Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Trevor Bauer to Dodgers


Vanimal46
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

3 years $102 million. $40 million year 1, $45 million year 2. Opt outs after each year.

 

That is crazy money and the Dodgers have a crazy good team.  Looks like they don't want the Padres to catch them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is what is wrong with MLB. There may be 3-4 teams that could sign a player to this amount of a contract. The financial playing field is not even close to being equal or fair.

I agree and hope it's addressed in the upcoming CBA. Whether that's through revenue sharing, salary cap/floor, whatever. Lots of things needs to be revamped for the future of the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Huh. Just last week the most pro-owner poster here said the Dodgers don't use FA to get pitching.....and the Twins should be more like them........

 

edit: not that they can afford this exact number.....but that's not the point....

 

I didn't see the post, so I'm speculating here, but I'm guessing the point was that in the past two years, the Dodgers have had 9 pitchers make 10 or more starts for them (all other pitchers with at least 1 start combine for a total of 10 starts).  Of those nine, eight started their career with the Dodgers, with Rich Hill being the exception.  Five of them were drafted and developed, with the other three signing out of Japan, Korea, and Mexico (Ryu, Maeda, Urias), for a combined total of about $110M--each was then tied to the Dodgers for the first 6 years of their Major League Career.  When taking into consideration Maeda's incentives, and the maximum possible arbitration raises for Urias, call it another $100M.

 

So the Dodgers would have paid, at most, ~$210M for 18 seasons of starting pitching, or not quite $12M per year.  I think that's the point the poster was making--the Twins should strive to draft and develop, and then look to the international markets for their pitching.  The Dodgers have won 8 straight titles, with only one true free agent splash on the pitching side (Greinke, who only pitched 3 years in LA), and it's because they have been great at getting pitching in other places.  If the Twins could do the same, perhaps we wouldn't have to lament their inability to sign elite FA pitching quite so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree and hope it's addressed in the upcoming CBA. Whether that's through revenue sharing, salary cap/floor, whatever. Lots of things needs to be revamped for the future of the game. 

Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland all have payrolls that currently sit under the $40M mark that Bauer himself is set to earn this season. That's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn't see the post, so I'm speculating here, but I'm guessing the point was that in the past two years, the Dodgers have had 9 pitchers make 10 or more starts for them (all other pitchers with at least 1 start combine for a total of 10 starts).  Of those nine, eight started their career with the Dodgers, with Rich Hill being the exception.  Five of them were drafted and developed, with the other three signing out of Japan, Korea, and Mexico (Ryu, Maeda, Urias), for a combined total of about $110M--each was then tied to the Dodgers for the first 6 years of their Major League Career.  When taking into consideration Maeda's incentives, and the maximum possible arbitration raises for Urias, call it another $100M.

 

So the Dodgers would have paid, at most, ~$210M for 18 seasons of starting pitching, or not quite $12M per year.  I think that's the point the poster was making--the Twins should strive to draft and develop, and then look to the international markets for their pitching.  The Dodgers have won 8 straight titles, with only one true free agent splash on the pitching side (Greinke, who only pitched 3 years in LA), and it's because they have been great at getting pitching in other places.  If the Twins could do the same, perhaps we wouldn't have to lament their inability to sign elite FA pitching quite so much.

 

They also acquired Darvish......

 

The point the poster was trying to make was the Twins should not spend money and pocket it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They also acquired Darvish......

 

The point the poster was trying to make was the Twins should not spend money and pocket it. 

 

I wasn't aware Darvish pitched for the Dodgers in 2019/2020.

 

I don't think any poster actually wants the Pohlads to pocket money.  I think many posters understand that it's not ridiculous for people who spend well into the nine figures annually on an entity to want to make some money in the process, so no, I'm guessing that's not the point the poster was trying to make.  The vilification of owners as greedy, selfish misers gleefully victimizing players and public alike is simply cartoonish, ridiculous, and laughably inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is.....those owners don't care about winning at this point.....which is, of course, their right.....

 

You're right--they don't care about winning.  They care about Winning (well, maybe not Cleveland.  But that's what happens to a franchise when a Dolan is in charge).  Baltimore and Pittsburgh could have signed Bauer, Realmuto, and traded for Lindor while giving him a $300M contract, and they would still not be serious contenders for a World Series title.

 

If you want to blame anyone, blame Houston.  The Astros demonstrated you can tear everything down and not try to win for 3-5 years, spend almost nothing, and rebuild your organization, and then resume caring about both winning and Winning.  Or blame the Rays, who have never had a payroll above $80M, are currently at $28M (less than half the league average), and yet are still a favorite to make the playoffs.

 

Or to be perfectly honest--blame the players.  The players absolute refusal to agree to any kind of salary cap, whether individual or team, so long as it is paired with a salary floor, is why some teams can spend and others can't.  Do you really think the owners wouldn't agree to a structure whereby they must spend at least $120M, but no one could spend more than $170M, and then adjust those numbers annually based on revenue increase/decrease?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland all have payrolls that currently sit under the $40M mark that Bauer himself is set to earn this season. That's a problem.

I've read speculation that Baltimore is tearing it down to the studs for an eventual relocation. Their stadium lease expires after this year, and they can't compete with the Nationals for the limited eyes and money in that region. 

Pittsburgh, and especially Cleveland, don't have much of an excuse to be that low in payroll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've read speculation that Baltimore is tearing it down to the studs for an eventual relocation. Their stadium lease expires after this year, and they can't compete with the Nationals for the limited eyes and money in that region. 

Pittsburgh, and especially Cleveland, don't have much of an excuse to be that low in payroll. 

 

The Washington DC metro area is #6 in US population, Philadelphia (not far from Baltimore) is #8, and Baltimore is #21. 

 

In per capita income, DC is #1 by a mile (the difference between #1 and #2 is greater than the difference between #2 and #8), Philadelphia is #43, and Baltimore is #13.

 

So . . . no, not even close to being valid speculation.

 

Cleveland is #34 and #23, respectively, and Pittsburgh is #27 and #79.

 

Minneapolis is #16 and #7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

40 million / 135million Twins team max payroll = 30% of our payroll would go to just Bauer.  way too much for one player.

The Twins should be in the mid 150's, like the Padres. Too bad the Twins' front office took an Fox RSN deal worth half of what the Padres received. That extra $40 million would have been pretty, pretty, pretty nice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 Do you really think the owners wouldn't agree to a structure whereby they must spend at least $120M, but no one could spend more than $170M, and then adjust those numbers annually based on revenue increase/decrease?

The real question is what are the owners willing to give up in order to implement a salary cap? I'm not sure why the players are to blame if owners are aren't willing to make an equally large concession. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're right--they don't care about winning.  They care about Winning (well, maybe not Cleveland.  But that's what happens to a franchise when a Dolan is in charge).  Baltimore and Pittsburgh could have signed Bauer, Realmuto, and traded for Lindor while giving him a $300M contract, and they would still not be serious contenders for a World Series title.

 

If you want to blame anyone, blame Houston.  The Astros demonstrated you can tear everything down and not try to win for 3-5 years, spend almost nothing, and rebuild your organization, and then resume caring about both winning and Winning.  Or blame the Rays, who have never had a payroll above $80M, are currently at $28M (less than half the league average), and yet are still a favorite to make the playoffs.

 

Or to be perfectly honest--blame the players.  The players absolute refusal to agree to any kind of salary cap, whether individual or team, so long as it is paired with a salary floor, is why some teams can spend and others can't.  Do you really think the owners wouldn't agree to a structure whereby they must spend at least $120M, but no one could spend more than $170M, and then adjust those numbers annually based on revenue increase/decrease?

Wait....blame the players?!?!   They have a system in place where they get paid nothing for their training in MiLB, then, once they make the show, they are stuck with a team for 6 years before they get to actually go to a competitive market to shop their services...at which time they basically get 1 shot at a big contract....meanwhile, they are in a sport that had $10B in revenue.   EVERY single owner can afford salaries...they choose not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Twins should be in the mid 150's, like the Padres. Too bad the Twins' front office took an Fox RSN deal worth half of what the Padres received. That extra $40 million would have been pretty, pretty, pretty nice!

No attendance revenue last year, and likely most of this year, coupled with your fact, means we are lucky thery have spent at all and not followed the tracks of Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come to feel the same way about the Dodgers as I do about the Yankees.

It's not good for baseball to continue with a system that gives a small handful of teams an outsize spending advantage. The current revenue sharing/luxury tax system is not effective enough. The owners don't seem to grasp that individual teams are not free-standing entities. They need to look at MLB as a whole. For MLB to succeed it's necessary for each team to have approximately the same opportunity to succeed. This means more extensive revenue sharing. If each team had approximately the same wherewithal with which to operate there would be no need for salary caps or luxury taxes. Ultimately player salaries would become more equitable as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've read speculation that Baltimore is tearing it down to the studs for an eventual relocation. Their stadium lease expires after this year, and they can't compete with the Nationals for the limited eyes and money in that region. 

Pittsburgh, and especially Cleveland, don't have much of an excuse to be that low in payroll. 

The Baltimore stadium is my favorite stadium where  I have attended a baseball game . I have not attended Target Field, but went to the Metro Dome several times in 87 and 88, when Mark Davidson was on the team.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wait....blame the players?!?!   They have a system in place where they get paid nothing for their training in MiLB, then, once they make the show, they are stuck with a team for 6 years before they get to actually go to a competitive market to shop their services...at which time they basically get 1 shot at a big contract....meanwhile, they are in a sport that had $10B in revenue.   EVERY single owner can afford salaries...they choose not to.

 

Yeah, this is off.  In 2020 the (normal) average MLB payroll was $158.9M, which equates out to $4.77 BILLION in player salaries, so pretty much 48%.  This means that every team would average $175M to pay for all other expenses, including taxes.  Obviously though, a number of teams aren't getting anywhere near $175M in excess revenue--they're probably not even close to $75M, and would still need to pay corporate taxes, all the coaches, all the team staff, stadium operating costs, draft picks, minor leaguers, and any investment in the organization, all before the owner even makes a dime.  The Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, and a few others have enough excess to pay the salaries at the top of the scale.  15 to 20 organizations do not (unless they want to lose money, and again, why should owners lose money on something they're spending tens, if not hundreds of millions on annually).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The real question is what are the owners willing to give up in order to implement a salary cap? I'm not sure why the players are to blame if owners are aren't willing to make an equally large concession. 

 

I would imagine in return for cost certainty, and guaranteed profitability, the owners would be more than happy to increase the pay for all minor leaguers (say $25k for DSL, $50k for Rookie and A-, $100k for A+ and AA, and $150k for AAA).  They would also, I'm sure, raise the salaries for pre-free agency major leaguers, knowing that they wouldn't have to pay more on the back end, what with team/player caps.  They would probably also get rid of the service time system, and implement somthing along the lines of free agency falling after the season in which a player turns 27.  They may even eliminate the qualifying offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused...

 

He's getting $40M, $45M, and... $17M?

 

The drop off seems strange, or at least unusual, but given he has opt outs, he has a chance to change things if he wants to.

 

I actually hope he sticks around for the $17M season rather than opting out, as that means he found some place comfortable to stay and play, and the money is less important. Or rather i hope there isn't a corresponding decline in his talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...