Justin Turner is returning to the Dodgers, agreeing to terms last night on a two-year, $34MM guarantee with a 2023 option. The Brewers were known to be interested in Turner for much of the offseason and apparently made a legitimate run at the star third baseman. Milwaukee made a two-year offer similar to the one Turner ultimately accepted from Los Angeles, while also proposing a potential three-year deal at a lower annual rate, hears Jon Heyman of MLB Network (Twitter link). Having missed out on Turner, Milwaukee’s now left to weigh the possibility of another addition versus rolling with the in-house pairing of Luis Urías and Daniel Robertson at the hot corner.
More from the National League:
- The Cubs are looking to add a left-handed hitting second baseman, reports Bruce Levine of 670 the Score (Twitter link). There aren’t a ton of players fitting the profile still available in free agency, unless the Cubs are interested in a reunion with Daniel Descalso or Jason Kipnis. Eric Sogard might be the cleanest fit, but he’s coming off a poor season with the Brewers. Travis Shaw remains on the open market as well; he’s primarily a corner infielder but has some experience at the keystone. Otherwise, Chicago might be left looking to the trade market to address the issue.
- Levine also notes that the Cubs were among the teams to attend David Robertson’s recent showcase as they pursue veteran bullpen help. A 2019 Tommy John surgery wiped out almost all of Robertson’s past two seasons, but the 35-year-old looks like an interesting buy-low candidate now that he’s returned to health. Robertson was among the more consistent and productive relievers in baseball before the operation.
- The Mets are promoting Steve Barningham to international scouting director, relays Tim Healey of Newsday (via Twitter). Healey adds that the 46-year-old has worked in the New York organization since 2005. In addition to his voluminous scouting experience, Barningham played a pair of seasons in the Rangers’ system in the early 2000’s.
Good to hear Stearns offered up a similar contract even if Turner ultimately decided to return to LA. It shows the team is willing to spend outside their budget for the right players.
Bdpecore, Turner was always going back to LA. He used other teams not get his price up. Good for the Brewers to force the Dodgers to pa6 more. It was the same thing with the Yankees and DJLM. I’m actually surprised the union and commissioner’s office signed off on that deal which intentionally was designed to have a low AAV for more years.
Yet another injured player on the cheap. Will the Cubs ever learn? Apparently not.
Pretty sad for a team RANKED 3rd in REVENUES every year, huh?
This is what happens when season ticket holders sell out no matter what a team is doing. They stop pushing to contend via free agency spending. The Cubs will continue spending as little as possible as long as they turn a profit from this point on out.
Best case scenario for Cubs fans—the Ricketts family puts the team up for sell with asset prices at all-time highs. A ownership group led by Mark Cuban could turn things around pretty quickly.
It’s weird everybody is so set on Cubs being cheap now. They’re obviously trying to reset for the giant crop of short stops and other players next year. We can all argue about luxury tax till we’re blue in the face, but we’re not the ones paying that money and revenue dipped significantly last year. This is part of modern baseball. I don’t like it, but I also didn’t make the rules.
The OP is a huge White Sox troll, he doesn’t know baseball.
The Willins got the reputation as cheapest owners in sports despite being in the neighborhood of over $150,000,000+ per year most of last decade with the Mets so I totally get the bizarreness of obsession by haters.
Cardinals fans always say the dewits are cheap but they are always in the top ten in spending…could they spend more? Maybe but I wouldn’t call them cheap
Exactly!!! As we set ourselves up for this year and the future. Ppl acting like we were gonna slash 100s of millions were going from 220 to 160-170 this year and then almost everything is open after this season almost clean books. We are fine I’m actually very encouraged that we starting spending money back over that 150 Mark. We will resign Javy abd rizz kb traded or walks after this year. We also have a lot of really nice guys almost rdy in the minors system is getting better quick. I expect to be in position to win the central this year abd then the future is even brighter! Sick of these mostly cry Sox fans and some delusional cards fans. Also white Sox trolls u actually gotta win a ring to even think ur a dynasty. I’d be freaking shocked if u guys ever have the three year run that we did. 5 of 6 in the playoffs good luck. Talent don’t mean Jack u gotta win in October. Maybe get back to me after y’all actually do something. ✌️
Amen to that
Sox will always be the 2nd team in Chicago, barely noticeable. Bahaha! You have an old drunk for a manager, good luck.
Lmaooooo
@ChiSoxCity There’s no conspiracy here. Sometimes teams need to reset a bit. Cubs were built to compete longterm, it didn’t work out. Slight reset. They’re still spending a bit after a change of tune. I do think the return for Darvish was terrible though.
@von——since 2015 they’ve spent exactly four days out of playoff contention. Not exactly sure what your definition of long term is but they’ve been pretty competitive for a pretty significant period of time. It’s not like any team has won multiple titles in that span.
Ya that is a pretty ridiculous narrative that just seems to be pushed by Cardinal and White Sox fans on this website. As an outside observer I respect what the Cubs built. They had a legitimate shot at a WS for quite a few years, people just don’t realize how hard and random it is to win in baseball. Teams will always go through these cycles. To single one particular team out for having to enter that cycle is laughable.
The Cubs have a better roster than the Cardinals. I don’t understand the narrative that they are conducting some kind of fire sale when no evidence exists. I also don’t see the return for Darvish as being terrible. They got one year of a really good starting pitcher in exchange for a soon-to-be-35-year-old whose short-season stats are not sustainable. If Bryant and Baez bounce back as expected, the Cubs can have a really good season.
Arrieta for Darvish and Pederson for Schwarbs. The rest of the team still there for the most part and is formidable. Dogbone? Thoughts? Where is Dogbone?
They are not expected to bounce back and we expect the cubs to suck. Their little one and done run is over!
Suck or not they’ll still be Chicago’s number one talked about baseball team. The White Sox just can’t seem to top the conversation no matter what they do. Some of their fans rip on Cubs fans for still talking about 2016 when they’re still hanging their hats on 2005 whenever they get the chance.
Davies for Darvish. That is not a bad trade-off. Neither is Pederson for Schwarber. The Cubs’ roster is not perfect but not worse than any team in their division. Except for Darvish and Hendricks, no Cub had an exceptional season in 2020. They have several players who have a track record of performing better. Another SP to put behind Hendricks and Davies and in front of Arrieta and Mills/Alzolay/Williams would help. Not a fan of them signing Arrieta but we shall see.
Why would they not be expected to bounce back? Both have been all-stars and are under age 30. Bryant a former MVP and Baez the 2018 runner-up. Going off just 2020 short-season stats, they are among the best bounce-back candidates in the game.
@Von, nobody suggesting a conspiracy, merely that the Cubs are cutting payroll for reasons that aren’t clear to anyone. Sure, they lost money in 2020. But they’ve been enjoying record revenues every year since at least 2015. They’ve re-invested very little back into the roster in any meaningful way. No extensions other than Hendricks. No major contracts other than Darvish.
Cubs fans assumed the team was simply saving up to hand out new contracts to core players like Bryant and Baez. Well, that hasn’t happened, and probably won’t happen. Now Cubs fans are saying, “the Cubs are getting ready for the next big free agent market”. It’s just been one excuse after another to justify the bizarre behavior of that front office.
I hope they’re right, and the Cubs go to town on as many elite players as they can get. But all the evidence thus far indicates the Cubs won’t be big players for free agents because they almost NEVER are. What’s worse, there is ZERO pressure from Cubs fans to do so, unlike fanbases in other markets. It’s almost too good of a situation for the owner of a large market sports franchise.
I think what Cubs fans are forgetting is that the Ricketts are spending a large amount of money on renovations to Wrigley Field and the surrounding neighborhood. It’s not as if they are simply pocketing the extra money. It’s being invested in enhancing the fan and experience which like it or not doesn’t come cheap.
If I recall their renovation project has cost them roughly a billion dollars which is a big jump from the initial budget of $500 million.
@Chisox I’m not sure what part of your comment to address first. It appears your vested rooting interest is taking precedence over objective analysis. We can all speculate about why the cubs are doing that they’re doing, but first lets get the facts straight.
1) You are ignoring the financial reality of the situation. They’ve ran top tier payrolls since they started competing again, regularly going into or near the luxury tax. The Ricketts personally financed the 1.1 bil renos to wrigley, as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Unlike many other owners around pro sports, they didn’t get any help from the city (whereas the sox had renos subsidized by the city of Chicago, while the city footed the bill on roughly 400 mil for the renos to Soldier Field). Even with their cuts, they’re currently over 153 mil for 2021. That’s not mere pennies. Another financial reality is the payments the cubs have to make on purchasing the team from the Trib, as well as they started their TV network at the worst literal time thanks to the unpredictable COVID situation and its effects on the 2020 season. They should have that revenue stream up and operating by 2022.
2) You’re strawmanning cubs fans into having only one viewpoint. Some people thought they were saving to extend players. Some didn’t. Maybe they’re still going to extend some combination of the core. You and I have absolutely no idea if that’s the case. As of right now, their 3 expiring core contracts all had poor 2020 seasons. Its likely that is causing a gap in the negotiations between the players and team. Plus with KB’s agent being Boras, it waw always likely he wouldn’t settle for a discount and test the open market. Even if he wants to stay on the northside, he’s in a terrible bargaining position right now due to the aforementioned 2020 season. Baez and Rizzo are in somewhat similiar boats.
3) If only a few of the to be FA in 2022 sign extensions, it will be the deepest class ever. Why wouldn’t the cubs wait for 2022 to make long term financial investments? Their 3 core players on expiring deals are all hitting an open market with a ton of competition, while like stated above, right now they all have gaps in their perceived value between front offices and the players themselves. Its reasonable to assume they can better allocate their long term funds in 2022 as opposed to 2021. They only have 60 mil on the books for 2022, and thats with projected arb increases and pre arb contracts. Then Heyward’s deal comes off not soon after, as well as Contreras hitting the open market as well. With the amount of quality players hitting the open market, and perennial big spenders like the yanks, dodgers, phillies and others already having large payrolls, the cubs are better poised to flex their financial might while likely having more certainty in terms of revenue, as well as future personnel makeup. They will also have a much better feeling for their farm system by then, seeing as minor league ball will resume and the majority of their quality prospects are at A ball and below; thus they need more in game evaluation to truly determine their future with the org, and establish a better assessment of their projections.
4) Cubs fans have been bitching about ownership going cheap for several years and its been a polarizing topic for many cubs fans. You’re showing that you aren’t really in touch with how cubs fans are viewing this situation. Many fans have been super vocal and have put pressure on ownership, so acting like everyone is falling in line is patently false.
5) Ummm never big players for FA’s? I guess you have a selective memory. They signed John Lester for 155 mil when they needed an ace in 2015. They signed Heyward for an insane 180 some million in 2016 when he was considered by many to be a top FA (while the cards offered more and somehow luckily got out of that albatross contract). Zobrist was a top veteran bat and got over 50 mil, while Darvish was the top SP on the market a few years ago and they dropped 126 mil. Hell, Kimbrel was the top closer on the market when he was signed and got nearly 50 mil.
I think Bryant is done, at least in a Cub uniform! Baez is at the bottom of the list of the top ten ss in the game and will always struggle with his swing and miss batting style!
People on here like to hate on cHeAp OwNeRz, whether it actually makes sense or not. When you listen to them start to talk about economics, it becomes very clear how ignorant most of them are on the subject.
Sadly these Sox trolls live in lollipop land or some nonsense. The Sox wld kill to have our last 5 years and the know it. Means they wld have what they are not getting.
Not just then either, willy abd Rizzo also severely underperformed. We have a better 6 man staff than we did last year all we lost was darvish the others who left did nothing, q didn’t make a start, chatwood hurt like usual, Lester rocked everyday. Alozalay bout to be nasty this year like the way he dominated the cards twice in the last few weeks. Don’t sleep on Mills or Williams either, and we just need Jake to be a 3/4. Let’s go tho I’m so pumped for st!
Ur an idiot Sux fan , how did ur superhero team do in the playoffs, 0-3 and gone, now with an alcoholic manager you’ll do even worse, Sux fans have zero knowledge of baseball, stick ur heads back in the snow !!
I wouldn’t be too upset if the brewers brought back Travis Shaw on a min vet contract or somewhere about. 1 year prove it deal. I don’t think the 30 hr seasons are coming back but even if he hits 250/15/60 that’s better than the platoon of Urias and Robertson will likely do.
….and maybe he does find his 2017-8 form again….just not the 2019 form.
I think Shaw made his bed when he tried to blame the Brewers for his struggles in 2019. When in actuality the Brewers sent Hiura back to the minors to provide Shaw with a second chance to work things out after Keston was initially promoted and did nothing but impress in his debut.
I can see Milwaukee signing or trading for Gyorko, Franco, Lamb, K. Seager, Flores or
Escobar before bringing Shaw back regardless of how cheap he is.
I’d like to see Yolmer Sanchez get a chance. I think he signed a minor league deal with Baltimore. If so, no doubt he’d be available.
Yolmer was claimed off waivers by the Orioles and placed on the ML roster. As of right now he is expected to be the Orioles regular 2B
Franco to 3B for Crew makes $ense for them.
Welp that was settled rather quickly
Whatever the Cubs do, they should hang up on Descalso’s agent when he calls. Keep Kipnis in a platoon with Nico.
Yep
Compared to Descalso, I’d rather re-sign Nefi Perez from retirement
100 percent correct. Kipnis was a decent stop gap. He’s also budget friendly. I would bet he will sign for a six pack of old style if Jed calls. He has made more money than he can spend and why not live out his boyhood dream before his career is over.
I thought Nico Hoerner was supposed to be the default, can’t-miss second baseman of the future for the Cubs. No? It’s the hype machine that needs a reset, not so much the roster.
Nico is RH, They want a LH who can also play 2B. If Nico’s bat is still cold, he can still be optioned to Iowa for seasoning.
Nico has 200 at bats in the major leagues. His defense has been phenomenal but might need some more work with the bat. He appears to have a very bright future in the mlb.
I am a cubs fan and I’ve never even heard anyone call him a can’t-miss.
I wonder if the Mariners are looking to shop Seager to those that lost out on Turner. He’s under contract for ‘21 with a team option for ‘22 but I think has 10/5 no trade rights after this year.
Seager’s team option becomes a player option if traded. Meaning he’s still owed 2yrs/$33MM which is more than Turner just received. Seattle will have to pay down some of Kyle’s remaining salary to facilitate a trade and receive anything of value in return.
Justin Turner reportedly will sign a two-year contract for $34 million plus incentives, slightly more than the $33.5 million plus incentives Seager will be owed over the next two years if traded.
Since the start of the 2019 season Turner has posted 4.7 fWAR, valued at $37.4 million, in 177 games.
Over the same period, Seager has posted 4.4 fWAR, valued at $35.5 million, in 166 games.
Seager lacks the injury history of Justin Turner, who is three years older than Seager.
The Seager contract is not underwater if Turner gets $34 million, plus incentives, over two years. The Mariners may well keep Seager and exercise the 2022 team option for $15 million plus incentives.
I’m not saying Seager’s deal makes his value negative just that it makes him roughly neutral value as a trade candidate which your WAR valuation shows to be true. So if the Mariners are wanting to receive any decent return for him then they will need to eat some of his future salary to do so. Look at what the Rockies got in return for Arenado. His salary negated most of his positive value.
The Brewers also offered Turner a free sombrero and a nice walking stick but JT can’t be bribed by midwestern earthly delights such as these.
Even with the tax ramifications, would you rather live in Southern California and play for the best team in baseball or live in Wisconsin and play on a mediocre team? Choice seems pretty easy.
Mediocre team? Brewers have made the playoffs three straight years and took the Dodgers to a game 7 in 2018 while having roughly half the payroll as LA. Considering Yelich didn’t hesitate to sign an extension with Milwaukee should tell you it’s not a mediocre team or franchise.
The Brewers’ roster doesn’t excite anyone. Yes, mediocre.
Hello, this is Borat and I’m very excite about the Brewers roster!
I’m Boras and I’m excited that the good teams are willing to pay top dollar to my clients.
It’s hard to say a core of Yelich, Hader, D. Williams, Woodruff, Burnes, Hiura, Cain and Wong doesn’t have the potential to compete in the NL. The Dodgers have had the best on paper roster for the last 4-5 years and only have one WS title to show for it. So as baseball goes you just need to make the playoffs to have a chance at a title.
The Dodgers have gone to the World Series three of the last four years. Over the last eight seasons, every game they have played has been meaningful. They always put an excellent product on the field. Not winning the World Series does not represent failure. Most people in life never reach the absolute pinnacle of their profession. Does that mean their life is a failure? As for the Brewers 2021 roster, their on-paper roster is no higher than third in the NL Central.
Counting last year as making the playoffs while technically trie is kind of ridiculous. They barely squeaked in with a losing record. Sorry but you can’t use that as evidence against being mediocre.
Milwaukee isn’t a bad team. They are just a run of the mill team. Pitching is good but the offense is putrid. A glove first second baseman like Wong isn’t changing that. If you can’t see that, you’re just a delusional homer.
Wouldn’t brag about last year with a losing record and two no hitters against them in 60 games.
Tony Kemp? He’s a left handed second baseman who can also play outfield. A’s just brought back Lowrie and are always looking to shed payroll
Kemp zero home runs in 49 games last year. hard to do.
Urias doesn’t have the arm for 3B
Sure he does. Even if he doesn’t have a cannon arm it’s more than adequate for the hot corner or SS.
You must mean he doesn’t have the bat for 3B. Arm is not the issue.
Milwaukee should ask Friedman if Chris Taylor is available.
Right handed bat that can play all over on the last year of his deal.
Making half the AAV of Turner.
What would Mil. offer LA for Taylor?
Maybe Taylor could be included as part of a package for Hader?
CT, Gonsolin and DJ Peters for Hader?
All that for a one-inning pitcher? You must think Andrew Friedman is dumb. That trade would make the Dodgers weaker, not stronger.
Taylor has all of 18 games at 3B and that would just be shoehorning another Utility player into the 3B mix. If anything the Brewers would ask for Rios
The dodgers would not do that snd the braves would jump at a multi positional starter, young cheap pitcher that looks like a number 1 or 2 plus a young outfielder for a reliever
The Dodgers are pursuing another championship. Why would Taylor be available?
Because he’s going to be wasting away his value on the bench when Friedman capsule capitalize on his value and gain more future assets to keep their window open longer.
You might be thinking exactly the same as the FO.
I’d like to see LA trade some of their depth instead of letting it walk in FA.
They’re losing too many guys in the rule 5 and FA.
You’re better than that Andy.
Depth is a Dodgers strength. What happens if Seager or Pollock gets hurt and Taylor isn’t there to step in? Taylor has an important role on the team. He always plays a lot and is paid well.
Also, who are the Dodgers losing in the Rule 5 draft? So far, no one. In order as the player must be returned if they don’t spend the entire season on the MLB roster. Friedman is the best at what he does. Just this week he made two trades to improve organizational depth. I’m pretty sure he can handle the job without fan input. With AF calling the shots, I never worry about player personnel decisions.
Descalso?!? Don’t even speak that name.
Cubs can call Texas I’m sure they can have Odor for next to nothing
I so love all the hand wringing and pouting from fans calling for a salary floor and salary cap because they are jealous their teams won’t spend money. News flash: a salary cap only serves to take money from players and put it back in the owners pockets. Ticket prices, parking and concessions wouldn’t be any cheaper. It would just make owners wealthier. Great argument though. Maybe these billionaires should either spend money or sell to someone who will if they refuse to spend the resources to win.
Boe Jiden,
The problem is that these owners are already making a fortune without trying to win. If they spent more, they would make more money in the long run but not in the short run. But since they are already satisfied with the massive profit they’re making, there is no incentive to field a championship-caliber team, They are the problem, not the teams that commit to winning. Fans need to understand this.
The reason fans are wanting to institute a salary cap is not because owners are too cheap to spend it’s because of the gigantic disparity in team revenues. In 2019, team like the Yankees ($683MM), Dodgers ($556MM) and Red Sox ($516MM) had a huge advantage revenue wise over teams like the A’s ($225MM), Rays ($264MM) and Twins ($297MM). The majority of this revenue came from local TV contracts which is a direct result of market size. When the Dodgers are getting $200+ million annually and the Brewers are getting $25 million it’s hard to justify spending a similar amount on payroll. Even with the Brewers pulling in almost 3 million in attendance (8th in the MLB).
Now I’m all for players getting their fair share of the profits they help generate but not if it means teams aren’t being provided an even playing field to compete and retain their own players.
Competitive balance is why the NFL is the by far the most popular professional sport. There needs to be some way to allow teams advantages to resign their own players like Bird Rights, SuperMax deals, rookie scale contracts and restricted free agency to provide avenues for smaller market teams to sustain their competitive windows.
How is the NFL more balanced? Since 2000, both the NFL and MLB have had 13 different franchises win championships. MLB is not in competition with the NFL anyways. There is room for both to carve out their own identity in the entertainment marketplace.
If the competitive balance is such a problem in MLB, then how come the same teams don’t win the World Series every year? The balance was worse in the “good old days” when the Yankees won all the time. Fans want a salary cap due to jealousy. They think the players make too much money for playing “a kid’s game,” yet they are fine with billionaire owners getting richer despite not investing in their teams. Why do you want to reward franchises that refuse to compete? This would also penalize players who earned their right to free agency. Your free agency would actually help teams like the Dodgers and Yankees more than small-market teams since they produce better players. The Dodgers had the most homegrown players of any playoff team in 2020. Yet you want to restrict what players like Kershaw, Seager, Pederson, and Hernandez can make on the open market? Besides, MLB already has a system of restricted free agency. Most people aren’t required to be the property of their employer for any number of years.
Since the first decade of the 20th century, people have been predicting the death of baseball. That’s 120 years of wrong, and counting.
The difference in balance it the gap between being a losing team in football isn’t nearly as big as the one in baseball. Every year in the MLB roughly 1/3 of all teams are rebuilding. This isn’t the case in the NFL. One any given Sunday, a terrible team can compete with a playoff caliber team. Because the rosters are lathers and a team cannot thrive on good performances from only a few players to win consistently.
You’re also lying to yourself if you believe owners of the Dodgers and Yankees while significantly outspending the remaining teams aren’t profiting much more than a team like the Brewers who lost money in 2019 even with 3 million fans attending games and a record payroll in the $125MM range. So how are they ever suppose to compete with the Dodgers when their starting point is miles behind the Dodgers?
As for the Dodgers success, they are run by a man who worked miracles in Tampa Bay and now is running this franchise like a small market team but also has the financial resources to go out and sign any player he chooses on a whim. If you want to discuss the state of the Dodgers before Friedman was hired then we can discuss how payroll doesn’t make a difference when your team is poorly managed.
Also the reason the same teams don’t always win the World Series is because the MLB playoffs has more to do with who is coming into them hot than seeding or regular season record. Baseball is a streaky game and if your not peaking come October no matter how stacked your roster is you’re gonna wind up losing at some point.
As for competitive balancing the league, it’s not about making the rich richer unless they have proven to be good at developing their own. I know the Dodgers have lots of homegrown talent on their roster but how many of these players were actually drafted by the Dodgers before and after Friedman came along. Many times a farm system can be bolstered through savvy trades and mans targeted specific traits and analytics of prospects. So being “homegrown” isn’t always a indication of how well a team can cultivate and develop young talent.
Speaking or Friedman, how many times was he forced to trade away some of his better players because of payroll constraints or because he knew if he didn’t he would lose them to bigger markets when they became free agents?
So even someone as brilliant and good as Friedman couldn’t overcome this when he ran the Rays. It’s also much easier for larger market teams to overcome bad signings which can sometimes ruin smaller franchises (i.e. the Twins and Joe Mauer).
@BP you do realize mlb has revenue sharing and subsidizes these small market teams who dip into the pocket’s of the large market teams revenues? Its not the yankees, dodgers, cubs or red sox fault if the A’s, Ray’s, or Brewer’s owners don’t reinvest the massive check they’re directly cut from the rich team’s pockets back into their own roster.
To put it into proper perspective, in 2018 the large market teams gave well over 350 million in profits back to these small market teams (who also receive extra comp A and B picks in the draft).
According to sportseconomist “The most extreme example has been the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. In 2006, this team had a payroll of about $35 million, $42 million less than the 2006 league average. Not surprisingly, it won only 38 percent of its games and filled less than 40 percent of its seats for home games. It also collected more than $30 million in revenue-sharing transfers.”
Now that 30 mil was just in 2006, when the total revenue was 6 billion. Our last full season, 2019, saw revenue increase to 10.7. That means teams such as the rays are pocketing at least an extra 50 million annually, and they’re trying to tell fans that its the big market teams that are making this “unfair” when the majority of these teams ownership groups are pocketing the money they’re receiving.
The only thing a salary cap in the mlb accomplishes is a reduction in player salaries, just like it does in the NFL, where the salaries are comparatively smaller than MLB, with the athlete’s careers being shorter. To make matters worse, the majority of NFL contracts aren’t even guaranteed while the average value of an nfl franchise is more than an MLB franchise, with revenues consistently being higher, thus giving NFL owners even less of an excuse to pay their players more.
So you think these large market teams who are forced to give small market teams $50MM makes up for the $200MM+ disparity between overall team revenue . And let’s not forget these revenue numbers already include these revenue sharing numbers.
And extra draft picks are nice but out of all the professional sports leagues the MLB draft is the biggest crap shoot of them all. So being handed one extra lottery ticket per season isn’t doing much to balance out the playing field when you consider that most of the top players will wind up leaving these smaller markets once they reach free agency. You will never see a team like the Rays having the revenue stream to afford to pay a Trevor Bauer too dollar on the open market unless they have an immense amount of talented homegrown pre-arbitration players who can help offset the cost.
The even playing field from revenue sharing is an example of providing equal opportunity, that doesn’t necessarily cause an equal outcome. Smart ownership/front office, good talent evaluation, coaching and let’s be honest – luck, all play into the outcomes as well.
Tell me, why should the large market teams be forced to give smaller market teams money? Are they entitled to it? What evidence do you have its actually made baseball more competitive? Its not anyone’s fault that the large market teams make a lot of revenue in comparison. A disparity in income doesn’t entitle every other billionaire to other billionaires income.
You also receive multiple picks on a normal year, as well as over 50 mil in welfare. We’re not talking about poor people who need a check to be above the poverty line; were talking about billionaires bitching about not enough tens of millions from other billionaires.
Its also not in any way “equal opportunity” ; its an example of an equity based policy. Receiving large sums of money from another entity when you’ve done nothing more than they have and you feel entitled to their money is the opposite of equality of opportunity, its an attempt to implement an equality of outcome based policy. A big market and a small market team each have an equal opportunity to sign player X, it just hurts the big market team less if the contract is a bust. The opportunity is equal, the consequences are not. Those are two seperate variables and have made the strategies implemented in baseball super interesting while leading to massive innovation. Without this system, innovation would likely take a massive hit, and I personally believe the game would suffer.
The only thing it has accomplished since its inception is putting that redistributed money into the pockets of owners who claim they can’t compete with the large market teams while they mostly pocket the profits. Furthermore, we’ve regularly had small market teams remain competitive as well as win world series. All it essentially serves to do is to keep salaries down and allows billionaires to maximize profits while gaslighting fans.
As far as the example Bauer goes, the pivotal factor relies on ownership. If you get an owner who is willing to spend, then you may see a Bauer type player. Tell me, did Bauer just sign for an AAV of 55 mil? Where is that massive check going? As you can guess, the owners are pocketing that money instead of reinvesting it back into their rosters. I’ll give Colorado credit, bc they used to put most of this money back into their on the field product. However, most other revenie sharing teams do not.
It all boils down to both of your complaints are directed at the wrong people. You need to be holding your owners accountable for pocketing this cash that they did nothing to earn.
Also, bringing up the NFL and then conveniently ignoring it when it turns out it actually hurts your argument is a very telling sign you haven’t thought this through from enough angles yet. For what its worth, I used to be in agreemment with you on this particular issue but the reality of the situation in terms of outcomes and the true ethics changed my mind.
Why don’t these billionaire owners buy the Pitts, Milw, Tampa, and Oak franchises if its such a moeny making business for those owners? While a team gets a competitive balance pick that cost 750k-1.1mil spending on the player picked. Teams spending near peak of what is difference of making money that year or not includes that payoff from the top markets. Milw lost money in 2019 with their 125mil payroll. Mark Antansio isn’t a billionaire. Somewhere in the 800mil range, maybe even less. He also shares ownership with a group who likely are just millionaires themselves. It’s not charity and their investment should return profit more often than not.
Look forward to the next CBA. I think baseball has closed the gap in the last 2 decades, but always there are loopholes exposed by the large markets. I have what I think is a great idea to help smaller markets while helping large markets at same time. But going to save that for another time. Maybe find a way to contact an owner to suggest it.
I wouldn’t mind of the Cubs took a flyer on Shaw. But man oh man do I miss Ben Zobrist. Perfect solution to what they’re looking for.
Ben Zobrist is one of my favorite players this decade, don’t ask me why.
Rangers, Mets, Cubs
Texas gets JD Davis and takes on Familia contract
Mets get Bryant
Cubs get 2 prospects from Mets, 2 from Rangers and Leclerc and Odor plus $7 mil in cash in 2021 & $5 mil in 2022
Why would the Cubs do this? There is no indication that they are having a fire sale. As of now, they have the best roster in their division. Also, who are these unnamed prospects? And why would anyone want Odor or for that matter Davis and Familia?
Cubs need a left handed hitting 2B.(Odor)
Rangers would like JD Davis I believe. High OBP 4 years of team control left. Can play 3B this year. The Rangers don’t want Familia but neither do the Mets. It would be salary relief if the Rangers took him and his $11 million off the Mets hands.
Also, why wouldn’t the Cubs want 4 prospects and a nice young cheap bullpen arm as well as a decent bench player? Better than the single draft pick they will get.
As far as prospects go I was thinking 2 high end but not top 5 and then 2 mid grade prospects 20-30 top. One from each team.
They may not be having a fire sale but it does make sense to trade Bryant.. the Rays and Indians have shown how important it is to continue trading impending free agents to restock the cycle of talent.
Who are these unnamed prospects? Fans who make these kinds of offers always leave that part out. If I was a Cubs fan, I would be angry if they got stuck with Odor and Leclerc in exchange for Bryant. A young former MVP for spare parts? That would make it less likely that they would win in ’21.
Oh my goodness. Odor?
Not sure how you figure them to be the best in the NL Central. They have Hendricks, Davies who is so so and Arietta who is waaaay past his prime in your rotation. Pederson is a sub .230 hitter with one season over 25 HR. Gotta bank on bounceback years from Bryant, Contreras, AND Baez to make even a somewhat formidable lineup. Bullpen is subpar and the rotation equates to a 3 man crew posting average numbers and 2 spots that end up being talentless.
Man you really are drinking the koolaid if you look at that roster and think that it’s the best in the division.
Mets get a potential all star and former MVP. Rangers get a 3B that isn’t better than what they already have and a bad contract for a relieve.
Cubs get an unproductive 2B with no real trade value, a slightly less bad contract for a reliever and four lotto tickets.
Aside from the Mets who make out pretty well, i’m not sure who this trade is worse for; the Rangers or the Cubs?
Rsox, plus the Cubs get the usual unnamed prospects, the theory being to give more prospects so long as they aren’t really good ones. Typical Vinnie from Staten Island trade proposal by a WFAN caller. Our junk for their stars. It’s as if people think every team in baseball is sitting around thinking of ways to make the Mets and Yankees better.
I’m a Rangers fan. Don’t care for the Mets or the Yankees.
What do you think the Cubs should expect for 1 year of Kris Bryant looking at recent trades for comparison and keeping in mind Bryant’s down year.
What should the Cubs get back if they traded him?
You are putting too much emphasis on stats from a 60-game season.
Ok well let’s look at 2019 numbers then.
Player A .282/.382 HR every 20.5 PA 135 wRC+
Player B .307/.368 HR every 20.5 PA 136 wRC+
Player A plays better defense for sure but player B is much cheaper and under team control for 4 more seasons.
The Rangers would be shedding half of Odors Contract and freeing up playing time for younger guys, JD Davis would lead the team in OBP so not sure why he’s so under rated.. still has 4 years of team control.
The Cubs would be getting 4 prospects and a young cheap reliever in Leclerc.
As far as prospects go OF Steele Walker and SP Tyler Phillips from the Rangers and pitcher JT Ginn and 3B Brett Baty from the Mets.
That would be a much better option for the Cubs rather than wait for one draft pick after Bryant leaves.
What’s the purpose of holding onto Bryant from a Cubs perspective? The brewers and cardinals are better teams..
Also why did the Cubs trade Yu Darvish?
The purpose of hanging onto Bryant is trying to win. More teams should consider this.
Evidence that the Cards and Brewers are better teams? The Cubs are better than either at most positions.
The Cubs traded Darvish for a quality starting pitcher who makes less money. I wouldn’t place too much stock in Darvish’s short-season numbers as they are probably not sustainable. Bouncebacks by Bryant and Baez (likely as they are both under 30) and the Cubs win that division by at least six games.
Btw, have you watched Davis play 3B? In more than 50 years of watching MLB, he is one of the worst I’ve ever seen. Just brutal. You exaggerate his offensive value. If Davis is your answer at 3BV, then you are not trying to win. So, it’s a foolish trade from the Rangers’ standpoint as well. Good luck getting all those prospects signed-off on.
@Cey Hey is a realist and a savage. As a fan of none of these teams I look forward to his opinion.
Odor shouldn’t be in the major leagues.
Bring Kipnis back and resign Jeffress
It certainly would make sense. Both would be really cheap and have some what upside.
Brewers should see what it would cost to bring Moustakas back to play 3B. Offering salary relief to the Reds could probably get it done for a minimal return
Sensible idea
I would be perfectly fine with Moose coming back.
The Cubs are better off handing the job to Bote while Hoerner gets a couple hundred at bats in Iowa.
Money well NOT spent by the Brew Crew — This 2-3 year contract would be an albatross
for most teams. He is maybe worth half. Get real MLB owners.
Ridiculous money…..
Me thinks Maikel Franco will donn the hot corner very soon in Milwaukee…
Agree — right age, cheap, with alot of “bounce back upside” this signing would make Stearns look smart compared to last year’s nightmare signings of 33-35 yr old washed up, over priced,
utility veterans. .
I also agree. While he’s never completely unlocked his potential, the talent is there. If a team is trying to catch lightning in a bottle, Franco is the best bet among remaining FA position players. I’d much rather have him than Puig (who in my opinion should not be signed by anyone).
Some things just go together…
Duck hunting & walleye fishing. Grouse hunting & fly fishing. D-Rob & the Yanks.
Classic stuff.
Wrap up the Wilson deal. Bring back Houdini. Call the bullpen good.
Hopefully the Mets did a background check on Barningham