2026 Trade deadline

[IdahoBert]

8 hours ago, papalawrence said:

I watched the LA 97.1 and Dodgers fans are pissed about it. That makes it worthwhile for me

 

Thus makes me happy. 

[Sports_Freak]

20 hours ago, IdahoBert said:

I just can’t see the wisdom in giving a gigantic long-term contract to a man who will next year be 30 years old who’s had multiple arm surgeries. Same goes for Mize. I have moved on.

I am all for the youth movement, even though they’re often returning from various surgeries or will inevitably face them.

I’m willing to live with the fact that the Tigers will never be in the upper tier of the handful of teams that can spend this kind of money.

I’m also tired of believing that winning the World Series is the only reason for a club’s existence. This is easy for me because I have enjoyed World Series championships twice in my life and it’s great and I want that for all the rest of you who have not experienced it.

But for me personally, the drama of the day in day out grit and joy and disappointment of the game is reward enough. I’m OK with downsizing my expectations and being cool with what happens. And it’s not like I have much choice in this.

The money Harris has wasted on pitchers who have either provided absolutely nothing, or worse, have been totally ineffective needs to be taken into account. Giving Skubal a 10 year contract does seem crazy but if we would have offered JV a 10 year contract when he was 30 years old, he would have lived up to it. Sure, Skubal has had arm surgeries but that's all in the past. And to really consider what the price of ace type pitchers will be making in 3 or 4 years? $40 million a year may be a bargain. Again, if Skubal provides 2 or 3 years of being a #1 type, 2 or 3 tears of being a #3or #4 and a couple of years of being a #5 pitcher, it may be worth it. But....I dont want the Tigers to committ that kinda money to a pitcher when there are other options, as well as other needs. And I really don't see it happening. Like you said, we've moved on.

[4hzglory]

15 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

The money Harris has wasted on pitchers who have either provided absolutely nothing, or worse, have been totally ineffective needs to be taken into account. Giving Skubal a 10 year contract does seem crazy but if we would have offered JV a 10 year contract when he was 30 years old, he would have lived up to it. Sure, Skubal has had arm surgeries but that's all in the past. And to really consider what the price of ace type pitchers will be making in 3 or 4 years? $40 million a year may be a bargain. Again, if Skubal provides 2 or 3 years of being a #1 type, 2 or 3 tears of being a #3or #4 and a couple of years of being a #5 pitcher, it may be worth it. But....I dont want the Tigers to committ that kinda money to a pitcher when there are other options, as well as other needs. And I really don't see it happening. Like you said, we've moved on.

I honestly don't think Skubal is going to get a 10 year deal.  I think he will break the AAV and total $ records, but think he may "only" get 6-7 years for $330 (at 7 that's $47 mil/yr).

[Sports_Freak]

20 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

I honestly don't think Skubal is going to get a 10 year deal.  I think he will break the AAV and total $ records, but think he may "only" get 6-7 years for $330 (at 7 that's $47 mil/yr).

Again, I would rather the Tigers use that kind of money on multiple players, pitcher and hitters, who can also help the team. Skubal is good, really good, but he's overpriced. Kinda like...the name brand product when the generic is almost just as good. 😆😆

[buddha]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

you and I are old farts - we can rationalize everything.  Tell that to the 10 yr old whose hero is off to NY or LA. He'll never have the experience we had with a Kaline or Trammell and tell me he won't be left feeling indifferent in a couple of decades when he has the money to buy his own tickets 

youre romanticizing the past.  the experience is different now and people still go to the game in droves.  kids dont see things or experience them the same way as we did as kids, it doesnt mean they wont care.

free agent movement should be at the bottom of mlb's worries.  way below something like the larger demographic trend of people not having children leading to a loss of fan population.

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

The money Harris has wasted on pitchers who have either provided absolutely nothing, or worse, have been totally ineffective needs to be taken into account. Giving Skubal a 10 year contract does seem crazy but if we would have offered JV a 10 year contract when he was 30 years old, he would have lived up to it. Sure, Skubal has had arm surgeries but that's all in the past. And to really consider what the price of ace type pitchers will be making in 3 or 4 years? $40 million a year may be a bargain. Again, if Skubal provides 2 or 3 years of being a #1 type, 2 or 3 tears of being a #3or #4 and a couple of years of being a #5 pitcher, it may be worth it. But....I dont want the Tigers to committ that kinda money to a pitcher when there are other options, as well as other needs. And I really don't see it happening. Like you said, we've moved on.

you could count on one hand the number of 30 year old pitchers in history who would be worth a 10 year contract.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

youre romanticizing the past.  the experience is different now and people still go to the game in droves.  kids dont see things or experience them the same way as we did as kids, it doesnt mean they wont care.

free agent movement should be at the bottom of mlb's worries.  way below something like the larger demographic trend of people not having children leading to a loss of fan population.

does everyone who pines for “the good old days” in the US remember the population then was 2/3 what it is now 🤷🏻

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

the experience is different now and people still go to the game in droves.  kids dont see things or experience them the same way as we did as kids,

I don't really buy this. Pop star idolization is as high or higher today than it ever was, young people still attach to stars like Swift as strongly as the bobby soxers did to Sinatra in the 30's. No reason to at to believe it's any different in sports than it ever was. The species does not evolve very fast.

Edited August 9 by gehringer_2

[monkeytargets39]

3 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

if we would have offered JV a 10 year contract when he was 30 years old, he would have lived up to it. 

Verlander had no real injury history at that point, was almost automatically going a minimum of 7 innings and 100+ pitches, had won an AL MVP, been to a World Series, and was coming off of consecutive 8+ WAR seasons as a pitcher though.

Skubal has had three major injuries, doesn’t go past 6 innings or 90 pitches much, and has high leg kick mechanics while weighing nearly 250.   Skubal has never pitched 200 innings in his career—Verlander did it 8 times in a row plus another 4 times after that.
 

One was a near lock to be worth that type of contract extension and the other is a much higher risk.

Edited August 9 by monkeytargets39

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, buddha said:

the point is you dont need to sign all those guys to win games. let the dodgers sign them!  good!  

what the dodgers do better than anyone is develop their own talent and then trade it for the skubals of the world.  that's their super power.

the mets spend just as much money and suck every year.

Signing all those guys like that has absolutely been instrumental in making the Dodgers the juggernaut they are today. Thirteen straight playoff appearances and they are practically guaranteed a fourteenth; eight of those thirteen years having advanced to the championship series; five World Series appearances; and three rings, including the most recent two, and they're still favored in 2026 for their third straight ring. This is not despite their signing all those guys, or even irrespective of it—this is a direct result of it. And the reason that's so is directly due to the sweetheart TV deal that came out of 2012 bankruptcy settlement—and hey, the playoff run started in 2013. Funny, that. That they've just now gone through a seven-game losing streak doesn't negate any of that.

Also, not for nothing, the reason the Dodgers have such an advantage in the signing of UDFAs, player development, analytics, etc. is also due to the vast marginal money they get to keep from their broadcast contract due to the bankruptcy deal. They get to spend more of that money in the areas to get the best personnel running the best money-is-no-object systems. It's one thing if a team develops those advantages due to only their smarts in deploying a similar amount of revenue toward those areas. It's quite another to use the blunt force of way way more money to achieve those advantages, especially when they can make obvious mistakes like paying $60 million a year to a player who's been merely meh and have it just roll of their backs. That mistake might well destroy just about any other organization. To the Dodgers, it's merely a rounding error. That's simply not right.

The Dodgers’ bankruptcy-era TV revenue exception even gives them extra retained cash that helps them fund and scale their deferred contracts in a way most teams simply cannot replicate. Because the Dodgers retain an estimated $50–55 million more of their local TV revenue in 2026 than they would under ordinary revenue sharing, they have additional recurring cash to fund the present value of deferred obligations, pay current payroll and CBT bills, and maintain liquidity all at the same time. Other teams may be legally allowed to offer the same deferral structure, but then they must share a larger portion of their equivalent local media income in doing so, and so would have less retained cash to support the unusually large stack of long-dated salary commitments the Dodgers' unique situation allows them to support.

And yes, you're right: the Dodgers still have to go out and win the games, and yes, they can still lose the games and still lose out on the ring. But the structural advantages available only to them so tilts the playing field in their favor that it practically demands a solution to rein it in. YMMV, but IMHO, no one team should have that kind of financial advantage built right into the structure of the Baseball business itself.

No amount of gambling interest injecting revenue into the game, giving a probable false impression of dramatically increased fan enthusiasm, can paper over the inequity of this situation. This is not the capitalistic English Football League System, where teams simply wind up if they can't cut it as a business. This is the socialistic American major league sports system in which franchises are practically guaranteed to survive and even thrive, and that goes double for the teams operating within the federally-protected trust that is MLB. Regardless that the Hollywood Dodgers are one of a handful of the most glamorous sports team in the world today, baseball cannot afford to risk losing basic fan interest in at least 14 other markets if the perception becomes that they have no chance. Baseball has to fix it, and merely resetting the number of years attended to the current version of the reserve clause from six to anything else won't be enough to do it. I don't make enough money to know what the answer is, but someone does, and they better goddamn figure it out.

 

 

Edited August 9 by chasfh

[Shelton]

On the topic of the old antitrust exemption, what is Baseball doing that every other franchised sports league in this country isn’t or wasn’t also doing (from a monopolistic antitrust standpoint).

 

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, Shelton said:

On the topic of the old antitrust exemption, what is Baseball doing that every other franchised sports league in this country isn’t or wasn’t also doing (from a monopolistic antitrust standpoint).

 

While it’s true that the NFL, NBA, NHL, and most other professional sports leagues based in the United States do enjoy the collusive power to direct certain players toward playing only for certain teams, implement league-wide exclusive merchandising and broadcasting deals, mete out discipline directly against players, and the like, the difference is that in these other leagues, such practices must be collectively bargained with their respective players’ unions, and as such cannot be challenged in court or via arbitration; whereas MLB does not need to bargain such aspects with the MLB Players’ Association, by dint of its specific exemption from the Sherman Antitrust Act—although challenges occasionally do arise.

[gehringer_2]

are today's Dodger's any more dominant than the reserve clause Yankees?  Even if they are not, is the situation worse when one team out of 30 that represents about 3.8%* of the population is dominant compared to one team out of 14 that represented 8.7%*. NYC was the center of the world in baseball pre WWII to a degree even LA can't match today, so you can argue that Dodger dominance is more distorting than Yankee dominance ever was.

 

(current population: LA metro 13M, US 342M, 1940 population: NYC metro 11.6M, US 132M)

Edited August 9 by gehringer_2

[Sports_Freak]

3 hours ago, buddha said:

you could count on one hand the number of 30 year old pitchers in history who would be worth a 10 year contract.

Agreed. Few and far between.

[Sports_Freak]

1 hour ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Verlander had no real injury history at that point, was almost automatically going a minimum of 7 innings and 100+ pitches, had won an AL MVP, been to a World Series, and was coming off of consecutive 8+ WAR seasons as a pitcher though.

Skubal has had three major injuries, doesn’t go past 6 innings or 90 pitches much, and has high leg kick mechanics while weighing nearly 250.   Skubal has never pitched 200 innings in his career—Verlander did it 8 times in a row plus another 4 times after that.
 

One was a near lock to be worth that type of contract extension and the other is a much higher risk.

And also Skubal wants a record setting deal...no thanks.

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

are today's Dodger's any more dominant than the reserve clause Yankees?  Even if they are not, is the situation worse when one team out of 30 that represents about 3.8%* of the population is dominant compared to one team out of 14 that represented 8.7%*. NYC was the center of the world in baseball pre WWII to a degree even LA can't match today, so you can argue that Dodger dominance is more distorting than Yankee dominance ever was.

 

(current population: LA metro 13M, US 342M, 1940 population: NYC metro 11.6M, US 132M)

Maybe, maybe not—but the Yankees presented the same problem to competitive balance, and Baseball created rules specifically to stanch their influence, notably the bonus baby rules and the Rule 4 draft itself.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, monkeytargets39 said:

Verlander had no real injury history at that point, was almost automatically going a minimum of 7 innings and 100+ pitches, had won an AL MVP, been to a World Series, and was coming off of consecutive 8+ WAR seasons as a pitcher though.

Skubal has had three major injuries, doesn’t go past 6 innings or 90 pitches much, and has high leg kick mechanics while weighing nearly 250.   Skubal has never pitched 200 innings in his career—Verlander did it 8 times in a row plus another 4 times after that.
 

One was a near lock to be worth that type of contract extension and the other is a much higher risk.

Verlander may not have been any more an outlier than Skubal in terms of pitching dominance, but it was always clear that JV was a total outlier physically. The arm and endurance were far more unique in the league than his pitching totals, as good as they were. Even before he was 30 the only other physical comparison to JV was Nolan Ryan, and even as much of an outlier as JV is, he's till not going to come close to Ryan!

[Shelton]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

While it’s true that the NFL, NBA, NHL, and most other professional sports leagues based in the United States do enjoy the collusive power to direct certain players toward playing only for certain teams, implement league-wide exclusive merchandising and broadcasting deals, mete out discipline directly against players, and the like, the difference is that in these other leagues, such practices must be collectively bargained with their respective players’ unions, and as such cannot be challenged in court or via arbitration; whereas MLB does not need to bargain such aspects with the MLB Players’ Association, by dint of its specific exemption from the Sherman Antitrust Act—although challenges occasionally do arise.

Can you provide an example? 
 

It doesn’t feel like this exemption, in practice, has a significant impact on the issues being argued about in the baseball world. 

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

I don't really buy this. Pop star idolization is as high or higher today than it ever was, young people still attach to stars like Swift as strongly as the bobby soxers did to Sinatra in the 30's. No reason to at to believe it's any different in sports than it ever was. The species does not evolve very fast.

Baseball could turn into a sport where fans follow players as much as they follow teams.  Or it could just become a vehicle for gambling and fantasy baseball if it hasn't already.   

[chasfh]

8 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Can you provide an example? 
 

It doesn’t feel like this exemption, in practice, has a significant impact on the issues being argued about in the baseball world. 

Take a look at this poster which might answer some of the questions you have.

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/downloads/Antitrust.pdf

 

[Tiger337]

4 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Take a look at this poster which might answer some of the questions you have.

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/downloads/Antitrust.pdf

 

This is why I take you seriously.  

[Shelton]

11 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Take a look at this poster which might answer some of the questions you have.

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/downloads/Antitrust.pdf

 

That’s actually really helpful in demonstrating my point. Thanks. 

[buddha]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I don't really buy this. Pop star idolization is as high or higher today than it ever was, young people still attach to stars like Swift as strongly as the bobby soxers did to Sinatra in the 30's. No reason to at to believe it's any different in sports than it ever was. The species does not evolve very fast.

you get a new star all the time.  you romanticize watching al kaline win once in 25 years, other people like to watch magglio ordonez sign and play for detroit.

youre universalizing your own experience to a new generation.

change is difficult for old people to accept sometimes, dont feel bad.  😉

[buddha]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Signing all those guys like that has absolutely been instrumental in making the Dodgers the juggernaut they are today. Thirteen straight playoff appearances and they are practically guaranteed a fourteenth; eight of those thirteen years having advanced to the championship series; five World Series appearances; and three rings, including the most recent two, and they're still favored in 2026 for their third straight ring. This is not despite their signing all those guys, or even irrespective of it—this is a direct result of it. And the reason that's so is directly due to the sweetheart TV deal that came out of 2012 bankruptcy settlement—and hey, the playoff run started in 2013. Funny, that. That they've just now gone through a seven-game losing streak doesn't negate any of that.

Also, not for nothing, the reason the Dodgers have such an advantage in the signing of UDFAs, player development, analytics, etc. is also due to the vast marginal money they get to keep from their broadcast contract due to the bankruptcy deal. They get to spend more of that money in the areas to get the best personnel running the best money-is-no-object systems. It's one thing if a team develops those advantages due to only their smarts in deploying a similar amount of revenue toward those areas. It's quite another to use the blunt force of way way more money to achieve those advantages, especially when they can make obvious mistakes like paying $60 million a year to a player who's been merely meh and have it just roll of their backs. That mistake might well destroy just about any other organization. To the Dodgers, it's merely a rounding error. That's simply not right.

The Dodgers’ bankruptcy-era TV revenue exception even gives them extra retained cash that helps them fund and scale their deferred contracts in a way most teams simply cannot replicate. Because the Dodgers retain an estimated $50–55 million more of their local TV revenue in 2026 than they would under ordinary revenue sharing, they have additional recurring cash to fund the present value of deferred obligations, pay current payroll and CBT bills, and maintain liquidity all at the same time. Other teams may be legally allowed to offer the same deferral structure, but then they must share a larger portion of their equivalent local media income in doing so, and so would have less retained cash to support the unusually large stack of long-dated salary commitments the Dodgers' unique situation allows them to support.

And yes, you're right: the Dodgers still have to go out and win the games, and yes, they can still lose the games and still lose out on the ring. But the structural advantages available only to them so tilts the playing field in their favor that it practically demands a solution to rein it in. YMMV, but IMHO, no one team should have that kind of financial advantage built right into the structure of the Baseball business itself.

No amount of gambling interest injecting revenue into the game, giving a probable false impression of dramatically increased fan enthusiasm, can paper over the inequity of this situation. This is not the capitalistic English Football League System, where teams simply wind up if they can't cut it as a business. This is the socialistic American major league sports system in which franchises are practically guaranteed to survive and even thrive, and that goes double for the teams operating within the federally-protected trust that is MLB. Regardless that the Hollywood Dodgers are one of a handful of the most glamorous sports team in the world today, baseball cannot afford to risk losing basic fan interest in at least 14 other markets if the perception becomes that they have no chance. Baseball has to fix it, and merely resetting the number of years attended to the current version of the reserve clause from six to anything else won't be enough to do it. I don't make enough money to know what the answer is, but someone does, and they better goddamn figure it out.

 

 

bankruptcy court is your new baby doc.

[Edman85]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Also, not for nothing, the reason the Dodgers have such an advantage in the signing of UDFAs,

There's a hard cap here, and has been for about a decade now. Unless you are talking about over 25 guys like Yamamoto.