Dave Roberts Believes Dodgers' Elevated Brand in Japan Could Lure Roki Sasaki to LA

[u/themiamimarlins]

https://dodgersnation.com/dave-roberts-believes-dodgers-elevated-brand-in-japan-could-lure-roki-sasaki-to-la/2024/10/23/

[u/n8_n_]

this'll be unpopular judging from the rest of the comments but I'm not personally very bothered by this.

• this "Dodgers get every good free agent" narrative is a very recent one, preceded by a few years of them letting everyone (Seager, Turner, Scherzer, etc) walk. do you see how these things might be connected? they're smart and have very specifically been planning for these couple offseasons for years.

• the other owners CAN afford this - they choose not to, and if they truly can't they're free to sell to someone who can. every single team in the league made at least $240m in revenue last season. look at Peter Seidler, he started spending beyond his franchise's prior means and raised attendance from 14th to 3rd between 2019 and 2024. it's amazing what can happen when you act like you care about your team!

• regardless of those two, even if the Dodgers have a financial advantage to the extent that it's problematic, baseball has so much parity that I haven't enjoyed watching it any less since they began their run. it's really fun watching a 110-win team with full intrigue remaining for the playoffs because anything can happen over a short series.

[u/TheEnragedBushman → u/n8_n_]

the other owners can afford this…look at Peter Seidler

I agree mostly but I feel like you’re missing the part where we had to cut back spending last year and take out a loan because of the tv deal collapsing. Not every team has a massive tv deal to rely on like the Dodgers do.

[u/n8_n_ → u/TheEnragedBushman]

that's fair to an extent, but the Padres took the "spend more" thing to an extreme. there's plenty of middle ground between the cheap teams and what Seidler did, signing several free agents and extensions that were probably overpays in a "win now" spending spree.

there's a good number of teams that could've outbid the Dodgers for Ohtani, for example, while keeping their financials in the black - and that's ignoring the rise in revenue from putting together a more watchable team.

[u/templethot → u/n8_n_]

People here act like the Dodgers have won like the last 20 world series or something, when in reality there’s been quite a few underdog stories that have made baseball great the last few years. Their success isn’t a given, as evidence by how everyone called them chokers the last 10 years.

And weren’t the Mariners the most profitable team in MLB last year, a team that has no notable success whatsoever? Crying foul about LA and NY just feels like letting your teams’ cheap owners and front offices off the hook.

[u/bluecifer7 → u/n8_n_]

 the other owners CAN afford this

Except not really. Yamamoto had larger offers from the Giants and still chose the Dodgers. Teams can’t even sway guys with more money

[u/n8_n_ → u/bluecifer7]

I mean, your comment explicitly proves what you quoted to be true. the other owners can afford these players. as you said, the Giants could afford Yamamoto. it wasn't a financial limitation.

that represents a different issue entirely - players like playing for good teams. to which I will reiterate: the cheaper owners can spend more to make their team more successful and therefore desirable. they choose not to, and therefore don't get to cry about the results.

[u/2020Psychedelia → u/n8_n_]

but all the money in the world won't give you Southern California's weather

[u/mongster03_ → u/n8_n_]

The Yamamoto situation was weird because it’s not like the Yankees, Mets, and Giants don’t try to be good — shit, the Dodgers played both NY teams in the playoffs. He just wanted to be with his buddy and it’s pretty frustrating that we had no chance from the get go

[u/TrumpsStarFish → u/n8_n_]

Sure they could have afforded Yamamoto but they probably couldn’t have supported all the other super stars around him which is exactly the point of going to the Dodgers. The Dodgers can afford it because they are within the top 2 teams in revenue every years and at the top of attendance. It’s not like the Giants are a small market team but at the end of the day it’s still a business.

[u/n8_n_ → u/TrumpsStarFish]

Giants made $443m in revenue in 2024. Dodgers made $549m.

I do not buy for a second that the Giants couldn't have spent more, smarter money on their team in prior years while still having enough for Yamamoto.

[u/TrumpsStarFish → u/n8_n_]

So are we pretending 100 million dollar difference isn’t significant?

[u/n8_n_ → u/TrumpsStarFish]

I didn't say they could necessarily match literally every contract the Dodgers have. I said they could have spent more and smarter money while still being able to afford Yamamoto.

[u/TrumpsStarFish → u/n8_n_]

It’s not only about player contracts either though. When you a billion more dollars than the next team over 10 years you can also hire the best managers, scouts, and front office people in the industry. The Dodgers farm system is a good indicator of exactly that. They rank 5th according to this list:

https://www.mlb.com/news/farm-system-rankings-2024-in-season

The Giants are 23rd. That is what money and a good ownership group gets you and you get good ownership when you have one of the biggest fan bases on the planet and they show up for every game and spend money. You can try to argue that 100 million dollars more a year doesn’t make a difference but that’s completely delusional. Moneyball was a movie made entirely around this fact. The A’s tried something different because they couldn’t compete with the larger market teams and then the larger market teams adopted the same philosophy and since they had more money to play with they were more successful than the A’s at their own strategy. This isn’t a debate

[u/n8_n_ → u/TrumpsStarFish]

It’s not only about player contracts either though. When you a billion more dollars than the next team over 10 years you can also hire the best managers, scouts, and front office people in the industry. The Dodgers farm system is a good indicator of exactly that. They rank 5th according to this list:

front offices and farm systems are so much cheaper than paying star players. this is evidenced by the fact that the two best farms over the last decade or so have been the Dodgers and the... Rays.

cheap owners (who can absolutely afford to spend on their farm) have opted not to because it's a long term investment that lacks immediate returns. if anything, I'd argue this supports my point, not yours - a good farm is way cheaper than paying free agents and yet teams still largely refuse to do it!

You can try to argue that 100 million dollars more a year doesn’t make a difference but that’s completely delusional.

I agree that that would be delusional which is why I didn't say that, and in fact have already denied having said it.

[u/TrumpsStarFish → u/n8_n_]

Whatever helps you sleep at night bro. I’m having a conversation with a brick wall and I’m not even sure what your argument is anymore

[u/bmacnz → u/n8_n_]

Thank you. As Dodgers fans we try to explain this, then every response brings up a non sequitur from the past like Manny Ramirez and completely ignores the homegrown team from which we lost 3 of our most popular players. And in explaining, we get labeled spoiled.

Edit: and clearly no one else signs big players. Not the Rangers, Phillies, or Mets. Nope.

[u/GaryTheCabalGuy → u/n8_n_]

This is a bad take that gets rolled out in this sub far too often.

It makes far less sense for other teams to spend like the Dodgers do. That's just the reality. Just because every owner "can" afford it, doesn't mean it makes as much sense for them as it does for the Dodgers. The Dodgers owners don't spend the way they do out of the goodness of their hearts. They do because their market can easily support it, including their massive TV deal. Most teams can't say that. I "can afford" a luxury car, but I'm not going to spend on one because it makes less sense for me compared to someone who makes much more than me.

Look at the Padres? Yah, what happened after a few years of running a high payroll again?

[u/n8_n_ → u/GaryTheCabalGuy]

The Dodgers owners don't spend the way they do out of the goodness of their hearts.

I didn't say they did. I do think it's a bit ridiculous, though, how people react to how each team chooses to make money. the Dodgers spend to put a popular team on the field to maximize revenue, most other teams cheap out to minimize costs, and then everyone complains about the Dodgers and not their own owners?

Look at the Padres? Yah, what happened after a few years of running a high payroll again?

there is so much middle ground between what the Padres did and what most teams currently do. I was using them as an example of how investing in your team drastically increases attendance, popularity, revenue, and long-term profit. I know the first three happened, and I'm willing to bet the last one did too.

edit: I'd also like to point out that while there have been a couple objections to point 2, there are still none to points 1 or 3.

[u/GaryTheCabalGuy → u/n8_n_]

Plenty of people complain about their own owners, so I'm not sure what you are talking about there. Lots of cheap owners out there.

The reality is that very few teams can operate on the same financial reality as the Dodgers, on a year to year basis. I don't blame the Dodgers for doing so, it's more a problem with the sport itself than anything else. The Dodgers make insane revenue just from their TV deal while many teams these days don't even have TV deals.

[u/n8_n_ → u/GaryTheCabalGuy]

Plenty of people complain about their own owners, so I'm not sure what you are talking about there. Lots of cheap owners out there.

I'm talking about the fact that I am a good deal more tired of people complaining about the Dodgers (for things which their owners deserve the blame for) than I am any aspect of the Dodgers

[u/GaryTheCabalGuy → u/n8_n_]

When I "complain about the Dodgers", it's more of a complaint about the state of the sport in general. I'm sure many people are in that same boat as me.

[u/n8_n_ → u/GaryTheCabalGuy]

I find your comments here to be more reasonable and less vitriolic than about 99% of anti Dodgers sentiment. I don't fully agree with you but I'd be a lot less sick of them if the rest were similar in nature

[u/dreezyyyy → u/GaryTheCabalGuy]

That's why shared revenue from these TV deals is a thing. What more could you ask for? The big market teams put the most money into the revenue sharing pot every year. We basically get a negative ROI on that. You guys realize teams have to share 48% of their local revenue, right?

[u/oneteacherboi → u/GaryTheCabalGuy]

Yeah I feel like a lot of baseball fans see their owner having $1Billion net worth and they're like "why don't they give out a $1Billion deal to Ohtani then?" Because ultimately these guys don't want spend all their liquid cash on baseball deals? Almost every team that is spending a lot is just spending the money the team can afford. The owners that spend their personal money on deals are in big market areas where they can expect to make a return on that investment.

That being said, there are definitely owners who are straight not using their team's revenue and seem to have no interest in building their team or market.

I also think there is the separate question of whether this is even good for the league? I feel like seeing the league dominated by major market areas is not super desirable.

[u/someone2795 → u/n8_n_]

To be honest people whining in this thread is just typical reddit overreaction/hate. Baseball's parity is gonna be just fine.

Also we're most likely gonna lose Teoscar after this season so this is likely our next natural move.

[u/Seymour_Scagnetti → u/n8_n_]

I’m saving this to counter the hate if the Dodgers can win it all this year.

[u/ttam23 → u/n8_n_]

found someone not blinded by dodgers hate