The reigning champions weren’t the busiest team this winter but the moves they made were impactful and addressed their relative weak spots. They go into 2026 looking for the elusive three-peat, something not seen in MLB since the 1998-2000 Yankees.
Major League Signings
- OF Kyle Tucker: Four years, $240MM (includes $64MM signing bonus, $30MM in deferrals)
- RHP Edwin Díaz: Three years, $69MM (contains $13.5MM in deferrals and conditional club option for 2029)
- RHP Evan Phillips: One year, $6.5MM
- IF Miguel Rojas: One year, $5.5MM
- IF/OF Enrique Hernández: One year, $4.5MM
- IF Andy Ibáñez: One year, $1.2MM (later lost on waivers to Athletics)
2026 spending (not including Ibáñez): $90MM
Total spending (not including Ibáñez): $325.5MM
Trades and Claims
- Acquired RHP Tyler Gough from the Mariners for LHP Robinson Ortiz
- Claimed OF Michael Siani off waivers from Braves (later lost on waivers to Yankees)
- Traded OF Esteury Ruiz to Marlins for RHP Adriano Marrero
- Claimed IF Ryan Fitzgerald off waivers from the Twins (later outrighted)
- Claimed OF Michael Siani off waivers from Yankees
- Claimed C Ben Rortvedt off waivers from Reds (later lost on waivers to Mets)
- Traded LHP Anthony Banda to Twins for $500K of international bonus pool space
- Claimed OF Jack Suwinski off waivers from Pirates (later outrighted)
Option Decisions
- Team exercised $10MM club option on 3B Max Muncy (later extended, as seen below)
- Team exercised $3.65MM club option on LHP Alex Vesia
Notable Minor League Signings
- Nick Frasso, Chuckie Robinson, Nick Robertson, Ryder Ryan, Cole Irvin, Seby Zavala, Jordan Weems, Keston Hiura, Santiago Espinal, Yency Almonte, Keynan Middleton
Extensions
- 3B Max Muncy: One year, $10MM (including $3MM buyout of $10MM club option for 2028)
Notable Losses
- Tony Gonsolin (still unsigned), Michael Kopech (still unsigned), Kirby Yates, Michael Conforto, Justin Dean (lost on waivers), Ben Rortvedt (lost on waivers), Esteury Ruiz, Anthony Banda
The Dodgers went into the offseason in a great spot. The roster was strong enough to win the World Series for a second straight year. Their free agent class mostly consisted of relievers and role players, so no major holes were opening up.
President of baseball operations Andrew Friedman addressed that situation in December, speaking to Bill Plunkett of the Orange County Register. He acknowledged that the club had less “heavy lifting” to do than in previous offseasons.
He pointed to the outfield and bullpen as places they could add but also said they were cognizant of the fact that the roster is getting older, with many of their stars being well into their 30s. They were actually the oldest club in the league in 2025. Going forward, it would make sense to sign fewer long-term deals and incorporate more young prospects. But at the same time, winning with their legendary core is a short-term priority.
Though the Dodgers did emerge victorious in 2025, they were not perfect and were almost eliminated a few times. Manager Dave Roberts seemed to have almost no trust in the relief corps, so he relied more and more on his starting pitchers as the postseason went along.
The outfield was also a bit wobbly. Teoscar Hernández has often out-hit his defensive shortcomings but was around league average offensively in 2025. Andy Pages had a good year but went ice cold in the playoffs. Michael Conforto was enough of a bust to be left off the postseason roster. Tommy Edman was fighting an ankle injury that would eventually require surgery.
On the bullpen pursuit, there were a number of high-profile relievers available in free agency. The Dodgers were connected to guys like Devin Williams, Pete Fairbanks, Raisel Iglesias and Robert Suarez. In the end, they somewhat surprisingly landed the top guy on the market, getting Edwin Díaz via a three-year deal worth $69MM.
Diaz is about to turn 32 and isn’t quite as dominant as he was a few years ago, but he’s still one of the best relievers in the game. He posted a 1.63 earned run average for the Mets in 2025, striking out 38% of batters faced.
Many expected Díaz to stay in Queens, since the Mets also needed to address their bullpen and are one of the few clubs with roughly the same spending power as the Dodgers. It would later come out that the Mets had offered him a three-year, $66MM deal. Considering the modest deferrals in the deal Díaz accepted from the Dodgers, the two offers were pretty close to identical. Some reports said the Mets were willing to go higher but were caught off-guard when he quickly agreed with the Dodgers before they could.
Diaz also reportedly received a five-year offer from Atlanta, though the dollar value of that wasn’t revealed. Presumably, it would have been a lower average annual value than the three-year offers he was getting from the Dodgers and Mets.
Maybe he wanted to break his own AAV record for a reliever, which was $20.4MM on his previous deal. The Dodgers deal, even factoring in the deferrals, is worth about $21.1MM annually. Maybe he just wanted to join baseball’s premier organization. At Edwin’s introductory press conference, he mentioned that his brother Alexis spoke fondly of the Dodgers after spending some brief time with them in 2025, per Sonja Chen of MLB.com.
Whatever the reasoning, the Dodgers added an elite closer to their already-strong club, just before the holiday break. Later in the winter, they would also bring back Evan Phillips on a much more modest deal worth $6.5MM. He is recovering from Tommy John surgery and won’t be available until the second half, but he could give the Dodgers another bullpen boost for the stretch run and playoffs.
As the calendar flipped to 2026, the outfield market hadn’t moved much. The top two free agents, Kyle Tucker and Cody Bellinger, were both still out there in January. As the holidays ended and teams got back to business in January, the Tucker market quickly picked up steam.
Tucker seemed to have some clear, distinct choices. The Blue Jays were offering a more traditional long-term deal that would essentially cover the remainder of Tucker’s career. They reportedly went as high as $350MM over ten years. That was a pretty close match for MLBTR’s 11-year, $400MM prediction and would have been one of the ten highest guarantees in MLB history.
The Mets and Dodgers were again bidding against each other and offering Tucker a different path. Both clubs were eager to avoid that kind of length and were willing to jack up the short-term spending. Taking this path would mean Tucker secures less overall but could earn a large amount of money in the next few years, with a chance to return to free agency to make more in the long run.
Players like Matt Chapman, Blake Snell, Cody Bellinger, Alex Bregman, Pete Alonso and others had taken this approach in free agency before but Tucker was being offered a super-charged version of it. The Mets reportedly went to $220MM over four years, with opt-outs after the second and third years. The Dodgers went slightly higher to $240MM over the same four-year term, also with opt-outs after year two and year three. That got it done.
There are some deferrals in the Tucker deal, but also a huge signing bonus. The sticker price comes with a $60MM average annual value. The deferrals knock the AAV down but only a little, as it is reportedly considered to be about $57.1MM in terms of the competitive balance tax.
For all intents and purposes that was easily a new record. Shohei Ohtani‘s ten-year, $700MM deal has a $70MM AAV on the surface, but the infamous deferrals in that deal knock it down to the $46MM range. With that in mind, Juan Soto was effectively the AAV record holder at $51MM before this Tucker deal.
It was a stunning number and could potentially represent many different things to different people. To some, the offers from the Dodgers and Mets represent the unworkable economic imbalances in the modern game. Both clubs repeatedly go into the top bracket of the CBT, meaning they face a 110% tax rate on new deals. The Dodgers will effectively send out $120MM to have Tucker on their team this year. That’s more than the entire player payroll of many clubs.
This had led to increased desire for drastic changes to baseball’s rules, with many fans and team owners clamoring for a salary cap or extreme alterations to the revenue-sharing rules. The Dodgers had already become public enemy number one in the eyes of many baseball fans by dominating on the field and in the offseason. Every new signing increases the outrage and the Tucker deal certainly cranked it up.
From the MLBPA perspective, this is evidence of why there should not be a cap. If multiple teams value Tucker highly enough that they are willing to pay out $120MM annually, it’s a sign that the league is in a strong financial position on the whole. Even under the current rules, Tucker is only going to get about half of the value he is producing on the field. The other half, the tax money, will go the league. Some of it will end up in a central fund, some will be distributed to smaller clubs like the Guardians and Marlins will no real mechanism to make them spend it. In the eyes of many, that lack of urgency from some teams is a bigger problem than the Dodgers’ willingness to invest in a winning team.
It also might just be a perfect alignment of circumstances. By all accounts, the Dodgers are bringing in all kinds of crazy revenue, as one would expect for a successful club. But the star presence of their Japanese players also means they basically have a money faucet running across the Pacific Ocean. As mentioned, they are trying to avoid a pitfall where they overcommit to their current core and suddenly find themselves with an old and creaky roster. They have used their financial might to add Tucker in the way that they wanted.
From his perspective, Tucker is technically leaving money on the table but he will have a good chance to get it back, and then some. In the ideal situation for him financially, he spends his age-29 and age-30 seasons playing for the best team in baseball. He will bank $120MM and could return to free agency looking for another deal ahead of his age-31 campaign. If he can find $230MM from that point on, he will make up the difference of what the Jays offered. If the next collective bargaining agreement looks to have made positive changes for players, he can benefit from that.
There were a few other things of note in the Dodgers’ offseason. There were some trade rumors surrounding Teoscar Hernández and Tyler Glasnow but it never seemed especially likely that either would move. Max Muncy got another year added to his contract. That slightly contradicts the plan to avoid an aging roster, as Muncy will turn 36 this year, but he’s still plenty productive and it’s just one more guaranteed season. Old friends Miguel Rojas and Enrique Hernández were re-signed for bench roles, though Hernández will start the season on the injured list.
The main storyline of the Dodger offseason is straightforward. They were already great in November, with some slight question marks around the bullpen and outfield. They signed the top free agent available for both of those areas. They did so while limiting their long-term commitments, as they wished. They ramped up spending in the short term, with RosterResource projecting them for a $395MM payroll and $405MM CBT number, but they are clearly fine with that.
They go into 2026 as the clear favorites. The Projected Standings at FanGraphs expect 96 wins, putting them eight wins clear of every other club in the majors. The PECOTA Standings at Baseball Prospectus are even more bullish, putting the Dodgers at 104, ten clear of any other team. Anything can happen in baseball’s chaotic postseason but the organization is the jewel of the league right now.
It’s also possible that this offseason will have ripple effects that spread out in ways that can’t be foreseen. Many claim that baseball is “broken” and point to the Dodgers as the perpetrator. The Tucker deal alone didn’t do the deed but some feel it may have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Huge swaths of fans are fed up and want change. The collective bargaining agreement is set to expire after this season. A lockout feels assured and many expect it to get nasty. Some even fear lost games, if not the entire 2027 season.
Time will tell on all of that. For the 2026 Dodgers, they could hardly have drawn it up any better.
How would you grade the Dodgers' offseason?
Photo courtesy of Jayne Kamin-Oncea, Imagn Images
They’re going to suck, they had a terrible offseason. Got rid of everyone and is now relying on Ohtani
Go Angels!
I gave them an A for effort.
Kinda disappointed with their offseason. Step up your game Dodgers. I still love the Dodgers though. But they have to try and not buy.
Signing the top outfielder and reliever available – basically addressing their only two weaknesses – is disappointing?
What are you driving at? What part of anything the dodgers have done in the last few off-seasons leaves you disappointed as a fan? That is actually wild
They just are only relaying on 3 players
Ohtani
Diaz
Tucker
Everyone else they say are in “the process of training” treat them kindly
I say 8th worst offseason of their history, trading???
This is an equal opportunity chat. Moronic takes are welcome.
Mikey and #1Dodgerfan are in a dead heat for most moronic take.
#1
I assume this was you attempting sarcasm?
I give them an “A”. They have a proven “formula” for spending their money wisely.
I’m completely out of Dodger material, let me work up some new stuff & get back to ya. 🤣
They’re even getting insults deferred…
If you’re going to make a deferral joke, make it funny like this
You brought the lumber with that joke. Well done.
Absolutely horrible offseason they get an F. They’ll be lucky to win their division. /sarcasm
Such a Sliding Doors story. This is what happens when you AVOID the trolleys
;]
LA still misses their electric trolleys from well before these new-fangled Dodgers came west.
Do we really have to review their offseason? We haven’t heard enough about it after all.
What about their farm system? Second best in baseball.
Mario, do you mean Japan?
Crepu,
If you include Japan then they have the #1 and #3 farm systems in baseball.
Looking forward to more tears when they keep winning this year.
Spending the most money in baseball and winning isn’t exactly revolutionary. The impressive teams are the ones that compete without a luxury-tax bill bigger than some payrolls.
To the thought that the luxury tax goes to teams and has no mechanism to force them to spend; It should state that there is no mechanism to force them to spend it on payroll. When teams don’t have $200MM coming in from broadcast deals (recent article on Detroit had previous deal at $60MM), there are other bills that have to get paid. Running a $200MM payroll, but not covering bills, would not be good for the league. What Detroit is doing this year will be a one off, as they will bring in less than $60MM on the new contract.
When baseball teams open their books we can have the “my team can’t do that because they are poor” discussions.
Signed everyone… paid a dollar. Dumbest team in sports.
They are paying the deferrals annually as the $ is deferred per the CBA. We live in an information age and their are still sone of the dumbest people ever. There is zero excuse for anyone to be so financially illiterate.
Oh, there’s no financial trickery afoot. They just have the highest payroll of anyone by far and defer money for no reason whatsoever. Every team does it. It’s probably why they NEVER win anything. I’m so stupid.
Enjoy watching Skubal in LA next year!
CC
“I’m so stupid.”
I don’t know if that’s true
But your comments on this topic don’t scream otherwise.
Ohtani makes $70M annually, but only counts as $46M against the COMPETITIVE balance tax. They overspend, get a discount on the very thing meant to bring balance to the league, then have apologists like you saying we’re the “financially illiterates.” And that’s only one of their contracts. The Dodgers model is really bad for baseball.
They deferred the Ohtani money at his request. The dodgers didn’t talk him into it or trick him.
CC
“Ohtani makes $70M annually, but only counts as $46M against the COMPETITIVE balance tax”
Do you think an employer paying their employee in the year they do the work is the same or different from an employer paying their employee 10 years after they do the work?
Based on your answer to that, do you think that those two things should be accounted for the same way?
Also,
Do you believe that employees who receive a pension, should count that amount as part of their income
A) when they receive the pension?
B) the years they are working to earn the pension?
Why?
Incorrect. He’s making 2 million this year.
He is paid $46M annually the rest is accruing $. It is called the time value.of $….
Some fans being financially incompetent has no bearing on baseball
He’s being paid $2m a year. $46m/yr is the estimated future value of that money for CBT purposes. Referring to the $68m deferred.
ADF
“$46m/yr is the estimated future value of that money for CBT purposes.”
Nope.
$46 million is the PRESENT value.
Ohtani is paid $2 million. The Dodgers are putting away $44 million to fund the $68 million payments that are due starting 8 years from now. That’s what the $46 million is
@Another He os paid $2M annually and $44M annually id aid to fund the principal on the deferral for that season per the CBA. That is the ultimate amount that will be paid out by the Dodgers $46M annually, the rest is interest that will accrue.
Tigers
“Some fans being financially incompetent has no bearing on baseball”
It has a bit of bearing on DISCUSSING baseball. Which is, you know, what we are doing here.
Juan, Tigers,
I appreciate the explanation. Thankfully, I don’t have to learn the CBA language in depth to be well informed in this area thanks to you guys.
I didn’t say they tricked Ohtani. I said financial trickery. Ohtani didn’t want to eat up all financial flexibility as well. Doesn’t mean they didn’t game the system to create a financial advantage.
Every team has the opportunity to do smart things
ADF
You don’t need to learn the CBA language in depth, I certainly didn’t, you just need to have a basic understating of finance
BA in Finance here. I never said I don’t understand the finances. It’s infuriating that apologists don’t see how the Dodgers are taking advantage of the entire league, whilst shrugging it off as “basic finance.” This is straight from google.
“Yes, Shohei Ohtani’s deferred money is counted against the Competitive Balance Tax (CBT), but at a significantly reduced value. The $700 million, 10-year contract has a Net Present Value (NPV) estimated around $460 million, meaning Ohtani counts for roughly $46 million annually against the Dodgers’ luxury tax, not the full $70 million face value.”
It’s crazy that some believe players are driving deferred payments… except only to one team, the rest of the guys want their money now like normal humans.
It’s 700 mill because of when he’ll get paid. Net present value of 460, is what the contract was worth, if he were being paid without the deferrals. And yes, Shohei was the one driving the deferrals, and there were deferrals involved with every team that he negotiated with, not just the Dodgers. And yes, Shohei is the unicorn that makes so much money in sponsorship deals that he doesn’t need the money right now. He’s not like Tatis Jr., who had to pay out a ton of money when he signed his first contract to pay the interest he accrued from a loan he took out before getting his deal. The CBA only cares about the net present value of contract. It doesn’t care when he gets paid, and neither should you.
Ohtani also generates significant revenue for the team. More than they are paying him.
Th pension counts as income for tax purposes on the year that income os realized. It is an expense to the employer and a means of compensation to the employee present day.
CC
“BA in Finance here. I never said I don’t understand the finances”
Nothing you’ve posted suggests that you understand.
derail
“The CBA only cares about the net present value of contract. It doesn’t care when he gets paid, and neither should you.”
You’re mostly correct, but this isn’t
NPV “cares” A LOT about when the payments are. It’s the purpose of NPV.
“except only to one team”
False
“the rest of the guys want their money now like normal humans.”
False
Plus. Ohtani, for example, is getting $2 million a year. Plus whatever he gets from endorsements. Plus whatever he’s getting from his investments on the money he earned with the Angels.
He’s got PLENTY of money for now. That’s why he’s willing to have his Dodger money deferred.
Same for everyone who gets deferrals. That’s why you often see players get big signing bonuses. They get a big sum upfront and then deferrals on their yearly salaries.
The cash flow is taken care of upfront and the rest is put into a safe investment.
But, as someone who definitely has an MBA and understands this 101 level stuff, you definitely know that already.
Which makes one curious why you’re posting the nonsense you post
Ohtani has actually been making record endorsement totals for a MLB player.
So not only does he not need the $ and this allow him to hedge for the future. On top of that inflating the total value of the contract further bolstered his mystique and further increased his endorsement revenue. He has received a crazy amount of free media attention and it has kept his name a topic of attention for a few yrs now on top of what his on field play already creates.
Well, yeah. The CBT cares about the NPV. Absolutely.
It’s the net present value of the contract. The net present value of the contract never changes, if there were no deferrals it would’ve been 10/460. If they would’ve paid him his entire contract the day he signed it, it would’ve still been counted as 10/460 by the CBT.
@derail So that $46M is his total compensation for this year and the rest of the years he is under contract. He just has not realized it as income and paid his taxes on it. Other than that the Dodhers are charged correctly against the luxury tax and it provides no competitive advantage. All it does is provide Ohtani financial security later on and inflate the true value of his contract.
People want to act as though it is nefarious that the $ will be accruing. Do these same people want all gains made off of invested $ from players 2026 salaries charged against the luxury tax? If the answer is no, then why single out Ohtani??
I’m not a tax attorney, but it does seem as if this is a way for Ohtani to avoid paying some taxes on the money that he earns. I’m not sure how that all shakes out if he isn’t living or residing in California when he’s done playing and collecting the deferrals. I don’t know if he gets taxed the same if say he were to go back to Japan when he’s done playing. If he’s able to skirt paying taxes on most of that deal, it’s going be a rather large savings.
Japan actually taxes pro athletes much higher. When he realizes it as income he will have a significant tax burden.
They are doing what the Red Sox did under Lucky and Dave, can only tip my cap to them.
I’ve been a fan of the Dodgers through good times (Koufax-Drysdale-etc), (the legendary infield of the 70’s) and bad times (the Fox and McCourt years) and all the ups and downs a team can provide over decades of great and mediocre players. I used to hate the Yankees when George was doing his best to “ruin baseball.” Now I understand the Yanks’ value to the game and I appreciate the extraordinary sustained success they were able to produce since…well, forever.
I believe the very vocal minority–yes it is a minority–that are screaming for radical change in the structure of the game are for the most part misguided. The Dodgers are not ruining baseball. Just like the Yankees did not ruin baseball winning 27 world championships from 1923 through 2009. The Yankees gave all fans of other teams three valuable things: motivation to do better and a model to emulate. And something to blame their own shortcomings on. Or as some put it, something to hate. The proverbial heel. Just like the Dodgers are doing now, albeit over a much shorter time span and admittedly with not nearly the same sustained long term level of success as The Bombers.
There will always be disparate measurements when comparing super-sized comparatively rich markets to small and medium markets with much lower ceilings of what is possible economically. There are already rules in place to aid those smaller markets financially and those rules can and should be revised to further increase the competitive balance in a business where all teams are dependent on each other. But it is unrealistic to think you can legislate New York and Los Angeles into becoming Cincinnati or Pittsburgh. Come up with whatever rules you like, there will still be some teams that do what they do better than the rest.
One note if Redsox did not sell the babe to Yankees, they may not have had all those WS wins in early times.
It is odd that the Yankees seem unwilling or unable to spend to Mets or Dodgers levels these days. Are they really not making a profit? All analysis is the Dodgers are profitable. Why are the Yankees not in the same boat?
Who says the Yankees aren’t profitable?
And by the way, the Yanks won 94 games last season. One more than the Dodgers.
Mr Rickey Who won the very last game of 2025?? I believe thats much more significant.
@Charlie III
The Yankees are operating with more fiscal restraint. It’s a business strategy choosing to spend a smaller percentage of revenue on payroll than the other two teams. Notice that they’ve dropped the “Not winning the WS is a failure” annual mantra.
The Dodgers have the largest TV deal and thanks to their bankruptcy protection deal, only have to share a fraction of it with the rest of the league, unlike every other team that shares 49% of it.
Wrong.
After negotiations, MLB and Guggenheim made a modest adjustment, setting the “fair-market value” of the Time Warner deal at about $130 million for the first year rather than $84 million. That figure is used to determine the league’s cut, which for all local TV deals has since increased from 34% to 48%.
from: bleedcubbieblue.com/mlb-analysis/205952/dodgers-ar…
I don’t think there’s a model to emulate. Teams have the market (or the owner) to spend wildly, or they don’t. Yes, there are cheapskate slumlord owners doing their best to squeeze their franchise for every dime and that needs to be addressed first (even the “model” ones like TB and MIL), but the common sense solution from a competitive standpoint would be a full 50% revenue sharing model like the NFL with a stipulation of 50% minimum toward payroll. It’s not a perfect 1:1, what with NFL being less of a “regional” viewership, but even the NBA has a similar mechanism. There will always be teams that discover/leverage competitive advantages better than others, and that’s fine and worth encouraging.
Manfred wants to due away with blackouts, which in turn would due away with regional tv deals, this is the solution, not a salary cap.
There’s no mechanism there for teams to spend the minimum, but consolidating team media rights would probably be a step in the right direction.
That is a fact, you cannot make owners spend money but bringing the payroll disparity down allows smaller market teams to pay more while it somewhat limits the bigger market teams.
So let’s compare the Cardinals to the Dodgers as an example, since Dodger fans want to call smaller market teams “cheap”.
Ok, so the Cardinals are not a team that receives revenue sharing, typically. I believe last season they did receive funds.
Cardinals TV deal is 40 million annually and they have to pay 48% of that to the league, so they get a little over 20 million.
The Dodgers by contrast has a 334 million tv deal. 80 million of which is protected due to their bankruptcy agreement. So the Dodgers sharing is just under 122 million, which is in fact a lot but their end is 292 million dollars when it should be 174 million if shared like the rest of the league.
292 million vs 21 million. That isn’t St Louis being “cheap”.
The Yankees valuation of Yes is pretty much equal to the Dodgers but the Yankees get almost 120 million less than the Dodgers. Again, that isn’t Hal being “cheap”. Same with the Cubs, Tom Ricketts isn’t being cheap, it’s because of the bankruptcy protection, the Dodgers have 120 million dollars more to spend.
For Ricky, how is that for comprehension.
I’ll take your word for it. Regardless of whether your numbers are correct or not, I fully endorse the idea of increasing the amount the richest teams contribute to revenue sharing. Open all the owners’ books and let’s have at it.
You can make owners spend as part of a CBA. Cubs aren’t a great example: third largest media market and ninth in CBT spending. I agree with Rickey’s thoughts below about the owners’ books so we can end the cheap owners’ narrative. IMO the way forward would be opening all the books, setting salary floor at 50% leaguewide revenue (can be phased in over a few years, COLA for different markets, etc.) and cap as some escalating percentage of the floor. But good luck getting players or owners to agree to those terms.
Cubs are a great example. You probably don’t realize this but the Cubs completely self funded their billion dollar Wrigley renovation project. They also self funded their Marquee network.
Not only that, it’s small potatoes but worth mentioning, they have to pay the cesspool of Chicago politics 3 million annually for “excess energy consumption” because they added more night games.
Meanwhile, the city was discussed funding the White Sox another new park.
Wrigley renovations were funded by 2019 and $3M annually does not have a huge significance on the Cubs’ bottom line. They make something close to $600M in revenue a year. Are you for team-owned networks but against regional TV deals? Team-owned networks can shelter their revenue from sharing because it falls under the umbrella of a team’s assets. Reinsdorf is a joke and I hope Chicago laughs in his face while he pleads poor.
The Cubs are still paying the renovation costs. They took out a loan to fund the renovations and even if they didn’t take out a loan, 1 billion dollars of up front money is a huge hole to dig out of. Especially considering the Ricketts were still paying off the loan they took to buy the Cubs in the first place.
It’s why they cut so much payroll in 2021, they had a ballon instreat payment due on the purchase of the Cubs and the renovations.
What makes you think I’m for team owned networks and against regional? If the removal of blackouts, local tv deals will eventually die and team owned networks will be on life support.
I’m for bringing all streaming under one roof, MLB network. Im okay-ish with network streaming and continuing blackout for apple, peacock etc I’ll still hate it but I understand it’s good for the league.
The renovation cost between $550-700M not 1 billion. MLB stadiums are also a depreciating asset so aside from the cost of the renovation minimizing their tax burden upfront. The depreciation will be used as they choose over the next 27 years(or less) to further minimize their tax burden.
If the city of Chicago would have paid for a brand new stadium the Cubs would have been worse off in the long run. Part of the Cubs mystique is Wrigley and it drives revenue.
Well said. I’d add, the powerhouse teams pull in big audiences of new fans and revenue, and because the way revenue is shared in MLB, all the teams benefit. The fans of smaller market teams might dislike this system, and I totally get why. But it works for their owners, and this is why this system exists and persists.
MLB needs big markets to have big stars and to be good more often than not. Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox and Giants drive most of the league. I wish the freaking Cubs would sign an actual star and stop with the good not great spread it around mentality.
Anyway, big markets should always have an edge because MLB cannot have those big markets in prolonged rebuilds. It’s kills their bottom line. However there is too much disparity right now and it needs to be dialed back.
Vocal minority? Dodgers , Yankees, Mets seem to be the teams at the top. Blue Jays, Phillies and Boston in the next tier. The fans of the other 24 teams who are unsure if their team will be able to compete I would have to call the Majority.
@stymeed Without that minority there is no majority. Pro sports are star driven and large market teams being competitive drives these leagues.
I can’t vote!!! Dodgers get a A from me. They signed the best position player and the best bullpen piece. And that’s a quite winter for LA. As a Met fan I love what the Dodgers are doing. It’s like those late 90’s-early aughts George Steinbrenner era Yankee lineups with an all star at every position.
Voting is not working for anyone yet.
Voting works now.
Signed top FA batter, FA Closer
Already have ridiculous amount of money spent on long term deals with several all-stars.
There really shouldnt be a poll on how well they did – What is baffling is that they have a deep farm too, so their problem is keeping players in minors longer to the point they must trade but they dont have a weakness other than their core all-stars getting older.
Right. Dodgers have several tradeable minor leaguers who would be starters on many teams. But what is the reasonable return? They have so much talent right now there is no where to put them. Got to trade for 17-19 year olds as the next crop of young stars is already on hand, especially on the mound and in the OF.
that is the thing they will trade AAA players for A/A+ or lower future stars, so when their core ages they have replacements from within.
But if they can spend like drunk sailors on a weekend – whose to say they really care about farm system bringing in all-stars when they basically buy them from other teams already proven
It will be interesting in about 6-7 years when they have a slew of deferral payments to make
While simultaneously paying their fair share of their local TV deal.
for the umpteenth time, all that deferral dough is socked away yearly. it matters not when it comes due.
Yes, it is sitting in escrow accounts and earning more for the Dodgers while they wait to pay it out.
@Datashark Why will it be interesting? The deferrals have to have the principal needed to accrue to the future payment value funded within 2 yrs of each deferred payment occurring. They are being paid now, all that happens later is the player collects and realizes it as income, it will have no bearing on the Dodgers in 6 or 7 years.
I vote S, for Salary Cap
The S stands for stoopid. The only group that benefits from a cap is the owners.
Yep. And the article leaves the misimpression that only “some” of the teams are pushing a salary cap. Don’t be fooled. They ALL want it. MLB, collectively, wants it. This is why they demand it in every CBA negotiation.
@ Mr Rickey
Not if the income is pooled. If cap is based on sum total of MLB revenue, every team would have an equal payroll level. That’s where the owners can’t agree. The big markets don’t want to give up their advantage. Maybe teams like Minnesota, and Pittsburgh could get new owners if the franchise had an even shot at winning. That would bring in New Money.
Open the owners books and we can go from there. Do I think that will happen? No.
Correct, this is the main sticking point from the players’ side. Ownership wants to restrict them to a fixed share of the game’s revenue, but they refuse to disclose the actual numbers. Not surprisingly, this creates an atmosphere of mistrust. Ownership and the players could agree to appoint a third-party special master type of arbitrator to examine the league’s finances, but it seems the level of trust doesn’t even go that far.
Players will never go for a salary cap. Baseball needs to have stronger penalties for teams who go into the second and third tier of the luxury tax and repeat offenders. Stronger penalties being levied on their ability to acquire amateur talent.
Teams like the Dodgers and Mets, who are spending more on luxury tax payments than some teams entire payrolls, should have their international pool money stripped and at least their first five draft picks taken away.
Of course, if and when Manfred does away with blackouts, local TV deals will die and team income will become a lot more balanced. The Dodgers, who make 300+ million a season on their local TV deal (while giving MLB a small fraction of it) will be greatly reduced while a team like the Twins, who only earn 50 million while splitting 49% of it with MLB will see their income greatly increased.
F minus because their BS could cost MLB the entire 2027 season. Thanks Dodgers! Better yet, thanks federal court ruling! Government ruins everything.
Another genius.
I see you liked your own comment. I also see intelligence escapes you, I would say I feel sorry for you but stupid people seem to be the happiest people, living life, being blissfully ignorant.
You continue to prove your lack of comprehension and intelligence. I did not and never have liked my own posts. Your posts speak for themselves. How childish.
@ ItsajokenotaD
Easy mute…what an idiot. Come back here when zero games are missed in 2027.
Brilliant response.
It was a brilliant response.
We agree on something. Excellent.
In this case, there should be an option to forgo the grade and merely leave a middle finger emoji.
Notable departures: Tony Gonsolin, Michael Kopech, Kirby Yates, & Michael Conforto: That’s actually called addition by subtraction
Only strange move is Cole Irvin on a minor league deal. I guess he figures with their injury track record he will he pitching at some point for a ws team.
Irvin will be gone by the end of the month.
13% gave it an F. Those are the bitter ones who root for teams with cheap owners, or sad Bluejay fans.
@big
Those who can’t raise their own spirits lower the countryside.
By a show of hands, which teams have filed for bankruptcy protection in the past 25 years. I’ll wait…
Dodgers did. And now they are doing quite well. Wouldn’t you say?
Your name, “data shark”, belies your ignorance and stupidity. Please provide some evidence (maybe some data) that would support your claim. How exactly to deferrals agreed to by the Dodgers (or any team for that matter) in any way compromise the team’s financial position in out years? Given the clear rules in place requiring teams to set aside the money required to pay these obligations (admittedly a fact rarely acknowledged by this author or site), can you please identify or explain the risk the Dodgers or any team takes when entering into these agreements? Deferrals serve to benefit players and teams. That’s why they are utilized.
The Dodgers are making money, hand over fist. That’s the reality. They are not going to be financially strapped now or in the future. Of course there are a reasons why their decades long success may not continue at this level into the future. Deferrals, however, are not one of the reasons.
The Dodgers are clearly the best team both before and after the off-season.
As for a letter grade, the deal for Tucker was not very impressive if you consider his lackluster performance during the second half of 2025, even assuming that a lingering injury was a contributing factor, and they had to pay him the highest rate per season in the history of the game and include an opt-out.
I could give the Dodgers an “A” for filling their needs via free agency, but with their surplus of young farm talent, I could have seen some creativity that would have filled their needs with less of a salary impact, saving the money for Skubal next year. So I give them a “B+” because they improved an already great team, just not very efficiently.
Overpaying Tucker on a short term deal is 100000x better than what usually is required to sign the top free agent like 11 years to Trea Turner and Xander Bogaerts of the world. The fact his opt out is after 2 seasons and not one is a massive win for them too.
We have already seen peak Tucker.
AMK
Is 4 years/$240 million better than say 13 years/$375 million?
Imagine $60 million per year during years 1 to 4 and $15 million per year during years 5 to 13.
The four year deal at $240 million might be better than 13 years at $375 million, but it is not “one hundred thousand times better”.
Is it? I get it from the Dodgers perspective and I think it will pay off, but if he’s injured heading into his opt-out years, they could be on the hook for $480M in 4 years given their CBT penalty. Now that’s much less than they’d be paying him on a traditional long-term deal, but it’s still a staggering amount for a relatively short-term deal.
Pursuing a three-peat at all costs is typically inefficient. Just ask the top payroll 1998-2000 Yankees teams. Those three flags fly forever though.
YBC
The are just maximizing this current window they have while keeping the core intact. Similar to what the Yankees did back in the day as you mentioned.
They do have some additional revenue streams the Yankees didn’t have at that time.
So while it is somewhat inefficient, it’s really worth more than the outlay, as their team value keeps climbing with every world series run, and WS win especially.
The Yankees are the most valuable team at $8.2b. Dodgers are climbing at $6.8b, and winning has a lot to do it.
One of the dodgers stated goals is a team value of $10b. Winning another world series would definitely increase their value immensely. Much more than what they sign players for and the penalties incurred.
Yankees understand this game the dodgers are playing because they created it. It’s the fans who don’t see the bigger picture.
Clayton Kershaw retired so that’s a notable loss not having that pitcher in a slot, whether injured or on the roster.
Wow, good catch! Hard to believe they missed the retirement of the K-machine!
No big deal, just lost a hall of famer
Is there a letter higher than A?
A+++?
and watching Espinal in ST its looking like he’s likely going to be their starting second baseman. of course only spring but he looks like he unlocked something. going to be fun to watch.
Dodgers get an A, unfortunately.
Americans insist that sports be played on a level financial field. They scream over unfairness of unequal revenue. Yet they worship people like Musk and Trump, born to money and guaranteed to dodge drafts and gifted with money and connections guaranteeing success in life.
So becuase we accept that life is unfair and also willingly participate in that charade we then placate ourselves by making sports reflect an economic equality that cannot exist anywhere else.
Also, salary caps aren’t equal. Owners get richer just by owning. Players do not ever earn as much as they produce because the rookie pay scale gives the owners free labor to profit by.