feature (which is how I know his story).  But IVe seen him get into it with his manager(s) more than once.

I like him though and would be interested.  He might be a tad overrated but he's one of those guys who steals bags with timing and knowledge rather than pure speed (like Acuna)

edit: when i say like acuna, I mean jazz is like acuna (and ohtani) as in their speeds plays up because they always get a great jump....I dont mean acuna is someone who has elite pure speed becaus he doesnt.  Knowing how to steal bags is almost as important as pure speed. Jazz/Ohtani/Acuna these guys are better base stealers than they are fast even though of course they arent slow. Story speed plays up on basepaths too

[notin]

11 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Adam Ottavino?

Not even close. 
 

Ottavino was dealt for a PTBNL.  Duran and Chisholm have both been All Stars in the past two seasons.

The best I could think of was Mike Easler for Don Baylor, but as good as both were, they were also post-prime players in their mid to late 30s…

[notin]

14 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I like Jazz, I like his story. I like how he learned baseball from his grandMOTHER who was like captain of the Bahama mama national softball team until she was like 65. Like a modern day softball satchel paige.  

I like that Jazz has been on the cover of MLB the show (video game) and had a feature (which is how I know his story).  But IVe seen him get into it with his manager(s) more than once.

I like him though and would be interested.  He might be a tad overrated but he's one of those guys who steals bags with timing and knowledge rather than pure speed (like Acuna)

edit: when i say like acuna, I mean jazz is like acuna (and ohtani) as in their speeds plays up because they always get a great jump....I dont mean acuna is someone who has elite pure speed becaus he doesnt.  Knowing how to steal bags is almost as important as pure speed. Jazz/Ohtani/Acuna these guys arent the better base stealers than they are fast even though of course they arent slow. Story speed plays up on basepaths too

Absolutely.

Yoshida isn’t 13 for 13 in stolen base attempts because he has blazing speed…

[drewski6]

16 minutes ago, notin said:

Not even close. 
 

Ottavino was dealt for a PTBNL.  Duran and Chisholm have both been All Stars in the past two seasons.

The best I could think of was Mike Easler for Don Baylor, but as good as both were, they were also post-prime players in their mid to late 30s…

Wait, timeout, three years of Duran for one year of Jazz?  

But of course, Ottavino wasnt doesnt sniff the value of jazz when ottavino was traded.  

When I said ottavino im just trying to shade verdugo.

[moonslav59]

56 minutes ago, Hitch said:

15 teams have less revenue than the Dodgers TV income. 

 

Since two teams are on each broadcast, teams should split half their TV revenue with the other teams.

[notin]

10 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Wait, timeout, three years of Duran for one year of Jazz?  

But of course, Ottavino wasnt doesnt sniff the value of jazz when ottavino was traded.  

When I said ottavino im just trying to shade verdugo.

And Narvaez?

[moonslav59]

16 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Wait, timeout, three years of Duran for one year of Jazz?  

But of course, Ottavino wasnt doesnt sniff the value of jazz when ottavino was traded.  

When I said ottavino im just trying to shade verdugo.

I think someone suggested Duran for Chisholm and a prospect- probably a real good one.

I'd prefer a longer-controlled player over a prospect, as we need to focus on this window.

[drewski6]

11 minutes ago, notin said:

And Narvaez?

No that was a brainfart.

[notin]

Suggestions to fix MLB league parity

1.  TV revenue divided.  Moon proposed tjis and it does make sense.  If the Reds are appearing on TV in Los Angeles, they should be paid for it.  The Dodgers get the same courtesy for appearing on TV in Cincinnati.

2. League-controlled revenue sharing allotment system.  Instead of handing out checks and hoping teams spend, give each team a league account that is used solely for spending on their team, in free agents, draft picks, extensions, etc.  If you don’t spend it, you don’t get it. (I’m open to rolling it over, but you still don’t get it if you don’t spend it.)

3. Revamp draft order for all non- playoff teams drafting in order from best record to worst, followed by playoff teams in the current “worst to best” format. Stop rewarding losing teams and reward the teams that are trying. Lotteries are stupid.  Not even sure what they are supposed to accomplish, especially weighted ones..  Does the league really think they prevent tanking, etc? 

4. Fire Manfred and replace him with an orangutan that knows sign language.  Or one that doesn’t.  Both are steps up…

[drewski6]

 

31 minutes ago, notin said:

Suggestions to fix MLB league p-arity

1.  TV revenue divided.  Moon proposed tjis and it does make sense.  If the Reds are appearing on TV in Los Angeles, they should be paid for it.  The Dodgers get the same courtesy for appearing on TV in Cincinnati.

2. League-controlled revenue sharing allotment system.  Instead of handing out checks and hoping teams spend, give each team a league account that is used solely for spending on their team, in free agents, draft picks, extensions, etc.  If you don’t spend it, you don’t get it. (I’m open to rolling it over, but you still don’t get it if you don’t spend it.)

3. Revamp draft order for all non- playoff teams drafting in order from best record to worst, followed by playoff teams in the current “worst to best” format. Stop rewarding losing teams and reward the teams that are trying. Lotteries are stupid.  Not even sure what they are supposed to accomplish, especially weighted ones..  Does the league really think they prevent tanking, etc? 

4. Fire Manfred and replace him with an orangutan that knows sign language.  Or one that doesn’t.  Both are steps up…

Ive got some ideas:

1. If your payroll is north of 285m, you lose your ability to defer money on any free-agents signed until you are back under 285m
2. If your payroll is north of 285m, you HAVE to send out more money in a trade than you get back (borrowed from basketball)
3. IF your payroll is north of 285m - change penalties to loss of draft pick (rather than move back 10 spots) and obviously this effects your signing pool
4. If payroll north of 285m - slash international FA signing allotment (and lose ability to trade your int'l  FA signing pool money or trade for more)

Like in basketball, they were about to lock-out/strike over a salary cap, but what they did was make too hard to swallow basketball penalties in addition to too hard to swallow financial penalties to effectively make a salary cap without calling it that.

In baseball the financial penalties are major for spend/spend/spending, but the baseball penalties could be made more severe which is what Im trying to do here.

[notin]

5 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

 

Ive got some ideas:

1. If your payroll is north of 285m, you lose your ability to defer money on any free-agents signed until you are back under 285m
2. If your payroll is north of 285m, you HAVE to send out more money in a trade than you get back (borrowed from basketball)
3. IF your payroll is north of 285m - change penalties to loss of draft pick (rather than move back 10 spots) and obviously this effects your signing pool
4. If payroll north of 285m - slash international FA signing allotment (and lose ability to trade your int'l  FA signing pool money or trade for more)

Like in basketball, they were about to lock-out/strike over a salary cap, but what they did was make too hard to swallow basketball penalties in addition to too hard to swallow financial penalties to effectively make a salary cap without calling it that.

In baseball the financial penalties are major for spend/spend/spending, but the baseball penalties could be made more severe which is what Im trying to do here.

Soft cap/hard floor model? 
 

I admittedly skirted cap issues and revamping payroll penalties, but they are necessary fixes…

[mvp 78]

42 minutes ago, notin said:

Suggestions to fix MLB league parity

1.  TV revenue divided.  Moon proposed tjis and it does make sense.  If the Reds are appearing on TV in Los Angeles, they should be paid for it.  The Dodgers get the same courtesy for appearing on TV in Cincinnati.

2. League-controlled revenue sharing allotment system.  Instead of handing out checks and hoping teams spend, give each team a league account that is used solely for spending on their team, in free agents, draft picks, extensions, etc.  If you don’t spend it, you don’t get it. (I’m open to rolling it over, but you still don’t get it if you don’t spend it.)

3. Revamp draft order for all non- playoff teams drafting in order from best record to worst, followed by playoff teams in the current “worst to best” format. Stop rewarding losing teams and reward the teams that are trying. Lotteries are stupid.  Not even sure what they are supposed to accomplish, especially weighted ones..  Does the league really think they prevent tanking, etc? 

4. Fire Manfred and replace him with an orangutan that knows sign language.  Or one that doesn’t.  Both are steps up…

No

IDK

No

Ook

[moonslav59]

Imagine Taylor Swift doing a concert on TV but doesn't get paid for it, because it's not on her hometown TV.

Sharing TV revenue would go a long way towards partially evening up the playing field while still rewarding team that draw more viewers.

The Dodgers still get 50% of their TV revenue, while PIT gets 50% of Pitt's TV revenue- a big difference, but not as big as now.

The other 50% gets put in a pot and split 30 ways, so LA still gets 50% of the other 29 team's TV revenue.

_______________________________

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. Expanding the MLB roster to 27 would expand their numbers, too.

_______________________________

I'm not sure we ever see a hard cap or even a soft one, but demanding a minimum team budget on player salaries would be a big plus. It could be phased in slowly. You could even change how you split the TV revenue money based on giving more money to the lower tier teams that increase their player budgets by the most.

_______________________________

Maybe there should be a 1,000% tax on the Dodgers.

[notin]

24 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

No

IDK

No

Ook

Any reasons?

[mvp 78]

13 minutes ago, notin said:

Any reasons?

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. 

[notin]

15 minutes 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. 

If you’re putting another team on the air, they should be compensated. It’s baseball; you need two teams to have a game.

 

I think that draft model works better for MLB than for the NFL or NBA, where draft picks are expected to make an immediate impact.  Plus I’d rather see teams still playing hard get rewarded as opposed to some team that pawns off half their roster in July and plays out the string with a team that looks like it was assembled using the same process used to convene a jury…

 

[mvp 78]

10 minutes ago, notin said:

If you’re putting another team on the air, they should be compensated. It’s baseball; you need two teams to have a game.

 

I think that draft model works better for MLB than for the NFL or NBA, where draft picks are expected to make an immediate impact.  Plus I’d rather see teams still playing hard get rewarded as opposed to some team that pawns off half their roster in July and plays out the string with a team that looks like it was assembled using the same process used to convene a jury…

 

Then the Dodgers should refuse to play in low revenue generating venues. Big markets should be able to negotiate their scheduling.

Those teams are rewarded by increased attendance down the stretch. 

[Tedballgame]

13 hours ago, vegasbob said:

The Dodgers almost absurd contract with Kyle Tucker, not a superstar,  will almost guarantee a labor problem with the next CBA negotiations , after 2026 season.   The Players Union will be  ROTFLTAO at the owners , as the labor dispute will be the Owners fighting , not the union vs the Owners.

Dodgers will force a fight among the billionaires, especially if they win the 2026 WS. It is not guaranteed in any way though. Play the games and see. 

What it does mean for Boston though is that there is talent hidden in Dodger AA/AAA who have no chance of breaking into the LAD roster.   If Craig is as smart as his degrees would imply, he will find a gem or two that Friedman would give up.  Can anybody there play 2B ?

 

[Tedballgame]

Bo Bichette signs with the Mets.

[Tedballgame]

3 years, 126 Million. Ridiculous.

[drewski6]

Im a little fuzzy on this but I think all local TV revenue is shared, but the dodgers have some weird exception that has been in place for 14 yrs and time to revisit.

I also can see how maybe the accounting can get a little fuzzy with related party transactions, e.g. if dodgers own the tv station, they pay the dodgers practically nothing (because that revenue would get split) and keep the dollars on the tv side which same owner but prevents it from getting split. I always use pockets to illustrate.

Might be a situation where same owner , so same body, but if i move money from right pocket to left pocket, that gets it split, so ill just keep it in my right pocket

But Im sure better accountants than I (havent been one 20 yrs) can figure out how to audit against related party shenanigans.

[notin]

5 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Im a little fuzzy on this but I think all local TV revenue is shared, but the dodgers have some weird exception that has been in place for 14 yrs and time to revisit.

I also can see how maybe the accounting can get a little fuzzy with related party transactions, e.g. if dodgers own the tv station, they pay the dodgers practically nothing (because that revenue would get split) and keep the dollars on the tv side which same owner but prevents it from getting split. I always use pockets to illustrate.

Might be a situation where same owner , so same body, but if i move money from right pocket to left pocket, that gets it split, so ill just keep it in my right pocket

But Im sure better accountants than I (havent been one 20 yrs) can figure out how to audit against related party shenanigans.

National TV revenue - FOX, ESPN, Apple TV - is shared among all the teams whether they play in those games or not.  But teams keep 100% of their local TV deals.

Some teams are owned by media outlets or own their media (ex.  The Yankees and the YES network).  But I don’t think that should exempt them from paying other teams that they put on the air…

[notin]

15 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Then the Dodgers should refuse to play in low revenue generating venues. Big markets should be able to negotiate their scheduling.

Those teams are rewarded by increased attendance down the stretch. 

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

[drewski6]

23 minutes ago, notin said:

National TV revenue - FOX, ESPN, Apple TV - is shared among all the teams whether they play in those games or not.  But teams keep 100% of their local TV deals.

Some teams are owned by media outlets or own their media (ex.  The Yankees and the YES network).  But I don’t think that should exempt them from paying other teams that they put on the air…

I agree that owning the TV station, shouldnt prevent a team from having to share tv revenue.

But I really think local revenue is shared

https://brewerfanatic.com/news-rumors/milwaukee-brewers/mlbs-revenue-sharing-model-has-two-big-problems-how-can-they-be-fixed-r3929/

Granted brewer fanatic can be wrong, but when people are talking about an unfair advantage for the dodgers tv:

1. they get 50% vs everyone else who gets 1/29 of 50%
2. dodgers get more than 50% (unlike anybody else) becasue theres a cap of how much they have to pay in (unlike anybody else)

but local tv revenue is split.  Im pretty sure.  Unless all this is wrong, but it smells like the author knows what they are talking about.