Blake Snell to the Dodgers

[markedman5]

 

[markedman5]

 

[SRB]

So the Dodgers are going to have a six-man rotation of Snell, Yamamoto, Ohtani, Glasnow, Kershaw, Sasaski. And Snell is getting a $52 million signing bonus (almost 1/3 of the contract), which is undoubtedly some mechanism for circumventing the spirit of the salary cap.

 

This league is such a joke.

[Redd Vencher]

1 hour ago, SRB said:

So the Dodgers are going to have a six-man rotation of Snell, Yamamoto, Ohtani, Glasnow, Kershaw, Sasaski. And Snell is getting a $52 million signing bonus (almost 1/3 of the contract), which is undoubtedly some mechanism for circumventing the spirit of the salary cap.

 

This league is such a joke.

Signing bonuses are calculated into the CBT hit.

[sveumrules]

Blake Snell's first year in MLB was 2016. With 1,096 career IP he is one of only 41 pitchers to throw at least 1,000 innings since then.

Now of course you got 2020 in there gumming up the works somewhat when it comes to comparing against past workloads, but let's just give it to these modern day pitchers as kind of an extra credit as it were.

So if we look at the eight full seasons prior to 2016 (2008-15), there were 71 pitchers to throw at least 1,000 IP. Move it back to the eight full seasons prior to that (2000-07) and there were 83 hurlers who clocked at least 1,000 IP.

At this rate I'd probably put the over under on "pitchers to throw at least 1,000 IP from 2025-32" somewhere around two dozen.

[Jopal78]

4 hours ago, sveumrules said:

Blake Snell's first year in MLB was 2016. With 1,096 career IP he is one of only 41 pitchers to throw at least 1,000 innings since then.

Now of course you got 2020 in there gumming up the works somewhat when it comes to comparing against past workloads, but let's just give it to these modern day pitchers as kind of an extra credit as it were.

So if we look at the eight full seasons prior to 2016 (2008-15), there were 71 pitchers to throw at least 1,000 IP. Move it back to the eight full seasons prior to that (2000-07) and there were 83 hurlers who clocked at least 1,000 IP.

At this rate I'd probably put the over under on "pitchers to throw at least 1,000 IP from 2025-32" somewhere around two dozen.

I don’t know what your point is here. Snell has one complete game in his career, and has made 28 or more starts just twice in his career.  It is not as if he is some workhorse as your post seemingly suggests. 

Next, that stating pitchers are going through the line up twice before giving way to the bullpen isn’t something new or particularly noteworthy on a fan site message board 

[BrewersRice]

This should mean that they might be more willing to trade some AA or AAA pitching talent for let’s say a Devin Williams

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I absolutely hate the trend of photoshopping players' new uniforms on them when they sign FA deals in all sports. I can hear my journalism school advisor screaming from the grave.

[jay87shot]

60 million is also being deferred, I think it is crazy that the league always so much of a contract to be deferred over basically forever. I didn't read over how many year but in like 2035 they are going to be paying more deferred money than then a few teams entire salary.

I don't actually mind this contract however, Snell has had 1 year in the past 6 over 3 WAR and with this going through his 36 season I guarantee at least 1 injury year. I doubt he gets close to making the value of this deal. However he probably will have a Cy Young caliber year in there and help them to another WS at some point. That rotation is gross especially if they get Sasaki and then sign Kershaw for later in the year when someone is hurt.

Devin for Alex Freeland and Kyle Hurt ???

Devin for Bobby Miller and lotto prospect ???

[Frisbee Slider]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I absolutely hate the trend of photoshopping players' new uniforms on them when they sign FA deals in all sports. I can hear my journalism school advisor screaming from the grave.

I think artificial intelligence caused that ship to sail a few years ago.

[JosephC]

2 hours ago, jay87shot said:

I think it is crazy that the league always so much of a contract to be deferred over basically forever. I didn't read over how many year but in like 2035 they are going to be paying more deferred money than then a few teams entire salary.

Even worse than that, IMO, is that Cots has the Dodgers current luxury tax penalty for 2025 as being 46 million.  As a 5th time payer, they are a 50% payer and then add a 60% surcharge for already being 60 million over the luxury cap limit,  Their penalty is likely already over what the A's payroll will be this season.  If they add another 60 million in payroll, which wouldn't be the least bit surprising, their tax would likely be higher than about 8 MLB teams payrolls, and the Brewers would be a likely candidate to be on this list.

[Fear The Chorizo]

If MLB doesn't make significant changes to force all TV revenue money to be shared (both MLB-wide and individual team TV deals), then they have to change the rules on deferring money in contracts to avoid or minimize luxury tax penalties in the here and now.  It's the Dodgers and then everyone else simply because of their TV deal and market size - they even make the Yankees and Mets look like a small market clubs by comparison.

This is just stupid - and honestly it's worth it for small market team owners to band together and force an extended work stoppage to make legitimate changes to MLB's financial model.  It's not even about creating an even playing field - it's about getting all 30 MLB teams on the same planet in terms of financial resources they are able to dedicate towards player payrolls.

[Fear The Chorizo]

34 minutes ago, JosephC said:

Even worse than that, IMO, is that Cots has the Dodgers current luxury tax penalty for 2025 as being 46 million.  As a 5th time payer, they are a 50% payer and then add a 60% surcharge for already being 60 million over the luxury cap limit,  Their penalty is likely already over what the A's payroll will be this season.  If they add another 60 million in payroll, which wouldn't be the least bit surprising, their tax would likely be higher than about 8 MLB teams payrolls, and the Brewers would be a likely candidate to be on this list.

And if you factor in deferred salaries currently on their books to count fully against current payrolls, their penalty would be much, much higher than whatever it will be.

[Samurai Bucky]

8 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

If MLB doesn't make significant changes to force all TV revenue money to be shared (both MLB-wide and individual team TV deals), then they have to change the rules on deferring money in contracts to avoid or minimize luxury tax penalties in the here and now.  It's the Dodgers and then everyone else simply because of their TV deal and market size - they even make the Yankees and Mets look like a small market clubs by comparison.

We all know that baseball fans will complain about billionaires fighting against millionaires.  The only other option would be contraction, wouldn't it?

[Fear The Chorizo]

21 minutes ago, Samurai Bucky said:

We all know that baseball fans will complain about billionaires fighting against millionaires.  The only other option would be contraction, wouldn't it?

yes, but it needs to happen, and i think fanbases of the small market teams can see why it's important to straighten this mess out.

[ClosetBrewerFan]

The Dodgers total contract deferrals from the last few years now totals $976M.  That's a lot of commitment going forward.  However, they have it spread out pretty well from 2028 - 2044.  With 2034-2044 being the worst driven by Ohtani's $68M annual deferrals (presently sitting at the high $80M's total per year).  We don't know the details yet of Snell's $60M in deferrals so don't know when they will be paid out, though it will likely be over at least 10 years at $5M -$6M per (if history is any indication).

I'd like to say that this will hurt the Dodgers in the future but they seem like they can just print money.  Will $90M to $95M in deferrals during the 2034-2044 really hurt them?

[SF70]

1 hour ago, ClosetBrewerFan said:

The Dodgers total contract deferrals from the last few years now totals $976M.  That's a lot of commitment going forward.  However, they have it spread out pretty well from 2028 - 2044.  With 2034-2044 being the worst driven by Ohtani's $68M annual deferrals (presently sitting at the high $80M's total per year).  We don't know the details yet of Snell's $60M in deferrals so don't know when they will be paid out, though it will likely be over at least 10 years at $5M -$6M per (if history is any indication).

I'd like to say that this will hurt the Dodgers in the future but they seem like they can just print money.  Will $90M to $95M in deferrals during the 2034-2044 really hurt them?

Probably not, or they wouldn’t have done them. Winning the WS could be worth a billion dollars or more if we include franchise-value increase.

Its becoming anybody’s guess at this point.

[SRB]

12 hours ago, Redd Vencher said:

Signing bonuses are calculated into the CBT hit.

Yes, but as with the Ohtani contract they are moving money around in a way that gives them an unfair advantage year to year. So it is "within the rules" and not a salary cap violation, but in practice they are getting a roster that is way overvalued per season.

[Scooterfletcher]

I just don’t know what we’d have to trade that would interest them, but I’d love to get some of their non-ace starting pitchers that are controllable in some kind of a deal.   Guys like Bobby Miller, Gavin Stone, Landon Knack, Justin Wroblewski.

Maybe Devin and Perkins could get at least two of the aforementioned?  Devin and Frelick or Mitchell gets us three of them?  Idk but their starters they won’t have room for in the rotation are of keen interest to me. 

[markedman5]

 

[brewfanmn]

52 minutes ago, SRB said:

Yes, but as with the Ohtani contract they are moving money around in a way that gives them an unfair advantage year to year. So it is "within the rules" and not a salary cap violation, but in practice they are getting a roster that is way overvalued per season.

What’s unfair about it? It would only be unfair if they were doing something every other org didn’t also have the ability to do. Any other team could defer a similar chunk of their multi-year commitments, and many do.

[SF70]

1 hour ago, Scooterfletcher said:

I just don’t know what we’d have to trade that would interest them, but I’d love to get some of their non-ace starting pitchers that are controllable in some kind of a deal.   Guys like Bobby Miller, Gavin Stone, Landon Knack, Justin Wroblewski.

Maybe Devin and Perkins could get at least two of the aforementioned?  Devin and Frelick or Mitchell gets us three of them?  Idk but their starters they won’t have room for in the rotation are of keen interest to me. 

Buyer beware when it comes to trading for LAD starting pitchers. Never seen so many starting pitchers blowing out their arms.

[Thurston Fluff]

I've been waiting for something interesting to happen in baseball. Still waiting.

[tmwiese55]

I'm not one who is too confident in Burnes' next contract, but I think I'd rather have Burnes even if for 7 years rather than Snell at this price.   With the big unknown variable being Burnes' willingness to do all the contract shenanigans which could sway things quite a bit. 

[bigred]

8 hours ago, Frisbee Slider said:

I think artificial intelligence caused that ship to sail a few years ago.

How can anything artificial, be intelligent anyway? 🤷‍♂️