Dodgers Are Ruining Baseball

[JoeBrady]

Just fun, the LAD top five players make more than the other 37 players that Cots lists on their team page.

[moonslav59]

26 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Just fun, the LAD top five players make more than the other 37 players that Cots lists on their team page.

When they open the season vs the Nats, there will be 14 players on the field making $10M+ a season- all will be Dodgers.

[jad]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

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.

Yeah, it just seems impossible as long as top players have the power.  How do young players get that leverage, since so many of them, say, are in the minors.  Do they have any say in Players Union?  Could pre-arb players even form a significant bloc?   I assume part of the thinking is that fans come SPECIFICALLY to see well-paid players.  I.e.,  some of those LAD fans show up not bec. Ohtani is the best player in the world, but rather because he's the most highly paid player in the world?  So everyone has a stake in paying him like that?  (No one, besides the player, has a stake in raising the minimum.)

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, jad said:

Yeah, it just seems impossible as long as top players have the power.  How do young players get that leverage, since so many of them, say, are in the minors.  Do they have any say in Players Union?  Could pre-arb players even form a significant bloc?   I assume part of the thinking is that fans come SPECIFICALLY to see well-paid players.  I.e.,  some of those LAD fans show up not bec. Ohtani is the best player in the world, but rather because he's the most highly paid player in the world?  So everyone has a stake in paying him like that?  (No one, besides the player, has a stake in raising the minimum.)

The majority of MLB players make less than $1.5M. They all vote.

They could pressure their union leaders to push for this or they'll vote no.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

When they open the season vs the Nats, there will be 14 players on the field making $10M+ a season- all will be Dodgers.

This all started 60 years ago when Koufax and Drysdale held out together for a month before the 1966 season.

Imagine two Hall of Famers asking to be paid at the top of their market.

LA did, and eventually made them each the first pitchers with salaries of one hundred thousand dollars.

[jad]

3 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

The majority of MLB players make less than $1.5M. They all vote.

They could pressure their union leaders to push for this or they'll vote no.

Is a voting member defined as one with a MLB contract?  (even if they were sent down).   Obviously we don't know what goes on in Union meetings, but di you know of a case where those players have actually exercised the power that they theoretically have?  (From the looks of things, they don't e.g., what you pointed out as the startling difference between average and mean salaries).

[notin]

3 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

When they open the season vs the Nats, there will be 14 players on the field making $10M+ a season- all will be Dodgers.

13.

Glasnow will be injured.  And I do not think I’m going out in a limb here…

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, jad said:

Is a voting member defined as one with a MLB contract?  (even if they were sent down).   Obviously we don't know what goes on in Union meetings, but di you know of a case where those players have actually exercised the power that they theoretically have?  (From the looks of things, they don't e.g., what you pointed out as the startling difference between average and mean salaries).

I'm not sure, but in the case of the union I was part of there were heated discussions between factions of employees before they ultimately voted to pass the contract that gave the bottom 60% a huge raise and the top 10% nothing.

[illinoisredsox]

On 1/16/2026 at 3:27 PM, moonslav59 said:

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

They do.  MLB does have revenue sharing.

Home team gets 52% of “local revenue”, which includes ticket sales, concessions and local broadcast contracts.  The other 48% goes in a pool and is divided equally among all 30 teams.

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, illinoisredsox said:

They do.  MLB does have revenue sharing.

Home team gets 52% of “local revenue”, which includes ticket sales, concessions and local broadcast contracts.  The other 48% goes in a pool and is divided equally among all 30 teams.

Not the Dodgers.

 Dodgers benefit from a unique agreement from their 2011 bankruptcy that significantly reduces their share of this pool, allowing them to keep a much larger portion (around $300 million annually) compared to other teams, creating a massive financial advantage. 

[illinoisredsox]

10 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Local TV money?

Think NESN, YES, or any Regional Sports Network.  Last I looked, the Sox annual local tv money was around $100M per year.  The Dodgers was around $330M.

Now in the Sox case, it’s more of an accounting thing since Fenway Sports Group is owns roughly 80% of NESN.

Edit - didn’t see your reply before I hit submit.  That does seem unfair, and something I would expect more of the Yankees.

[moonslav59]

14 minutes ago, illinoisredsox said:

Think NESN, YES, or any Regional Sports Network.  Last I looked, the Sox annual local tv money was around $100M per year.  The Dodgers was around $330M.

Now in the Sox case, it’s more of an accounting thing since Fenway Sports Group is owns roughly 80% of NESN.

Edit - didn’t see your reply before I hit submit.  That does seem unfair, and something I would expect more of the Yankees.

Sorry. I edited my post as you were responding to the unedited one..

 

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm not sure, but in the case of the union I was part of there were heated discussions between factions of employees before they ultimately voted to pass the contract that gave the bottom 60% a huge raise and the top 10% nothing.

Just out of curiosity, does that include pension benefits.  In Westchester, some of the cities have multiple tiers, and the elders do far better than the newbies.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

Just out of curiosity, does that include pension benefits.  In Westchester, some of the cities have multiple tiers, and the elders do far better than the newbies.

That was a contract whereby the company ended their pension plan in favor of a 401K plan with generous company matches. They stuck it to the senior employees badly.

I recommended a no vote, while I was at the seniority whereby I got the largest raise possible. I voted no, because I planned on retiring with this company and knew top pay and pension was worth way more than an immediate big gain.

[mvp 78]

On 1/17/2026 at 2:01 PM, JoeBrady said:

Just fun, the LAD top five players make more than the other 37 players that Cots lists on their team page.

It's the same for the BoSox. 🫠

[moonslav59]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

It's the same for the BoSox. 🫠

My guess is most companies have wider disparities than this, especially between the owner or CEO and the next highest paid person.

[jad]

On 1/19/2026 at 12:50 PM, moonslav59 said:

My guess is most companies have wider disparities than this, especially between the owner or CEO and the next highest paid person.

Certainly in my 'business' this was the case.

[notin]

On 1/17/2026 at 1:28 PM, moonslav59 said:

When they open the season vs the Nats, there will be 14 players on the field making $10M+ a season- all will be Dodgers.

That further shows how the Dodgers are ruining baseball - they’re putting 14 players on the field!!

[Duran Is The Man]

On 1/17/2026 at 5:56 PM, moonslav59 said:

Not the Dodgers.

 Dodgers benefit from a unique agreement from their 2011 bankruptcy that significantly reduces their share of this pool, allowing them to keep a much larger portion (around $300 million annually) compared to other teams, creating a massive financial advantage. 

seriously?? that's insane. 

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, notin said:

That further shows how the Dodgers are ruining baseball - they’re putting 14 players on the field!!

How the league allows this is beyond me!

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

I see an extended work stoppage and I'm not sure how it's resolved.  The Dodgers ARE ruining baseball, the iffy competitive balance that was once in place is now gone. It's a joke really.  

Other owners can't be happy at what they are doing.  And if going bankrupt gave them an incredible financial advantage well that makes the situation far worse.  I really believe they will push for some sort of cap, and of course the union will never agree to that.  So this where they will stand IMO.  

[moonslav59]

Is there any way to undo that advantage given to the Dodgers?

[JoeBrady]

23 minutes ago, Yaz Fan Since 67 said:

I see an extended work stoppage and I'm not sure how it's resolved.  The Dodgers ARE ruining baseball, the iffy competitive balance that was once in place is now gone. It's a joke really.  

Other owners can't be happy at what they are doing.  And if going bankrupt gave them an incredible financial advantage well that makes the situation far worse.  I really believe they will push for some sort of cap, and of course the union will never agree to that.  So this where they will stand IMO.  

Which owners will be unhappy?  There might be ten teams who voluntarily exceed the cap.  There might be ten more who are not going to go close to the cap.  So you're going to have 20 teams that have no interest in a hard cap/floor.

[moonslav59]

20 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Which owners will be unhappy?  There might be ten teams who voluntarily exceed the cap.  There might be ten more who are not going to go close to the cap.  So you're going to have 20 teams that have no interest in a hard cap/floor.

Maybe some teams went over the line reluctantly, and would love there to be a rule that nobody can go over a line. They only do it, because they have to match the other big spenders.

I'd guess most teams want a cap.

[Duran Is The Man]

31 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Maybe some teams went over the line reluctantly, and would love there to be a rule that nobody can go over a line. They only do it, because they have to match the other big spenders.

I'd guess most teams want a cap.

i'd think so as well. what about deferrals? the Dodgers seem to be exploiting this for all they can get.

[moonslav59]

9 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

i'd think so as well. what about deferrals? the Dodgers seem to be exploiting this for all they can get.

I think they may adjust the referral thing as it pertains to calculating the AAV for the tax budget, but maybe past deals will be grandfathered in.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, Duran Is The Man said:

i'd think so as well. what about deferrals? the Dodgers seem to be exploiting this for all they can get.

Any team can defer.  Cleveland just deferred a lot on Ramirez.

[Duran Is The Man]

12 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Any team can defer.  Cleveland just deferred a lot on Ramirez.

yeah, i know that. i'm thinking they may change, as Moon suggests, how it is calculated.

[Duran Is The Man]

the Dodgers payroll and tax for 2026 is $572M.  that's $50M more than the Red Sox and Padres combined. their 2026 tax bill is more than the entire payroll of 12 teams. 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Duran Is The Man said:

the Dodgers payroll and tax for 2026 is $572M.  that's $50M more than the Red Sox and Padres combined

That's sick!

And it's not like the Sox and Padres are slouches.

Now, add the tax that would have been on the deferred money, had their not been a clause in the CBA.