Maple_City_Fan
Well-known member
Throw in San Francisco, alsoSince 2000 mega market teams have won only nine of 23 titles. I consider mega market New York, LA, Chicago and Boston.
Throw in San Francisco, alsoSince 2000 mega market teams have won only nine of 23 titles. I consider mega market New York, LA, Chicago and Boston.
He got a larger payday in terms of average annual value than I expected, but I guess the Red Sox paid up for the luxury of not committing to a long-term deal. Giolito has been really up and down and was pretty well known to have benefited from sticky stuff before it got banned.Jesus, the Bosox paid Giolitto.
He can be an innings eater at times but he's been pretty awful recently.He got a larger payday in terms of average annual value than I expected, but I guess the Red Sox paid up for the luxury of not committing to a long-term deal. Giolito has been really up and down and was pretty well known to have benefited from sticky stuff before it got banned.
To those that think Dodgers throw $ for the sake doing so, they weren't willing to pay what Bo$ox offeredHe got a larger payday in terms of average annual value than I expected, but I guess the Red Sox paid up for the luxury of not committing to a long-term deal. Giolito has been really up and down and was pretty well known to have benefited from sticky stuff before it got banned.
Uh, it is because their rotation is already set. And in 2025, they have about an 8 man rotation. Why buy another expensive SP?To those that think Dodgers throw $ for the sake doing so, they weren't willing to pay what Bo$ox offered
As the resident Dodger fan, they showed great interest. He wasn't worth the $ Boston offeredUh, it is because their rotation is already set. And in 2025, they have about an 8 man rotation. Why buy another expensive SP?![]()
To those that think Dodgers throw $ for the sake doing so, they weren't willing to pay what Bo$ox offered
hahahahahahahahahaAs the resident Dodger fan, they showed great interest. He wasn't worth the $ Boston offered
LOL, sure tell yourself the Dodgers were just being fiscally conservative for once, if it helps you sleep at night.As the resident Dodger fan, they showed great interest. He wasn't worth the $ Boston offered
Max Scherzer, who decided dead arm when Dodgers needed him the most, he got 2 year $87 million from Mets. Dodgers definitely weren't willingLOL, sure tell yourself the Dodgers were just being fiscally conservative for once, if it helps you sleep at night.
- Ohtani will be worth $70M per year in years 7-10 of that ridiculous contract, as he approaches 40 years old?
- Unproven Yamamoto is worth $325M over 12 years?
- mediocre OF Heyward as worth $9M this year?
- part-time utility guy Taylor is worth $13M per year?
They throw money their around carelessly whether you care to admit it or not. When they fall short of World Series most baseball fans will enjoy it very much.
I'll assume since you did not answer any of my questions the answers are all "no". These are all 4 horrible contracts where the Dodgers dramatically overpaid.Max Scherzer, who decided dead arm when Dodgers needed him the most, he got 2 year $87 million from Mets. Dodgers definitely weren't willing
Despite Corey Seager injury history, he was offered extension of 8 years, $250 million. Texas got him at 10 years, $300 million. Dodgers said no way
Trea Turner signed with Philadelphia at 11 year, $300 million. Dodgers knew he wasn't worth that. Let Philly suffer in the long term
LA has an excellent and stocked farm system. They weren't willing to mortgage that to Washington when San Diego did to get Juan Soto. 15 ÿears ago, San Diego was dead last in payroll. It was 3rd this past season. And, at times this past season, they had to take a loan to make payroll. They recently traded said Soto to Yankees to shed payroll
Because LA was conservative in their dealings, it freed up $ to get Showtime and Yamamoto.
As far as Heyward and Taylor, the former was decent in 2023. Taylor was rewarded for his big moments since LA started championship moments in 2017. LA has a knack taking care. Of own. Kershaw and Betts come to mind. Speaking of Taylor, he and Justin Turner/Max Muncy were basically no bodies when arriving to LA, but were developed and became stars.
Their upper management is competitive and wants to win and also please an adoring crowd of over 50,000+ nightly. They're not greedy like your typical owners in Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh. MLB has revenue sharing. It should be reinvested to their teams
I believe I answered Heyward and Turner.I'll assume since you did not answer any of my questions the answers are all "no". These are all 4 horrible contracts where the Dodgers dramatically overpaid.
Your response is "well the Dodgers did not overpay for every available expensive player. And some other teams overpaid too. " Gotcha.
Clearly there is a lot about the inequities in the system that you do not understand.I believe I answered Heyward and Turner.
Yamamoto isn't that Unproven. And, if LA didn't make that offer, he's off to NYY, where they throw $ around without doing the right things
Same with Shohei, someone else gets him. Much of his Contract is backloaded. By the time he's 40, rate of return likely epic. Plus, of now, saves on luxury tax. It was genius. That move allowed to get fellow Country man, Yamamoto
Don't get mad at the Dodgers. Get mad at your Owner who will BS one saying "Small Market." They prey on their "ignorant" fanbase because fanbase doesn't fully understand the material
A wise person once told me to complain about the system is to fully not understand the system
A wise person also told me to make $ you have to spend $. Economics 101
True story
@Maple_City_Fan too ashamed to respond? Or just confused? Let me help you with the math.Clearly there is a lot about the inequities in the system that you do not understand.
I posted on the prior page about the teams' revenue from their local TV networks. Dodgers #1 at $239M per year versus $45-50M per year for smaller market teams like Cincy, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc. It is a huge advantage and "small market" is not a fictional thing. Compound that monetary advantage over a few decades and teams like LA, Yankees, Red Sox have massive stockpiles of money that smaller markets cannot hope to match. Couple that with no salary cap and you get the team salary inequities that you see in the MLB.
Next time you post about ignorant fans, check the mirror first.
I'll respond in due time@Maple_City_Fan too ashamed to respond? Or just confused? Let me help you with the math.
LA gets $239M in local TV revenue. Contributes 48% ($115M) to the MLB revenue share. Leaving $124M for LA to keep.
Reds get $48M in local TV revenue. Contributes 48% ($23M) to the MLB revenue share. Leaving $25M for Cincy to keep.
Even with the revenue share, LA has a billion dollars more TV revenue per decade than Cincy. With no salary cap, does that seem like an advantage? Care to retract any of your uninformed "small market" statements?
Not ashamed nor confused. I don't want to write another dissertation only for you to complain about a system because you don't fully understand the system.@Maple_City_Fan too ashamed to respond? Or just confused? Let me help you with the math.
Is this a serious question? Are you delusional? A salary cap and salary floor are common-sense answers that just about every fan agrees are necessary to maintain the health and legitimacy of the league.What advantages does a salary cap have in MLB?
Yes, a serious question. People scream level playing field, yet, it's had the most parity since beginning of this Century. Can't say that in other Sports that DO have a salary capIs this a serious question? Are you delusional? A salary cap and salary floor are common-sense answers that just about every fan agrees are necessary to maintain the health and legitimacy of the league.
Cheap owners not spending in order to pocket the profits is not some big secret that requires education. It also is not a "loophole" - it is due to the lack of a salary floor.Not ashamed nor confused. I don't want to write another dissertation only for you to complain about a system because you don't fully understand the system.
Have you heard the loophole called nutting? I swear, it's not dirty. Well, dirty in the sense it doesn't help some one like Pittsburgh which ironically is where the name comes in the form of Pirates Owner, Mr. Nutting. Read up on it.
What advantages does a salary cap have in MLB?
Before I write another dissertation, I want to you to answer this and educate yourself on nutting
Why do you say this like you know it as fact? It has never occurred; there has never been a cap and floor in place.I asked because people think it'll create parity. It doesn't.
All one has to do is pay attention since Century's start. Then, pay attention to other Sports that have Salary Caps.Why do you say this like you know it as fact? It has never occurred; there has never been a cap and floor in place.
If destination plays a huge role, then the Marlins, Angels and D-Backs would be vastly better than they’ve generally been over the past 20 years.All one has to do is pay attention since Century's start. Then, pay attention to other Sports that have Salary Caps.
Regardless, Some Organizations are ran great, some aren't. And destination plays a huge role. LA or Cleveland/Cincinnati/Detroit/Pittsburgh?
I apologize I wasn't specific about across the board; wasn't solely to MLB. I'm always reminded of LeBron and also Braylon Edwards hissy fit going to Cleveland rather than Miami. If I'm talking MLB, Dodgers, Yankees, Cardinals, Braves. Great atmosphere and players under bright lights.If destination plays a huge role, then the Marlins, Angels and D-Backs would be vastly better than they’ve generally been over the past 20 years.
Also, big markets/high spenders have won almost every World Series for the past two decades, with the exceptions of the Cardinals and the Royals.
And you can’t compare baseball apples to apples to with other capped sports like NFL and NBA. Those sports are more easily dominated by one star player or a star QB. One player can’t dominate baseball like that.
Agreed that some organizations are run well (Rays, Dodgers) and some are not (Angels, White Sox). Agreed that you have to spend money to make money.MLB owners have $. They're also given a good chunk of $ from local and national revenue streams. Reinvest. Try to put a competitive product instead of greed.
Business 101, in order yo make $, you have to spend $.
Yes, you are missing something huge, posted above on multiple occasions. Teams keep 52% of their local/regional TV revenue, while contributing 48% to rev share.Am I missing something? Doesn't each team get at least $110 million?
LA gets $239M in local TV revenue. Contributes 48% ($115M) to the MLB revenue share. Leaving $124M for LA to keep.
Reds get $48M in local TV revenue. Contributes 48% ($23M) to the MLB revenue share. Leaving $25M for Cincy to keep.
Even with the revenue share, LA has a billion dollars more TV revenue per decade than Cincy. With no salary cap, does that seem like an advantage? Care to retract any of your uninformed "small market" statements?