The Dodgers and deferred contracts and the next CBA

[G-Snarls]

This will be a huge issue next time around. Going to post some thought provoking article and tweets. 

Think the league will try to change the way teams can do this?

[G-Snarls]

 

 

[Abomination]

2 minutes ago, G-Snarls said:

This will be a huge issue next time around. Going to post some thought provoking article and tweets. 

Think the league will try to change the way teams can do this?

The league will definitely look to do something about this. Rather than a hard cap, they may just put in place a ban against deferred money though. They could also tax deferred money, or they could consider the full amount to be the salary rather than adjusting for present value.

What the Dodgers are doing is not good for baseball.  I'm thinking there's going to be a LONG strike in two years (rather than a shorter strike that was probably going to happen anyway).

[Laika]

I don't think what the Dodgers are doing is bad for baseball, really. The sport has always had one or two super teams with massive payrolls.

The players should take no issue with the Dodgers tactics. 

However, the other owners will probably be enough pressure for there to be a change. It's the other owners who are harmed from a competitive standpoint because they don't all have the financial flexibility and tools to offer deferrals like this. As has been said, the Dodgers can basically do it because they are owned by a hedge fund. 

So there is a funny setup here where the MLBPA might actually DEFEND the Dodgers right to do these kinds of deals. Weird little situation where one team will be supported by the MLBPA. Hmmm. 

[Terminator]

The deferrals are all accounted for properly in this CBA and are no big deal IMO.

Frankly, any team residing in a high tax area (like the Jays) should want the deferrals to remain as a way to not have to overpay for FAs.

The way the Dodgers are gaming the system is by having several people rich enough to be an owner in their own right team up to form a super ownership group. This allows them to spend crazy amounts of money.

Add in the location, market, etc. of the team and its created the perfect storm for them to flourish.

The Mets and Jays are the only teams really even trying to compete with these *******s but neither have the franchise gravitas to do it right now. The Yankees should be going toe to toe but Steinbrenner Jr.  doesn't have the stones and other teams like the Giants aren't trying hard enough.

[Terminator]

At the risk of being tarred and feathered, I wonder if raising the tax tiers would actually help.

It seems like you have a glut of teams who all cluster around the tax limits and won't spend a dollar more.

Then you have two teams who just don't care and blow past them without giving it a second thought.

So maybe you raise the tax tier limits but increase the penalties. That way the Dodgers and Mets become more constrained, while the other big spenders (teams like the Jays, Giants, etc.) can spend enough to get closer to them?

 

[Spanky99]

1 hour ago, Laika said:

I don't think what the Dodgers are doing is bad for baseball, really. The sport has always had one or two super teams with massive payrolls.

The players should take no issue with the Dodgers tactics. 

However, the other owners will probably be enough pressure for there to be a change. It's the other owners who are harmed from a competitive standpoint because they don't all have the financial flexibility and tools to offer deferrals like this. As has been said, the Dodgers can basically do it because they are owned by a hedge fund. 

So there is a funny setup here where the MLBPA might actually DEFEND the Dodgers right to do these kinds of deals. Weird little situation where one team will be supported by the MLBPA. Hmmm. 

Funny, cause it's all true.

[mphenhef]

5 hours ago, G-Snarls said:

 

 

Holy hell, that’s like 13-20 years of payroll for some other teams.

[G-Snarls]

I mean half of that total is Ohtani alone because he's the most extreme deferral we've ever seen. And he was obviously fine with it I guess?

[G-Snarls]

Funny I post this on a day where the Blue Jays reach a contract with a lot of deferred money for Santander. LOL

[Spanky99]

2 hours ago, G-Snarls said:

I mean half of that total is Ohtani alone because he's the most extreme deferral we've ever seen. And he was obviously fine with it I guess?

I read an article that his(Ohtani) decision was to set the Org up for unlimited deferral contracts for over a decade, hahahahaha... let that sink in, that was the loophole. 700M to him guaranteed ++++  and through endorsements. Hush money too, lol

 

[Spanky99]

3 hours ago, G-Snarls said:

Funny I post this on a day where the Blue Jays reach a contract with a lot of deferred money for Santander. LOL

Well, luxury tax teams should use deferrals almost exclusively.

 

[BTS]

I have no issue with what the Dodgers are doing. The deferrals are accounted for in the CBA. Other owners are going to use LA's spending to garner fan support for more restrictions, but the reality is that every owner in the league could have afforded Snell or Teo or Yates or Sasaki. These guys chose LA because they've made themselves into a world class organization that does what it takes to win. The obvious answer here is for other owners to get better at owning a baseball club. 

Also, it's fun having villains. The NHL has a hard cap, and honestly it f***ing sucks. Great teams are forcefully dismantled in order to create parity. It rewards mediocre orgs, and forces teams to compete in cycles instead of sustainably. There are like 4 very good teams, 4 very bad teams, and 24 teams that are average and may or may not make the playoffs in a given season. And it makes trades really hard to come by. 

[BTS]

Good article on the topic. Don't let the league's cheap and/or incompetent owners use the Dodgers' success to convince you that a salary cap is necessary. 

Sick of the Dodgers Signing all the Free Agents? Well, Get Off Your Butt and Do Something About It. | FanGraphs Baseball

[Terminator]

4 hours ago, BTS said:

Good article on the topic. Don't let the league's cheap and/or incompetent owners use the Dodgers' success to convince you that a salary cap is necessary. 

Sick of the Dodgers Signing all the Free Agents? Well, Get Off Your Butt and Do Something About It. | FanGraphs Baseball

Lots of cheapskate owners out there.

The Cubs owner gave an embarrassing interview recently where he said they try to break even every year.

Meanwhile, he bought the team for $850 million 15 years ago and it's now worth $4.1 billion. They have also heavily invested in real estate in Wrigleyville and are making bank off of that.

It would not kill him to operate the team at a small loss every year. 

 

[G-Snarls]

RosterResource has the Dodgers at a $383MM payroll and $386MM competitive balance tax figure.

[John_Havok]

I don't mind deferrals, I think they're an excellent tool that was designed to help smaller market teams have an extra tool at their disposal to retain their star players.

However, as wirh most seemingly good ideas, the spirit of their use is being abused by the Dodgers because any type of financial rule like this meant to help lower budget teams, will of course benefit the big boys more if used, which it is. 

The fix is pretty easy though, you just cap the number of deferred contracts teams can have on their roster. 

No, it still wouldn't mean every team could get an Ohtani, but it would prevent the deepest of pockets from being able to defer multiple future hall of famers and lower tier stars. 

Every team still has access to them, just not unlimited access. Fixed.

 

[Jimcanuck]

I'm with Term.  Raising the luxury tax thresholds (this should happen annually) but more importantly increasing the penalties will level the playing field somewhat.

If the increased penalties are things like loss of draft pick(s) and further impacts on IFA money, this would be to the further benefit of small market teams without being a straight cash transfer (or "revenue sharing" to use the polite term).  It would essentially improve small market farms at the expense of the larger market teams, such that the smaller market teams derive more benefit from the cost controlled player years.

Then introduce a multiplier to deferrals, so that normal accounting practices are used to determine NPV, then increase the NPV by say for discussion purpose 10% for luxury tax calculations.  This will depress the use of deferrals by teams near or beyond the luxury thresholds and have no impact on the use of deferrals by small market teams.

[SuperFuzzBigMuff]

I enjoyed watching the Dodgers lose last night but at the same time it was also hilarious watching Jordan Romano almost blow a save. Phillies leading 3-0 going into the 9th, they end up winning 3-2 after a safe call on a stolen base was reversed. I think Romano would have blown the save if that safe call didn't get reversed. 

[Laika]

56 minutes ago, SuperFuzzBigMuff said:

I enjoyed watching the Dodgers lose last night but at the same time it was also hilarious watching Jordan Romano almost blow a save. Phillies leading 3-0 going into the 9th, they end up winning 3-2 after a safe call on a stolen base was reversed. I think Romano would have blown the save if that safe call didn't get reversed. 

The Hoffman - Romano decision is looking solid so far 

[SuperFuzzBigMuff]

4 hours ago, Laika said:

The Hoffman - Romano decision is looking solid so far 

Agreed! I'd have been happy with Garcia over Romano as well.