Someone, somewhere, has said that the Dodgers would try to sign Kyle Tucker on a short-term/high-dollar deal. It was even suggested that it might be something like $180 million over 4 Years. Yeah, that worked with Bryce Harper, right? Ha, Ha!
I have one question:
Why in God’s Green Earth Would Kyle Tucker do that?
Answer: He’s an idiot!
Oh, wait, maybe he would do that so he would have less leverage in four years, since he would be four years older and could negotiate another contract.
Why would he sign a short-term deal for 4 years and $180 million when he could likely sign an 8 year/$360 million deal?
Answer: He wouldn’t, but you are high! Come on, man!
Discussion (19)
Disagree, not disagreeable
Northern Indiana Bears… anyone?
Ardaya Mailbag (part 1) ($$$)
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6896929/2025/12/18/dodgers-edwin-diaz-teoscar-hernandez/
My favorite question is:
How would you explain the FO’s pivot from a reclamation-based approach to the bullpen to throwing money at what generally has not been a problem too hard to solve with lower-risk deals? — Joseph R.
This is a good and fair question, and not just because I asked essentially the same question to Friedman after signing Díaz (before it became official). It resulted in a pointed and direct answer that fueled my ensuing story and laid out where the Dodgers are these days.
“We are in a really strong position right now, financially, and our ownership group has been incredibly supportive of pouring that back into our team and that partnership with our fans,” Friedman said. “As we look at things, if we were on a really tight budget, we probably wouldn’t allocate in the same way. But having more resources, it allows us to be a little bit more aggressive on that point. In a world where there are major constraints, that wouldn’t be an area where I personally would allocate versus other areas.”
To put it simply, the Dodgers are making so much money right now — off of Shohei Ohtani, off of consecutive World Series, off of their TV deal, off of everything — that their usual rulebook has gone out the window. They have the resources to pay players at the top of the market, so they will. They won’t burn money for the sake of it, but when a clear-cut solution to their problem exists, their risk threshold changes.
That doesn’t mean they won’t still pursue reclamation projects. It turned out that their deal of Joe Jacques for Will Klein in June helped the Dodgers win a World Series.
Other subjects include:
1. Suddenness of the Diaz signing
2. Adding contact hitters to an entire organization that seems to have leant towards power.
3. Teo staying (if so, in RF?) or going (after the power hitting market settles)
“LOS ANGELES – A full postseason share for the Dodgers, who won the World Series for a second straight season, is worth $484,747.57 in 2025, part of a total $128.2 million player pool for the postseason, a source confirmed to True Blue LA”.
I was listening to a baseball talk show and a commentator made this point:
“If Juan Soto got $765 million over 14 years. Shouldn’t Kyle Tucker get at least $350 million over 8 years?”
AND… an agent gets 7% so he’s going to negotiate a $320 million deal, but you are going to take the $200 Mil deal and he just has to accept that?
Ok, let’s try this again. Let’s say Tucker has that 8 year $320M deal out there.
And let’s say Dodgers offer that 4 years at $200M. And let’s say in 4 years Tucker signs a deal for 4 years and $150M
If taking the short term deal at higher AAV ? He could possibly make more money overall in the 8 years.
Yes he could get hurt. Yes his stats could go down preventing that second contract. But he could also play on LA roster and have a shot to win every year. That’s not nothing. Might be appealing? Maybe he doesn’t want to play in LA. But if that’s the case, then this argument is moot.
But it’s not a guarantee he’s throwing money away by taking the short term deal.
Remembering in yesteryear the cubs sent Andre. Dawson a contract with the amount blank for Dawson to fill in. One could probably do that with Kershaw and a few others, times have changed.
Anthony Rendon anyone? i’m sure Juan Soto would love to win mvp of the regular season. Mvp of the division series. Mvp. of the nlcs. Mvp. of the world series. All the recognition that goes with it. Would he trade half his 750 million for all that? Hell no! He couldn’t survive on 375 million! Not blaming him for his contract, who wouldn’t want to sign. contract like that! Look at Ronald Acuna signed for with the braves. I know he’s had some injuries, but i would take a healthy Acuna 8 days a week over Soto! The game will always survive because of the guys like Clayton. Like Tony Gwynn. Like Chase Utley. like aaron judge. and so on. The Mets will regret the day they signed soto to that contract! He can hit. The rest of his game? average at best.
I asked ChatGPT this question:
Is the MLBPA the strongest union in the US, and why?
Short answer: it’s very often called the strongest union in the United States. Long answer: power in labor isn’t just about headcount. It’s about leverage, timing, money, and the ability to say “no” and mean it. The MLB Players Association checks all those boxes, in bold ink ⚾️
Why the MLBPA punches above its weight
1. They represent scarce, irreplaceable talent
You can’t outsource a 100-mph fastball to a call center or automate Mookie Betts. MLB players are:
Extremely specialized
Globally scarce
Individually revenue-generating
If the players stop, the product stops. Full stop.
2. Enormous revenue concentration
MLB makes billions, but almost all of that money flows directly through the players on the field. That means:
Owners lose immediately in a labor stoppage
Players already have high salaries, savings, and short but lucrative careers
This flips the usual labor script. Time hurts owners faster than players.
3. No salary cap, ever
This is the crown jewel
Every other major U.S. sports union has a hard cap or something close to it. The MLBPA has:
Preserved a free market for player salaries
Forced owners to compete with each other, not bargain collectively against labor
That alone puts the MLBPA in a class by itself.
4. They killed the reserve clause
In 1975, the MLBPA effectively ended the reserve clause, which had bound players to teams indefinitely. That moment:
Created modern free agency
Permanently shifted power from ownership to labor
Is arguably the most important labor victory in American sports history
This wasn’t incremental. It was tectonic.
5. Institutional backbone and unity
The MLBPA has:
Exceptionally strong leadership over decades (Miller, Fehr, Clark)
A culture of solidarity across stars and role players
A willingness to miss games, seasons, and money if the principle matters
Owners know threats from the MLBPA are not bluff art
6. Antitrust pressure as a hidden weapon
MLB’s antitrust exemption is fragile and politically radioactive. The MLBPA:
Understands where that pressure point lives
Can implicitly threaten the entire legal structure of the league
That’s not a tool most unions even get to touch.
How they compare to other powerful unions
NFLPA: Larger membership, but salary caps limit leverage
UAW: Huge scale, but global competition and automation weaken strike power
Teachers’ unions: Massive numbers, but political constraints limit tactics
Actors / writers: Strong cultural impact, but fragmented income and long strikes hurt members more
The MLBPA combines scarcity + money + unity + legal leverage in a way no other U.S. union does.
The clean verdict
If “strongest” means most capable of forcing ownership to bend, the MLBPA is in a league of its own. A small roster of elite specialists holding the keys to a billion-dollar engine, with no salary cap and a history of winning existential fights.
That’s not just a union. That’s a pressure system with a fastball and command
Does anyone think Juan Soto will be happy being with the New York MESS and his 765 million dollar contract and NO rings when his contract is over? How much money does one person and his family REALLY need? Does one play baseball for the money or championships? Sometimes with the wrong situation and wrong team you can’t have both. Sorry Juan!
Kershaw being the ultimate exception having turned down what was essentially a “for the rest of you career” contract
Guys like Yamamoto, Ohtani, Teo felt being part of a world championship team was more important than the money, which most MLB players already have enough of to live comfortably. Big money doesn’t bring much joy when you are watching a team you could have been part of, celebrating a WS win, from your recliner. Giving your family those bragging rights is a factor that doesn’t get mentioned but it is huge.
Just ask Kershaw’s wife and kids what means to have dad be a Dodger and WS winner. No amount of money can trump that feeling and it never should. A good example is Trout. He is one of the best and highest paid but I am sure he would trade a few million for a shot at a WS appearance. Sadly he probably won’t.
In 2011 pitcher Jered Weaver (Angels) signed a 5-year, $85 million extension that kept him in Southern California despite his agent Scott Boras likely expecting significantly more, potentially over $100 million, for the ace pitcher.At the time Weaver said $85 million should be enough for anybody.
Main reason for taking this deal was to stay in southern California. But it shows that some players will look at more than just dollars. Ohtani, Kershaw and Muncy come to mind as well.
Note, reports earlier this past year had Harper not happy with Philadelphia. If he took the Dodgers offer he might have a couple of rings.
If you want to get paid what your true value is and win, choose the Dodgers or if you want to be overpaid and lose every year go somewhere else. Edwin Diaz is a smart dude and made the right decision.
Yes, Dodgers are willing to pay over market for shorter term deals.
In fact, the only “new” contracts longer than 5 years have been to proven superstars like Mookie, Freddie and Shohei.
They were burned when they tried it with Chris Taylor, and haven’t really done it sense.
Teo’s first deal, Conforto’s deal, JDM, Yates, Paxton….
Why did Trevor Bauer sign a 3-year deal?
Why did Bregman sign his fat deal with opt outs? He’s now a free agent.
Why would anyone assume the ability to read a player’s mind? Perhaps because he’s a moron?
Was Kershaw stupid for signing team-friendly deals with the Dodgers and not courting the Rangers?
A few years back, AF offered Tyler Anderson the QO of about $18m, but Anderson opted to sign with the Angels for about $36m over 3 years. Some people on LADT trashed Anderson for not “betting on himself” and taking the higher AAV and staying with the Dodgers. What a wimp!
I couldn’t read Anderson’s mind. But it looked to me like Anderson doubled his guaranteed money while hedging against the effects of a potential injury.
Different strokes, different folks…. and so on and so on…
And scooby doobie doobie.
I thought the whole idea regarding shorter contract with higher AAV was that the amount per year would be higher than that of a longer contract.
So yes, it makes no sense to sign 4 years $180M if he could get 8 years $360M.
If he actually has 8 years $360M on the table? To get him to take a shorter deal? I’d think each year would need to be much higher than $45M per year. So maybe something like 4 years $225M
That way he could get close to the 8 years $360M in his next deal as it would only require 4 years at $135M. If healthy and playing well, he could probably get that at 32 years of age.
6 years @ 275 million with opt outs?
Maybe he wants to retire early, win a couple rings & $180m is enough money for him.