2024 MLB Thread

[chasfh]

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Interesting question. I can't anything about the luxury tax that says anything more than that it's based on player salaries.

The Luxury tax in baseball is pretty useless because it kicks in at too high a level to have any real benefit to small market teams. It's designed more to be a disincentive to rich teams than create any serious levelizing of revenue. I would think the LT need to capture at least 20-30% of the richest teams' revenues to become a serious equalizing force. So far I don't think the tax has ever cost the Dodgers more than ~10% of their revenue in one year. The 'TrueBlue' site estimates the Dodgers have paid a total of $85M in luxury tax over the last 3 yrs - their revenue is over $500M/yr. Ohtani's contract could drive that higher though.

That’s a pretty decent point I hadn’t contemplated before. The luxury tax may have been designed more to suppress top end salaries, which keeps the average and median salaries down over time, than to help teams be competitive against one another, since we have seen franchises like Oakland and Tampa and Cleveland win year after year with some of the lowest payrolls in the game. It may also be that TPTB prefer the teams they know will spend the highest, basically the Big Six, be those that actually do so, because those are the most popular teams that will sign the highest-priced, biggest-name superstars that will help grow the game worldwide.

Of course, given the way franchises make money nowadays—through gameday media, the national network, licensing, merchandising, and digital more than through ticket sales, concessions, or (lol) winning—the “poorest” franchises are rolling in dough, the billionaires and hedge funds that own them are like pigs in ****, and their fans can all go pound sand. We are actually lucky, and no more, that the Tigers, seemingly against all odds, awoke to become a franchise that’s breaking out of that golden trash can by hiring Scott Harris, the catalyst move which is changing everything.

 

Edited December 1, 2024 by chasfh

[Tiger337]

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Interesting question. I can't anything about the luxury tax that says anything more than that it's based on player salaries.

The Luxury tax in baseball is pretty useless because it kicks in at too high a level to have any real benefit to small market teams. It's designed more to be a disincentive to rich teams than create any serious levelizing of revenue. I would think the LT need to capture at least 20-30% of the richest teams' revenues to become a serious equalizing force. So far I don't think the tax has ever cost the Dodgers more than ~10% of their revenue in one year. The 'TrueBlue' site estimates the Dodgers have paid a total of $85M in luxury tax over the last 3 yrs - their revenue is over $500M/yr. Ohtani's contract could drive that higher though.

I always assumed that the luxury tax was designed to suppress salaries more than to promote competitive balance.  I say the same thing about the draft, although nobody seems to agree!

 

Edited December 1, 2024 by Tiger337

[Hongbit]

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Interesting question. I can't anything about the luxury tax that says anything more than that it's based on player salaries.

The Luxury tax in baseball is pretty useless because it kicks in at too high a level to have any real benefit to small market teams. It's designed more to be a disincentive to rich teams than create any serious levelizing of revenue. I would think the LT need to capture at least 20-30% of the richest teams' revenues to become a serious equalizing force. So far I don't think the tax has ever cost the Dodgers more than ~10% of their revenue in one year. The 'TrueBlue' site estimates the Dodgers have paid a total of $85M in luxury tax over the last 3 yrs - their revenue is over $500M/yr. Ohtani's contract could drive that higher though.

The Dodgers have found a unique workaround.   They are deferring over $1B of salary money for decades down the road.  This ownership group will sell long before that bill comes due and will let someone else deal with it.    The tax is a small portion for the current owners to pay to ensure they have a great team while they own them.  

 

[casimir]

3 hours ago, Hongbit said:

The Dodgers have found a unique workaround.   They are deferring over $1B of salary money for decades down the road.  This ownership group will sell long before that bill comes due and will let someone else deal with it.    The tax is a small portion for the current owners to pay to ensure they have a great team while they own them.  

 

I assume the debt factors into the price tag if/when the current ownership group sells, but how much does that factor in?  Its not necessarily a dollar to dollar debt to price tag ratio (ignoring factors like inflation) when there are likely numerous groups bidding.  

[HeyAbbott]

On 11/30/2024 at 7:28 PM, Cruzer1 said:

For most of us, yes. For the Dodgers, no.

When one is looking at the cash flow the Dodgers supposedly have in merch sales alone, it is possible that they are the exception of the rule for a while at least.

[Tigermojo]

Boyd to the Cubs for two years and $29 million. $$$$$

[papalawrence]

1 hour ago, Tigermojo said:

Boyd to the Cubs for two years and $29 million. $$$$$

Good for him. Wish him all the best

[RandyMarsh]

Yeah thought his MLB career may have been finished a year ago but he overcame yet another injury and parlayed the 6 weeks of strong pitching into atleast 2 more MLB years and 29 million. 

[Tenacious D]

Wonder if the Indians made an attempt to keep him?  Frankie Montas, with his 4.84 ERA, received two years/$34M from the Mets.  

[ICroupier]

Both the Boyd and Montas deals are for ridiculous $ given their performance.

You can forget about Flaherty or Buehler, and even Bieber will get something like $20M/year in this market.

And you can definitely forget about an extension for Skubal.

[gehringer_2]

51 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

Wonder if the Indians made an attempt to keep him?  Frankie Montas, with his 4.84 ERA, received two years/$34M from the Mets.  

Matt has has started 23 games total in the two years since finishing his DL stint for TJ and he's 34 this upcoming season. If you are Cleveland you probably decided not to overspend on a guy that will probably spend half the season on the DL.

Edited December 2, 2024 by gehringer_2

[Shinzaki]

Boyd to the Cubs...two years 29 mil

https://x.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/1863593835810660524?t=Y0FB6BCTUz9syTxTGvAm1Q&s=19

[chasfh]

On 12/1/2024 at 10:03 AM, Hongbit said:

The Dodgers have found a unique workaround.   They are deferring over $1B of salary money for decades down the road.  This ownership group will sell long before that bill comes due and will let someone else deal with it.    The tax is a small portion for the current owners to pay to ensure they have a great team while they own them.  

 

I'd be surprised if those deferred obligations did not factor into the sales price.

[chasfh]

8 hours ago, Tigermojo said:

Boyd to the Cubs for two years and $29 million. $$$$$

More evidence supporting the hypothesis that Ricketts is all about going to the bank and not at all about winning an eminently winnable division.

[Tenacious D]

 

[monkeytargets39]

So the Guardindians are already down Boyd and Eli Morgan.

The strength of their team is starting to dwindle.

[Motor City Sonics]

Golden At Bats?     WTF? 

[Tiger337]

When I first saw a post about the Golden At Bat rule, I thought it was just joke, but apparently Manfred is actually considering it.  Why does he hate baseball?  

[1776]

If the Rays do eventually end up in Nashville, I would bet there would be a good chance Cleveland would move to the AL East and Nashville (Rays) would land in the AL Central. The southern most team in the AL East would be Baltimore at that point. 

[chasfh]

11 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

When I first saw a post about the Golden At Bat rule, I thought it was just joke, but apparently Manfred is actually considering it.  Why does he hate baseball?  

It’s not about the game on the field. It’s about the stars in the promotional spots. That’s how they want to grow the game.

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

It’s not about the game on the field. It’s about the stars in the promotional spots. That’s how they want to grow the game.

They can potentially make big gambling money off these daily head to head battles.    

[chasfh]

Exactly. The game on the field is merely the conduit for maximizing revenue, and can be radically modified to that end. And if a particular radical modification doesn’t work, they can employ additional radical modifications until they are satisfied they’ve achieved optimal profitability trajectory.

[monkeytargets39]

If this Golden At Bat thing actually happens, we need to get torches and pitchforks and forcibly remove Manfred from his position and this country.

[monkeytargets39]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

They can potentially make big gambling money off these daily head to head battles.    

Over under on Ohtani ABs for a season: 850

[IdahoBert]

All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned,