Non Cub Offseason Transactions

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, JBears79 said:

The salary cap stuff, I can go back and forth on. What the league really needs right now is a salary floor. So many teams can be spending more money and they dont.

There should be a floor, for sure. But also  cap. Yes, teams can absolutely spend more, but no one can compete with what the Dodgers can do. 

[CubinNY]

12 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

There should be a floor, for sure. But also  cap. Yes, teams can absolutely spend more, but no one can compete with what the Dodgers can do. 

Why do you keep saying that when it’s obviously not true? 

[Rcal10]

27 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Why do you keep saying that when it’s obviously not true? 

What isn’t true? Is it true the Dodgers have a ridiculous TV deal thru 2039 that pays them hundreds of millions more per year than other teams? I agree with your basic argument that teams can spend more. I also agree the Cubs should spend a lot more. But I do not agree they are on the same playing field of the Dodgers. 

[CubinNY]

8 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

What isn’t true? Is it true the Dodgers have a ridiculous TV deal thru 2039 that pays them hundreds of millions more per year than other teams? I agree with your basic argument that teams can spend more. I also agree the Cubs should spend a lot more. But I do not agree they are on the same playing field of the Dodgers. 

• Dodgers: Co-owners of Spectrum SportsNet LA. ’23 figure unreported; ’22 revenue: $196MM.
• Cubs: Owners of Marquee Sports Network. ’23 figure unreported; ’22 revenue: $99MM
• Angels: RSN deal with Diamond Sports Group. Expected ’23 revenues around $125MM (reported by Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times in February ’23).
• Yankees: Co-owners of YES Network. ’23 figure unreported; ’22 revenue: $143MM.

Sorry, no. 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/01/each-teams-local-broadcasting-arrangement.html

Edited January 21, 2025 by CubinNY

[Rcal10]

16 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

• Dodgers: Co-owners of Spectrum SportsNet LA. ’23 figure unreported; ’22 revenue: $196MM.
• Cubs: Owners of Marquee Sports Network. ’23 figure unreported; ’22 revenue: $99MM
• Angels: RSN deal with Diamond Sports Group. Expected ’23 revenues around $125MM (reported by Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times in February ’23).
• Yankees: Co-owners of YES Network. ’23 figure unreported; ’22 revenue: $143MM.

Sorry, no. 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/01/each-teams-local-broadcasting-arrangement.html

Dodgers signed a 25 year $8.35B deal back in 2014. That is $334M a year in TV revenues.  Where is that money being reported? Again, I agree the Cubs should spend more money. But their revenues are not the Dodgers revenues. Not even close. Also, it is clear we are not going to agree on this. So you believe what you want and I will do the same. But stop suggesting what I post isn’t true. It isn’t what you believe. Doesn’t mean it isn’t true. 

Edited January 21, 2025 by Rcal10

[CubinNY]

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Dodgers signed a 25 year $8.35B deal back in 2014. That is $334M a year in TV revenues.  Where is that money being reported? Again, I agree the Cubs should spend more money. But their revenues are not the Dodgers revenues. Not even close. Also, it is clear we are not going to agree on this. So you believe what you want and I will do the same. But stop suggesting what I post isn’t true. It isn’t what you believe. Doesn’t mean it isn’t true. 

I just showed you factual evidence that you are wrong. Did you close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears?

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I just showed you factual evidence that you are wrong. Did you close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears?

Again, what is wrong with what I sent? Is that not true? Or didn’t they sign that contract? Where do they show that revenue? If you don’t believe that is the contract they signed, look it up. 

[CubinNY]

9 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Again, what is wrong with what I sent? Is that not true? Or didn’t they sign that contract? Where do they show that revenue? If you don’t believe that is the contract they signed, look it up. 

it's an average/yearly, not an annual allotment. 

[Dfan25]

Kirby Yates to Dodgers . They probably use him in long relief .

[17 Seconds]

leave it to jed to acquire a 5-win player and still bungle the offseason

[Dfan25]

10 minutes ago, 17 Seconds said:

leave it to jed to acquire a 5-win player and still bungle the offseason

They are still favorites to win the división as of now , but yeah its been underwhelming even with Tucker . 
 

Doesnt feel like they did enough to maximize Tucker’s remaining year .  I know off season isnt over , but even with a Finnegan and a bench bat , i expected more .

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, Dfan25 said:

They are still favorites to win the división as of now , but yeah its been underwhelming even with Tucker . 
 

Doesnt feel like they did enough to maximize Tucker’s remaining year .  I know off season isnt over , but even with a Finnegan and a bench bat , i expected more .

I did too. I expected a better pitcher than Rea, added to the rotation. And then someone like Finnegan and a solid bench bat. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

Jed could have landed those guys and instead chose the quantity approach. I am so annoyed.

[JBears79]

This league is a horsefeathers joke right now. And somehow Jed, who managed to finally get a super star player is an even bigger joke.

 

Cant wait to land another "reclamation reliever" with a 6.5 ERA in AAA with good spin rates

Edited January 21, 2025 by JBears79

[17 Seconds]

1 minute ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Jed could have landed those guys and instead chose the quantity approach. I am so annoyed.

fast forward to late april when jed is shocked that the bullpen is ruining our season once again

[17 Seconds]

Just now, JBears79 said:

This league is a horsefeathers joke right now. And somehow Jed, who managed to finally get a super star player is an even bigger joke.

for one year

[Rcal10]

28 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Jed could have landed those guys and instead chose the quantity approach. I am so annoyed.

I agree he could have gotten one of them. However, I am beginning to think if the Dodgers want a guy they will just keep adding more to a contract until they get him. 

[Rcal10]

29 minutes ago, 17 Seconds said:

for one year

Yep, if the Dodgers want him next year he is gone. 

[Randall Simon]

The Dodgers are the one team not waiting for the price tag to hopefully drop down. They realize they can scoop up anyone they want just by making them a fair offer. 

Everyone else is hoping by not offering, the player will be forced to accept less. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

The new market efficiency is huge deferrals but making sure the player hears the pre-deferral number so they can't overcome the anchoring effect.

[squally1313]

Just now, Transmogrified Tiger said:

 

The new market efficiency is huge deferrals but making sure the player hears the pre-deferral number so they can't overcome the anchoring effect.

Seriously. Santander for 5 years makes zero sense for us, but getting that kind of bat for under $14m AAV is a bit of a steal. 

[Derwood]

Pete Alonso must be asking for the moon, because it's wild that he's just sorta out there still. I know there has been some smoke around him and Toronto, but it doesn't seem like people are crawling over each other to sign him

[Post Count Padder]

13 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Pete Alonso must be asking for the moon, because it's wild that he's just sorta out there still. I know there has been some smoke around him and Toronto, but it doesn't seem like people are crawling over each other to sign him

 

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

Seriously. Santander for 5 years makes zero sense for us, but getting that kind of bat for under $14m AAV is a bit of a steal. 

Agreed. Time for the Cubs to get into this sort of thing. I am not a huge fan of Flaherty, BUT if they signed him to a 3 year deal at $72M while deferring $55M of it and the contract only counted as $13M to $15M a year for payroll purposes, I would be all for him. This is just an example and I don’t know what the consequences to the team payroll would actually be.

Same with Bregman. Cubs need to get creative. Also work on an extension with Tucker with huge deferrals.  

I don’t know how it shakes out for payroll purposes yearly, but, if you can’t beat them, join them. 

Edited January 23, 2025 by Rcal10

[Irrelevant Dude]

7 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I don’t know how it shakes out for payroll purposes yearly, but, if you can’t beat them, join them. 

But clean books.