I find it interesting the media doesn't cover them with the same vitriol as they did the Yankees when they had 200M payroll that led all of baseball. That is an insane amount of money for a baseball team. I can't imagine the pressure those players must have to win with that price tag

you are aware that Kershaw turned down a $300M contract because he didn't want to be the highest paid pitcher in the game and have that contract hovering over him, right?

Quite a few players are aware of the scrutiny big money gets you

Where do the Dodgers get this kind of money? Surely they're going to be offloading some guys in the offseason?

quote:

---

Where do the Dodgers get this kind of money? Surely they're going to be offloading some guys in the offseason?

---

tv deal

It's stupid money. They are paying players a total of $87.5 million who AREN'T currently on their team...that's just their payroll of guys they have shipped off but are paying parts of their contract just to not be in LA.

Also, TV money is flowing like crazy for multiple organizations. Back during the Evil Empire Yankee payroll days, it wasn't as prevalent around the league and the Yankees were the exception. Now it's almost the exception if you don't pay $100+mm in payroll. Actually it's not almost, it is.Only 8 MLB clubs with payrolls less than $100mm, and only 3 less than 80.

But the Doyers are taking it to a whole new level. $100 million more than the yankees. That's ridiculous.

quote:

---

you are aware that Kershaw turned down a $300M contract because he didn't want to be the highest paid pitcher in the game and have that contract hovering over him, right?

---

He was still the first player to average 30 million or over per year and the fist pitcher in history to have a 200 million plus contract. I don't think taking 217 over 7 instead of getting 30 over 10 means he was worried about the stigma of a big contract affecting his outings.

quote:

---

quote:

---

you are aware that Kershaw turned down a $300M contract because he didn't want to be the highest paid pitcher in the game and have that contract hovering over him, right?

---

He was still the first player to average 30 million or over per year and the fist pitcher in history to have a 200 million plus contract. I don't think taking 217 over 7 instead of getting 30 over 10 means he was worried about the stigma of a big contract affecting his outings.

---

quote:

---

"For me personally, I think this was the longest amount I was comfortable with and committing myself to," Kershaw said. "I always want to be able to see the finish line. I think anything longer than this, I would have felt overwhelmed trying to live up to the expectations to pitch successfully for that long."

---

How ridiculous. Stressed out about 2022, but entirely calm about being the highest paid player in 2014. I'm sure it has nothing to do with a higher average now and the option in his contract that comes up after 2018.

Lester basically is getting 30 per with the Cubs for 6 years, and is 31. That's at least a year older than Kershaw will be when that option pops up.

I think it is interesting that a Yankee fan is complaining about being out spent.

Boo Hoo... It isn't like the Yankees aren't spending $220M, which is $50M more than the 3rd place spenders (Detroit). The media pretty much quit complaining 8 or 9 years ago, when the Yankees were spending like double the 2nd place team. After 11 years of the Yankees spending more than $200M, it is no big deal.

Last year was the 1st time the Yankees didn't have the highest payroll, since 2001. 12 straight years.

COTS is showing the Dodgers at $271M. Where are you getting $307?

quote:

---

I think it is interesting that a Yankee fan is complaining about being out spent.

Boo Hoo... It isn't like the Yankees aren't spending $220M, which is $50M more than the 3rd place spenders (Detroit). The media pretty much quit complaining 8 or 9 years ago, when the Yankees were spending like double the 2nd place team. After 11 years of the Yankees spending more than $200M, it is no big deal.

Last year was the 1st time the Yankees didn't have the highest payroll, since 2001. 12 straight years.

COTS is showing the Dodgers at $271M. Where are you getting $307?

---

i am in no way complaining about a team spending, I just find it funny that the media has nothing to say about it.

And the $307 number I read from a few tweets from sports writers after the utley trade, and it apparently includes luxury taxes

quote:

---

I find it interesting the media doesn't cover them with the same vitriol as they did the Yankees when they had 200M payroll that led all of baseball. That is an insane amount of money for a baseball team. I can't imagine the pressure those players must have to win with that price tag

---

The Dodgers have had a MLB-leading payroll for 2 years. The Yankees did for a decade.

The Yankees 10-year average payroll is almost $205 million.

The next closest is $150m (Boston).


In short -- Yankees earned their vitriol because they did it every single year. If LA is still spending like this in 2020, I'm sure they'll get similar treatment.

At least they're putting their revenue back into improving the club and not hoarding it like some owners have done.

quote:

---

The Dodgers have had a MLB-leading payroll for 2 years. The Yankees did for a decade.

The Yankees 10-year average payroll is almost $205 million.

The next closest is $150m (Boston).


In short -- Yankees earned their vitriol because they did it every single year. If LA is still spending like this in 2020, I'm sure they'll get similar treatment.

---

The Yankees earned their vitriol because they were spending $205M in 2005, while everyone else was half that amount, with the exception of 2 teams:
Boston was 2nd with $117M
NYMets were 3rd with $104M
Anaheim was 4th with $97M

They were going out and signing the best FAs for players that other teams couldn't afford based on the NYY economics.

Now, a decade later... there is more parity in spending to the Yankees. It isn't news.

Yes, the Dodgers are spending a ton on players on other rosters. The Yanks did the same thing.

Sabathia & A-Rod are owed a combined $46M next year and if Sabathia's MRI isn't favorable, I could see both of those players not playing for the Yanks next season.

The Yankees are at about $184M for 2016, with only 10 players.

Dodgers swept by the astros, who spend approximately $240 mill less on their roster.

The Dodgers are paying more for players who no longer play for them than then entire Astros payroll.

Some of these long term deals are crazy to me, especially for guys who are in their 30's at the start of these 7-10 year deals. You are throwing away multiple years worth of salary at the end of the contract when a player is in their late 30's/early 40's and producing nowhere near what they are being paid (some exceptions of course). It basically becomes a sunk cost that most teams aside from the Yankees and Dodgers can't afford at the end.

You basically end up with the Astros past decade, the current Phillies (and the Tigers in the next couple years), who have to trade off their big contracts and start a multi year rebuild.

way too many GM's got fooled by the steroid era...and are still getting fooled somehow. Guys are not going to put up great numbers anymore at ages 34, 35, etc..,

as for the Dodgers like I posted on the astros thread...the sum of the parts >> the whole

There was a ~15 year period where every big name free agent became available if and only if the Yankees declined to sign them. Only Isiah Thomas could have messed that up.

quote:

---

way too many GM's got fooled by the steroid era...and are still getting fooled somehow. Guys are not going to put up great numbers anymore at ages 34, 35, etc..,

as for the Dodgers like I posted on the astros thread...the sum of the parts >> the whole

---

You say that like the steroid era is over.

Something like 30% of MLB players have received an exemption by MLB to use PEDs\HGH\ADD\ADHD enhancements.

Of the remaining 70%, I suspect most of them are unestablished minor leaguers who haven't filed, yet.

I always point to Chris Davis... he has been granted an exemption in 2015 for Adderall. It was something he had an exemption to use in 2013. His failure to request an exemption in 2014 let to horrible numbers, as well as a suspension by MLB.

The Astros can crow all they want about winning games in August against a team with the highest payroll... even beating two of the best SP in MLB.

Houston may or may not make the playoffs. Crow then.

yes, I would say that the steroid era is over from the standpoint of "90% of the players are on 'roids."

I'm not aware of any 5'10" second baseman routinely hitting 400 ft home runs to the opposite field anymore.

and there may only be 3 or 4 guys that hit over 40 home runs this season.

because of the money involved it will never go away completely. 10-20% is probably acceptable

The Dodgers seem like they can't hit

McGwire needs to teach all the players to get on roids. Maybe they wouldn't get no hit anymore.

quote:

---

yes, I would say that the steroid era is over from the standpoint of "90% of the players are on 'roids."

I'm not aware of any 5'10" second baseman routinely hitting 400 ft home runs to the opposite field anymore.

and there may only be 3 or 4 guys that hit over 40 home runs this season.

because of the money involved it will never go away completely. 10-20% is probably acceptable

---

Let's look at the Top 9 HR totals in the AL:

1. 2742 - 1996
3. 2635 - 1999
2. 2688 - 2000
7. 2506 - 2001

4. 2605 - 2004
6. 2546 - 2006
5. 2560 - 2009

8. 2500 - 2012
9. 2504 - 2013

2051 HRs in 2014.

If I'm counting correctly, there have been 2055 HRs in 2015. It projects to 2560. That would be 5th All-Time.

But, yeah... the Roid Era is over.

30% of players have an exception from MLB to use PEDs and banned substances, so while you desire 10-20% to be acceptable, what we KNOW is 150%-300% of your number are confirmed users. What we don't know is how high that goes up.

In 2000, there were 16 to hit over 40 HRs, 2001 there were 12 and there is a good chance 6 will hit that many in 2015.

So, some of the more gawdy numbers are gone, but the trend from 2014 to 2015 indicate another "bubble."

When looking at total home runs hit, don't forget that since 2013 the American League has had more teams than it ever had and of course, going back further, both leagues have, of course, grown in size. Additionally, add in whatever else you might think can affect home run numbers...smaller ballparks, warmer weather, a team in Colorado, whatever...and comparing historic total home run numbers isn't a great practice.


Anyways, the fact that MLB as a whole hasn't hit 5,000 home runs since 2009 and only once since 2006 when previously the league was over 5,000 home runs every year since MLB reached 30 teams in 1998...and was at 5400+ home runs several times in that span...I think we're moving past the "steroid era".