MLB 2023/2024 Free Agency Thread

[Fear The Chorizo]

For as maddening as it is for the Dodgers to seemingly have anyone they want on their MLB team along with producing a steady stream of impact talent from their minor league system, it is really refreshing to know that besides a COVID-shortened season, they haven't won squat during this period when they make even the Yankees look poor.

[TURBO]

I hope the Dodgers win it all to shed some light on the difference between the haves and the have-nots.  The more these teams that spend like banshees don't win it all, the more we have people saying things like "well, the Padres didn't win after their spending last year"  and "look at the Mets" and of course the old "the Dodgers always spend big and only have the COVID year WS championship to show for it."

I want them to win it this year so everyone can say they bought their championship.  That is the only way people in the big markets can see how unfair it is to the rest of us.

Spending big money may not be a guarantee to win it all, but in general, it sure does improve your chances.

[Frisbee Slider]

I like having great teams, good teams, average teams and bad teams. Like a bell curve. 30 equally mediocre teams is not exciting. 

[Jastro]

5 hours ago, tmwiese55 said:

Have to think Kershaw will be back too right?   Yea he can't be counted on for 30 starts but when he pitches he's still good.   Can't imagine he wants to leave right now with this juggernaut they've put together.  Probably is going to take a team friendly deal of some kind, unless I've missed some kind of announcement about him. 

Kershaw had shoulder surgery in late October/early November. Says he hopes to play next summer

[tmwiese55]

6 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

I like having great teams, good teams, average teams and bad teams. Like a bell curve. 30 equally mediocre teams is not exciting. 

In general, why I've for the most part become completely bored by the NFL.   If a team doesn't have one of the elite QBs the product is very bad. 

[edfunderburk]

47 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

30 equally mediocre teams is not exciting. 

You just described the NFL

[brewcrewdue80]

2 hours ago, TURBO said:

I hope the Dodgers win it all to shed some light on the difference between the haves and the have-nots.  The more these teams that spend like banshees don't win it all, the more we have people saying things like "well, the Padres didn't win after their spending last year"  and "look at the Mets" and of course the old "the Dodgers always spend big and only have the COVID year WS championship to show for it."

I want them to win it this year so everyone can say they bought their championship.  That is the only way people in the big markets can see how unfair it is to the rest of us.

Spending big money may not be a guarantee to win it all, but in general, it sure does improve your chances.

 Win pct .900. Plus WS wins starting next season when Ohtani can pitch, and The Dodgers can buy Burnes.  I will not accept below 120Wins this season by LA unless 10players go on the shelf longer than 45days each.

Best record in baseball clinched by trade deadline stuff.  It annoys Mr these teams spend so much and then just don't dominate. Yankees especially.  Getting beat year by year by Tampa in wins isn't helping the case against this Salary divide.

[Fear The Chorizo]

47 minutes ago, brewcrewdue80 said:

 Win pct .900. Plus WS wins starting next season when Ohtani can pitch, and The Dodgers can buy Burnes.  I will not accept below 120Wins this season by LA unless 10players go on the shelf longer than 45days each.

Best record in baseball clinched by trade deadline stuff.  It annoys Mr these teams spend so much and then just don't dominate. Yankees especially.  Getting beat year by year by Tampa in wins isn't helping the case against this Salary divide.

It's because baseball is a young man's game more than ever, and organizations can continue churning out and cycling through good young and much cheaper players to put together winning clubs and avoid even playing in the marquee free agent sandbox that at this point really only includes a small handful of teams consistently.

Well run organizations can establish a consistent mid-tier payroll and still win enough games to be in playoff contention every season, regardless of the division they play in.  The expanded playoffs is a check on runaway huge market teams and their spending, because it doesn't let them just dictate regular season success into a ws shot with a small group of playoff teams.  I for one dislike the expanded playoffs and its wonky format - but if mlb doesn't change the financial structure of the sport it's the only way to try and even out the playing field in terms of which teams win titles.

[sveumrules]

The economics of the National Pastime being good old fashioned Free Market Capitalism is a fait accompli, especially when neither the players nor the owners seem like they’re all that interested in changing things.

Maybe the already started only gonna get worse RSN situation will spur MLB towards a more Socialist model like the NFL or NBA use to level the playing field (as long as you have an HOF QB or Generational Superstar).

Until then, I’ve accepted the economic reality of the Brewers as a feature, not a bug. It enhances my enjoyment of things.

Eighteen teams spent more on payroll than the Brewers last year, two of them won more games.

”Yeah, but the Brewers are 1-9 in their last 10 playoff games.” So what? The Dodgers are 2-8.

The postseason is largely random, get in enough years, and one of them you’ll eventually be the one who gets hot.

I mean, for a market like Milwaukee it’s pretty much the only way. They’ll never be able to come remotely close to being able to outspend their competition by buying wins at the top of the free agent market, so why fetishize it?

[RightFieldCoder]

12 hours ago, sveumrules said:

 They’ll never be able to come remotely close to being able to outspend their competition by buying wins at the top of the free agent market, so why fetishize it?

Don't kink shame me.

It's a problem that the entire offseason has been about 3-4 players and the same 6ish teams are the only ones connected to those players. For those fans the offseason is fun. For the rest of the league it is boring. Maybe it's like that in other leagues? I don't pay attention to any other league's offseason to know.

[TBBrewCrew]

So, some people would rather the Dodgers win so that they can say "See! The biggest spending teams win!", rather than have them not win so we can rightly laugh at them like the Padres and Mets of last year? The Mets who just got hit with a $100 million tax bill?

Cut off your nose to spite your face, if that's what you're into.

 

And really, salary cappers want the players to earn less money. They don't want them to be able to receive fair compensation as judged by an open market of buyers. 

 

[Thurston Fluff]

If every team did the fiscally responsible thing the players would make far less of the total revenue. They'd never stand for that. The alternative would be to share all revenue and have all the teams play on an even field. That probably would reduce innovation. Would the Brewers have their pitching lab if they could afford Aces in free agency for example? As long as the big markets pay the big salaries and get the same number of championships as the smaller markets the end results are the same while the sport advances with new innovations.

For myself, I couldn't comprehend cheering for a team that doesn't need to be well run to win. Every championship the 90's Yankees won came with the caveat of how much they spent. When those super teams don't win it all every season the fans can't enjoy how good the team is. If we win one it's just so much sweeter than ones the big spenders can enjoy.

[Brewcrew82]

I would have done this deal. 

[BlazingGunz]

22 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I would have done this deal. 

You shall have Haase for $1m and like it. 

[markedman5]

 

[wibadgers23]

 

[nate82]

17 minutes ago, wibadgers23 said:

 

I have no idea what the Blue Jays are doing here.  2-years and $15m for Kiner-Falefa? 

[Austin Tatious]

47 minutes ago, nate82 said:

I have no idea what the Blue Jays are doing here.  2-years and $15m for Kiner-Falefa? 

I’m glad we stayed away 

[TURBO]

2 hours ago, wibadgers23 said:

 

Thankfully, we dodged a bullet with this bum.

[Brewcrew82]

Always thought Giolito made some sense if we traded Burnes. Alas....

[wibadgers23]

Other than extensions to Peralta and Ashby, I can’t remember the last time we spent any significant money on pitching. Maybe Chacin in 2017? 

[Brewcrew82]

3 minutes ago, wibadgers23 said:

Other than extensions to Peralta and Ashby, I can’t remember the last time we spent any significant money on pitching. Maybe Chacin in 2017? 

True. Pretty much since Garza and Lohse, so since before the current regime. Only thought it made sense if they traded Burnes and wanted a TOR pitcher (arguable) to replace him and show the fans they still wanted to seriously contend this year.

[BrewerFan]

On 12/23/2023 at 12:05 PM, TBBrewCrew said:

So, some people would rather the Dodgers win so that they can say "See! The biggest spending teams win!", rather than have them not win so we can rightly laugh at them like the Padres and Mets of last year? The Mets who just got hit with a $100 million tax bill?

Cut off your nose to spite your face, if that's what you're into.

 

And really, salary cappers want the players to earn less money. They don't want them to be able to receive fair compensation as judged by an open market of buyers. 

 

"Salary cappers?"

That's a new one. But if you watch the NFL, NBA and MLB, players in Baseball are earning less % of the revenue than the two capped sports.

Pretty sure the market is fair in the NFL, NBA. 

[BrewerFan]

On 12/23/2023 at 1:43 PM, Thurston Fluff said:

If every team did the fiscally responsible thing the players would make far less of the total revenue. They'd never stand for that. The alternative would be to share all revenue and have all the teams play on an even field. That probably would reduce innovation. Would the Brewers have their pitching lab if they could afford Aces in free agency for example? As long as the big markets pay the big salaries and get the same number of championships as the smaller markets the end results are the same while the sport advances with new innovations.

For myself, I couldn't comprehend cheering for a team that doesn't need to be well run to win. Every championship the 90's Yankees won came with the caveat of how much they spent. When those super teams don't win it all every season the fans can't enjoy how good the team is. If we win one it's just so much sweeter than ones the big spenders can enjoy.

Yes...I think they almost certainly would. Teams are still going to do whatever they can to win, to get an edge. I don't see why teams wouldn't try and innovate. Would we be asking the same thing about the NFL and developing QBs with the Packers "QB school," under Clements? The Packers are flush with cash, they can pay as much as anyone.

The GSWs in the NBA, they changed the style of play in the NBA and analytics rule the day. Seems like they'd try and maintain any competitive advantage they can. 

 

I don't care how my teams win(aside from just flagrant cheating). The Packers were spending roughly 100M more on players than the salary cap and probably 150 more for just last season than the likes of the Bears and other bad teams(and now are spending about 70M less than the cap). 

Players are coming to the Bucks to play now that otherwise wouldn't. Players always go to teams like the Heat or Lakers. There's no balanced playing field, but if you have a cap, you limit the imbalance and then teams have to fight to find wins and gains on the margins...the pitching lab being a prime example. 

The Brewers in an NFL/NBA type system probably sign Burnes to extensions by now. The flip side is they probably also sign Burnes.

[brewmann04]

well its almost New Years maybe Arnold is waiting too make that splash move to get fans excited about this team.