Dodgers Are Ruining Baseball

[jad]

14 hours 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.  

What competitive balance?  You mean like in the twenties?  or pre-free-agency?   I'm sure owners want a cap for workers, just as they do in all businesses, as long as the cap doesn't apply to administrators.  And the closer that cap is the the sum--no. of workers X minimum wage--the better they like it.

 

[notin]

4 hours ago, jad said:

What competitive balance?  You mean like in the twenties?  or pre-free-agency?   I'm sure owners want a cap for workers, just as they do in all businesses, as long as the cap doesn't apply to administrators.  And the closer that cap is the the sum--no. of workers X minimum wage--the better they like it.

 

Are teams signing Scouting Directors and Vice Presidents of Player Personnel to nine-figure  salaries now?

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Are teams signing Scouting Directors and Vice Presidents of Player Personnel to nine-figure  salaries now?

You can find and or develop the best talent in the world, but if you cant afford- or aren't willing to afford- to sign them or keep them, does it matter?

[JoeBrady]

6 hours ago, jad said:

What competitive balance?  You mean like in the twenties?  or pre-free-agency?   I'm sure owners want a cap for workers, just as they do in all businesses, as long as the cap doesn't apply to administrators.  And the closer that cap is the the sum--no. of workers X minimum wage--the better they like it.

 

The only way it works is if the players take a percentage of the gross, like FB or B-ball.  If you get to that point, which could easily favor players, then chop TV revenues, and then it doesn't matter.

[JoeBrady]

12 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

You can find and or develop the best talent in the world, but if you cant afford- or aren't willing to afford- to sign them or keep them, does it matter?

It does matter.  Even if you cannot afford to keep the talent, you can trade the talent, often for more long-term value.  And even poorer teams can extend occasionally.  MN, KC, CL, Athletics, Nats, Brewers, Pirates & Rox have all extended players.  You have to be judicious on whom you extend, but you can do so successfully.

[notin]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

You can find and or develop the best talent in the world, but if you cant afford- or aren't willing to afford- to sign them or keep them, does it matter?

My point was the silly notion that teams Don want caps on executives that was suggested.  The executives make peanuts compared to the players…

[notin]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

The only way it works is if the players take a percentage of the gross, like FB or B-ball.  If you get to that point, which could easily favor players, then chop TV revenues, and then it doesn't matter.

The NBA and NFL have better national TV deals than MLB.  The NFL in particular relies heavily on it…

[moonslav59]

39 minutes ago, notin said:

My point was the silly notion that teams Don want caps on executives that was suggested.  The executives make peanuts compared to the players…

Yes, I understood this, and agree.

[mvp 78]

21 hours ago, notin said:

Are teams signing Scouting Directors and Vice Presidents of Player Personnel to nine-figure  salaries now?

Have you seen the inflation on quarter zips these days? That could be what it takes to retain these guys! 

[Kimmi]

On 1/24/2026 at 5:13 PM, 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 agree that teams are spending more than they otherwise would, reluctantly, to keep up with the Joneses.  The direction that free agent spending has taken is crazy.  IMO, they need to disallow deferrals, at the very least.

It does seem that teams may now be trending towards shorter length contracts with higher AAVs.  That's a start, but even those contracts are outrageous.  Bregman's $40M a year was crazy enough,

[jad]

17 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

I agree that teams are spending more than they otherwise would, reluctantly, to keep up with the Joneses.  The direction that free agent spending has taken is crazy.  IMO, they need to disallow deferrals, at the very least.

It does seem that teams may now be trending towards shorter length contracts with higher AAVs.  That's a start, but even those contracts are outrageous.  Bregman's $40M a year was crazy enough,

I don't see the objection to deferrals.  How do they affect competitive balance?  Teams front-load or back-load contracts all the time--the salary cap is based on averages so what difference does it make?   Not arguing here; I just don't understand the objection.

[Kimmi]

2 minutes ago, jad said:

I don't see the objection to deferrals.  How do they affect competitive balance?  Teams front-load or back-load contracts all the time--the salary cap is based on averages so what difference does it make?   Not arguing here; I just don't understand the objection.

Deferred money 1) lowers the AAV so that teams take less of a hit on the luxury tax, and 2)  frees up current money for the team to spend on other players.

[jad]

17 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

Deferred money 1) lowers the AAV so that teams take less of a hit on the luxury tax, and 2)  frees up current money for the team to spend on other players.

Ok.  so they can shift money around to avoid the lux tax (sort of like income averaging to avoid a windfall tax on an extraordinarily good year).   you're saying that lower spending teams (with no lux tax) have no reason to do this.  I guess I see this.  But I still don't see how this affects competitive balance.  teams that pay more have an advantage over teams that pay less.  And they will no matter how the shift money from one year to another.

[JoeBrady]

4 hours ago, Kimmi said:

1) lowers the AAV so that teams take less of a hit on the luxury tax,

But the player is effectively getting less.  If I am going to pay you $200,000 in salary, but not pay you for one year, and the rate of return is 4%, then I am really only paying you $192,000.

[jad]

10 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

But the player is effectively getting less.  If I am going to pay you $200,000 in salary, but not pay you for one year, and the rate of return is 4%, then I am really only paying you $192,000.

That's right.  And I assume the reasons players agree to it is that they can beat their chests and say "I get paid 200K!" rather than "I get paid $192K."  I know it seems silly--these players don't seem to care about money as much as they care about the appearance of having it.  But that's no different from the businesses I've been involved in.   When my company once published salaries, thinking the overpaid fat-asses would be embarrassed, they were instead proud of the wage disparity.   I don't know anyone embarrassed by what they make (although I have many times woken up, checked the mirror to make sure my reflection is still there, and muttered 'I can't believe they pay me to do this.')

[moonslav59]

Yes, if players agree to deferrals, fine- just don't lower the AAV for it.

Teams could start changing 7 yr deals into 10 year deal to help lower the AAV, but the league has policed that, too.

[JoeBrady]

3 hours ago, jad said:

'I can't believe they pay me to do this.'

I've often felt the same way.  I've often joined companies where people didn't know what they were doing, or maybe be uninterested in improving the processes.  It made it easy for me to clean things up, and make my job much, much easier.  Some felt like part-time jobs after a while.

Back on target, the deferrals have an implied rate of return of maybe ~ 4.5%.  For a lot of players, I think it is an easy conversation for the agent to tell the player to think of the deferrals as the fixed income part of his portfolio.

[JoeBrady]

10 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Teams could start changing 7 yr deals into 10 year deal to help lower the AAV, but the league has policed that, too.

But that's different.  The SDP signed Bogaerts to a $280M ($35M*8) deal disguised as an 11-year deal to reduce the AAV.  He won't be around 11 years from now.  Telling you I will pay you $105,000 next year for your $100,000 current year salary is just a funding mechanism.

[mvp 78]

19 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Yes, if players agree to deferrals, fine- just don't lower the AAV for it.

Teams could start changing 7 yr deals into 10 year deal to help lower the AAV, but the league has policed that, too.

Players don't want to stick around for 10 years though? 

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Players don't want to stick around for 10 years though? 

If they can, they do. If they don't, they still get paid, unless they pull a Dempster.

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

If they can, they do. If they don't, they still get paid, unless they pull a Dempster.

If they retire, they don't get paid. They'd still have to show up to ST, mess around and get put on IL. Most guys don't want that. (see Stephen Strasburg)

[drewski6]

22 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

If they retire, they don't get paid. They'd still have to show up to ST, mess around and get put on IL. Most guys don't want that. (see Stephen Strasburg)

Didnt want to say Pedroia?

[drewski6]

Just now, drewski6 said:

Didnt want to say Pedroia?

Note: i would never ask a player to retire to help the team.

[mvp 78]

16 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Note: i would never ask a player to retire to help the team.

Should have just Deversed him.

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

If they retire, they don't get paid. They'd still have to show up to ST, mess around and get put on IL. Most guys don't want that. (see Stephen Strasburg)

The Angels just retired Rendon.  I think most teams are reluctant to do so because the GM doesn't want to write off one of the contracts they recently signed.  Poor optics.  But imo, it's a bad idea to drag Rendon around, and have him clog up a 40-man spot during the off-season.  I'm saying I'd give back a lot of my contract just so I can retire early.  But if I already made a gazillion $$$, I probably would give up some of rather than go through the pretense that I was still coming back.

[mvp 78]

14 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

The Angels just retired Rendon.  I think most teams are reluctant to do so because the GM doesn't want to write off one of the contracts they recently signed.  Poor optics.  But imo, it's a bad idea to drag Rendon around, and have him clog up a 40-man spot during the off-season.  I'm saying I'd give back a lot of my contract just so I can retire early.  But if I already made a gazillion $$$, I probably would give up some of rather than go through the pretense that I was still coming back.

The Angels agreed to restructure the contract so that he could retire ONE YEAR early. Moon was suggesting a player retire 3 years early and the team continue to pay them. 

[Kimmi]

22 hours ago, jad said:

Ok.  so they can shift money around to avoid the lux tax (sort of like income averaging to avoid a windfall tax on an extraordinarily good year).   you're saying that lower spending teams (with no lux tax) have no reason to do this.  I guess I see this.  But I still don't see how this affects competitive balance.  teams that pay more have an advantage over teams that pay less.  And they will no matter how the shift money from one year to another.

I don't disagree that teams that spend more have an advantage, on average, over teams that spend less.  I guess what I'm hoping for with the 'no deferrals' is that it would force the Dodgers to spend less if they're not able to shift that money around.

I do think that there are teams that are not spending enough money on payroll.  I don't think the Red Sox are one of those teams.  And I think that the Dodgers have gone beyond overboard with their spending.

[Kimmi]

18 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

But the player is effectively getting less.  If I am going to pay you $200,000 in salary, but not pay you for one year, and the rate of return is 4%, then I am really only paying you $192,000.

That is not really my concern.  The players in the top tier are making more than enough money.

My concern is that by deferring some (or a lot) of the money, teams have more financial flexibility to spend in the present.  They are, in a sense, cheating the system.  

[Kimmi]

7 hours ago, jad said:

That's right.  And I assume the reasons players agree to it is that they can beat their chests and say "I get paid 200K!" rather than "I get paid $192K."  I know it seems silly--these players don't seem to care about money as much as they care about the appearance of having it.  But that's no different from the businesses I've been involved in.   When my company once published salaries, thinking the overpaid fat-asses would be embarrassed, they were instead proud of the wage disparity.   I don't know anyone embarrassed by what they make (although I have many times woken up, checked the mirror to make sure my reflection is still there, and muttered 'I can't believe they pay me to do this.')

The player's ego certainly plays a large role in players going after the most money.  

[moonslav59]

52 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The Angels agreed to restructure the contract so that he could retire ONE YEAR early. Moon was suggesting a player retire 3 years early and the team continue to pay them. 

I suggested that? When? Where?