PrestigeWorldwideAg12 said:

---

And there will be plenty of players willing to step and still play

---

Doubt it. The players union will make sure that anybody who plays as a scab knows they will never play again after the strike is over.

"Oh, I'm sure of it. I hate him."

agdaddy04 said:

---

EastCoastAgNc said:

---

Net present value of Tucker’s deal will be $57M per season, beating Juan Soto’s previous record by more than $6M, sources tell The Athletic. Deferrals total $30M - $10M in each of last three seasons. First with deferred amount: @JonHeyman

— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) January 16, 2026

---

And who exactly were they competing against? Because this is so much more than what was reported from the Mets, that it's insane.

---

It's almost as if the dodgers bid so much higher than anyone else only because they could

EastCoastAgNc said:

---

Mets were also offering Tucker a $75M signing bonus

— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) January 16, 2026

---

Wonder if any of that was deferred, the $75M signing bonus makes me wonder why Tucker didn't take the Mets offer, that has a higher NPV with no deferrals, right?

linkdude said:

---

he didn't want to go to NY, he was just using them to up the Dodgers offer

---

Seems weird for a guy that's apparently just about the money, I guess there are limits and if it's close enough….

But I really hope the dodgers crash and burn and he chokes on that contract

The luxury tax should be far more punitive, like lose all of your draft picks and have a 200% tax rate above a certain amount

Make it so gluttony turns into dumb money ball

No deferrals

redline248 said:

---

PrestigeWorldwideAg12 said:

---

I hate the idea but damn it may be time to rewrite the system with a hard salary cap

---

Give me a salary floor

---

That already exists via the MLB minimum wage which was $760,000 per player in 2025.

It's almost as if the luxury tax has no impact on their decision making.

Competitive balance is a joke. I hope he has a record setting regular season and disappears during the post season.

3rd Coast said:

---

No deferrals

---

Full details on Kyle Tucker's Dodgers contract, per ESPN sources:

- 4 years, $240 million guaranteed
- Opt-outs after Years 2 and 3
- $64M signing bonus
- $30M deferred
- $57.1M a year in net present value after factoring in deferrals -- a record by $6M+

A staggering deal.

— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) January 16, 2026

Kyle Tucker is making more than 50 percent more than Aaron Judge, as @wjcarter pointed out. That’s wild!

— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) January 16, 2026

BMX Bandit said:

---

How we got here

Quote:

---

Way back in 2012, with the team facing imminent bankruptcy after Frank McCourt siphoned funds from the club to finance his divorce, MLB awarded the Dodgers a favorable deal to pull themselves out of a hole. The following season, they would be permitted to treat their media revenue as a maximum of $84 million for revenue-sharing purposes, a figure that would increase by 4% each year thereafter. This deal would continue for the following 25 years. (Note: yes, that is a ludicrous period of time for this kind of deal.)

In 2017, MLB realized the folly of their ways and adjusted the initial starting point to $130 million, but even that has proven to be an insufficient change. The Dodgers' TV Deal with Spectrum far exceeds that; it's valued at $8.35 billion over 25 years, or $334 million per year.

---

So in 2025, they got to keep $64mm that should have been in revenue sharing. $78mm in 2021



https://brewerfanatic.com/news-rumors/milwaukee-brewers/mlbs-revenue-sharing-model-has-two-big-problems-how-can-they-be-fixed-r3929/

---

Thanks for posting this. I have not heard anyone talk about the preferential treatment of the Dodgers TV revenue.

I assume he means a payroll floor for every team. There are concerns that TB and Oakland just pocket their luxury tax money. Seems easier to just say no luxury tax bucks if you don't spend X in payroll. Regardless that does nothing to address the Dodgers.

I guess I just don't get as butthurt about how much money they spend. Good for them. Any team is allowed under the rules to do it. If they don't want to run it like a business but as a toy like a rich man getting a lambo that's their prerogative. Corn could easily do the same and any owner who isn't can either suck it up or sell it to someone even richer who will.

MaxPower said:

---

I assume he means a payroll floor for every team. There are concerns that TB and Oakland just pocket their luxury tax money. Seems easier to just say no luxury tax bucks if you don't spend X in payroll. Regardless that does nothing to address the Dodgers.

I guess I just don't get as butthurt about how much money they spend. Good for them. Any team is allowed under the rules to do it. If they don't want to run it like a business but as a toy like a rich man getting a lambo that's their prerogative. Corn could easily do the same and any owner who isn't can either suck it up or sell it to someone even richer who will.

---

I somewhat agree with you in that I don't blame the Dodgers for doing what they are since it's within the rules. However, the rules need a complete overhaul because what the Dodgers are allowed to do is 100% ruining a great game.