Dodgers Acquire Tarik Skubal in Deadline Blockbuster

Sometimes, the trade deadline doesn’t need to be complicated. Sometimes the best team in baseball goes out and gets the best player available, perhaps the best pitcher in the game. The Dodgers, two-time defending World Series champions and tied with the Brewers for the most wins, are upgrading their rotation as much as it’s possible to upgrade it. On Saturday, they acquired Tarik Skubal from the Tigers in exchange for prospects Zyhir Hope, River Ryan, and Brady Smith, as Jeff Passan first reported.
The entire trade deadline has revolved around Skubal, the best player available time of year in ages. And who better to trade for him than the Dodgers, who have one of the deepest farm systems in baseball in addition to their major league riches? Oh, other teams can see Skubal’s magnificence just as plainly as Los Angeles can, and they have prospects too. But Andrew Friedman and the Dodgers make a habit of winning trade sweepstakes like these, with Manny Machado, Max Scherzer, and Trea Turner being the best other examples.
One ancillary effect of paying a bunch of stars to play for you is that you have fewer available roster spots for your minor leaguers to graduate into. That cuts both ways – there also aren’t enough at-bats to go around for young players – but the benefit is that the Dodgers don’t need to build their playoff lineup with three or four slots filled by pre-arbitration players. It naturally leads to trades; the Dodgers don’t have as many opportunities to hand to their own minor leaguers, because they keep having such good major leaguers. That means that they’re incentivized to go out and make trades just like this one, which leaves even less room for the good minor leaguers, which leads to…. well, you get the idea.
Another way of thinking about it: The Dodgers are doing this because they’re rational, championship-odds-maximizing actors. Last year, they won the World Series, didn’t get rid of any notable outfielders (apologies, Michael Conforto), and signed Kyle Tucker. It’s not always Tucker, and it’s not always the outfield, and players do leave. But year after year, the Dodgers bring in stars to shore up weaknesses. That makes it hard for any individual prospect in the system to make a big impact on the major league club’s fortunes. But you know what will make a big impact on the major league club’s fortunes? Tarik Skubal taking the ball in the playoffs.
I’m not sure if Skubal is the current Best Pitcher In Baseball (caps intentional); that might be Jacob Misiorowski. I’m also not sure if he’s the guy I’d most want for the next five years. But Skubal is a reasonable claimant to both of those titles. He’s a superstar at the peak of his powers. Since the start of the 2024 season, he’s on an absurd tear, with a 2.40 ERA and gaudy numbers across the board. He’s one of the best strikeout pitchers in baseball, and he has some of the best command in the majors. He’s even been spectacular in the playoffs, with 56 strikeouts and a 2.04 ERA in 39.2 innings over the past two years.
Skubal missed just over a month earlier this season with loose bodies in his elbow, which seems to be the only thing that can slow him down. But even then, he beat expectations; an innovative surgery sped his recovery time. After shaking off some rust, he looks every bit himself again, and he’s turning on the gas as the calendar flips to August; he has 27 strikeouts over 21 innings in his last three starts (1.71 ERA, 0.96 FIP).
The Dodgers already had a rotation built for the playoffs, but now they’ve added extra layers of redundancy. Tyler Glasnow and Blake Snell are both on the IL and targeting returns this month. Shohei Ohtani isn’t pitching either, thanks to some knee inflammation and bicep discomfort. But Yoshinobu Yamamoto is humming along with a 2.72 ERA and a 3.31 FIP, and it’s not even like they were in poor shape depth-wise; Emmet Sheehan and Justin Wrobleski are excellent options for where they fall on the depth chart. But now they fall even lower on the depth chart, and the Dodgers rotation is even more formidable.
Adding Skubal improves Los Angeles’ odds of winning a championship tremendously, and they were already the highest in the majors to begin with. He’s going to pitch about a quarter of the Dodgers’ games come October. He pitches deep into games. He allows few runs, few baserunners even. Last year, the Dodgers innovated by trying to build the whole rotation out of number one starters. This year, they got a rare opportunity to get yet another mega-ace for three months, no strings attached, and their team looks absurdly stacked as a result.
Our playoff odds model, which doesn’t account for the concentration of innings in the playoffs, thinks the Dodgers are around five percentage points more likely to win it all now than they were before acquiring Skubal. I came up with a similar number when I tried to tweak roster assumptions for every team – a 5.5 percentage point increase in odds, to be precise. That’s an enormous number, hard to wrap your head around almost, but the models are just rules for turning projections into expected winning percentages, and the projections are basically drooling awkwardly, rendered speechless by how much they like Skubal.
The Tigers liked Skubal too, of course. But pretty much everything else about their situation is different. Unlike the Dodgers, the Tigers aren’t in a position where they can start thinking about how Skubal lines up in the playoffs, because they weren’t in a playoff position in the first place. And even more unlike the Dodgers, the Tigers have some roster spots they’d love to fill with talented youngsters. Only three members of their starting rotation are signed past this year. Zach McKinstry and Matt Vierling probably aren’t a long-term solution in right field, as much as I enjoy both players. More generally speaking, the Tigers’ roster just doesn’t quite look finished; they need to find a few more contributors somewhere to keep the good times rolling into the next few seasons, and adding some minor league talent is a great way to get started on that front.
Enter Hope, Ryan, and Smith, who are headed Detroit’s way in the deal. Eric Longenhagen will have far more detail on them soon, but a quick overview is still in order. Ryan is the highest-rated prospect of the three, no. 22 on our updated Top 100 with a 55 FV grade. Injuries have prolonged his stay on prospect lists long past when we expected him to graduate; he debuted in 2024 and is already 27, but he hasn’t spent enough days on the active roster to end his prospect eligibility. He underwent Tommy John surgery in August of 2024, and this year suffered a hamstring injury, his second of the season, as he was building back to a typical starter’s workload. He is currently on the Triple-A IL, but he should be back in time for the stretch run. He has obvious durability questions, but there’s no doubting that his stuff plays; he looked like he belonged in the big leagues when he debuted. He slots in as Detroit’s no. 2 prospect.
Hope, a lefty corner outfielder, was one of a logjam of Top 100 outfield bats the Dodgers have stashed in the minors. He’s hitting well in his first full year at Double-A, with plus power the calling card here, and swing-and-miss the hurdle he’ll need to overcome. We have him ranked fifth in the Tigers system and 52nd overall with a 50 FV grade. Smith is more of a project than the two headliners of the deal. He’s a 21-year-old starter with huge strikeout rates and huge relief risk; we have him projected as a multi-inning reliever, a 40+ FV. But Smith is more than your average throw-in, and Ryan and Hope are both worthy headliners. This is a meaningful prospect return for the Tigers, the kind they had to get if they were going to trade Skubal.
This will be the biggest deadline deal of the season, surely. It’s one of the biggest deadline deals of the last decade; it’s not quite the Juan Soto trade, but it’s in the next level down. The Dodgers paid a hefty price in prospects to get a three-month concentrated hit of pure pitching talent. The Tigers turned Skubal’s last year into what they hope will be years of valuable contributions. And inevitably, I find myself feeling that both sides won.
It’s something like the economic idea of comparative advantage. Hope, Ryan, and Smith are more relatively valuable to the Tigers than they are to the Dodgers; Detroit wants to build a roster of controllable young players to surround Kevin McGonigle, while Los Angeles is trying to threepeat. Skubal is more valuable to the Dodgers than to most; they improve their rotation, improve their depth, and keep their opponents from getting him in one fell swoop, and they know for certain that they have plenty of players to back his good performance with good ones of their own. So it makes sense that the Dodgers would offer a valuable package of prospects, one that exceeded what any other team could, and it makes sense that the Tigers would accept it.
No one else was going to top an offer like this. The Brewers and Rays can’t trade away their versions of Ryan and Hope; they’ll need those guys for years to come. They have the prospect capital to do it, they just can’t, because the players they’d trade are also necessary for their goal of competing in the future. They’re relying on their farm system to keep the perpetual motion machine going. Today’s prospects are tomorrow’s contributors; they can’t also be the trade chips sent out for Skubal. Taking a big swing by trading for a rental player stings if you’ll feel the absence of the players you dealt down the road. Good as he is, Skubal is no guarantee of success, because nothing in baseball is guaranteed. The Milwaukee and Tampa Bay (and Cleveland and…) front offices don’t operate by taking swings like that, much as we might sometimes want them to.
But the Dodgers are in the unique situation of not feeling that pinch so sharply. And while this trade will surely raise the ire of fans who think the Dodgers are ruining baseball, there’s no need to dwell on that too much today; after all, we have a whole locked-out offseason ahead of us. Instead, I like to think about it in terms of the Dodgers understanding that you have to trade away good players to make your team good in the present day. Miguel Vargas is an All-Star this year, and the Dodgers would do the Tommy Edman deal again in a heartbeat. Trading for Skubal is just a way of taking some of the value they’re racking up on the farm and getting it into the majors right away. It’s Detroit’s gain in the long run, for sure – the guys they got are likely to contribute for years to come – but that won’t bother the Dodgers too much. They just got Tarik Skubal!
Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.
(accidentally posted the same comment twice)
I know I will be heavily downvoted for this comment, but the Dodgers getting all of the top trade and free agent targets year after year after year is bs and the result of an incredibly flawed system. Yes they are smart, yes they are playing their hand within that system, but it doesn’t change the reality that the system itself is a joke. They are spending $60 M per year on Kyle Tucker not because he is anything close to a 6-7 win player but because they can, and nobody else can and survive let alone compete. It’s not some genius “efficient” signing where they are outthinking their competitors. It’s a gross overpay that only they can do. No fantasy league set up for enjoyment is set up with major league rules and resource imbalances such as these. Nobody willingly joins a league like that, with enormous resource imbalance. And no amount of “what we really need is a higher salary floor” arguments, however necessary, can meaningfully eliminate this disparity that shreds competitive balance down to a boring, lopsided game.
The Brewers are currently 1/2 game up on the Dodgers and have the better farm system if they had wanted to make this trade.
I was hoping the Brewers had stepped up and got Skubal. I wonder if they made an offer…
Brewers could have beaten this deal everyday and twice on Sunday (today).
So could the Dodgers, but they didn’t have to
I don’t understand this take (haven’t read the rest of the comments yet, though)
This is why Im happy the Brewers always fail in the playoffs. They are content to make the playoffs and win a series or two. If they wanted to win, they’d put their chips in once in a while. They are cheap, cheap, cheap
a team failing in the playoffs is something that makes you happy?
The Brewers are simply behaving like they recognize (correctly) that there’s actually no amount you can increase your odds of winning in one single season that out-weighs the benefits of making the postseason in 5 different years with lower odds.
Say you’re the Brewers. You can consistently be quite good. Their odds to win the WS right now on FG are 9.3%. Their odds at the end of last regular season were 6.8%.
As mentioned here the Dodgers got about a 5% bump from Skubal and that was true in other teams they simulated. The price of one season where they miss the playoffs is larger. The cost of two is much larger. They are better off pinging 5-7-9% chances at it year after year after year than mortgaging the future to spike one season to 20% and lowering later ones to 1-3%
Its rational. It just sucks for Brewers fans. Until they win.
Which I kinda Hope is this year. And I hope part of the path to doing it is battering Skubal in an elimination game against the Dodger.
There are no flags that fly for finishing 4,5,6 each year. No fanbase looks back at “that great team that won one round of playoffs”.
The Brewers have done a lot of great stuff but they dont win, or even come particularly close, in the playoffs
The Rays have written the same storybook. Outside of the fake 2020 season, its been year after year of 90 win baseball with no real chance of winning the big ring.
.
There is a reason for the meme “Flags Fly Forever”. If thats not your actual goal, you shouldn’t own a team
Ug. Playoffs are so random.
It’s actually a wonderful time to be a Brewerfan. Just noting the amount of recent playoff appearances. Really the best other than 1978-1983.
That’s not failure.
I thought FG readers would be more knowledgeable. Seems like the athletic level comment.
SBNation poster most likely. And since there is Brewers animus either Cards or Cubs. Go with Cards as that group is the more bitter lately at the Crew’s success
The Brewers were willing to move Luis Pena a 55 FV prospect and more. They weren’t willing to move Pena and Henderson. To act like that’s some egregious mistake from the Brewers is obnoxious.
I saw something along the same lines. I have no idea how much the Tigers explicitly asked the Brewers for specific players, and how much of this the reporter was reading into it.
The idea that the Brewers would trade Pena (who is a better prospect than Hope) *and* Henderson (who is at worst as good as River Ryan, with a similar set of issues around health), *and* Letson or Knoth (both of whom are better prospects than Smith)…you can see why the Brewers did not want to do that. And that is definitely a superior package to what the Tigers actually got for Skubal.
Or maybe not, the Tigers might like the Dodgers prospects a bit better.
Did you actually read the article you commented on? He stated (better than I can, and I will not try to simplify/restate it) why the Dodgers with their situation could make the move and the Brewers with their situation really could not.
It’s a complete resource imbalance, with logical decisions made by 2 really well run organizations. As has been stated, nobody would setup a fantasy league where one team has all the advantages because it’s no fun to play.
I will continue to root for the Brewers, because they are the team of my youth and where I grew up & remind me of both, but it does often seem an exercise in futility, that the odds are stacked a little too highly against them and all the teams that aren’t in top 5 markets.
I read it but I disagree with it. At some point you have to reckon with the fact that the “moneyball” style approach doesn’t win championships. Since the A’s were doing it, you have several similarly styled teams. Not one single championship from any of them. The resistance to “go for it” seems like a flaw they all share.
And this pains me to say. In my mind I think a 10% chance three years is better than a 20% chance one year, but literally in about 30 years of this it has never worked once for any of these teams.
The bigger picture is that with the exception of the Royals (who definitely did “go for it”) we haven’t seen a small market team win the World Series in two decades.
Even if you toss 2020 as a weird year, the four largest team markets account for 7 of the last 20 World Series wins, and another 8 were won by teams in the tier just below that (the Phillies – Giants – Braves – Astros – Rangers group).
The Nationals and Cardinals are more mid-market, with the Nationals above the median and the Cardinals barely below, but once you get into that bottom third of team resources the margin for error is super thin. There are no good choices for them.
It’s especially noticeable for the Brewers because their ownership fairly regularly greenlights payrolls higher than what their market size suggests in addition to their scouting prowess. But it’s not the only case of having to make tough decisions.
I think it makes more sense to evaluate WS appearances because we all know how fickle 7 game series are, and I do not think its particularly the case that the smaller market teams with appearances who lost were flukes that didn’t belong there.
On the other had the Nationals were acting like a big market team when they won, certainly moreso than the circa 2017 Astros were when that team was primarily homegrown.
I think your list of successful small market teams should look like
2023 Arizona
2020 Tampa
2016 Cleveland
2015 KC
2014 KC
2008 Tampa
2007 Colorado
Your mid-markets are like
2019 Houston
2017 Houston
2013 St Louis
2011 St Louis
2006 St Louis
2006 Detroit
I have declined to place the Even Year Magic Giants (2010/12/14) and the 10-11 Rangers. I view this teams as having behaved somewhere in the range from mid-market to the lower tier larger market (think Toronto/Philly in contemporary parlance). They may have had the capacity for more, or may now have the capacity for more, but those teams did not really operate like the large market teams of their era, the way, say the 2023 Rangers did.
This is incorrect. Median market size is between the Boston and SF Bay metro areas for MLB teams:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/stories/baseball/stories-baseball.pdf
The St. Louis metro area is the 6th smallest MLB metro area. They just punch way above their weight in revenue (and should be applauded for that).
Washington is one of the larger metro areas, despite having low revenue (which they should be criticized for).
The reality is, 6 of the last 20 World Series have been won by teams in the bottom half of the market size list (KC, STL x2, SF x3).
I get where you’re coming from, but this is not the best way of looking at market size. It’s not just about the metro area, it’s also about how wealthy the city is and how lucrative its TV deal is.
I don’t think anyone would call Miami a large market team, despite it being the 8th (or 9th at the link) largest MSA in the United States. I don’t think anyone would say that the New York Yankees and Mets have the same market conditions, nor the Cubs and White Sox, nor the Dodgers and Angels.
If you want only one proxy for market size, TV deal is your best bet. It’s a little different now that so many teams don’t have them, but as of 2022 and 2023 this was the approximate size of what was reported:
Own / owned their own network: Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Cubs (three of these teams are also in the top 4 of reported revenues, and the fourth are the Blue Jays who are considered a mid-market team before even including their TV money which is crazy to me).
About $200M per year: Dodgers
$80M to $125M: Angels, Braves, Giants, Mariners, Mets, Phillies, Rangers
About $60M to $80M: Cardinals, D-Backs, Nationals, Orioles, Reds, Tigers, White Sox
About $40M to $60M: Guardians, Marlins, Padres, Rays
Under $40M: Brewers
Unknown: Astros, Athletics, Rockies, Pirates, Twins
If you forced me to adjust this, I’d shift the Orioles and Reds down one level, and the Padres up one. In terms of the teams not listed, I’d put the Astros in the $80M to $125M category, the Pirates in the $40M to $60M category, and the Rockies and Twins in the $60M to $80M category. The Athletics exist on their own special level because they seem insistent on minimizing their own revenues.
That’s the entire point!!! The Brewers and Rays can only compete by doing the moneyball approach, and it doesn’t work as well as signing all of the stars in free agency. That’s exactly what people are unhappy about!
But the idea of constantly selling for the future, trading your guys before they walk away for nothing, is not the only approach. It may make more sense to proverbially “go for it” even if you know that you may have a year or two where you don’t sniff the playoffs. The Rays, Guardians, and Brewers have clearly mastered this art, but for the most part they have early exits in October. The smaller market teams that have won championships have not taken this approach. Obviously it would be silly to claim that is proof of causation, but it stands to reason that an approach of constantly constraining your team, of trading away valuable pieces, is a better way to win the division most years than to ever win a championship.
You’re right and the only thing you aren’t considering is the degree to which winning exactly right now with Shohei Ohtani and Yoshinobu Yamamoto and a potential 3-peat on the line is just so much more valuable to the Dodgers than a generic WS title is to the other 29 teams, and that explains most of what’s going on here. Their payoff is so much greater.
I think you’re right.
I mean historically signing a bunch of FA stars *doesnt* work and the modern Dodgers are one of the very few times it’s actually paid off.
Most of the time it looks like the 2024-2026 New York Mets
Even the modern Yankee/Jeter title era was mostly when it was primarily a home grown group with some good free agent players at the 2nd tier (Tino Martinez, David Justice etc). The all-FA yankee approach of the later Jeter years (the Giambi/Arod era) only won one World Series and that era was defined by playoff failure that was mitigated only by how many rings the guys had from their era as a homegrown group circa 1996-2003.
The most successful years and one title of the long Braves dynasty? when it was still substantially homegrown with one big FA star (Maddux) and some solid supporting players (Terry Pendleton, etc).
Just signing great players usually fails.
I think people should be just as upset that teams like the Brewers won’t spend just a little more when they clearly have the revenue to suggest they’re capable of affording it. They’re a bottom market team yet despite this there’s projections they easily have average overall revenue compared to the rest of the league. That’s not a team in dire financial straits that can’t afford to acquire via free agency.
Exactly. The goal for most teams is a round or two of playoff money. The dodgers and yankees at least try to win.
The Dodgers stand alone among the top teams.
Baseball. Playoffs. Are. Random. Not compared to hockey but Dodgers are ~30% WS odds now. The healthy 116 win Mariner team didn’t get to the World Series.
And the Brewers need cost controlled talent to compete and the Dodgers do not. The Dodgers can just sign free agents at will to fill holes instead of promoting prospects and crossing their fingers. The Brewers simply cannot operate this way.
They could easily take on Skubal for that price. They dont.
Yes, the exception to the rule. Does not address the larger point of the structural problems in MLB spending. There are teams that can seem to thrive for a modest window despite not having the resources of the major markets (currently Tampa, Milwaukee, maybe Cleveland) but does not mean those differences are not material.
I think the thing you see is that one can build a high quality organization that produces competitive teams consistently without all the resources, and most often when teams have those resources, they do NOT try to do that. Its not just that those are ‘the current’ successful smaller market teams. Those have been *the* sucessful smaller market teams for a decade. The Cardinals had a similar thing going for a very long time.
The ability to spend money instead often gets used *instead* of doing that. Thats how you get the modern Mets, or the late A-Rod era Yankees, etc. The Dodgers intentionally did both. The 2016-2022 era was defined mostly by guys they developed who became important pieces and stars. They still have that organization, but with the enormous extra revenue they get from Ohtani winning things, they can *also* spend whatever they want to augment it.
The difference is that *they’re doing what the Brewers/Rays/Guardians do and also do what the Mets do whenever they feel the need*. No one else has put themselves in that situation, even the teams with money.
The Dodgers are what I feared when reading Moneyball. This is not a robust strategy because it can be emulated, so what happens when you mix money and smarts. You get teams like Atlanta and LA. But teams like Boston, Cubs, Yankees also blend money and smarts. But very hard to have sustained success with just smarts. There is randomness and varying levels of success of “smarts” but all the teams are trying to be smart. If the market ever becomes reasonably competitive and equal, then all that is left is as a differentiator is money.
People like to point to the few, successful small market teams, but PIT, CIN, MIA, COL, BAL, OAK, MIN, KCA are all trying to be smart, will get glimpses of success (OAK’s Moneyball has been eclipsed) but then fall back, something that doesn’t happen to big spenders nearly as much.
I don’t think any strategy can work for long before others copy it and use it. You can see at the end of Moneyball they’re already shifting their focus to defense in order to stay ahead of the curve.
The Rays and Brewers (and others) are constantly finding ways to get ahead of the pack with fewer resources. Of course, that doesn’t change your larger point. There is a certain limit to how much such strategies can do to counteract tons of money.
Yep. If the smarts are equal, the team that outspends everyone by a huge margin will likely win. Even when you’re talking about short series.
They could but I don’t think that’s really relevant to the overall issue that marin is making. The issue being raised is not that the Dodgers are the only team who could have made that trade, or sign a specific player. It’s that the Dodgers can go out and extend Betts and Smith, and sign Freeman, Ohtani, Tucker, Yamamato, Glasnow, Scott, Diaz, Snell, and more.
Because of this, they can hoard their prospects and only trade them in a case like this trade.
The Brewers cant afford to trade from that farm or they won’t be able to compete in a sustainable way. Understand how your point doesn’t in any way negate the original post?
You’re absolutely correct but I don’t see this as an example of that.
The huge salary resources allow the Dodgers more cushion if they fail.
But lots of teams currently and through history have had that. What makes the Dodgers so special is the player development. Id love to see the actual data, but how often do teams this good maintain a great farm system?
Nothing stopping small market teams to invest as much in the minors.
I also think its important to remember that not long ago, the Dodgers were considered choke artists. They’ve won 100+ games five times since 2017. None of those seasons brought them a title. 3 of those 5 times they lost in the NLDS.
So I think it “feels” like they are more unbeatable than they are (at keast that’s my cope).
Which of the Dodgers current list of stars did they develop?
smith, rushing, wrobleski, took muncy from waiver to all-star, pages, took phillips from waiver to closer. they developed and then traded vargas and busch, who became all-stars. they took chris taylor from an afterthought to an all-star. they developed and let walk seager and bellinger, who became all-stars.
Which of those guys are stars?
My dude, Max Muncy is 26th in MLB, and 5th at his position over the last 8 seasons in wRC+. Will Smith, a catcher, is 38th in MLB and 1st among catchers in that span. Andy Pages, over the last 2 seasons, trails Julio Rodriguez and Ceddanne Rafaela by 0.3 fWAR in center field (PCA has a 5 win advantage over Julio and Rafaela).
You need some incredibly narrow definitions of ‘star’ to make these guys not count.
The only definition in which these guys AREN’T stars is “are they one of the two best players on their team?”. Smith is the best hitter at his position over the span since he debuted. His career wRC+ is 7 points higher than Cal Raleigh! He is very good.
Here’s 4 guys who are major contributors this year and have never been in another organization:
Will Smith
Andy Pages
Dalton Rushing
Justin Wrobleski
The Dodgers absolutely get the credit for Max Muncy; failed with the As, spent a minor league year with the Dodgers, has been good ever since. Chris Taylor left last year, but he’s another edition of that story from 2017-2024.
Enrique Hernandez came up elsewhere, and has left and returned, but he’s basically always been a better player as a Dodger than anywhere else (Except that one year in Boston).
There’s also an incredible list of guys who have been around the league and found some amoung of success and failure, found their way to the Dodgers and immediately become the best versions of themselves. Some for just a year or two, some for longer:
Blake Treinen (good, 1 great year, then very bad, then Dodger, then very good)
Evan Phillips (years as a replacement level reliever, came to the Dodgers, 3 years as an elite reliever)
Remember Tyler Anderson? 1 season, best he’s ever been by a lot
Eric Lauer is having that experience *this year*.
Yes, its certainly true, especially this year with Kershaw retired, that it’s no longer the case that the best guys on the team came up through the organization like it was when it was Seager/Bellinger/Kershaw, but it’s just silly to act like they’re bad at player development. They had 2 home-grown all stars this year. There were also 2 guys on the AL team who spent their entire minor league careers with the Dodgers (Bellinger and Vargas).
Just for posterity: you’re saying that Rushing, Wrobleski, Enrique Hernandez, Blake Treinen, Evan Phillips, etc are stars? I’ll give you Will Smith.
Here’s who I consider to be the stars on the Dodgers roster:
Edwin Diaz – free agent
Yoshinobu Yamamoto – free agent
Shohei Ohtani – free agent
Mookie Betts – free agent
Freddie Freeman – free agent
Teoscar Hernandez – free agent
Kyle Tucker – free agent
Blake Snell – free agent
Tyler Glasnow – free agent
So which group of players – yours or mine – has contributed more to the Dodgers success over the past three years?
I don’t think every one of those guys is a star, but Andy Pages is more of a star than Teoscar Hernandez by basically every meaningful definition except for the fact that you know who Teoscar is.
I do not think that Wrobleski is ‘a star’ but he was an all-star and it would sort of be stupid to not mention that.
You are listing veterans with huge name recognition. Most of those guys are exceptional (many of the are, by any meaningful definition, superstars). Others, well, look, Max Muncy is a more accomplished player by basically every definition than Glasnow or Teoscar. Pages has performed at basically the same level in CF over the last two years as Julio Rodriguez (7.7 vs 7.4 fWAR). He was a deserving all star! You may not realize that because he had a bad playoffs last year. He still made one of the most important plays of the world series. He’s good!
Anyway player development isnt just about producing stars, its about turning guys who wouldnt make it into contributors, turning bench guys into regulars, and turning regulars into above-average players. The Dodgers are consistently really good at that and do so more consistently than any other team in MLB. This is so much the case that some guys have intentionally taken less money or even non-guaranteed contracts in order to join the Dodgers and see if they can fix them – and sometimes they do.
There’s no denying the best players on the Dodgers aren’t home-grown, especially now that Kershaw has retired. But you’re just cherrypicking names in some cases; Teoscar in particular is just a good outfield bat with questionable defense, of which there are a lot in MLB, and he’s a nice and charming guy who a lot of fan bases have liked (including us!). But like, he doesn’t belong on your list.
Put another way, Andy Pages and Teoscar Hernandez have basically the same career wRC+. Except one has consistently played a bad corner outfield and the other one has played a well regarded center field. I like Teoscar. He’s good. His star power? mostly personality. He’s an average to above average MLB regular corner outfielder. What can mislead is the shape of his career: in 11 seasons, he has 7 that are basically in the vicinity of league average at the plate and 4 where he’s done a reasonable approximation of hitting like Shohei. If you remember those 4 seasons and not the other 7, you think of him as a lot more of a star.
Maybe splitting hairs, but Betts was a trade, not a free agent.
Don’t wish to interject myself into this discussion but Eric Lauer isn’t a good example of what you’re describing. He was much better with the Jays last year
A bunch of 3+ war types. The prospects also allow them to trade for stars. Thats the point. Thats what separates them from every high spending team.
Has any team ever had the kind of financial advantage* the Dodgers currently have? Maybe the Yankees of the late 1990s, but even that doesn’t feel quite as large as this.
*I use advantage here meaning amount of resources to spend, knowing that part of that comes from a ownership’s willingness to do so.
Relatively speaking, I’d guess the Yankees of the mid 20th century.
Interesting. I would have guessed the lack of free agency would have muted that advantage.
Nah you just sign endless talent and stick them in the minors for awhile.
Yes, they were far more dominant
The early 20th Century Giants
Can you elaborate?
Well they seemed to have a big attendance edge on everyone else 1901-21
Yes, the Mets right now, who’ve spent the same amount on payroll as LA the last 3 yrs.
One reason they can do this is Ohtani’s ridiculous contract. As for “nobody joins a league like that,” no, not for fun in fantasy baseball. But plenty of people are eager to spend billions to join a league like that IRL, because the goal isn’t championships, it’s profit.
I mean I purposely pick low resources teams when playing OOTP because it adds to the challenge and changes how you need to approach roster building. We worry about how homogeneous front office thinking and decision making has gotten, but it would only be worse if the resource playing field was more level, as it is the topology of resource distribution generates some variety in approach by its nature. Now what level of distribution is best to balance competitiveness while encouraging different strategies is hard to know, but I don’t think its optimal from the perspective of having teams operate differently to have resources split to close to evenly.
What is ridiculous about Ohtani’s contract
Ohtani is kind of doing the sort of thing you sometimes see NFL and NBA mega-stars do: effectively reducing his compensation from the team because he makes so much other money that it’s not his sole/primary income. This behavior breaks teambuilding in capped sports, too.
Its logical for both him and the team, but its the kind of thing that’s not available to other MLB stars. At least in other leagues there are sometimes more than one guy who have that capability (for instance both LeBron James and Steph Curry at periods took contracts for less than the max they could demand to allow the team around them to be better/retain other guys), but in MLB there’s only been one of those guys in decades, and it’s Ohtani.
And its also why it works so well. I have commented about this before, but the Dodgers are not really working to MLB’s disadvantage in the long term. Ohtani is a figure of singular popularity and his presence on the Dodgers, especially now that he’s been joined by other Japanese stars, has allowed the Dodgers to penetrate the Japanese baseball market far more deeply than any previous attempt to internationalize the game. The benefits to the Dodgers of winning exactly these years is bigger than any other period or any other team, because they are capturing a new fanbase brought in by Ohtani. In the long run, this benefits MLB as well as it brings more Japanese baseball fans to MLB from NPB. In the short term, the Dodgers get most of those fans and most of those benefits. But it’s still true
And this means that every WS title is simply *more valuable* to the Dodgers than every other team in the league, and that the Dodgers’ titles are more valuable than other teams. This won’t be true forever (A 1930s-50s Yankees type of dynasty would become negative), but it’s true right now.
And so its to the benefit of Ohtani, of the Dodgers, of his individual teammates, and of the league as a whole in the long run, for him to do what he did. Japan is an enormous baseball market with a lot less competition in spectator sports. This is the most important MLB market expansion project since integration.
The market incentives are just different.
I think this is fundamentally ok because it doesn’t last for that long and baseball is so random – the Dodgers FG odds to win the World Series went from 25.5% to 30.7% between the end of last night’s game and this morning’s roster update. A hitter who batted .307 would be 6th in baseball, and it is far from surprising when any individual hitter makes an out – its still the most likely outcome. The Dodgers can spend twice as much as every other team, acquire literally every good available player, and they still lift the trophy less than 1/3 of the time. They *arent* going to win for ever. The safe money is that they don’t win this year, even with this team.
But they have maximized their odds because this title is *so* much more valuable to exactly them exactly now (Ohtani, threepeat, etc) that them getting Skubal is exactly the rational market outcome.
Models of league competitiveness simply aren’t structured for the idea that winning the title simply has double or triple or quadruple the payoff for one team as any of their competitors. But that’s the situation. Dodgers three-peat in their first 3 years with Ohtani and Yamamoto? It is so much more financially valuable than anything any of the other 29 teams can do, because baseball is already *the most popular team sport* in Japan and Ohtani is *probably the most popular and famous person in Japan* and Japan has *60 million people*. The Dodgers are forming a monopoly on a 2nd California that doesn’t have NFL or NBA teams! Are you kidding me?
Well said. The fact that they are not only spending, but profiting; not only spending, but winning, shows they are doing this well and right. If they spent all this money and lost 3 WS in a row, the whole narrative changes.
Like look I have been a Dodger fan since I watched Kirk Gibson hit his home run on a big TV as a 7 year old. I certainly don’t find what’s going on to be frustrating (I would admit that I am less engaged in these last 3 years than I was circa 2017-2020, both for life reasons and because it *is* different when you watch the guys all the way up from debut, which I got to do with that group).
I would be frustrated if I was a fan of a team that has competitive hopes of winning and has to go up against this, especially if that team hadn’t had any other success recently (eg Ive got more empathy for Brewers fans than Braves fans, because I know how hard the first one hits, and the Braves got that experience recently). But I also think that this is an incredibly valuable and important thing for MLB in the long run, and that having Ohtani go to a competitive and *accessible* team, in basically the best possible market for Japanese exposure, and then do record-setting things, is pretty much the best case scenario for the entirety of MLB in the long run. He is such a singular figure and opportunity to penetrate such a market that is large, wealthy, otherwise extremely hard to break into, and in which they face relatively minimal competition, that things playing out this way are going to be remembered in 50 years as one of the most important happenings in the history of the game. I get that it sucks for hardcore fans who crave novelty (remember when those people loved Ohtani so much because he was so novel?), and it sucks for people who really want to see their team win and that window is right now and there’s this unusual behemoth in the way, but it’s going to be good for everyone eventually. This is not a scenario where others could lead the way – its a unique combination of team, market, and a singular, truly once in a lifetime player who are enabling MLB to penetrate what is otherwise a very closed and parochial entertainment market in a rich country with little competition.
Ok yeah but I asked about his contract.
I addressed his contract. The huge deferent and small present-day payment are possible because the man makes 9 figures annually without his salary. He’ll get paid eventually, but in the meantime that cashflow is available to pay his teammates, build a better team around him, and maximize the value of his prime and the window to capture japanese baseball fandom.
No one else in MLB could do that, but Shohei can because he’s got external revenue sources that no one in MLB can even dream of, and that have few comparators: LeBron, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods in his prime, etc.
The man’s off-field revenue is orders of magnitude greater than any other MLB player you have ever seen in your life or probably that has ever existed. He exceeds his nearest competitors in advertising and endorsement revenue by a factor of 10 or more.
Shohei is making more in off-the-field revenue than a number of MLB teams pay their entire roster. 6 teams pay less than 9 figures in total player compensation this year!
No one but he can sign that contract. And it helps everyone – including him. He doesn’t need a 40m salary this year. Heck, winning WS has probably increased his off-field revenue by a significant portion of that anyway (and I bet he gets to take that revenue in a state that isn’t California).
It is ridiculous. It’s also unique. It’s not replicable. And its probably good for literally everyone in the long run – himself, his teammates (who get paid more, see Kyle Tucker), the team itself, even the league itself as their market penetration creates a generation of japanese kids who grow up more invested in MLB than NPB.
What kind of contract do you think he would have gotten if it included no deferrals? Do you think the Dodgers would be much less able to afford that amount?
The deferral was proposed by Ohtani. It provides very little benefit to the Dodgers. If you struggle with that, read Mike Junt’s excellent summary of how the Dodgers benefit financially from having the man under contract. This is an organization that dowa NOT need to defer costs for cash flow purposes. They could easily have paid Ohtani fully in the 10 years of this deal at the $550 million he agreed to or more! Instead, at his request, the agreed to defer payment until it was mired in advantageous to Shohei, invest the funds and may him interest on top of what they would have had to pay him.
This obsession with the deferal is such a distraction.
Sorry I asked for an explanation.
I’m afraid this is inaccurate. They are spending about what they are profiting. Check the numbers yourself. Their business approach has to do with the team’s skyrocketing in value. They’re like a hotel owner whose increased expenses and income cancel each other out, but whose brand appreciation has yielded billions.
He’d have gotten right around the present-value of that deal or, what, 44-45m per season for the period?
Otherwise most of it is purely financial: deferred salary has to be in escrow by the ASG 2 years after the season (eg this month for 2024). But the assets don’t have to be funds – they can be equivalent value. And since Ohtani gave the dodgers 0% interest (most dont) on the deferrals, the Dodgers get to stick some investment instruments in the escrow and keep the interest they earn when the salary pays out.
But I do not remotely think that a team owned by a gigantic mutual fund would have cash flow issues and otherwise it probably doesn’t change much at all outside of maybe being able to spend an extra 25-35m in 24/25. By now the cash flow is effectively identical.
I suggest the difference is the cash flow they had earmarked for Ohtani now they only partly had to put in escrow, allowing them to 1) spend more money now to surround him with talent; 2) encourage all their future signees to defer; 3) allow him to massively increase their cash flow such that his contract will have more than paid for itself on paper by the time they will have to make actual payments in a decade. The Dodgers are a team that uses a credit card with no interest payments and bonus points for being a platinum member.
He would have gotten roughly the NPV of the contract he got ($450 million if I recall).
That question is exactly the same as asking what would my $1B powerball win be if I got it today in lump sum? Powerball gives you both choices. It just depends how you want to receive your money
Ohtani offered the same deal to every team he met with. Arte Moreno turned it down because he didn’t want to do deferrals.
Of course he wanted to spend the rest of his career being the next Mike Trout. Suuuuuure.
True, but the alternative (since they make so much money) is them just giving that money back to their billionaire investors. Isn’t this the better option?
THIS will get down voted for venturing off baseball… but I wonder how many Dodger haters vote for the GOP…
You should be hoping for a long, long strike. A two year strike will ruin their plan as everyone on their roster will be old
Baby, bathwater, etc
Whoo boy you just had to started it. You gone and done it. Pitchforks have been sharpened to an exquisite heen and the great torch has been lit calling all those to arms.
I think the fantasy analogy is very apt. As a small market fan have been frustrated with the spending model in MLB and often get met with “free market” and “be better, look what team X did” and “owners suck (often true)” and “suck it up, good for baseball that big market teams win” while none of those defenders of the system would play in fantasy game where the richest people in the league got a perennial advantage. But it is fine for MLB (and guessing very few, if any, of these defenders are die hard fans of small market teams)
I don’t see how one excellent dynasty every generation or so is that bad for the game. Isnt that interesting? I feel like I am witnessing one of the great team runs — like past Yankees runs (and achieved in free agency!). It does not last forever. The Dodgers will wane…
Anyway, what’s the “flaw” in the system? Allocation of ownership being seemingly unconnected to competitive drive?
If there is a flaw, I’d say it is the enhanced playoff rounds. I’d much prefer going straight to the NL/AL CS with the four teams with the best regular seasons records. Six or eight 85 win teams in a coin flippy “tournament” is not my preferred model…
I doubt you are an adamant, exclusive fan of a small market team. When your team has little chance of getting to the playoffs and having a chance for some success when there, the game is not that interesting. I hate the NFL but a believe a big part of their success is understanding of that the inputs are pretty equal and what is separating the teams is the quality of picking and coaching the players. The size of the market is uncorrelated to a team’s sustained success. Cannot be said for MLB at all.
Exactly. While it has its share of issues, the NFL is by far the best league. Just look at this past Super Bowl where both teams had 40/1 odds before the season started. The Seahawks not just won the Super Bowl, but kind of came out of nowhere to be one the most dominant teams in history analytically. Completely due to draft, development, and coaching.
NHL!
That playoff format would make the regular season unwatchable. You’d have like 6 teams worth watching.
Narrator: He was not, in fact, heavily downvoted.
Mets
I think it’s a bit wild to say that no other team could’ve matched this offer because they need those prospects for the future immediately after bringing up the Juan Soto deal. Sure the Padres haven’t won the world series (and certainly didn’t with Soto), but clearly if a small market team is dedicated enough to trying they can pull off a trade like this. I simply refuse to believe that Logan Henderson and Andrew Fischer or whoever are so critical to the Brewers’ long term success that they couldn’t have swung this deal. It’s much easier for the Dodgers, but they were absolutely not the only team who could afford to give out this kind of prospect capital.
I get your point but I’m 99% sure the Brewers would give up Fischer pretty quickly.
I am trying to figure out what the Brewers’ offer was. I’ll never get there, but I do think we can construct something that looked vaguely like the Dodgers’ offer.
If the Brewers were to match the Dodgers’ deal as closely as possible, that would be Sproat (for Ryan), Braylon Payne (for Hope), and Bishop Letson (for Smith).
Payne is probably a quarter grade lower than Hope, maybe a half grade. You could reasonably put each of Sproat or Ryan as low as a 45 or as high as a 55, so your opinion of that offer could vary a lot based on that. I think Letson is probably at least a quarter grade higher than Smith, maybe half a grade.
If the Brewers were willing to make that offer, and the Tigers said “throw in Andrew Fischer” I think the Brewers do that. He’d be the fourth piece in the deal easily. The question is whether that would be enough to top the Dodgers’ deal (depends on what you think of Sproat and Ryan) and whether the Brewers would have made that offer in the first place.
I just don’t know that the Brewers would be willing to offer both Payne and Letson? It seems silly to say that when we’re talking about Tarik Skubal but I think it’s true. You don’t trade potential mid-rotation starters and potential all-star caliber center fielders in the same deal for a rental, even if there’s risk involved. At least you don’t if you’re a small market team. I think the Brewers’ ideal version of that deal has Jett Williams in for Payne and Jayden Dubanewicz in for Letson. And that offer looks worse to me.
The Brewers were willing to give up Pena. What else who knows. They weren’t willing to give up Henderson and Pena and that’s plenty fair. Trading Henderson hurts their MLB squad this year. Yes not as much as trading Skubal would help but it’s hard to say it’s all all in type of move when you’re subtracting a key piece of your big league roster to make the trade.
Update: the comment here by wiguy94 led me to google to see what he was talking about. The reporter either is speculating or has some knowledge of the Tigers’ ask, but the reporter says it was Pena *and* Henderson *and* one of Letson or Knoth.
Pretty much all three of those guys are superior to the equivalent players in the Dodgers package. If that was what they wanted, the Brewers were right to move on. And frankly a little crazy that they needed that given how truly scary Ryan’s injury history is.
Not talking about McCalvy’s tweet. Talking about what I’ve heard. Pena was on the table.
I think it might be more accurate to say there was much less risk for the Dodgers to do this than any other team.
If, say, the Brewers push chips in to do this and flame out in the playoffs, then inevitably lose Skubal, the prospects they traded really, really hurt their ability to compete in future years. The Dodgers have such an embarrassment of both riches and prospects that, if this move fails to deliver this year, it doesn’t really hurt their long-term outlook that much.
Skubal is from CA and likely to sign with LA next yr no matter who had traded for him this yr. How many teams would overpay in prospects just to keep him from LA for one postseason? They need those prospects to get to the playoffs and hope for short-term aberrations.
The more time passes, the more I appreciate how Friedman and the Dodgers fucking go for it every single year. What sets them apart isn’t the money, it’s that they are trying to win a championship and will do whatever it takes to make that happen.
You’ll never convince me that’s bad for the game. If anything, MLB would be in a better place if any of other marquee big-city franchises was committed to winning like the Dodgers are— they could use a legit rival.
What sets them apart, IMO, is the player development. You can only make trades like this consistently if you consistently have a rich farm system.
It’s one thing for other teams to outbid the Dodgers on a free agent. But why cant other teams spend more on development? Surely, it’s not as big of a gap right?
You can also make trades like this consistently if you know you can just sign more established players to fill holes rather than promote your prospects and cross your fingers. They don’t really care about cost controlled talent because they don’t really care about costs. There is a reason the Brewers didn’t make this trade and it is because they need cost controlled talent to be competitive. The Dodgers don’t.
But what is different about the financial market for the dodgers as opposed to the Cubs, White Sox, Braves, Phillies, Yankees, Rangers, or Astros? All major markets and in contention as well
There are four teams that have substantial financial advantages over everyone else: the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, and Red Sox.
I think you can make a pretty compelling case that the Dodgers are a better run organization than any of the other three, but the reason why is definitely up for debate.
I would likely add the Jays to this list. Look at all-star voting and TV ratings, when they leverage their ‘only team in Canada’ standing properly they are a revenue giant.
We have absolutely no idea how much money the Blue Jays make, so you could be right. They could definitely be more like the Cubs than the Phillies.
Somehow this list doesn’t include the team with the top payroll in the game?
I am pretty sure the Dodgers are that team. If I am wrong and / or you are thinking of the Mets, they are straight up losing money.
The Mets big market budget! Small market results!
I mean I think its as simple as taking a guy who I would argue is probably the greatest baseball executive of his generation, who had to hone his ability to identify talent and maximize every resource, and then putting him in a situation where the value of winning is incredibly magnified, so you can provide him with virtually unlimited resources, tell him to maximize the chances to win, and give him carte blanche to do that.
I understand there are people (nearly all from the Friedman tree, fwiw) who have done things people think are individually more impressive with less than Friedman himself in Tampa, but he’s simply fantastic at this, and he doesn’t have to fear the consequences of a single decision that doesn’t work out because his job security is absolute, and so he’s also willing to take swings that more conservative leaders might pass on – and he still mostly hits on them.
No one is perfect and he’s certainly made errors, but they sure don’t matter very much and he’s sure not afraid to take a swing.
I think you can’t under-estimate the potency of combining a great decisionmaker with freedom from worrying about blowback from a single failed decision and plentiful resources to maximize. He’s always got tools to find a player or a fix a problem, and he doesn’t have to hesitate out of fear of losing his job if one specific deal goes bad.
Don’t forget that Andrew is one of two people in Ohtani’s key personnel clause: if Friedman leaves or Mark Walter stops being the controlling owner, Ohtani can void his contract.
What Friedman shows isn’t just what a great executive does with incredible resources, its what they do when they don’t have to worry about their own job security and can just do what they think is best every time.
Said the same about Roki Sasaki in both cases it wasn’t determined by money. I feel bad that Roki has gotten off to the start he has. It has nothing to do about the Dodgers but I’m still crossing my fingers that he will put it all together. Maybe Skubal helps him as another pitcher who initially struggled before achieving his potential.
I think Sasaki will be fine because he’s enormously talented and they will figure out something that works for him. I think he’s actually in a situation similar to what I suspect was going on when Ohtani did the same thing and came over giving up a lot of money: he knew that the specter of pitching injury was lurking, and he wanted to deal with it with a MLB training staff. Hence Ohtani’s TJ after his first season, and Sasaki’s troubles (he had more evidence of injury in japan). He’s enormously talented and I think he’ll figure it out. You see the flashes already, not just for one pitch but stretches of several games where he’s dominant. It’s still there.
Definitely flashes and I really hope he puts it all together. Definitely faced more adversity than anyone expected..
Nothing. That’s why teams from this tier have won the World Series every year since 2015. But I don’t like a league where 22 of 30 teams are operating at a distinct disadvantage because of what city they play in.
The Japan/Ohtani connection.
What’s stopping the next 5 biggest markets? Houston, Dallas, NYC, the other LA team, both Chicago teams, Atlanta, Philly, Boston…
Teams absolutely can and should pay more for development as it’s been proven that’s where you can make up the difference in the market sizes. A few million a year for the best coaches and tech you can get is peanuts compared to the free agent contracts being handed out. But, there’s a limited supply of the very best coaches and trainers for that development and the teams with them are going to do whatever it takes to keep them.
What’s concerning is how some college teams have better tech than some, if not most, major league teams. This is why the whole concept of limiting non-player spending was brought up by owners a few years ago, because they’re that cheap.
It’s a big gap.
The Dodgers pay market rates for talent of all stripes. Other teams don’t, in part because they’re still operating as if you should take a baseball discount – sure you have a PhD, but you need to work 60 hours a week for $100k because it’s baseball. This is absolutely shortsighted on many team’s parts and they could pay much more competitive salaries, but they don’t because they don’t feel like they should have to even if they really need to. It’s irrational and antiquated and creates enormous problems.
But it also doesn’t actually matter that much. If the Royals pay market rates, the Dodgers will just pay above market. Whatever a smaller market team will invest, they’ll just beat it. Look at how much they’re willing to blow on players – do you think they’re gonna balk at an extra few million for salaries for tens of people across the org? For the latest and greatest tech? So what’s the incentive for the Marlins or Pirates to raise the standard? They won’t get better, and they’ll just pay more for the same people.
And then at some point you may actually end up in the situations the Athletics and Marlins have teetered on: a grievance. Take $20 million out of your payroll and put it into your front office and suddenly the union is asking questions. The Dodgers don’t have to make that choice. Smaller market teams can spend more, and they can spend smarter, but they do have legislative constraints on MLB payroll at some level, so they can’t just say well our ROI is better here so we’ll run $50 million payrolls and spend the rest on coaches and analysts. This is also where pro ball differs from college, because there’s no union in college that is watching how and where you spend your money.
It is absolutely and undoubtedly an unfair game and until about 50 people decide to do something about it it’ll stay that way. Some teams have a large inheritance in the form of rich owners. Some teams have great high-paying jobs in the form of large markets. If this were a social question, we would not blame the (relatively) poor for their circumstances, we would ask how we can change the system to give them a real chance. But the relatively poor are still billionaires, so instead of understanding that an unequal system is an unequal system we get caught up in pointing out that they’re never going to go hungry, as if that’s the argument.
I mean the other teams have some substantial theoretical advantages in compensation because, for instance, making 100k working for the Royals and living in MO or KS is an enormously better standard of living than, say, 140k working for the Dodgers and living in LA: cost of living, taxes, etc. The premium the Dodgers would have to pay in order to ‘match’ compensation is quite high, even though they could probably do it, they may not actually be able to do it at the scale they do (eg the largest department in MLB as well as the best paid)
By the gap I mean compared to the salaries. Like, they cant pay $300MM in payroll, but how much would it be to raid the Dodgers org or find comparable talent and just.. pay them?
Roger’s Communications may even have smart enough people in-house to do this.
1000X yes. The Dodgers would not be able to make these types of deals year, year out unless they maintain a strong farm system. And against all odds, they do.
The Dodgers sacrifice draft picks and international bonus money, so they are a a big disadvantage when it comes to keeping their farm system competitive. Yet somehow year in year out they have a bumper crop of prospects available trade at the deadline.
I see 2 compelling factors:
Obviously, their deep pockets help fund their minor league operations.
How can other teams compete?
The problem is a lot of organizations are lazy and cheap, or just lack the vision to compete like the Dodgers do. And they would rather spend their energy (and fan goodwill) putting a hard cap in place to limit the growth of salaries at the MLB level.
Third compelling factor: $334 MiO/year TV deal from which they do not have to share a nickel with the rest of the league. How much is the Brewer TV deal? The Cleveland TV deal?
This is what I dont understand. Offer a 130% pay increase to people in their front office.
Or poach assistant GMs or Friedman himself.
It doesnt make sense to me. The money is a huge advantage, but the special sauce is they are well ran from top to bottom.
They also havent missed on too many big contracts. So they not only pay a lot, but they hit more often than they miss.
Iunno, maybe MLB pools ownership money and creates like a shared “baseball lab” or something if we want more parity.
Its not just spending.
Saying money isn’t a large factor in what sets the dodgers apart is nonsense. Yes, they do a lot of stuff well. But there’s no reason to look reality in the face and deny it.
It’s not their separating factor, though – the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Jays all could spend like the Dodgers and Mets do.
The Dodgers are just run by smarter owners who’ve invested in a smarter FO from top to bottom.
What’s the basis for this? Just figuring hey, all big markets are the same? Are we just saying things that might be true? The Cardinals, Durham Bulls, Wichita State Shockers, and men’s fast-pitch softball all could spend like the Dodgers and Mets do! It’s free to lie on the Internet!
From what we have seen, the Dodgers and Mets operate in a different payroll tier than the other teams you mentioned. From what we know, they exist in different contexts (ownership wealth, revenue streams). Why are we pretending like this is just a problem of will and not one of solvency? Cause the people in charge are obscenely wealthy? I really hate defending billionaires but like what is the value in lying about stuff?
there is plenty of evidence that the Dodgers advantage isn’t purely financial. If they did not have good scouting and development, eventually the well would run dry and they would end up with an expensive, uncompetitive team. Call this the “New York Mets Model”.
What makes them a killer franchise is their willingness to spend _and_ their top notch scouting and player development.
Their hit rate on development and prospect trades is so high, they have plenty of collateral when they want to make a deadline deal. And also it does not seem to matter that they get less international money to spend and routinely have lower and less numerous draft picks.
Please make positive argument that the Yankees can’t afford to spend like the Mets.
I’m interested.
For one, Steve Cohen has a lot of money that the Steinbrenners don’t.
For another, if you’re claiming the Yankees can do something then you’re the one obligated to provide the evidence.
Totally agree that other large market teams could spend more. Heck, so could the Dodgers! Owning a MLB team seems like a license to print money. But the facts on the ground are the Dodgers and the lolmets spend more than anyone else and maybe the Yankees are in the same ballpark, and even the other large market teams don’t operate within the same budgets.
We’re on the same page here…but I do just attribute a lot of it towards Guggenheim understanding how making money works, in contrast to Kennedy’s and Hal’s impotent flailing.
This is absolute nonsense. The Mets spend like they do because Steve Cohen is more wealthy than the third, fourth, and fifth wealthiest MLB owners combined.
The Dodgers spend like they do because they have the largest media deal in baseball for $334 million per season, and thanks to an incredibly misguided deal MLB gave to Frank McCourt when he was facing insolvency, less than half of that amount is subject to revenue sharing.
The Los Angeles Dodgers made $950 million in revenue during the 2025 season. The New York Yankees were second at $755 million, while the Chicago Cubs were third at $552 million. The Milwaukee Brewers made $350 million, which is less than the gap between the Dodgers and the Cubs.
The finances in baseball are fundamentally broken because its media deals are regional, unlike the NFL.
There’s something I’m surprised you haven’t clocked:
The Yankees and Red Sox, for example, don’t HAVE “media deal[s]” – they own regional sports networks.
Which, of course, serves as a massive income stream separate from their “team revenues” (I’d be interested in your source for those numbers, by the way).
There’s something I’m surprised you haven’t clocked:
If the YES Network revenue wasn’t included in the Yankees’ total, they obviously wouldn’t rank second in revenue with $203 million more for 2025 than the third placed Cubs. YES is why they are the only team even remotely close to the Dodgers, yet they are still nearly $200 million behind them.
My source for 2025 revenue is CNBC.
Based on personal wealth, sure. And he’s liquid, he can write a check himself, but it’s not true at all to say that his ownership group is wealthier than the 3rd, 4th, and 5th put together. That’s absurd, bc his group is 5th wealthiest group.
Cohen is only the named managing partner, but his hedgefund owns it, same as Guggenheim owns the Dodgers and Walters is the named managing partner. Cohen is a family office, he doesn’t need board or shareholder votes, but his wealth is considerably less than Guggenheims. Point72 Asset Management manages ~$50.7 Billion in Assets AUM. That’s ~1/7 the size of Guggenheim, that owns the Lakers, Chelsea FC, the Sparks, and has ~$360 Billion AUM.
And Cohen/Point72 has less wealth than Rogers, Liberty, and Fenway Sports Group too. For sure.
Rogers Communications is close to a $20 billion capitlization. As in Enterprise value. They own the cable pipes, the cellular towers, the stadium, the Sportsnet network that broadcasts the games. A self-sustaining industrial corporate giant with over $14 billion in revenues each year that a hedge fund like Point72 can’t match. Because Point72 is a financial trading desk, their capital liquidity can and does fluctuate violently based on market swings; The one with the guaranteed, ginormous recurring cash flow would sell for about 20 times what PoInt72 would sell for.
Liberty Media is valued at $19 billion and owns Formula 1 Racing, a monopoly worth over $15B on its own, a huge controlling stake in Live Nation Entertainment which owns Ticketmaster. Just because they have grandfathered exception to the corporate controlling interest rule and have votes to consider and finance everything doesn’t mean they should be left off. They have so much more wealth than Point72, they’re just not willing to spend it like Cohen is, bc they have votes.
Fenway Sports Management is valued at $14.2 Billion as the fourth largest sports conglomerate in the world AFTER selling the Penguins. NESN gives them a monopoly platform as well, bc they own Chelsea FC.
The corporate asset value owned by the Steinbrenners is $12 billion from the Yankees alone, not even counting their 25% stake in YES or their 10% stake in AC Milan.
The Ricketts just sold TD Ameritrade for $20 billion. They’re both close to Cohen, like right behind Point72. There is no universe where he has more wealth than any TWO of The Ricketts Family Trust, Yankee Global Enterprises, or Ilitch Holdings Inc., let alone three. And that statement almost surely holds if you add Lerner Enterprises Trust as an option. And it might hold if you add Seidler/O’Malley Trust & Partners to the list.
You gotta stop looking the Forbes list of personal wealth of managing partners as the wealth of the organization. It’s not, and it’s not even a decent approximation of it.
That is not true. Steve Cohen personally owns the New York Mets, and his personal wealth dwarfs the personal wealth of any other owner in Major League Baseball. That’s why he is the only owner in MLB who has been willing to lose $100+ million each season for multiple years.
The other owners treat their organizations like a business where the previous year’s revenue dictates spending. Cohen treats the Mets as a toy he found useful for sportswashing his reputation after his insider trading scandal.
His money is in his hedgefund. It’s a family office. It’s one and the same. And yes, the others treat their organizations like businesses. He treats his like a really rich guy’s hobby. I acknowledged that he is willing and able, and the others are unwilling. But they are able, and it’s not correct to say he has more wealth than the 3-5 ownership groups put together.
Cohen is the only example of ownership willing to lose that much ever in baseball. Not even death bed Illitch was willing to truly run a loss like Cohen has.
Cohen is an anomaly. I agree. But not because he has more money than the next three groups put together, that’s just not close to true. Being an anomaly doesn’t change their overall wealth, nor does the fact that if those groups weren’t run as businesses that are hyper-focused on profit, they wouldn’t hold so much wealth.
This is a lie. The New York Mets are not part of Point72 Asset Management. They are directly owned by Steve Cohen.
Yes, it is. You are pretending that the assets of hedge funds managed by these individuals somehow represent the wealth of these individuals. They do not.
It is absolutely true and confirmed by numerous sources. You are being deliberately dishonest by looking at the portfolio of hedge funds associated with MLB owners instead of looking at the personal wealth of those MLB owners.
Steve Cohen is listed as the owner of the Mets bc that’s what MLB requires for their background checks and team governance. Basically having one person accountable. MLB prohibits hedge funds from outright owning a team, because hedge funds aren’t financially stable enough.
However, nearly all of his personal wealth is in Point72. It acts as his investment advisor, managing outside wealth, even though it started as a family office bc of his SEC ruling.
He bought 95% of Sterling Mets LP, the legacy limited partnership that the Wilpon’s owned it under, of which the Wilpon and Katz families still own 5% of. He holds Sterling Mets LP in his family office, Cohen Private Ventures. The real estate and stadium he holds in Queens Ballpark Company LLC.
The parallel is exact. Saying Cohen owns the Mets is the same as Mark Walter owning the Dodgers. Guggenheim Partners doesn’t own the Dodgers, bc they’re not allowed to. Guggenheim Baseball Management does. But whether it’s Steve Cohen using Cohen Private Ventures or Mark Walter using Guggenheim Baseball Management, MLB structurally forces these billionaires to isolate their teams inside private holding structures with an individual’s name on the dotted line.
You’re really ignorant and abrasive when you get called out on it. Idc what you say, I’m not arguing with you. Arguing with a fool proves there are two. So continue on with your misunderstanding, comparing Cohen to other principle owners and their personal wealth, what do I care?
For anyone that wants to know how it actually works, look it up. Don’t believe me, and definitely don’t believe Barstool over here. If you’re reading this, you’re on the internet, and the truth is just seconds away.
Provide any source that corroborates your claim that the New York Mets are owned by Point72 Asset Management.
But you would agree that the spending does set them apart, right?
From teams with identical financial resources whose owners prefer extracting value to creating it?
Yes, their spending very much sets the Dodgers apart from rentier shitbirds whose behaviour makes private equity look good by comparison.
Objectively incorrect. Only the Yankees are even close in terms of revenue, and only the Mets are close in terms of spending.
Detroit is Exhibit A in not going for it when “it” is there for the getting
The last time Detroit went for “it,” Dave Dombrowski spent a ton of money and acquired a bunch of mercenaries between 2003 and 2015 in an effort to win a World Series for Mike Ilitch. They got exactly one World Series win in 2006 and got swept in 2012. He left the farm system in shambles and Al Avila completed the destruction. It’s taken a decade to even get back to being competitive, let alone having a real chance to win a title with Skubal under team control. Skubal was going to test free agency, no matter what offer the Tigers could have made.
So they develop the best pitcher in MLB and a great lineup around him, and then give up with 3 months left in his final season? Detroit needs 3 mediocre prospects to compete going forward?
The Tigers are five games below .500 with five teams between them and the final playoff spot. They tried to go for it this season, which is why they gave that onerous contract to Framber Valdez. But it didn’t work and their season is lost, so it makes sense to take something rather than emulate the Angels when they let Ohtani leave for nothing more than a compensation pick.
There are 50 games left and they are 2.5 games out. The tigers with Skubal are better than all the teams ahead of them. How is the season lost? Do the standings just stay static after August 1st each season?
The Tigers with Skubal just lost a series against the Orioles, so no, they are clearly not better than the teams ahead of them.
The dodgers just lost a series at home to the Red Sox. I guess they should sell tomorrow.
The Tigers split a series with a terrible Royals team before losing that series with the Orioles. They are a deeply flawed team. Trying to equate them with the Dodgers is buffoonery of the highest order.
You are completely misunderstanding the nature of baseball if you are judging a team by 3 games, 6 games or even 110 games. Everyone gave up on the team that swept the Dodgers 2 months ago, even though they are the same team they are today. I assume you would have done a fire sale after the Dodgers were swept by the Angels at home in April.
But the Tigers have those two years. Isnt that worth it? If not, why not?
Even if all orgs were on a level playing field, you’d only win a title every 30 years on average !
I’d think the fans would be pleased at the attempt.
BTW the Tigers lost in 2006
winning titles makes the owners the most money possible. what’s $500,000,000 in payroll and tax when 10 figures come with the parade in down town LA? Their international marketing is clearly built on the foundation of Ohtani which is unique. BUT, every team that wins the title gets a $$$ bump.
The Dodgers were crap for about 20 years. Their rise over the last decade+ has coincided with my growth as a born Dodgers fan (thanks Dad), and my fandom of baseball in general. Few sports can enable such a wide variety of unqiue talent both on the field, and off the field to contribute. Baseball is one of America’s greatest inventions. Fangraphs is intimately intertwined for the duration.
Baseball is a microcosm of the wider world… The upcoming Labor vs Owner dispute reflects many issues in society at large. Are unlimited (free market) profits for owners with centralized control of costs (communismish) for players within the same system acceptable?
I guess the NBA guarantees players a percentage, but then the debate becomes where to draw the line that separates revenue streams to be divided and those not. This is particularly thorny with ownership real estate development adjacent to stadiums.
Being a bleeding heart, pro labor, liberal in society, while being a fan of the Biggest, Baddest Dogs on the field in baseball is a peculiar spot to be in…
My friend, there’s no contradiction in being a pro-labor Dodgers fan. While the Dodgers have been “ruining baseball” from 2024-2026, both the average and median MLB player salaries have risen steadily. Hard to isolate and prove, but quite possibly the Dodgers’ player spending has helped drive up overall player compensation. On the other hand, it’s almost certain that the owner’s “answer” to competitive imbalance will rest on putting a higher percentage of money in their pockets and a lower percentage in players’ pockets.
This isn’t true. In every single North American league that has implemented a salary cap, the players’ share of revenue has increased.
Salary caps aren’t designed to keep money away from the players. They’re designed to create a greater degree of cost certainty. In five years, we’ve gone from the Dodgers having the highest payroll + tax amount at $285.6 million in 2021 to $430.5 million in 2026. That’s a 50.7% increase.
Salary caps are intended to constrain spending of the teams with the deepest pockets and to limit compensation for the players who would have the biggest contracts. The MLBPA opposes that because their focus has always been on the biggest contracts, not what is best for the average player.
I agree that the MLBPA works harder for star players but I also said that median as well as average MLB salaries have gone up. Also, you seem to assume that baseball is “broken.” Baseball has the lowest ticket prices of any major pro sport in the USA. And when people say the Dodgers have “ruined” MLB competitiveness, they assume that it used to be better. Not true. In the 70 years between 1950 and 2020 only 13 teams based outside the top ten (by U.S. census) metro areas won the World Series (I’m excluding Toronto from the “small market” teams as well). And teams from New York and LA won 25 WS, far more than their share, over the 70-year period. If things are so bad for fans now, why does MLB attendance keep rising?
It doesn’t. MLB attendance in 2025 was lower than every single season between 2004 and 2017.
You’re relying on pre-covid numbers. It’s been a long road back.
I’m conclusively refuting a false claim that you made. NFL, NBA, and NHL attendance totals in 2025 were higher than before the pandemic. MLB was not.
If you want to have an honest discussion about this, that’s cool. But nowhere do I make any claims of any sort about NFL, NBA, or NHL attendance. You seemed to have some good and interesting facts at your command about salary caps but now it’s hard to trust anything you post. Over and out, troll.
When I proved your claim about MLB attendance continuously rising to be wrong, you used the pandemic as an excuse. I then provided data from the other three major North American leagues all have higher post-pandemic than pre-pandemic attendance to prove your pandemic excuse wrong.
Why can’t you just admit that what you said was false? Admitting your mistakes shows integrity. Using personal insults because you’re angry about someone proving you wrong shows immaturity.
Also, part of what’s going on with the Dodgers is very delayed but very fortuitious examples of random events evening out over time. The Dodgers of the 2013-2019 era were actually quite unlucky in terms of postseason results relative to their talent. They lost more than you’d expect, and in recent years they’ve got a bunch of breaks. I think, given how often they were *historically good* circa 2017, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, etc, that 3 titles over the 13 year span is actually a fairly reasonable net outcome. It’s just happened that the way those results has played out meant they got nothing for quite a while and now have got a burst here at the end in the Ohtani era, where it just happens to be more valuable anyway. It will not continue. Heck, even now, the field is better than a 2:1 favorite to lift this trophy.
The Dodgers have never gone more than eight seasons without winning the National League West. They have won their division twenty eight times in sixty nine seasons since moving to Los Angeles.
That exists in the NFL, NBA, and NHL but none of those leagues include non-stadium real estate in revenue sharing calculations.
As a Pittsburgh fan, I would kill for the Dodgers’ “fallow” periods.
I’m a fan of the Giants, and I wholeheartedly land here too. I will never be mad that the Dodgers are the only team out here hellbent on winning as many championships as possible.
Yup!
When we got spanked in 2024, I was proud of them for actually giving a shit.
It’s the money *and* the player development.
To say it isn’t the money is absurd.
Does this mean we can finally stop pretending Brandon Weeden is a real prospect
Dodgers get Skubal, sometimes you can predict baseball, Suzyn!
The basic structure of this deal appeared in an article Kiley McDaniel wrote for ESPN a month ago.
Dan predicted it in an article about a week ago.
It has been proposed in the comments section here numerous times.
It always made too much sense for it not to happen.
This might be the first time I’ve heard those two things go together!
Why couldn’t the Brewers make this trade? They had a plethora of mlb arms which the tigers wanted similar age of younger who have a better injury history and a better farm. On top of that they also have a log jam of people at same positions.
They could have, but that’s not what the Brewers do.
I also don’t think any of the top Brewers prospects are currently blocked. A huge amount of the value of the system is tied up in one player (Made) or players who won’t be ready for a while (Pena, Frias, Ebel, Payne, etc).
Luke Adams is blocked, but that’s not at all the same thing as what was going on with the Dodgers outfield situation.
I think the Tigers also were prioritizing players ready to be on the big league roster. They are hoping to make a run again next year though they will need to completely rebuild their rotation. River Ryan is part of that but he’s also really risky with the injury history.
Hope is less risky
Smith is a lottery ticket and his timeline is maybe someday? He’s young but he will be rule 5 eligible in 27 hasn’t pitched above A ball or pitched much to begin with.
Its going to be interesting what they do with some of their other impending FAs.
Perhaps if they want to win a WS, they should
I think a lot of people overshot on what sort of return Skubal was going to get. He is a huge difference maker but you’re only getting him for a single playoff run.
A month ago, Kiley McDaniel wrote an article where his ESPN colleagues submitted trade proposals for Skubal. He selected the Dodgers one that was very similar to this. He called it a wild overpay.
It’s also just possible that the Tigers like River Ryan a lot and aren’t as worried about his injury history as I am.
TBH, I think this is a light return. LA’s third-best outfield prospect and an oft-injured 27-year-old rookie? I’d have held out for more.
Yep. I look at Tampa’s Crater Lake deep system (24 guys at a 45 or higher) and think…you couldn’t beat this package? Similar thought with Milwaukee-Luis Pena, Tyson Hardin, and Blake Burke or Luke Adams isn’t a better return? Maybe it’s because I think River Ryan is only healthy for 10 mins a year and certainly appears to get a Dodgers boost in value.
A quantity over quality approach is impossible because the Tigers have to abide by the same 40 man roster limit. For that reason, two 50s are more valuable than getting six 45s.
Except I’m not saying to take six 45’s, merely illustrating they have the depth to beat the package Detroit accepted. A bunch of those 45s will mature into 50’s or better, so the premise Ben sets (Milwaukee and Tampa can’t afford to pay the prospect cost) is ludicrous. They have plenty of depth to weather the cost.
Tampa easily could have put Gillen on the table.
I like how you insist that you’re not saying to take six 45s, but then immediately suggest that they should take six 45s because a bunch of them are supposedly going to become 50s or better.
You disagreeing with his premise doesn’t make it ludicrous, especially when your rebuttal is fundamentally illogical. Ben is completely correct that the risk is orders of magnitude greater for the Brewers and Rays than it is for the Dodgers because the Brewers and Rays can’t fill gaps left by traded prospects in free agency.
Of course they could, but that would be a massive risk because they can’t sign a Kyle Tucker for $240 million to fill that spot.
I’ll try this once more. No, what I’m saying is the tons of 45s in Tampa’s system that they DON’T trade can mature into 50’s within their own system. If they offered say Gillen, Forret and Urbina (a higher combination of players at roughly the same level of the minors as the Dodgers prospects) they still have a staggering 20 prospects at a 45 or higher still in their system.
I’ll try this once more. No, they won’t magically mature into 50s just because acknowledging reality is inconvenient for you and would necessitate admitting that you were wrong.
The Rays’ current 45s might improve to 50s next season or they might regress to 40s. You’re building your argument on an unrealistic hypothetical that completely ignores the other side of prospect development. They’re 45s now. You need to treat them as 45s. You don’t get to pretend that they’re secretly 50s because that would help your argument.
The Rays are a small market team that needs to hit on their best prospects, as they have with Caminero. Tampa is currently starting Cedric Mullins in center. They have a desperate need for Theo Gillen right now. If they traded him for Skubal, it would hurt them severely in future seasons.
I’m well aware that the 45’s can go three different ways-they can rise up and become 50’s or better, stay at that level, or get exposed and go down to 40’s or NPs. Having that many 45’s already means just by the law of averages, Tampa is likely to end up with more of those 45s turning into 50’s next year or the year after. Could almost all of those 45’s bust? I guess, but it’s unlikely and would be a pretty catastrophic outcome. I wouldn’t bet against that with Tampa’s track record.
I find it amusing that at first you misunderstood what I was talking about (thinking I’m talking about Tampa sending Detroit six 45’s to beat the LAD proposal), and then try to cover yourself by misrepresenting what I was saying. Congrats man, you’re on a role.
The “law of averages” is a reference people with little understanding of statistics use to represent the concept of regression, and they usually misunderstand the statistical reality, just as you are doing here. Regression to the mean is the exact opposite of what you’re arguing will happen with Rays prospects.
I didn’t misunderstand anything, I accurately addressed exactly what you were claiming. You’re arguing that Tampa’s current 45s aren’t actually 45s but are secretly 50s because they have the possibility to improve, all while ignore the possibility that they regress instead, and while ignoring that every other organization’s prospects could also improve or regress in future seasons. You’re the one making up illogical hypotheticals in a transparently desperate attempt to avoid admitting that what you said was wrong.
The bottom line is that while Tampa does have impressive prospect depth in 45 future value prospects, that is not relevant to their number of 50+ FVs who they would need to give up to get Skubal. Trading away Gillen would have been a massive risk for the Rays because they need Gillen on their own team as soon as he becomes major league ready.
“I didn’t misunderstand anything, I accurately addressed exactly what you were claiming. You’re arguing that Tampa’s current 45s aren’t actually 45s but are secretly 50s because they have the possibility to improve, all while ignore the possibility that they regress instead, and while ignoring that every other organization’s prospects could also improve or regress in future seasons. You’re the one making up illogical hypotheticals in a transparently desperate attempt to avoid admitting that what you said was wrong.”
You sure did. Initially, you thought I was proposing some MLB The Show style trade offering six 45’s for Skubal. When I clarified that I absolutely was not doing that, you pivoted to this “secret 50” nonsense. I haven’t ignored that prospects in Tampa system could regress. Of course they can, and I’ve acknowledged that in several comments after this. I’m saying that the depth of their current 45s (and their overall system) means they could roll the dice on an acquisition like Skubal and a better shot at the title because they currently have a deeper well of talent in prospects, then almost every other organization.
“The bottom line is that while Tampa does have impressive prospect depth in 45 future value prospects, that is not relevant to their number of 50+ FVs who they would need to give up to get Skubal.”
Man, you were so close! These prospects aren’t in a silo. The prospect depth absolutely does matter because some of those 45s in Tampa’s system can improve into 50s. Brayden Taylor was a 45+ on the February list, he’s a 50 now. See how the grade changed? So Tampa has the ability to cash in some of those current 50 prospect chips (or 55’s if they chose).
Also, I find it pretty rich that you’re trying to establish a “Gotcha!” moment for someone admitting they’re wrong. Weren’t you the guy commenting all over the trade value series about all the prospects you’ve assessed correctly and then when asked about prospects that you’ve gotten wrong, went radio silent, and then flipped out on another poster? That’s a perfectly valid ask, and one that’s far more interesting, as that would’ve shown how your process evolves as someone. Instead, you took that request as some sort of threat to your expertise, which must be difficult if you’re an expert on everything.
Saying “oh it’s only their third best outfield prospect” is silly because for many other teams he would be their best outfield prospect
Are you sure you’re commenting on the right site?
Less than a half a season and a playoff run. If they had traded him before the season started the return would have been higher but all in all this is much better than a draft pick assuming that clause remains in the CBA.
Both of the pitchers involved have missed significant time. River Ryan is just two years younger than Skubal was drafted in 2021 and thrown roughly a little over 230 innings across all levels since. I think Hope is the headliner despite Ryan being higher ranked.
I think Ryan has more upside than any other MLB ready pitcher they could acquire. It’s high risk, high reward. I get why they would go for that over say Sproat.
Yes Ryan is fine and the others are fine. The deal would be fine if the Tigers were 10 games behind Cleveland. They weren’t.
They could, but their owner is cheap and bought a team for profit, not to win.
This is a crazy statement. Milwaukee is the 41st largest metro area and their TV deal has been the worst in the league for as long as TV deals have been a thing.
Meanwhile they are running the 19th largest payroll in the league. You can argue the team can spend more and that is technically true. But I would guess the Brewers spend the largest proportion of their revenues on player salaries in Major League Baseball except for the Padres and Mets.
The Diamondbacks are actually #2… But correct on them being in a Pads and Mets sandwich…
The Blue Jays look really high on paper by this metric, but that massively undersells how big Rogers is and how they monetize the team – own the station, own the cable pipes, own the cell towers. But if you just look at their pure baseball revenues, which isn’t really with the Blue Jays for those reasons, but if you do, and factor in revenue sharing, these four teams blow away the rest in terms of baseball revenue spent on baseball salaries..
Yet analysts suggest they’re easily making enough revenue to place them middle of the pack in the league. But the overall point is more that they don’t spend more on FA when another $20-25 million there could be a significant difference. It’s great and all that they’re a small market team spending this much, but that’s also kind of what the owner is and isn’t doing. They’re one of the most successful teams of the last 10 years, especially in the regular season, yet the owner will consistently defend not spending in free agency, but not in ways that are valid, such as stating they haven’t spent over that time so far so why should he now. And claiming he won’t splurge in free agency, but his excuse is to keep the team “viable for fans” and not wanting to make “all-in bets”.
He’s not doing anything more because they’re successful despite him not doing anything and that’s his defense to continue to not do anything. That’s an owner being cheap and nothing more.
The Brewers were 19th in payroll for 2025 and 20th in revenue. They’re not being cheap.
This is the weirdest place to try and make this argument. The Brewers have tried to max out gate revenue over the last 20 years because their TV deal is so bad, and they do it by spending a larger proportion of their revenue on player salary than all but 2-3 teams in major league baseball. The amount of “extra” money left over to spend on player salary that they’re pocketing is almost certainly bottom five in MLB.
Dodgers are almost sure generating much more money for their owners than Brewers.
Trades are a risk calculation. Teams look at how acquiring a player affects their odds of success this season along with how trading away players affects their odds of success in future seasons. The reason the Dodgers were the obvious landing spot for Skubal is that they are uniquely positioned to not care about the latter.
If Milwaukee traded Frias and Hardin for Skubal, they would need to win the World Series to justify it, as they would most certainly feel the absence of Frias and Hardin in future seasons because they are the smallest market in baseball. They depend on their incredible player development system in order to fill out their major league roster.
The Dodgers won’t miss River Ryan or Zyhir Hope even if both players become stars for the Tigers. There is essentially no risk for them in making this trade because they received roughly $600 million more in revenue than the Brewers in 2025. Whatever holes in the roster that emerge in future seasons are ones that they can plug in free agency. The Brewers can’t do that.
Not disagreeing. I realize what the prospect list says, but Brewers also have Sproat, Drohan, Gasser, Patrick, Ashby, Patrick, all of who have been decent MLB pitchers, all who have started, if they want a pitcher who is MLB ready as a starter now. They also seem “healthier”.
Has it occurred to you that the Milwaukee Brewers recognize that as much as it would be good to get Tarik Skubal, there’s no such thing as too many starters and they probably want 8 or 9 good ones in October because people get hurt all the time, and if Skubal got hurt it would be a complete disaster from which they could not recover
I get it, and I’m not disagreeing. I was mostly just saying the Brewers also have MLB ready arms, and the whole having to face him twice likely in NLCS is another reason they’d want to be in on him and maybe ever so slightly overpay .
The most boring possible outcome.
> Last year, they won the World Series, didn’t get rid of any notable outfielders (apologies, Michael Conforto), and signed Kyle Tucker.
Wild that Conforto is almost tied with Tucker in WAR (and solidly above in OPS+!) in half as many ABs.
So much for Dodger infallibility. Anyone who saw Tucker after June last year with the Cubs knew there was something wrong. The difference of course is the Dodgers don’t need to worry if they make a mistake.
The difference is that the Dodgers know great players can figure things out. That ‘something was wrong’ doesn’t mean Tucker will never be good again. It may take a while, but talent usually wins. Sometimes that happens after the Dodgers let a guy go. Sometimes guys need a change of pace, sometimes, its because the Dodgers don’t give them the runway they need to play through it (see Bellinger, C). That’s ok!
It is also wild that Tucker has disappointed mightily for being the highest paid player in the majors this year, but that this is barely a speed bump for the Dodgers.
This is entirely unsurprising because the Dodgers have been fielding teams for the last 10 years that are not particularly crippled by one of their star players not being available or at full power in the regular season. This has happened with Seager, Betts, and many others. Few players single-handedly sink or swim their teams (Judge, A). What matters is how healthy they are in October and how Kyle Tucker hits in October.
The Dodgers have always built depth and only really gotten in trouble when an astonishing number of guys got hurt (see: 2018 april/may, or the 2023 playoff pitching staff).
Well, yes. I still find it wild that a team is able to go out and spend $60M on a guy they don’t really *need* to be a huge star. Most teams, if they were in a situation where they don’t need that guy, well, they don’t get them (if they can even afford that contract in the first place). The fact is that Tucker was and still is a luxury signing.
I think the Yankees/Judge scenario is actually the outlier. Because no one single player has that much impact, teams routinely endure a star being out or underperforming for a few months. Mike Trout’s health or lackthereof has little to do with the Angels finishes the last 6 years, for instance. It matters only when you’re exactly in a tight race for a final playoff spot and every win matters – which it usually doesn’t.
Agreed that teams weather poor play or injury from stars/high-paid guys all the time. The Dodgers aren’t unique in that. It is difficult for one player to have that much impact over an entire season of baseball, stars can’t overcome overall bad rosters.
But for my team, the Twins, Tucker would be over 50% of the active payroll. It is kind of unfathomable to me that the Dodgers could sign this guy to the highest AAV in the league, he is overall disappointing, and the fans kind of shrug because they didn’t need him in the first place and the machine rolls on. A mistake like this would set another team’s finances back for years, even if they scrap to compete in the meantime by being smart. It would severely limit team building. For the Dodgers, I’m not really sure that is the case.
Bad for the fans. Bad for baseball. Another reason that the Union Contract must address these shenanigans. The Ohtani annual salary is a sham. The manipulation of service time a huge con job. On and on. Two easy fixes. Service time begins with first CONTRACT….not first day in MLB. And NFL salary format.
No, not the NFL salary format, thanks just the same.
Why not?
Go look at the NFL’s media revenue sharing model—it couldn’t be more apples-to-oranges from baseball’s. That’s why not.
Also, a big part of the thing about the NFL, really the worst thing about it, is the non-guaranteed contracts in a sport with frequent injury. Imagine if teams got to cut every pitcher who got a TJ surgery and not pay them any future years owed in salary.
It would be awful.
But this ability to clear ‘dead money’ and free cap space back up is a big part of what makes the NFL cap structure work; without it, every team would have a big chunk trapped on players who are hurt (in a league that actively destroys joints) and no flexibility.
Tragically, it is also a league that actively destroys joints, (or much, much more.)
There’s a lot of nuance to the NFL that allows it to be so successful and this is a key one. The ability for a team to cut anyone they want with minimal impact to their payroll is one of them.
There were people on this site not two days ago saying he was only worth a single 55 FV. I think some here may have overstated how underwhelming rental returns have been the last few years.
Ryan might be the most divisive FV55 I have seen here since Miguel Bleis.
If you read the comments now the tone is “how could they have taken a package with such a huge injury risk?”
The answer is either (1) they love Ryan anyway or (2) he was never going to return prospects who were more “consensus” FV55s. You can pick whichever one you feel comfortable with, because they’re both very plausible.
Is this where I admit I dont like Zyhir Hope much either
It’s as good a spot as any
In both cases (Bleis and Ryan), I think it’s a bit of a blind spot. With Bleis, he epitomized the fascination to locate the next big thing on the backfields. With Ryan, I think it’s an organization boost: if Ryan was with Colorado, would he be a 55?
Ryan’s issue is that he has only thrown 223 professional innings since becoming a full time pitcher in 2022. Averaging 44.2 innings per season is going to be a massive red flag no matter how good the stuff is perceived to be.
Yeah
This is the expected outcome but it is still lousy.
I kind of wonder whether other teams are going to be willing to pay deadline prices for rentals now, especially in the NL. I think the Tigers had to take what they thought was the best offer on Skubal regardless of the effects of that deal on the rest of the market. But I just don’t think teams (especially NL teams) are going to be as excited to trade for Mize or Gleyber Torres now (or Dustin May, Robbie Ray, etc).
I do think that the value of Neto, Reid Detmers, Jose Soriano, and others is still very high though. Teams can sell themselves on getting more than one playoff chase out of them.
I don’t think teams are gonna throw up their hands and pack it in. The playoffs are still a crapshoot even with the Dodgers being an overwhelming favorite. Remember the Dodgers were this close to losing to Toronto in the World Series last year. Oh and they were on the brink vs San Diego the year before.
I imagine that Mize is still going to get traded. But the going rate at the deadline for a starter of that level is a back end Top 100 prospect.
I don’t know how teams are going to feel about that?
It could still happen though, the Rays have all those prospects that need to be protected in the Rule 5. I kind of expect them to make a run at Neto but who knows if it will work.
It’s also not just about winning it all for a lot teams. Most of the middle to bottom half of the league owners are more than happy just making the playoffs. It shows your team is competitive enough to not have to go all out in free agency spending more money while bringing you in additional revenue from playoff games. It’s a win win for owners because it gives fans the perception that those owners are doing enough.
ALL teams are generating money for their owners. And big market teams most likely generating much more money for their owners than small market teams. So why is that just mid and small market team problem?
That might be true, but teams that act that way don’t build a fanbase. See Oakland and Tampa Bay vs. San Diego.
if the brewers had the prospects to make a deal on skubal they reallyl blew it, if only to keep the dodgers from getting him
Surprisingly good return in my opinion. However – Ryan is so divisive and such an injury risk it is a bit difficult to sell this as a massive win for thr Tigers. But the ceiling of this return is potentially huge. Just as the floor is quite low – Tigers fans remember Franklin Perez all too well.
I got curious and looked it up to see what kind of pitchers have their rookie season in or after their age 26 season, all the way up to age 29. It’s not an encouraging list since about half of the top starters were pitchers in Japan for several years before coming over.
There are really only a handful of big success stories: DeGrom, Chris Young, Kevin Tapani, and Joe Ryan. Obviously if you get that type of player you win a trade.
But I am also seeing a lot of good pitchers who got hurt. Rodrigo Lopez, Spencer Turnbull, John Means, Matt Shoemaker, Brian Bannister…
And then of course there are the guys who whose careers were destroyed by injuries before they really even began like James Kaprellian.
Corey Kluber was also 26.
This sort of risk is why I’m a little surprised Harris didn’t target Wrobleski or Sheehan.
Ken Rosenthal’s original report on the trade had Sheehan instead of Ryan so it appears it was changed at the last minute in the direction of Ryan, and that slot was the last one locked down.
I would have definitely preferred Sheehan. But I don’t know whether it was the Dodgers or Tigers who preferred Ryan instead. It could have been the Dodgers that insisted it needed to be Ryan.
It’s a totally acceptable return though. I think it’s possible that it was the best offer *even if* you dock Ryan a whole grade of FV for the injury risk.
I am afraid that Ryan will have as much gray, and a longer beard, as Sale when he finally makes an appearance in Detroit.
I’m at the point with Ryan where I’d start him in extended spring training until May or June, and then when he comes up he’d strictly be used as a reliever. I’d much rather have Brian Wilson (or Evan Phillips, or even Joe Smith) than Danny Hultzen.
Nah, you definitely send Ryan out as a starter and pitch him until he breaks again like their version of Tyler Glasnow.
If you think he will be as durable as Tyler Glasnow, you would definitely do that.
If the Tigers viewed him as a reliever then they definitely would not have made this deal. They’re very clearly going to try him as a starter whether that ends up working or not.
I’m sure Detroit wanted Sheehan or Ryan. But no other team would even beat this package and the Dodgers are smart enough to not bid against themselves
River Ryan is going to be 28 before the start of 2027. Most of the names you mentioned had pretty much full seasons during their 26 and 27 year old seasons. Those are often the peak of a pitchers prowess and, even with that, there is still doubt if Ryan will ever be healthy. Smith, the ultimate lottery ticket, has never been the winning pitcher in a professional game. While I accept that wins have limited value you would think he would stumble into a couple if he just kept his team in the game.
Detroit should have kept him and I’d have said that unless there was a star quality player in the deal like de Paula.
Tigers punted a chance to win WS in 2026 just to obtain a couple of possibly average players for a low price because it’s “value”.
Value seeking doesn’t win titles.
Whats the point to all this if you’re not going to try for a championship? Oh right, the point is to win in labor negotiations, not on the field.
This isn’t sustainable, and MLB should be ashamed. They’re too busy counting money to care, though.
The Dodgers player development system is vastly overrated. Take a look at their 2021 and 2022 updated prospect lists: there are only a few guys who have panned out; many never made The Show or were in and out quickly. But guess what? This is the case for every other team as well. So….the return for Skubal could have easily been beaten, and the Rays and Brewers especially could have, and should have. To get Skubal required an “overpay” by PV currency. So what if he’s a rental?! If you planning a family trip to Disney World, don’t complain about overpaying, or try to rent a Kia Soul to tool around Orlando.
The other side is that the Dodgers have frequently traded players who had big questions for a variety of reasons and turned out to vastly exceed expectations
Yordan Alvarez and Oneil Cruz were traded as teenagers who had barely played in the US
Michael Busch and Miguel Vargas were traded when they had debuted and did not exactly look amazing.
Yes, there are some Alex Verdugo type players out there. But the Dodgers *do* identify talent well, and many players people get from them *do* turn out to be worthwhile. Heck, this very article mentions another such player as one the Tigers might want to upgrade (Zack McKinstry).
Prospects acquired in trades are not always hits. They still have to keep developing and many things can still go wrong. But its apparent that teams think that the Dodgers identify talent well, and that many teams have gotten valuable pieces in trades with the Dodgers. Heck, the Astros did a bobblehead this weekend of Alvarez *standing on the tweet where they announced acquiring him from the Dodgers for a middling relief pitcher*. Alvarez had never even entered the United States when that trade was made.
I think the fact that specifically the Mookie Betts trade went so poorly for the Red Sox (and somewhat that the Trea Turner/Max Scherzer deal did not go great for the Nationals, though given how the guys they got for Soto have turned out, maybe thats a Nationals Problem) causes people to be too knee-jerk in how they evaluate other traded Dodger prospects. The hit rate is pretty good!
Can you provide a comprehensive list of every other team’s prospect lists and how those panned out too? I think you’ll notice a trend but I’m not quite confident that it will tell you what you want to hear
They turned Busch into Hope and Ferris. They could let Busch go bc Freeman wanted to go to LA in part bc of years of success and treating players well. Success breeds success.
They turned Matt Beaty, a bench piece, into River Ryan. Turning lead into gold.
They have the best farm system despite losing draft picks and draft positions. They turn Lux into Sirota and May into Tibbs.
They have made the smartest collective moves for years before simply writing huge checks. The Mets spend nearly as much the last few years, and are in debt and out of October. The Dodgers are the most profitable team in baseball and the winningest and have the best farm system (just wait until they sell on Glasnow, Teoscar, Call and Sheehan over the next 12 months and gain eight more prospects).
Of course their huge budget sucks for competitive balance. But the gap bw their collective intelligence compared to that of the league average is larger than the salary gap. Look at how they take others’ poor players and turn them into better versions of themselves: Lauer, Muncy, Klein, Phillips, Rojas. Look at the prospects they take on that immediately improve: Sirota, Tibbs, Ryan. Being smart and rich is what separates them. And people hate on their wealth so they don’t have to say they are dumber than the Dodgers. They make more money spending more money. They make more prospects by selling vets they no longer need bc they signed great players. This is a synergy, a system, a business model that profits in both players and dollars.
I went to my first Dodgers game in 1987 and got Lasorda’s autograph. My dad’s employer made their uniforms. We lost two World Series to teams that actually cheated. We tried being the Galactic Republic and got cheated. We won a ring in 2020 and others said it didn’t count. So we became the Empire and still ensured we were sustainable and profitable. Long live the Empire! The Death Star parts were made in Japan, assembled in the USA.
you can tell Dodgers fans genuinely think they deserve to live
I find it hard to tell the difference between a nepo baby and a Dodger fan
Dad worked in a factory. We are immigrants. Sometimes stereotypes find their mark. Sometimes they don’t.
Look I have been a Dodger fan long enough to remember when Rupert Murdoch owned the team, spent a ton of money on bad contracts and the team lost 90+ games with them, and one of the best Dodger fansites was called dodgerblues.com, which featured a ticking clock of “Time elapsed since the last great moment in Dodger history”, it was counting the time since Kirk Gibson’s home run, and it was well over 25 years.
Guggenheim era has been great. The span from 1992-2004 was mostly extremely bad and actively embarrassing (I quit watching baseball entirely), and the McCourt era had a few fun things (2006 team, Manny Ramirez, Kershaw’s debut) with enormous, awful drama. It was bad for a while.
I grew up a Dodger fan and some years ago I realized that, as a kid, I saw 3 different Hall of Famers debut with the Dodgers, and that they all parted ways with the team with bad feelings, and none of them have Dodger logos on hat in their HOF plaque: Pedro (who I saw pitch as a 10 year old in Great Falls, MT in the Pioneer League), Piazza, and Beltre. When the Dodgers traded Pedro, I was really upset. I went to every home game of that Pioneer league season and he was my favorite player on the team exactly because his older brother had been on the 1988 WS team. I still have a GF Dodgers hat somewhere.
Kershaw was the first one in literally 30 years we didn’t alienate and trade. And that long circle has come back to Mookie Betts and Shohei Ohtani putting me on the other side (as I think at this point both are going to be wearing LA caps on their plaques), and maybe even Freddie Freeman (I am not sure if he’ll make it, but I think if he continues to play well long enough to get to the HOF benchmarks, he’ll also end up with a Dodgers cap; right now, he’d wear a Braves cap if he was inducted, but he doesn’t get inducted with his current career line. The difference between today and HOF induction is probably enough to tilt the line to the LA side, i think)
The bad times are well past but still I remember them well enough to feel fortunate for the era I get to watch now. I know it will end. But the scale feels a lot more balanced now (by which I mean I expect that by the time it ends it will be comfortably tilted towards the good).
Anway this is also a way of saying that I can’t claim to know how, say, Cleveland fans feel about things, but I’ve spent a considerable amount of time in the situation where everything my team did was downhill from the moment I became a fan, and experiencing the frustration of blowing what seemed like once-in-a-lifetime chances (see: 2017/2018 WS appearances). Its not a great time. I’m glad it’s over and that I’m old enough now that, if the Dodgers have another 30-year streak of not doing anything after this era, I won’t be around at the end of it. :p
No, absolutely not. You do not get to do this “we deserve this after all we’ve been through” act. Between 1992 and 2004, the Dodgers had a combined winning percentage of .520. They made the playoffs three times in an era when only four teams made the playoffs in each league. You did not have it bad. Do not pretend like you experienced what Pirates, Reds, Angels, etc. fans have experienced.
No one deserves anything, friend. That’s not how this works.
Bro, MLB expanded to 8-teams making the playoffs in 1994. Ofc, there were no playoffs in 1994, but from 1995 on, it’s been 8 teams.
Second, they had a .518627 winning percentage, not a .520. 1058-982. 2040 games. 1058/2040 = .518627. That’s two lies to belittle someone as the self-appointed judge of baseball fandom.
And six absolute lemmings that upvoted you based on your lies.
You’re not the arbiter who gets to decide someone’s experience as a fan, especially since you just make things up to support your rant.
As it happens, the Dodgers made the playoffs in 1995 and 1996. They were swept both years in the 5-game NLDS series.
They didn’t make the playoffs again until 2004, when they won their first playoff game since 1988. But it was the only game they won, falling in the series 3 games to 1.
It was a failed period, and their .519 winning percentage from 1992 to 2004 – again, that’s rounded up, it’s not .520, as you stated – is not anything to be proud of, and was buoyed by 5 straight ROY’s, arguably the most dominant closer ever to that point in Gagne, and they missed the playoffs every year from 1997 – 2003 in the expanded, 8-team format. They were a punching bag for a decade in the same vein as the Mets.
It must suck to be you. You don’t need to lie and be dishonest to try and tear someone else down in order to make yourself feel better. The reason you can never fill that void inside is because you’re not honest with yourself or anyone else about what’s causing it. And trying to cancel everyone that doesn’t agree with your delusions ain’t gonna fix it either.
Do better, troll. I’d feel sorry for you if you weren’t so insufferable.
If you believe that the typical Dodgers fan is not meaningfully different from a nepo baby, you are in a place that is far, far removed from reality and rational thinking.
I think devout baseball fan based in LA proper…and I wish they could understand the hardscrabble life of growing up in Anaheim!
Is there no room for metaphor anymore?
The point is it’s two groups of people who got handed a winning lottery ticket. Then when people are like hey maybe this isn’t fair to everyone and you were handed an advantage they go nO i AkShUlLy EaRnEd ThIs.
I’m not saying the Dodgers didn’t earn this (though they didn’t earn all of it, some things are institutional advantages). I’m saying a fan being like THIS IS COSMIC JUSTICE is a bit much. Appreciate and acknowledge your good fortune. Don’t tell people who didn’t get what you got that that things would be the same for them if they just tried a little harder. The system is rigged in your favor.
The Sith went for it hard and it paid off in several consecutive championships, but eventually all those big contracts for declining veterans and the prospects they traded in win-now moves caught up with them.
Danger of the Rule of One!
Darth Krayt had a better go of it
They only have one contract that will look bad at its end: Betts. Who else is going to produce less than they earn? Tucker has 3.5 more yrs. Ohtani. Freeman is a FA soon. Who produces less than they consume?
you are really missing the point here
See CLS’s comment for someone who gets it
The justification for the Brewers and Rays not trying to beat this offer is that they think there’s going to be a salary cap whenever the hell the next MLB season is. They are as well-positioned to thrive in a cap era as any team in baseball, and the Dodgers aren’t. Why would you sacrifice a potential cap-era dynasty to try and make a run here when your team still win’t be as good as LA?
And similarly, if the Dodgers believe there’s going to be a cap, this is the only rational move for them as well. Win before the music stops and nobody cares what happens after.
I think that the odds of a cap are dramatically overrated because it doesn’t just require breaking the union on the issue. Do people forget that MLB’s own rules require near-unanimity on a collective bargaining agreement?
Part of the reason ownership has never succeeded is that there’s just enough large market teams to sink the issue on the ownership vote. The Dodgers/Yankees/Mets are like 3 out of the 4 necessary no votes to reject a cap.
Hal Steinbrenner has all but come out publicly in favor of a cap. I think the Dodgers, Mets, and possibly Phillies will be the only “no” votes.
Just wait until the cheapskate teams see that they have to double their payroll to meet the floor, lol. They look united now, I don’t think they’re gonna be united when Bob Nutting has to spend another $70 million a year on payroll. They will fracture on both ends.
The only organizations that really want a cap are the bigger market teams who want to pocket more money without getting yelled at for not being good (Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs), and the middle market teams who basically spend to that cap anyway. And the reasons those two factions will doubt are diametrically opposed to each other – the players will insist on a higher floor to make up for the lost salary above the cap, the cheapskates will demand more revenue sharing to pay for it, and the teams, and the bigger teams that spend over the cap and want it to cut their costs will not want to turn that money back over as revenue sharing. The Dodgers, etc will get to peel the Yankees, Red Sox, etc back into the no column because the proposal will require them all to pay for the cheapskate owners hitting the salary floor
Think Hal will still be in favor of a cap if it means he has to give up another 15-20% of his baseball revenue for RS to give Nutting and friends so much revenue sharing that they can meet the floor without spending a cent of their own money?
I don’t, and I think that’s what it takes to get the Pirates to accept a 170m or whatever has been proposed salary floor.
Its not actually good for all of them. Not in the same ways. And they’ll never get a cap without a floor, and probably not without a commitment not to lower the players share of league revenue from whatever it is today.
Also, the union is strong and they won’t take this shit. This will either be a short stoppage with the owners caving or a lost season. There’s no possible way the union will do a cap. It’s the same chance the owners make free agency drastically sooner. It won’t happen.
I think that *the owners* believe they are getting a cap and that is driving some of the behavior we have seen in MLB this season.
But that doesn’t mean they are going to get it. We can’t say that it is inevitable, especially during this CBA negotiation.
Even if there is a cap in 2027 and beyond, Dodgers (and all teams above the cap) would get some exceptions on current contracts, because you cant cancel them.
It’s almost impossible, but I’m hoping against hope that they force the Dodgers to sell off players at a discount. I want to see them punished.
Punished for… winning?
This is impossible and will never happen; the union will never accept it, and the CBA terms will not allow the league to force a team to abrogate binding contracts formed under a CBA. They would lose every court case on the issue. It would be collusion, actually.
Every time this has ever happened in a league, it has come with a grandfather clause. There is not a way to do it otherwise under American labor law. You are a bitter, whiny fantasizer.
And posts like this render all your other “objective” commentary null and void
They’re obviously fantasizing and sure seem bitter. Whining? This is a loser sentence.
You seem aware in other comments of the unfair advantages the Dodgers have over the rest of the league. Don’t insult other people for being upset about that fact.
“Well Mr. Burns had done it – the Power Plant had won it…”
It’s the dodgers fault that the brewers and rays are run by cheap ass beta boys?? Get out of here (coming from a Rockies fan).
Tampa has 17 (!) 45/45+ prospects. How many of these does it take to beat the Dodgers package? 6, 7,8, 9??? If I’m Tampa I’d be willing to go up to 8 or 9 just because they have so many and will have a roster crunch eventually. It would make for a super interesting trade to track or time.
Let’s see what they do over the next 18 hours or whatever it is. If they walk out of the deadline with Neto, Arraez, Mize, and Jake McCarthy then I think this looks very different than if they only add McCarthy.
Okay, Freddy Peralta is…a start…
The Wish version of Skubal.
Making a deal like that would create a roster crunch for the Tigers, who presumably also like their own players even more than analysts do. To beat this offer, the Rays would have to offer multiple 50s rather than a bunch of 45s.
They didn’t have to just use 45’s. That wouldn’t and shouldn’t get the job done. You’re going to need a headliner Why not Gillen? Or Taylor?
Longenhagen is one of my favorite scouts and evaluators anywhere. But I really, reeeeeeallllly need to hear some solid backing for why a guy who’s career high in innings is 107- 3 years ago- and will be post-prime by his arbitration years is a 55 FV.
You could try reading any of the myriad commentary about him that has been posted on this site over the last 12-18 months.
All that commentary is just that. By the time a player is going to be 28 during his first season, maybe, he needs more performance than Ryan has produced to justify such a lofty FV.
The entire scouting world appears to disagree with you, but yeah maybe you’re right and literally everyone else is wrong.
MLB instructs Tigers to trade Skubal to Dodgers. In unrelated move, Tigers owner Chris Illitch signs 10 yr, 500m endorsement deal with Kawhi Leonard’s tree planting company in partnership with MLB.
People downvoting this comment not nearly cynical enough. Mike Ilitich would have never made this trade. Winning on the field simply doesn’t matter to 25+ owners.
On the bright side, fans of the Blue Jays keeping Kevin Gausman are probably happy with this deal.
This doesn’t concern the trade but it does concern the Dodgers so I would like to hear what the very knowledgeable fans here at Fangraphs think of Roberts playing the infield back last night in the 8th with men on 1st and 3rd and nobody out in a tie game? To tie it into this discussion, with managing like that even Skubal might not be enough for a three-peat. I absolutely could not believe it and am still stunned, even though I was very happy to see it.
I would imagine that its some very specific data driven decision about the pitcher and the batter and the probability of a soft ground ball, etc, that suggested being able to field a hard hit ball was better odds than the soft hit one.
But also the Dodgers fairly regularly don’t optimize to win individual regular season games and that can be fairly jarring to watch.
This is a team that sometimes makes decisions like “We don’t want to risk a collision at home plate that hurts our catcher so we’ll concede the run in this game that doesn’t matter at all because the single most important thing in the months of August and September are that no one important gets hurt”
I do not think this is always to their advantage. But I think it happens. Similarly, this team doesn’t steal bases in the regular season. Too many random injuries. They’re like that. It’s weird to watch sometimes.
The not trying to win idea actually makes a bizarre sort of sense. There is no question that they are going to win the West and get a bye so avoiding injury is reasonable. It certainly jarred this fan of baseball for over 75 years.
They do try to win but they are really conservative about it in some ways, for sure. You notice Shohei doesn’t steal bases anymore like, at all, for instance.
How many championships has the perpetual motion machine won? Those two teams never go for it. When will they be in better position than this year?
Remind me, how many championships Brewers won when they followed the “go all-in and rebuild” strategy in late 00´s and early 2010´s?
I guess we’ll disagree. The Brewers have the best record, and so far have added nothing. Do we really want teams acting that way?
As someone whose team used to not actually do this kind of thing unless we were super desperate, yes, I hoped that my team would not make additions because they wouldn’t need them, and we would need those guys in the future. Heck, its still somewhat true, in that even if we don’t have spots for those players, its usually the case that the most valuable way to trade them is to fix a roster problem caused by injury.
However, starting pitchers are cheating because they’re always a roster problem caused by injury and you can literally never have too many of them. For every one of the 30 teams all the time without exceptions. If they aren’t today, there’;s still a 10% chance they could be tomorrow, because elbows and shoulders are basically ticking time bombs without a visible timer.
Besides getting a great pitcher, the biggest advantage for the Dodgers is that if get two of Snell, Glasnow and Ohtani back they can double stack starters in the third and fourth games of a playoff series, meaning nobody except Skubal and Yamamoto will have to face a lineup a third time.
Ditto this. A completely rational baseball trade on both sides.
This falls squarely into the meh category for me. The Dodgers were going to win the AL West anyway barring most anything short of California tumbling into the sea. They were already going to get a bye. They already had a very good chance of winning the World Series. And games still need to be played. There are no guarantees and this is not the end of competitive baseball.
I hate the Dodgers as much as the next person, but it’s ridiculous to hate a baseball team for being good at being a baseball team. You should hate them for leaving Brooklyn for LA fifty-some years ago, because that’s much more rational.
Unfortunately, winning in labor negotiations is much more important than winning on the field to MLB owners, which is why it is acceptable for a team like the Tigers- peaking right now after adding Max Clark- to give up on their season, as they did in 2024, when they traded their 2nd best starter to the Dodgers for no return.
Just like in life, if you turn off the news and just watch the games it’s a great time! I’ve never had an issue with market size, league structure, or anything of the such. I sometimes watch games with the sound off and just enjoy watching. I have fond memories as a child of watching the Red Sox and Yankees as the evil empires and wouldn’t have changed a thing. I closely follow teams of every market size and love seeing how teams are constructed, through trades, development and free agency. I’m excited to see how the Tigers look over the next few years. I’m amped to see the Dodgers in the playoffs. I can’t wait to see the Brewers in the playoffs. Just enjoy the show!
Found the MLBPA’s burner account
Salary cap fixes this.
The dodgers make baseball less watchable.
I watched them and others on MLB.TV yesterday and found it quite watchable! Give it a try!
I don’t really have anything smart or compelling to say about this. It was a good move by the Dodgers. As a baseball fan though, this trade feels like it was the most predictable destination for where Skubal would land, and it’s just icky and not fun
Maybe the Dodgers should be selling. After all, they only have a 30% chance of winning. Probably not going to win anyway.
For teams that are still looking for a Dodgers-killer, these are the starters who have had the most (any?) success against the Dodgers over the last couple years and who could theoretically be available. Note that both of them are lefties.
Reid Detmers: 1.47 FIP, 1.50 ERA
Trevor Rogers: 1.90 FIP, 1.46 ERA
I don’t know if the Orioles are selling, or what the price tag is on Detmers. But if I’m the Braves or Brewers these are the guys I’m targeting. I think there’s something here to the idea that having a second lefty in your rotation is a good idea against the Dodgers, especially in a best of seven.
Braves should be on these guys. For that matter they should have been on Skubal.
They might have been. I think Fuentes is more promising than Ryan but they may also have not wanted to give him up, and JR Ritchie and Owen Murphy are not as exciting.
The Braves especially with Sale. Thats why I wanted them (as a Braves fan) to push for Skubs. 4 of the first 6 games in a best of 7 against maybe the 2 best lefties in the game AND Dylan Lee in Relief? Talking like 30 innings vs elite lefties.
The Orioles are a team that often sees value where other teams don’t. If they’re willing to trade Rogers there’s no way he costs as much as Detmers. They would have to give up at least one near-ready / actual MLB starter. But if they Orioles can unlock (for example) JR Ritchie’s potential and the Braves can’t , is that really much of a loss for the Braves?
And my interest in MLB continues to wane.
LA does this through quality as well as quantity.
1) The Mets have spent the same on payroll the last 3 years. No one complains when the rich embarrass themselves. When the rich are competent, everyone outside LA whines.
2) LA had more people watching the WS in Japan than the US. They have expanded their ‘home market’ to another country. The Dodgers are outcompeting all other teams even more in business than in baseball.
3) Consequently, every future star from Asia the next decade will be likely to put LAD as his preferred destination, whether as a FA like Yamamoto or an int’l draftee like Sasaki. The Dodgers have expanded their de facto minor league system.
4) This is evolution. Moneyball in Oakland and Tampa was meant to compete with the profligate Yankees. Now, the quality and quantity have combined forces. I think the cheap owners are jealous LAD are making money doing this and the incompetent management of other teams are jealous they can’t turn Will Klein, Max Muncy, Chris Taylor, Eric Lauer and myriad others into gold.
5) This is the most ego-less dynasty ever. Mookie changing positions despite being the best defender in RF. Massive deferrals. Starters pitching out of the ‘pen in the postseason. All those stars, and no conflicts, ever. Same manager for a decade. Their culture is the gold standard.
6) They lost two WS in a row to teams caught cheating. They tried being nice guys and watched what happened. Now that they win, they are called cheaters. Cheaters hit trash cans. Winners raise banners.
I just realized the Dodgers in the aggregate traded Michael Busch (good), Yancy Almonte (meh), Matt Beaty (fringe) and $9 mil for Skubal and Jackson Ferriss. And this is their norm.
At this point, I’d take the Dodgers over the field to win the World Series, and that sucks.
If Fox showed their Saturday game tonight, it’d be worthless because sports are only entertaining if you don’t know the outcome. What we have here is a joyless, inevitable slog towards the Dodgers winning the championship.
If you don’t believe me, come back to this comment on Halloween when I’ll (unfortunately) be proven right…