Bauer goes ring chasing. Funny how the media roasted Kevin Durant for doing that but won't say a thing about Bauer doing it.

Gonna be LA's highest paid player.

*SIGH*

Fuggin' LA. The NY Yankees [payroll] of the west.

I think this will raise a huge issue in the CBA(like we needed another one)...

The deal is 3/102. 34m AAV.
But it's really
21- 40M
22- 45M
23- 17M

with opt outs after both years. So in reality it's a 2/85m deal.

Have a feeling a lot of small market teams are going to go crazy on that.

Just in time for the CBA.

(02-05-2021 03:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think this will raise a huge issue in the CBA(like we needed another one)...

The deal is 3/102. 34m AAV.
But it's really
21- 40M
22- 45M
23- 17M

with opt outs after both years. So in reality it's a 2/85m deal.

Have a feeling a lot of small market teams are going to go crazy on that.

Just in time for the CBA.

I was about to post something similar, and you're probably right about the CBA but it's gonna be a coalition of big market teams and MLBPA who are ok with this approach vs small and mid market teams who oppose. We'll see how that plays out.

Lots of media folks saying "it's not the highest in MLB AAV like Bauer wanted" but the reality is it will be because unless he loses his stuff (unlikely) or gets hurt he's absolutely gonna opt out. This is exactly what the Dodgers wanted. High value short term contract.

Just waiting on the Braves to sign someone...

(02-05-2021 04:05 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 03:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think this will raise a huge issue in the CBA(like we needed another one)...

The deal is 3/102. 34m AAV.
But it's really
21- 40M
22- 45M
23- 17M

with opt outs after both years. So in reality it's a 2/85m deal.

Have a feeling a lot of small market teams are going to go crazy on that.

Just in time for the CBA.

I was about to post something similar, and you're probably right about the CBA but it's gonna be a coalition of big market teams and MLBPA who are ok with this approach vs small and mid market teams who oppose. We'll see how that plays out.

Lots of media folks saying "it's not the highest in MLB AAV like Bauer wanted" but the reality is it will be because unless he loses his stuff (unlikely) or gets hurt he's absolutely gonna opt out. This is exactly what the Dodgers wanted. High value short term contract.

yeah even if he's just 2019 Bauer he'll opt out and be able to get more than 17 million.

Right on the coalition of big market teams and MLBPA- but the question is are there 8 small market teams who would absolutely torpedo anything that doesn't control this? Also remember the MLB Labor Committee is chaired by the Rockies owner

This says it much better than I have:

Chad Moriyama Wrote:Overall, there are always concerns with any signing due to the unknown, perhaps odder ones in Bauer’s case. Maybe he does or says something especially ****** off the field, maybe he causes a clubhouse issue, or maybe he just doesn’t perform that well. All possible, but the most likely outcome is that he’s at least a quality rotation member if not an outright ace and most of the risk is mitigated by the length of the deal, assuming they don’t suddenly decide to backtrack and get desperate to get under the tax. Personally, I wouldn’t preferred an even shorter term deal, like a year or two and he could take it or leave it. But as is it’s a deal for elite-level upside that avoids the pitfalls of having to pay for the decline, so it’s not hard to understand it from Andrew Friedman’s point of view even if it wasn’t my preference.

I don't dislike this deal for his views; I worry the way he expresses his views will have a disruptive effect on the team. But the pros are good here and I get why this deal would be seen as a win. I do wonder (as implied in the linked post) how much this is a sign the Dodgers are hedging that Turner will sign elsewhere and they'll need to include pitching in any deal they have to swing to find a new 3B. As it is now, a couple of guys who would be starters on many teams are going to begin this season in the bullpen.

My "who gives a **** - Dodgers are WS champs!" approach to viewing the 2021 season is probably gonna change.

I just wonder if any shot of signing Turner is gone now. I mean at 240 million right now and if they go over 250 million they get the highest penalty which includes I do believe a 10 spot drop in the top draft pick. For a team like the Dodgers that's pretty big.

(02-05-2021 05:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I just wonder if any shot of signing Turner is gone now. I mean at 240 million right now and if they go over 250 million they get the highest penalty which includes I do believe a 10 spot drop in the top draft pick. For a team like the Dodgers that's pretty big.

Yeah, it's possible. That's also why I said this move might be BECAUSE they think they can't get a deal with Turner. But if any team can afford to pay the tax AND make up for a drop in draft slot, it's the Dodgers.

LA's once super-rich farm system is pretty mediocre at the moment. Sustaining this success is going to require some restocking. I assume Friedman's got a plan but it's not clear at the moment.

(02-05-2021 03:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think this will raise a huge issue in the CBA(like we needed another one)...

The deal is 3/102. 34m AAV.
But it's really
21- 40M
22- 45M
23- 17M

with opt outs after both years. So in reality it's a 2/85m deal.

Have a feeling a lot of small market teams are going to go crazy on that.

Just in time for the CBA.

It's a loophole that needs to be fixed because the wide variance in annual salaries amounts to salary cap manipulation. The third year of the Bauer contract exists only to decrease the AAV of the total contract. But it's an easy fix.

Look at the NBA salary cap rules. Bauer's deal would not be permitted in the NBA because of the drastic decrease between the 2022 and 2023 salaries. Even the increase from 2021 to 2022 wouldn't be permitted under the NBA rules, which provide that a player salary can increase or decrease by a maximum of 5% each year during a contract after the first year salary. (For veteran free agents re-signing with their current team, the annual increase or decrease is capped at 8%.)

(02-05-2021 05:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 03:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think this will raise a huge issue in the CBA(like we needed another one)...

The deal is 3/102. 34m AAV.
But it's really
21- 40M
22- 45M
23- 17M

with opt outs after both years. So in reality it's a 2/85m deal.

Have a feeling a lot of small market teams are going to go crazy on that.

Just in time for the CBA.

It's a loophole that needs to be fixed because the wide variance in annual salaries amounts to salary cap manipulation. The third year of the Bauer contract exists only to decrease the AAV of the total contract. But it's an easy fix.

Look at the NBA salary cap rules. Bauer's deal would not be permitted in the NBA because of the drastic decrease between the 2022 and 2023 salaries. Even the increase from 2021 to 2022 wouldn't be permitted under the NBA rules, which provide that a player salary can increase or decrease by a maximum of 5% each year during a contract after the first year salary. (For veteran free agents re-signing with their current team, the annual increase or decrease is capped at 8%.)

great points...

Just more for the CBA. AS if we needed it.

(02-05-2021 04:24 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Just waiting on the Braves to sign someone...

your wait is over. Ozuna 4/65 guaranteed with team option that could make it 5/80.

Saw an interesting theory about Universal DH-
If the league capitulated only after all the free agents have signed, there would be a universal DH in 2021, but without the benefit for players’ salaries.

We're just about at that point right now.

thought this was interesting-

Still trying to process the Bauer deal. You would think at some point the team payroll disparity has to be addressed in MLB when the Dodgers are going to set the league high at $242 million and the Pirates are at the league low of about $40 million. That is too skewed for any semblance of competitive fairness. MLB does have the competitive balance tax [CBT] in place but it is not an incentive to change the current disparity in team payrolls.

Quote:Here’s where the Dodgers’ 26-man payroll currently stands according to Cot’s Contracts: $242,689,000, blowing past the $210 million competitive balance tax threshold.

That’s not just the biggest payroll in MLB, it’s more than $50 million higher than the second-place New York Yankees. In fact, the distance between the Dodgers and Yankees is currently bigger than the one between the Yankees and 12th-placed Chicago Cubs, though those numbers could change as the offseason progresses.

Of course, those numbers are wild less because the Dodgers are entering uncharted payroll territory with and more because of how pretty much all of baseball’s biggest teams have started treating the competitive-balance tax as a de facto salary cap (exceeding the CBT threshold only results in a relatively small financial penalty, unlike the NBA and MLB).

How long can this trend go before the big crash?

The player's union is far too powerful. There will never be anything resembling a true salary cap.

The only way to incentivize any sort of competitive balance is to tie the revenue to winning. You win games, you get a bigger share of the TV revenue. Now obviously the teams with better inherent resources will have the opportunity to win more, but MLB will never create anything more than inducements to spend less. It won't happen.

(02-06-2021 12:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  thought this was interesting-

I honestly didn't think they would give him a long term deal, but I was wrong.

Maybe they were just waiting to see what other options they had?

Either way, I hope Ozuna keeps pace. Can't say I'm not happy though.

(02-06-2021 12:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The player's union is far too powerful. There will never be anything resembling a true salary cap.

The MLBPA might be too suspicious of a salary cap. What they really need is a salary floor to stop teams like the Pirates. The NBA's salary floor, for example, requires every team to spend at least 90% of the cap number on salaries. The penalty for not spending at least that much is that they have to do it anyway -- a team that is below 90% of the cap has to distribute the difference between the salary floor and the team payroll to the players on their roster.

Example for MLB: The MLB luxury tax threshold for 2021 is $210 million. Let's say there was a salary cap that, like the NBA's, is roughly 80% of the luxury tax line. That would make MLB's hypothetical 2021 cap number $168 million. The salary floor would be 90% of that cap number, $151.2 million. That would be an enormous benefit for the players currently on low-payroll MLB teams. There might be half a dozen MLB teams whose 2021 payroll will be half that amount or less.

(02-06-2021 12:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The only way to incentivize any sort of competitive balance is to tie the revenue to winning. You win games, you get a bigger share of the TV revenue. Now obviously the teams with better inherent resources will have the opportunity to win more, but MLB will never create anything more than inducements to spend less. It won't happen.

Yes, TV revenue should be tied to winning. The English Premier League has a graduated revenue distribution that gives the most TV money to the team that wins the league and each team down the table gets a little less than the team right above them. For MLB, I would distribute half the national TV money evenly, and distribute the other half according to regular season wins, with each playoff team getting a bonus TV revenue share that gets larger the farther they advance in the postseason.

(02-05-2021 04:24 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Just waiting on the Braves to sign someone...

we'll be fine.