Why you should be scared of the Dodgers in 2019 and beyond

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GambleBotsChafedPenis

heres my thought on why I would have bitten the bullet...you are right on all those huge contracts being loads...but we're talking about a team with relatively no worry about eating money...its unlike DET, MIN, MIA in that regard...when (not if) that deal goes to shit in the last 2 years the dodgers should be comfortably able to eat it...look at what they ate with Crawford and now Gonzalez...

come October gimmie as many aces or near aces as I can have (count a bullpen ace like jansen as an ace)...id rather have that guy like grienke than a mish mash of mid level guys who you really aren't that confident in sending out in October...I get where you are coming from, gimmie 3 shots at $10M guys who aren't an anchor on the payroll and hope one pans out than one shot on a $30M guy...in this specific circumstance i'd much rather take my shot with the $30M guy...I wouldn't say that for a mid-small market team who would be eating a lotta shit if they were really wrong about something like that...

and that's not to say that deep pocketed teams should be going out throwing around those contracts like theyre going outta style, but they had a track record with grienke being dominant in that situation and healthy (I think)...

---

IMO, you dont pay for old aces....hopefully you find and develop them yourselves. Kershaw (pre-extension)=Russell Wilson really when you think about it. You strike gold on the most important position at low cost, you have a window to succeed. Of course the Dodgers are past that point now with Kershaw (as are the hawks with Russell), but that gave them a head start.

If they think they have another one in Urias, again no reason to spend too big for one guy. Gather depth, use the big bankroll to have 4 #3 starters around as opposed to a couple aces and a bunch of junk.

---

I agree on that point...pitching is just a bitch to pay for because the drop off when it happens is gonna be STEEEEEEEEEEEP...development is obviously the best way to go about it...id still like to say id pay for very elite pitching because those guys are hard to come by, but then you always have to worry about that elite talent getting hurt...

there aren't a lotta guys like a verlander who can go out there hoss it up for 120+ pitches at 95+ MPH in October...

another thing I was just thinking about...is there a reason that baseball contracts aren't written with de-escalators in them? as I understand contracts are fully guaranteed...so the minute a guy inks a 10 year/250+M deal at age 28 he's getting that money whether he hits 0.320 or 0.120 in the first few years of the deal...

Bryce is obviously a totally unique situation in that he's gonna sign a 10-12 year/$400-$500M deal when he's 25 so the team is getting pretty much none of his declining years (provided he stays healthy)...but if you look at a guy like trout...think he's gonna be an FA in his year 28-29 season...so he's gonna get a 10 year/$350+M deal...why not pay him $40-$50M/year in those first few years of the deal since the last few years of that deal are going to be real shit...id much rather pay that kinda money for a 10 WAR player, not a 1 WAR player...I mean I get it throws payrolls outta whack upfront, but id rather do that than pay a guy $35M a year to go 240/15/50 in the 10th year of the deal...

plus I'm sure you can probably keep the contract value slightly lower because of doing some simple discounted cash flow calcs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GambleBotsChafedPenis

another thing I was just thinking about...is there a reason that baseball contracts aren't written with de-escalators in them? as I understand contracts are fully guaranteed...so the minute a guy inks a 10 year/250+M deal at age 28 he's getting that money whether he hits 0.320 or 0.120 in the first few years of the deal...

Bryce is obviously a totally unique situation in that he's gonna sign a 10-12 year/$400-$500M deal when he's 25 so the team is getting pretty much none of his declining years (provided he stays healthy)...but if you look at a guy like trout...think he's gonna be an FA in his year 28-29 season...so he's gonna get a 10 year/$350+M deal...why not pay him $40-$50M/year in those first few years of the deal since the last few years of that deal are going to be real shit...id much rather pay that kinda money for a 10 WAR player, not a 1 WAR player...I mean I get it throws payrolls outta whack upfront, but id rather do that than pay a guy $35M a year to go 240/15/50 in the 10th year of the deal...

plus I'm sure you can probably keep the contract value slightly lower because of doing some simple discounted cash flow calcs...

---

Ultimately, these franchises have to have cash-on-hand....like any other business, it makes more sense to backload the deal and worry about it later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GambleBotsChafedPenis

another thing I was just thinking about...is there a reason that baseball contracts aren't written with de-escalators in them? as I understand contracts are fully guaranteed...so the minute a guy inks a 10 year/250+M deal at age 28 he's getting that money whether he hits 0.320 or 0.120 in the first few years of the deal...

Bryce is obviously a totally unique situation in that he's gonna sign a 10-12 year/$400-$500M deal when he's 25 so the team is getting pretty much none of his declining years (provided he stays healthy)...but if you look at a guy like trout...think he's gonna be an FA in his year 28-29 season...so he's gonna get a 10 year/$350+M deal...why not pay him $40-$50M/year in those first few years of the deal since the last few years of that deal are going to be real shit...id much rather pay that kinda money for a 10 WAR player, not a 1 WAR player...I mean I get it throws payrolls outta whack upfront, but id rather do that than pay a guy $35M a year to go 240/15/50 in the 10th year of the deal...

plus I'm sure you can probably keep the contract value slightly lower because of doing some simple discounted cash flow calcs...

---

Ultimately, these franchises have to have cash-on-hand....like any other business, it makes more sense to backload the deal and worry about it later.

---

true...just seems like a fucked up way of running a business (aka why the mets are paying bobby bo $1M until he's like 70)...id rather get what I'm paying for so to speak than just be crying when I had to pay that tab come the end of the last few years of the deal...

was just thinking about how you would spread like $60-90M from the last 2-3 years of that contract out...I mean ultimately if you looked at the last 2 years as lost, I think you could probably do it...$20M/year for a couple of years on the front and go from there to spread the rest out...I get you don't find an extra $20M in the seat cushions, but the clubs that are most likely to pen these kinda deals probably have some sorta financial flexibility to be able to do that...

sorry for the musings...you work for a shitty company like caesars long enough you start to look at shitty decisions businesses make and you go...

:facepalm

EDIT: since I'm paying more money up front I can decrease the contract's value since Id be paying the player more money up front instead of him having to wait 10 years to get the last $35M of the deal so I could use that money to pay some bank to do a bridge loan of some sort so that I could meet near term opex...

The notion that a team doesn't deserve to be labeled a bloated money pit trying to buy a championship because of "dead money" doesn't make much sense. Those were all bad gambles that didn't work out, but gambles a mid market could never take and recover from quickly.

It isn't a capped sport, and they have every right to take as many shots as they want, but any success they have will always be viewed differently than a team that was built organically. Those types of bad decisions would have set back many franchises a decade.

The Dodgers can simply write it off while maintaining a high payroll. That they have a few success stories on the cheap afterwards doesn't make them any less hateable if they're hated for being big spending choke artists. If they go forward and have an average payroll it would then become an unfair label. But they'll likely go spend it. They should. It's an inherent advantage they possess, and if they continue to choke, it will just be all the more funny. It's human nature to want to see the guy who rebuys 27 times in a tournament bust. I doubt you'd view his bracelet in the same light as you view yours if he won.

I actually don't mind the Dodgers and other big market teams who spend like that. It gives you something to actively cheer against once your team is eliminated.

You don't have to look too far away from Chavez Ravine to see an example of how NOT to operate as a big money franchise. The Angels are a fucking trainwreck of a franchise with a top 10 payroll every year. They had the dream "Russell Wilson" scenario as well....4 years of an MVP quality player who was drafted and developed and cost controlled, the most valuable asset in the game.....and couldn't build shit around him. Those Hamilton and Pujols contracts are really looking great.

Its almost unfair that the three teams with arguably the best collection of pre-arb talent right now are also three teams with the deepest pockets; Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers. The standings in MLB might get a bit repetitive here the next few years, especially once Machado and Harper each probably relocate to any of those 3 teams.

Please read BCR’s post.l above.

It is the definitive assessment of the Dodgers and why we hate them. My posts look foolish in comparison.

We can continue to quibble about specific players and the Dodgers prospects but why America hates the Dodgers has never been so clearly expressed.

A photo from worlds series game 2. Probably the most exciting game I have ever attended at Blue Heaven. We will be back next year!

wow almost 2 yrs later and looks like you are Nostradamus...Dodgers/yankees rematch please. thank you...or LA/Bost

Kind of.

Dodgers are an excellent team in 2019, just as predicted here.

And they have a great future ahead of them in the 2020s, as it's still a relatively young team.

However, they again failed in free agency.

AJ Pollock and Joe Kelly were the signings this year, and neither has worked out.

They're good this year because somehow Ryu got way better starting in 2018, rookie Alex Verdugo emerged, Cody Bellinger might be the MVP, Max Muncy is continuing his strong hitting from 2018, Walker Buehler has become an ace, Joc Pederson is hitting a ton of HR, and they've gotten good bench production from Beaty and Freese.

Oh and Corey Seager is back this year. And Justin Turner keeps on hitting despite being 34.

I just wish they finally made good use of their free agent money.

For example, it would've been nice if they signed Adam Ottavino instead of Joe Kelly, for basically the exact same time and money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Texter

Woulda coulda shoulda

Dodgers manager screwed the pooch...Astros couldn't hit Hill and he starts Darvish...dipshit move.

Dodgers are sitting good but they should be with that payroll.

I take my kid to Astros fan fest every year, this year will be a shit show of bandwagon fans.

---

Couldn’t have been more right, before the astros won my kid got Springers autograph and the line was 10 minutes...this year almost an hour for Kyle Freaking Tucker.

This thread bump made my day. Look at this post.

5 tight lines of code. This simply must be amongst my top Dodgers posts ever.

Nostradamus? “Boston sports always has more success than LA”. written a year before the Red Sox best the Dodgers. Not brain surgery to make such a statement but jeez.

Humility really isn’t appropriate here. Drops mic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanlmar

Quote:

---

The Dodgers have been maligned by haters in recent years who have claimed the team has had success because of its monster payroll

---

That is not the narrative. The Dodgers are maligned by haters because of their failure despite the monster payroll.

Nobody cheers stupid money. Big, rich and dumb is not loveable. Winning is lovable

In fairness, cause that’s what I’m about, I hate the Red Sox in recent years for precisely the same reason.

Boston sports always has more success than LA so I don’t suffer to the degree you do.

America loves the Astros. America likes winners and underdogs.

---

Um, Boston is probably missing the playoffs this year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Um, Boston is probably missing the playoffs this year

---

NL West 2nd place is occupied by the SF Giants. Congratulations on your recent “success”

You take your cues from the sharp money. A lot of sharp money is buying futures on the Red Sox @+1200-1400 to win AL East

Snell fell. Yankees pitching can look scary bad in poor lighting.

It’s a bet question I am wrestling with currently. I am close to firing. I think I have to. Part of me doesn’t want to get in front of Bauer but there might be value in being preemptive.