Tucker to Dodgers

[SteveLV]

I am glad this happened.  This "game" is so rigged it is not even funny now.  The best FA goes to the returning World Champs who are outspending everyone and embarrassing the concept of competitiveness.

2027's work stoppage cannot come fast enough.

Our collective angst over the 25th and 26th spots on a lousy roster are laughable in the context of this move.

Carry on.

[Vanimal46]

Yep it’s embarrassing for the league. The Dodgers taking it to this extreme will hopefully tip the scales for 1-3 other top 10 spending teams to join the other 20 teams who have zero chance of competing for a World Series no matter what they do. 

[Rigby]

Still attempting to wrap my head around the refusal of MLB to include ALL of deferred monies into the term limits of the contract. Ohtani's contract should count $70 million/year for the duration of the ten year contract. 

[tony&rodney]

The owners all felt sorry for LAD after the ridiculous bankruptcy of that club over a decade ago.  Subsequently, the owners gave special privileges to the Dodgers whereby they did not have to share their revenue share in the same fashion as others. That little deal made the Dodgers big bucks, not petty cash like the Yankees or Mets make. So, once again, it is on the owners. Will they force revenue sharing beyond the current system or not?
 

A few people have attempted to cast the MLBPA and the players in a bad light. MLB players make good money, that is true. MLB players also take home less of a percentage of total revenue  than the other sports. I don't think much will leak out as the owners argue over money. I doubt they will lock out the players either because their addiction to cash flow is too dear to their hearts.

[bean5302]

MLBTR predicted 11yrs and $400MM. Spotrac's Market Value was 12yrs at $498MM.

The 4yr/$240MM deal probably has a massive amount of deferred money as well. I'd wager $80MM?

So the Dodgers are signing Tucker at way, way under predictions says more about the rest of the league than the Dodgers.

[ashbury]

29 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I'd wager $80MM?

You're going to have trouble covering your next mortgage payment if you lose.

[Vanimal46]

Last year my prediction of the Dodgers breaking the single season wins record didn’t work out. I’ll double down on it happening in 2026

[SteveLV]

$30M is deferred.  Rest is all paid per contract year and fully guaranteed, of course.

They don't care.  They are swimming in money.

[Chembry]

As of today, the Dodgers are carrying an estimated $429M payroll in 2026...

[nicksaviking]

Seems to me this just indicates that the expansion teams should be in LA and NY. The profits from their market share is more than they can possible even spend. I'm sure the Dodgers, Yankees and Mets will gladly share their fans. 

I'd include the Angels, but I've never heard of such a thing as an Angel fan. Yet, there they are, still in the top half of the league in spending despite not having a winning record in a decade.

[TheLeviathan]

The Dodgers have spent more total money in free agency the last three years (2.5 billion) than 17 teams in the league are worth.

Go ahead.  Read that again.

[Chembry]

49 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The Dodgers have spent more total money in free agency the last three years (2.5 billion) than 17 teams in the league are worth.

Go ahead.  Read that again.

According to Forbes' list from 2025, the Dodgers MLB payroll is more than 20 teams gross revenue. 

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/

[K.Hibl]

I get the feeling that the dodgers are planning for a salary cap and trying to cash in as many bought WS wins as they can while they can. Their payroll with the luxury tax is insane but if they can go back to back to back, it will pay for itself easy.

[amjgt]

7 minutes ago, K.Hibl said:

I get the feeling that the dodgers are planning for a salary cap and trying to cash in as many bought WS wins as they can while they can. Their payroll with the luxury tax is insane but if they can go back to back to back, it will pay for itself easy.

... and grandfather themselves in as much as possible.

Can't really force the Dodgers to immediately get cap compliant if the contracts are already signed. I mean you COULD, but that seems unlikely

[whosafraidofluigirussolo]

If money is truly no object to the Dodgers, I wonder how much of Teoscar Hernández' contract they would eat in a trade...

[USAFChief]

Ridiculous. 

And there are those who argue this type of thing isn't bad for baseball.

 

[Vanimal46]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Ridiculous. 

And there are those who argue this type of thing isn't bad for baseball.

 

All we can hope for is implementing real changes in MLB now that the Dodgers are making a mockery of the league. If a new CBA is status quo, this sport will swirl down the drain

[old nurse]

18 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Yep it’s embarrassing for the league. The Dodgers taking it to this extreme will hopefully tip the scales for 1-3 other top 10 spending teams to join the other 20 teams who have zero chance of competing for a World Series no matter what they do. 

For 2024. In total revenue there were only 4 teams within 200 million of the Dodgers. That 200 million more spent on players salaries should get 28 out of the other 29 teams on board with caps and different revenue sharing. Considering that 8 more baseball teams lost a cash cow there should be enough to change the revenue sharing 

[LakesPibble]

Owners make the most money when they sell their teams.  Having the Dodgers worth more makes their teams worth more.  The myth of the sports loving owner is just that.

[bean5302]

8 hours ago, K.Hibl said:

I get the feeling that the dodgers are planning for a salary cap and trying to cash in as many bought WS wins as they can while they can. Their payroll with the luxury tax is insane but if they can go back to back to back, it will pay for itself easy.

 

7 hours ago, amjgt said:

... and grandfather themselves in as much as possible.

Can't really force the Dodgers to immediately get cap compliant if the contracts are already signed. I mean you COULD, but that seems unlikely

Grandfathering worked great for the Wild when they signed Parise and Suter. That said, MLB will bend over backwards for their precious cash cow so nothing is going to happen which will annoy the Dodgers too much, I don't think.

[tony&rodney]

40 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

 

Grandfathering worked great for the Wild when they signed Parise and Suter. That said, MLB will bend over backwards for their precious cash cow so nothing is going to happen which will annoy the Dodgers too much, I don't think.

A majority of owners can demand that ALL ticket revenues and media monies (both local and national) are pooled and divided. This is similar to what most every sports league does. Teams can differentiate themselves and benefit financially by selling stadium ads, uniform ads, and private boxes. These decisions are totally on the owners. The justification for most every sports league is that games cannot be played without two teams and leagues cannot survive without multiple teams. A vote for total and complete revenue sharing divided equally amongst all teams would benefit players and reduce the vast, comical differences between most baseball clubs and the Dodgers plus a couple of others. The only prerogative for those few teams would be to break away and start their own league, which would cause the end of the Sherman Anti-Trust Exemption and be difficult to say the least. The current problems were initiated by the owners and only the owners can resolve the chasm in the finances between the few and the rest. It really is that simple .... but it isn't what many expect to happen.

[ashbury]

Just saw this, had to share.

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

A majority of owners can demand that ALL ticket revenues and media monies (both local and national) are pooled and divided. 

I don't think this is remotely true.  Most league‑wide decisions require a ¾ vote.   Some require unanimous consent, especially when they materially change the economic rights of individual clubs.

Asked Copilot and got this .....

1. The MLB Constitution protects club property rights
Local revenues are considered club property, and stripping them would likely require unanimous approval or a constitutional amendment — not just a majority.

2. High‑revenue teams would never agree
Teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Mets generate enormous local revenue.
They would fight any attempt to redistribute all of it.

Even reaching the 23‑owner threshold would be nearly impossible.

3. The MLBPA would immediately challenge it
The union would argue that such a change alters the economic landscape in ways that affect player salaries, requiring negotiation under the CBA.

4. Antitrust exemption limits
MLB’s antitrust exemption is narrow and does not protect owners from lawsuits over internal economic coercion.
A forced revenue seizure could trigger legal challenges from within the league.

5. Broadcast contracts
Local TV deals are individually negotiated legal contracts.
Owners cannot simply vote to void them.

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I don't think this is remotely true.  Most league‑wide decisions require a ¾ vote.   Some require unanimous consent, especially when they materially change the economic rights of individual clubs.

Asked Copilot and got this .....

1. The MLB Constitution protects club property rights
Local revenues are considered club property, and stripping them would likely require unanimous approval or a constitutional amendment — not just a majority.

2. High‑revenue teams would never agree
Teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Mets generate enormous local revenue.
They would fight any attempt to redistribute all of it.

Even reaching the 23‑owner threshold would be nearly impossible.

3. The MLBPA would immediately challenge it
The union would argue that such a change alters the economic landscape in ways that affect player salaries, requiring negotiation under the CBA.

4. Antitrust exemption limits
MLB’s antitrust exemption is narrow and does not protect owners from lawsuits over internal economic coercion.
A forced revenue seizure could trigger legal challenges from within the league.

5. Broadcast contracts
Local TV deals are individually negotiated legal contracts.
Owners cannot simply vote to void them.

I stand corrected. Thought a 3/4ths vote was needed. Thank you for the correction.

Think the owners made this mess and the owners will need to fix their problems. When the owners gave the Dodgers a special exemption from the regular revenue sharing it put a billion dollars of pure profit into the club's pockets over a decade and since then additional monies from new sources continue to flow, unshared,  into the vault of the LAD account. 

I guess I don't really care that much about the specifics or even the outcomes given the current state of the world. I'm sorry for commenting on it. Actually think i shouldn't be commenting any longer on TD. My baseball addiction needs to be restricted.

While I have not been a fan of restrictions on player's salaries or even a fan of caps, even I can see that the sport has a problem when one player can make as much as the entire 26 person roster of another team. When caps are suggested I wonder how that would work. If the Dodgers are at $400M, does that mean the minimum is set at $200M? Seems like things went a little haywire after factors of three were passed.  Other than the Twins I always liked the Dodgers as Sandy Koufax was my favorite non Twins player. 

Last season the Dodgers had a ridiculous number of injuries and struggles and they still won the World Series. I, for one, would not be surprised if good health combined with excellent performances allowed the Dodgers to win 122 or more games. 

I don't have an answer .... nothing. What do you think should happen?

[Dave Borton]

When I look at Tucker and now Bichette's contract, I just can't get my arms around these.

$60MM/yr for Tucker
$42MM/yr for Bichette

Really? Man, I am getting old.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

I stand corrected. Thought a 3/4ths vote was needed. Thank you for the correction.

Think the owners made this mess and the owners will need to fix their problems. When the owners gave the Dodgers a special exemption from the regular revenue sharing it put a billion dollars of pure profit into the club's pockets over a decade and since then additional monies from new sources continue to flow, unshared,  into the vault of the LAD account. 

I guess I don't really care that much about the specifics or even the outcomes given the current state of the world. I'm sorry for commenting on it. Actually think i shouldn't be commenting any longer on TD. My baseball addiction needs to be restricted.

While I have not been a fan of restrictions on player's salaries or even a fan of caps, even I can see that the sport has a problem when one player can make as much as the entire 26 person roster of another team. When caps are suggested I wonder how that would work. If the Dodgers are at $400M, does that mean the minimum is set at $200M? Seems like things went a little haywire after factors of three were passed.  Other than the Twins I always liked the Dodgers as Sandy Koufax was my favorite non Twins player. 

Last season the Dodgers had a ridiculous number of injuries and struggles and they still won the World Series. I, for one, would not be surprised if good health combined with excellent performances allowed the Dodgers to win 122 or more games. 

I don't have an answer .... nothing. What do you think should happen?

Me neither.  I don’t have a good answer.  While I agree the owners created this mess, the players are contributing significant obstacles to them cleaning it up.  The most pragmatic way for them to narrow the gap is the luxury tax.  However, the MLPA took a very hard position on the luxury tax during the last CBA.  As I am sure you know, half of that money goes directly to players and the other half goes to lower revenue teams.   At one point in the negotiations, they were also trying to get the revenue sharing decreased.   

I don’t think there is a realistic way to actually get anything close to parity.   This model and its flaws were developed a long time ago.  Based on the last CBA negotiations the owners are far more willing to initiate changes that would at least mitigate the disparity.  The MLBPA fought hard to maximize the disparity.    That’s quite an obstacle.   It’s also understandable.  The MLBPA’s charter is to maximize the player slice of the pie.  I would guess parity and the good of the game is not a high priority.  The game is healthy enough to pay individual players hundreds of millions.  Parity is not a concern for the MLBPA.
 

[mnfireman]

[Linus]

20 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Me neither.  I don’t have a good answer.  While I agree the owners created this mess, the players are contributing significant obstacles to them cleaning it up.  The most pragmatic way for them to narrow the gap is the luxury tax.  However, the MLPA took a very hard position on the luxury tax during the last CBA.  As I am sure you know, half of that money goes directly to players and the other half goes to lower revenue teams.   At one point in the negotiations, they were also trying to get the revenue sharing decreased.   

I don’t think there is a realistic way to actually get anything close to parity.   This model and its flaws were developed a long time ago.  Based on the last CBA negotiations the owners are far more willing to initiate changes that would at least mitigate the disparity.  The MLBPA fought hard to maximize the disparity.    That’s quite an obstacle.   It’s also understandable.  The MLBPA’s charter is to maximize the player slice of the pie.  I would guess parity and the good of the game is not a high priority.  The game is healthy enough to pay individual players hundreds of millions.  Parity is not a concern for the MLBPA.
 

I think you have summarized the challenges accurately. I have no answers either and the couple ideas I have for increased parity come largely at the expense of the players which I don’t like. One idea is that there should be one draft that encompasses the whole world. This would allow lower level clubs to be able to draft an Ohtani. It would also stop millions from being spent on 16 years in a corrupt system in Latin America. Perhaps in exchange for this the MLB minimum could be raised. You could start penalizing teams that exceed salary thresholds with withholding of draft picks. Ideally, all TV revenue should be divided equally but I don’t see that happening. At a minimum deferred money in contracts needs to be regulated. Lastly, if things get desperate enough the bottom 22-24 teams could threaten to not play the top 6 or 8 teams until the system is fixed. Let the Yankees and the Dodgers play 30 times a year and see how long people stay interested. 

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Linus said:

I think you have summarized the challenges accurately. I have no answers either and the couple ideas I have for increased parity come largely at the expense of the players which I don’t like. One idea is that there should be one draft that encompasses the whole world. This would allow lower level clubs to be able to draft an Ohtani. It would also stop millions from being spent on 16 years in a corrupt system in Latin America. Perhaps in exchange for this the MLB minimum could be raised. You could start penalizing teams that exceed salary thresholds with withholding of draft picks. Ideally, all TV revenue should be divided equally but I don’t see that happening. At a minimum deferred money in contracts needs to be regulated. Lastly, if things get desperate enough the bottom 22-24 teams could threaten to not play the top 6 or 8 teams until the system is fixed. Let the Yankees and the Dodgers play 30 times a year and see how long people stay interested. 

The owners were talking about an international draft during the last CBA.  I understood that to be separate from the Rule 4 draft which I think makes sense.  Combining them complicates the process and makes it more difficult to change down the road.  Are there any issues you are thinking of that a separate international draft would not resolve? 

[Linus]

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The owners were talking about an international draft during the last CBA.  I understood that to be separate from the Rule 4 draft which I think makes sense.  Combining them complicates the process and makes it more difficult to change down the road.  Are there any issues you are thinking of that a separate international draft would not resolve? 

No I wouldn’t think so other than one draft would be simpler. What about combining them would be more complicated?  In any event it is a step that would help parity. Obviously it would be only one of many solutions.