Feinsand: Dodgers Sign Tanner Scott to Four-Year, $72-Million Deal

Legit thinking of becoming a dodgers fan

What.... the.... horsefeathers.

How anyone can think this is good for baseball is beyond me.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I can’t wait until they have a couple of off days in October and get bounced in the NLDS because baseball will always be somewhat of a weighted crapshoot no matter how good you are. 

Also Jesse Rogers said the final teams were the Cubs and Dodgers.  4/72 actually seems less than what I was expecting in terms of AAV

$71,999,999.95 deferred

I honestly can't decide between wanting the Dodgers to crash and burn or wanting them to completely dominate MLB for the next two seasons going into the expiring collective bargaining agreement.  Short term, watching them lose would be fun, but long term, I think I'll be rooting for Dodgers domination that results in major changes to force some level of payroll parity. 

2 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

I honestly can't decide between wanting the Dodgers to crash and burn or wanting them to completely dominate MLB for the next two seasons going into the expiring collective bargaining agreement.  Short term, watching them lose would be fun, but long term, I think I'll be rooting for Dodgers domination that results in major changes to force some level of payroll parity. 

Baseball absolutely has to even be playing field or they are going to lose fans. This is not good for baseball. 

Also I wonder how this changes the Cubs spending strategy now. I know there are other relievers the Cubs will pivot to but none likely to get near what Scott got. Will they spend it on 2 relievers, a reliever and a quality bench bat?  Or will they just go into the season spending less than they intended because it will make Tom happier and they can pivot to the “in season moves” excuse?

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Baseball absolutely has to even be playing field or they are going to lose fans. This is not good for baseball. 

If I was an NL West team I’d be pissed for sure. Of course I want the Cubs to spend like the Dodgers and horsefeathers Tom Ricketts for not spending like this but this is not like the Heat adding LeBron, Wade and Bosh and everyone knew that the east was unwinnable for the next several years (as hard as the Bulls tried pre-Rose injury). The World Series is still extremely winnable for many teams including the Cubs. Maybe a normal great team has a 60% chance of winning a 5 game series and 65% chance of winning a 7 game series. The Dodgers might be up to 65% and 70%. Formidable odds but it’s not hopeless. 

tom lying his ass off about that 241 remark

1 minute ago, UMFan83 said:

The World Series is still extremely winnable for many teams including the Cubs. Maybe a normal great team has a 60% chance of winning a 5 game series and 65% chance of winning a 7 game series. The Dodgers might be up to 65% and 70%. Formidable odds but it’s not hopeless. 

I agree with this, but that still doesn't make it right.

Personally, I hope the dodgers become a yankee like dynasty. They’re a big market and choose to take advantage of that. They should be praised for that. It’s not their faults we have a conman for an owner. 

1 minute ago, 17 Seconds said:

tom lying his ass off about that 241 remark

He did say at seasons end. So I am not sure he is lying about that. Most trade deadlines the Cubs are strapped because they can go after a higher priced guy because they have no room in their payroll. If they are $20M short of the LT line there is no player at the deadline they can’t go after. They would only be picking up 1/3 of his salary. So if rhe Jays are out of it they can go after Vlad. There are several other players making $20M or so that may come available at the deadline. They can go after them. The problem is, will the Cubs buy at the deadline? Will this team be good enough compete so they can buy? That is the unnecessary game he is playing. I don’t think he is lying, if all works out they can get to $241M.  But I think what he is doing does suck. It shouldn’t be this way. 

I feel like most players should be concerned about this making more and more fans pushing for a hard salary cap.

6 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

I agree with this, but that still doesn't make it right.

No it doesn’t. It’s annoying af but at this point all I can do is laugh and shake my head. 

Just now, sweetpeteman said:

I feel like most players should be concerned about this making more and more fans pushing for a hard salary cap.

Any hard salary cap would almost certainly be paired with a substantial salary floor.  So yes, it might hurt the guys at the absolute top end being able to sign the mega $700M deals, but the player population as a whole could see little change on the aggregate or even more money in their pockets.

3 minutes ago, sweetpeteman said:

I feel like most players should be concerned about this making more and more fans pushing for a hard salary cap.

Count me as a fan pushing for a hard salary cap. Maximum and minimum.

Tom Ricketts looks like if mouth Aids were given a child' molester's haircut and an ill-fitted suit.

That's the nicest thing I can say about Tom 'trying to break even' with the Cubs. 

wow can’t believe he chose the dodgers over a similar offer from the cubs that’s shocking

31 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

Also I wonder how this changes the Cubs spending strategy now. I know there are other relievers the Cubs will pivot to but none likely to get near what Scott got. Will they spend it on 2 relievers, a reliever and a quality bench bat?  Or will they just go into the season spending less than they intended because it will make Tom happier and they can pivot to the “in season moves” excuse?

I think on a 2025 basis there won't be that much difference between Scott and the next tier down.  Scott getting 4 years was the big get from a player POV.

47 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I can’t wait until they have a couple of off days in October and get bounced in the NLDS because baseball will always be somewhat of a weighted crapshoot no matter how good you are. 

I told a friend of mine yesterday it's a good thing MLB does have a stupid playoff system because otherwise the Dodgers would win titles forever.

If LA's goal is to get everyone outside SoCal to push for a salary cap, they're on their way.

18 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Any hard salary cap would almost certainly be paired with a substantial salary floor.  So yes, it might hurt the guys at the absolute top end being able to sign the mega $700M deals, but the player population as a whole could see little change on the aggregate or even more money in their pockets.

There would have to be some serious negotiating to get to that point. When the owners proposed a cap and floor during the 2022 lockout, the numbers were flat-out insulting and would've resulted in a serious drop in player compensation.

The owners are going to have to open their books the way other sports' owners do if they want a cap.

I legit feel like they should win 130 games and make a mockery of the league. 

Put me firmly in the crash and burn camp, because my hatred of the Dodgers goes way beyond this recent rash of spending. I've hated them my entire MLB fandom.

15 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I legit feel like they should win 130 games and make a mockery of the league. 

But it is baseball. So my guess is they win around 100-105 games.