The official Hot Stove League Thread 2025-26 Offseason

[Pharmabro]

Bichette is a Met I am hearing 3yr 126M

The salaries have made a big jump.

[D-train]

Wild to me that Tucker got such a better deal than Bo. I would rather have Bo.

[Southpaw773]

Wild to me that Tucker got such a better deal than Bo. I would rather have Bo.

Tucker turned into a pumpkin last year especially in the brief Cubs playoffs they had so ya

[Captain 97]

They aren't the problem - their FO doesn't act like they are a single parent on a tight budget. They realize that if they win the teams value goes way up so it pays off in the long run - not to mention that if they are billionaires they could afford to lose 50mill/year worst case no worries. Sadly, most of these billionaires act like they are afraid to lose 10 bucks so they set strict salary guidelines.

That's not entirely fair. They don't have to act like single mother on a tight budget because they have a TV Deal that pays them $330 Million per year. M's were making about 100 Million from Root before everything imploded. Thats $230 Million more without even considering that the Dodgers probably have significantly higher revenue from every other stream as well. Ticket sales, merchandise etc. That's not even factoring in that Forbes has Mark Walter's Net worth listed at 12.5 Billion and John Stanton's listed at 1.0 Billion

The Dodgers opening day payroll in 2025 was $175 MIllion more than the M's. So relative to revenue and net worth, the amount of risk the Dodgers are taking isn't even as aggressive as the M's.

I certainly agree that the M's could afford to open the wallet a little more but lets not act like they would ever have the ability to do anything remotely close to the dodgers without sustaining massive financial losses. I don't blame the Dodgers for doing what they are doing, but A system that enables one team to have triple the resources as everyone else is definitely a problem.

How about we don't compare ourselves to the Dodgers and compare ourselves with our 2018 payroll which was $162M. Just to match that in 2026 dollars we would need to be at $212M right now after adjusting for inflation. We are currently at $157M. Wow we could easily sign Bichette for that.

And here is the funniest fun fact. Since 2018 they have saved $309M and counting which they promised they would spend but have pocketed every last penny.

The question wasn't if the M's should spend more. I already agreed they should. The question was "are the Dodgers a problem". They clearly are and were probably going to see a work stoppage because of it.

[Sibelius Hindemith]

I thought MLB was the model of parity. So why is everyone complaining about the Dodgers now when they had nothing to say about the Yankees outspending everyone for 20 years? Wasn't the luxury tax supposed to be the great equalizer lol.

[Bil522]

Wild to me that Tucker got such a better deal than Bo. I would rather have Bo.

Tucker turned into a pumpkin last year especially in the brief Cubs playoffs they had so ya

He was hurt most of the year with a hairline break in his hand that he played through.

[D-train]

That's not entirely fair. They don't have to act like single mother on a tight budget because they have a TV Deal that pays them $330 Million per year. M's were making about 100 Million from Root before everything imploded. Thats $230 Million more without even considering that the Dodgers probably have significantly higher revenue from every other stream as well. Ticket sales, merchandise etc. That's not even factoring in that Forbes has Mark Walter's Net worth listed at 12.5 Billion and John Stanton's listed at 1.0 Billion

The Dodgers opening day payroll in 2025 was $175 MIllion more than the M's. So relative to revenue and net worth, the amount of risk the Dodgers are taking isn't even as aggressive as the M's.

I certainly agree that the M's could afford to open the wallet a little more but lets not act like they would ever have the ability to do anything remotely close to the dodgers without sustaining massive financial losses. I don't blame the Dodgers for doing what they are doing, but A system that enables one team to have triple the resources as everyone else is definitely a problem.

How about we don't compare ourselves to the Dodgers and compare ourselves with our 2018 payroll which was $162M. Just to match that in 2026 dollars we would need to be at $212M right now after adjusting for inflation. We are currently at $157M. Wow we could easily sign Bichette for that.

And here is the funniest fun fact. Since 2018 they have saved $309M and counting which they promised they would spend but have pocketed every last penny.

The question wasn't if the M's should spend more. I already agreed they should. The question was "are the Dodgers a problem". They clearly are and were probably going to see a work stoppage because of it.

They were swept 5 times in the regular season, including once by the Pirates and once by the Angels. They won 93 games, 23 less than the 2001 M's who didn't even make the WS as we know too well. The Blue Jays should have beat them if they didn't choke. History is full of major upsets in the WS. I don't see them as a problem for baseball in the least. They signed two FAs. Does it really matter if they over paid for Tucker who has never put up 5 WAR. Should they not be allowed to sign any FAs?

Screenshot 2026-01-16 094959.png (64.05 KiB) Viewed 54 times

[Captain 97]

Would they have won the World Series with a 200 Million payroll instead of a 330 Million?
Would they have been in the playoffs 13 years in a row without their high payrolls?

You can throw out all the anecdotal exceptions to the rule you want but the correlation between winning and payroll is undeniable. How can you sit there and one moment talk about how the Mariners can't compete because their tight fisted and then try to deny that the Dodgers being able to spend more is an advantage?

The game as a whole is healthier when more teams are competitive.
The game on a whole is healthier when when when every team at least has a decent shot at the playoffs once in a while.
The game as a whole is healthier when more teams keep their franchise defining players for the majority of their career.

A Salary cap would even out a lot of this.

[D-train]

Would they have won the World Series with a 200 Million payroll instead of a 330 Million?
Would they have been in the playoffs 13 years in a row without their high payrolls?

You can throw out all the anecdotal exceptions to the rule you want but the correlation between winning and payroll is undeniable. How can you sit there and one moment talk about how the Mariners can't compete because their tight fisted and then try to deny that the Dodgers being able to spend more is an advantage?

The game as a whole is healthier when more teams are competitive.
The game on a whole is healthier when when when every team at least has a decent shot at the playoffs once in a while.
The game as a whole is healthier when more teams keep their franchise defining players for the majority of their career.

A Salary cap would even out a lot of this.

Because the Mariners could spend more just like they did in 2018 but now they don't want too. I would have loved a salary cap in the 1980s and 1990s but now we don't need one. Small market teams aren't suddenly going to start spending because there is a salary cap and besides the Dodgers will be over the cap until Ohtani's contract expires in 2033 so all these people thinking there is going to be some magic instant fix which will be worth missing an entire season of baseball are going to be very disappointed.

[D-train]

Salary Cap will just mean the big market rich owner teams will spend less but the small market teams are still going to spend FAR less than them even with a floor. It won't fix shit in terms of parity. What would the floor be $100M? with a cap of $250M? But the $100M payroll teams are now on a level playing field as the $250M payroll teams???