2023-24 Free Agency Discussion

Jesus, the Bosox paid Giolitto.
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.
 
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.
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 offered
 
Indians bought the Gateway parking garage.

The garage batted .000 with 0 home runs and no RBIs in 2023.

But, it does bat left handed.
 
As 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.

- 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.
 
LOL, 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.
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
 
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'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.
 
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.
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
 
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
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.
 
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.
@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?
 
@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?
I'll respond in due time
 
@Maple_City_Fan too ashamed to respond? Or just confused? Let me help you with the math.
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
 
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.
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 cap
 
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
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.

I have bolded above the stupidest question in the history of Yappi. Here is your answer.

The most basic problem in the MLB is the lack of a hard salary cap and a salary floor. The hard cap keeps the wealthiest teams from buying all the best players, and the salary floor prevents the cheapskate owners from just hording money and not putting a competitive roster together. I've been posting about this for years.

The NFL does it best. The cap is adjusted annually, and the floor is something like 80% of the cap. This forces all teams to spend enough to be competitive. The NHL does is also. No "nutting" is possible. No "dodgering" or "yankeeing" is possible either. The NFL has the most parity, the highest TV ratings, and the best competition. There are not any games that feel like the Varsity playing the JVs, like we get all the time in the MLB when the Dodgers play the As, Pirates or Royals.

This is not a complex solution. While the MLBPA and the agents would certainly dislike the hard cap, they would love the hard floor. Overall, there would be more salary dollars available for the players. It seems like this is something that can be negotiated into the next labor contract. It should have been in the last one.
 
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.
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.
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.

2003 Marlins? Besides, many 1st time winners or those winning WS for 1st time in longtime. Arizona, Anaheim, Boston, ChiSox, San Francisco, Houston, and Texas. Tampa likely on list over my Dodgers if Cash wasn't an sweetie taking out Snell

Parity is still is parity no matter how you slice it. And one star player? Is that why we have Super team's in today's NBA? And there have been Super Bowl Champions with fair at best QBs

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 $.
 
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 $.
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.

But as I've explained many times, if a handful of teams have $100M more per year in TV revenue to reinvest in players than most other teams, and there is no cap on how much can be spent on players, you end up with what you have to day: Incredible imbalance in the rosters.

If the MLB is purely a capitalistic venture, then by all means let's continue as-is. If the MLB is trying to be a sports league with competitive balance, then the easy answer is salary cap and salry floor, like all the other leagues. If cheap owners don;t want to spend to the floor, sell the team and make a huge profit on the way out...
 
Am I missing something? Doesn't each team get at least $110 million?
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.

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?

So yes, the Reds and Dodgers both get $110M in rev share. But the incremental difference in what they keep is the crux of the "small market" concept that you poo-poo. Maybe you should not chide others for "not understanding the system".
 
Last edited:
Top