Tapate50
Well-known member
No way
2025-2026 offseason thread
- Thread starter Enscheff
- Start date
CrimsonCowboy
Moderator
And he still signed with LA
UNCBlue012
Well-known member
Yeah, it's a better opportunity for him to maximize money and win a ring. It's abysmal that the league has gotten here, but he will absolutely get at least one free ring over the course of his career now.
Southcack77
Well-known member
I give it a C.Not to beat a dead horse, but signing Kyle Tucker for 60 million cannot be a considered a good deal.
Southcack77
Well-known member
Going to need a citation for that?
Remember just spending money is considered average and any GM can do it
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
No one has the money to buy one with cash after reinforcing the floor of the trailer to support that much weight.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Yea Jay. Way to recognize the real victim hereFG on the Tucker deal:
particularly since the Díaz and Tucker signings carry additional costs. Given that the Dodgers are well over the tax threshold, signing Díaz — to whom the Mets issued a qualifying offer — already meant they would forfeit their second- and fifth-highest draft picks, as well as $1 million from their international bonus pool as a penalty. For signing Tucker, they’ll lose their third- and sixth-highest picks as well.
That’s 13.0 WAR over the four-year span, a projection for which ZiPS suggests a $149 million contract. So yes, this appears to be a substantial overpay even before factoring in the additional taxes this will cost the Dodgers — which should tell you that for as quiet as they’ve been in their pursuit, they really wanted him.
Broken Record: Dodgers Land Top Free Agent Kyle Tucker While Setting a New Contract Standard
Even with deferrals, the going-on-29-year-old right fielder has outdone Juan Soto’s average annual value, albeit on a much shorter deal.blogs.fangraphs.com
“It’s likely that the next Collective Bargaining Agreement will create even stiffer penalties for the crime of trying to win”
UNCBlue012
Well-known member
Nutz, D. (2026). On the theoretical implications of deez. Journal of Applied Nonsense, 12(3), 69–72.
WaitingFor2017
Well-known member
Bowman being ruthless this offseason
msstate7
Well-known member
Obviously the penalties for going over aren't enough of a deterrent. Braves go over, so it would affect them too, but if you go over, no international signing money.
Obviously this doesn't fix the non-spenders. Install the floor, which if you stay under, maybe no distribution money from mlb. If you stay under again, will be put on the open market.
These are thoughts after a few beers so take em FWTW
Obviously this doesn't fix the non-spenders. Install the floor, which if you stay under, maybe no distribution money from mlb. If you stay under again, will be put on the open market.
These are thoughts after a few beers so take em FWTW
Tapate50
Well-known member
No dry January ?
He’s probably with your mom, so no.
Tapate50
Well-known member
My moms dead so definitely dry
Isn’t that a compliment to Justin?
It is
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
Only thing that happens when you stiffen the penalties is make the fringe market teams less competitive. Either fix the problem with a floor and ceiling or just stop tinkering around.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Let’s just go with a hard cap and hard floor. That way average joe fan doesn’t ever need to worry how much money their team makes from a TV deal or real estate investments.
A couple thoughts after a few margaritas.