LIVE REACTION: KYLE TUCKER, DODGERS 4YRS FOR $240M

Good thing I didn’t spend all day thinking of Chaim Bloom and whether the Cardinals are destined to be the next Rays. GOOD THING!

In reality, this news and that concept are intertwined. Let’s handle Tucker now. I promise to be coherent as possible:

- Opt-outs are supposed to lower the average annual value. Fact? I guess not. Tucker secured the right to opt after the second and third years of this contract. Previous wisdom would suggest that opt-outs only benefit the player. There is supposedly no world in which an opt-out benefits the team, thus a player should be willing to forfeit dollars in exchange for flexibility. Why don’t they benefit the team? If Tucker’s production falls off a cliff, he will never opt-out and he will definitely collect all his earnings. If his production continues, he will certainly opt-out and secure more guarantees (plus potentially leave the Dodgers). So what the heck happened here because Tucker still pulled down the second highest average annual value behind only Shohei Ohtani? Well, perhaps Tucker did forfeit more guaranteed money (think $350m) in exchange for opt-outs and a shorter term. Does that make sense? Read on….

- Players typically receive more per year if they’re willing to take less years. Why? The overall guarantee is smaller and the total dollars risked by the team is lower. Does this actually exist? Kind of. Largely in reverse, and supposedly for different reasons. Take Mookie Betts. Betts signed a 12(!) year $365m deal shortly after being traded to the Dodgers. In a world with escalating luxury tax penalties, the Dodgers smoothed Betts’ contract across 12 seasons. Smooth move. Taxes are calculated on a year to year basis, so artificially shrinking that annual outlay for Betts allows the Dodgers to sign other players without blowing past the tax thresholds (they do anyway though). Wouldn’t that logic suggest Tucker’s deal is “bad” for LA? It would! But perhaps that’s the point of the Betts (and Yamamoto, Ohtani, Freeman) deal. Betts, whose contract counts $25m against the luxury tax payroll, allows the Dodgers to spend $60m on Tucker. Deals are analyzed in a vacuum, but payroll strategy shouldn’t be.

- So where the heck are we? I was hoping you knew.

- How did the Dodgers pull this off? This move is a WAY less surprising than it appears on paper. As of today, the Dodgers are expected to spend about $17m more next year than they did in 2025. That’s about 4% more. To be clear, the Dodgers made buckets and buckets of money in 2025. A 4% growth rate in variable spend is perfectly rational for any growing business. And while it can’t guarantee another title, it gets LA that much closer. The Dodgers watched Kershaw, Chris Taylor, Michael Conforto (yuck), and Kirby Yates walk from 2025’s squad. That crew plus a handful of others represented about $75m in payroll freed up. Tucker’s $60m and Edwin Diaz’s $21m are the bulk of the 2026 additions. But you can see how LA is largely operating at a similar annual level. The radical part is that Kyle Tucker 90x more performant than Michael Conforto.

- It’s still weird that Tucker received $60m annually. Before he was excommunicated from the league, Trevor Bauer pulled off a similar heist. Bauer famously promised to play annually on 1yr contracts so as to maximize his earnings. Bauer’s 2021 deal with the Dodgers: 3yrs/$105m with an opt-out after the first season. Fast forward to 2026, and that concept is represented by Tucker’s 4/$240m. Growth baby.

- Parting thoughts: what in the fuck has Brian Cashman been doing for 25+ years leading the Yankees? The Yankees used to exclusively enjoy the same monetary advantages the Dodgers are now flexing, but the persistent elite signings by the Dodgers indicate that the organization does more than print huge checks. Tucker chose LA, and its taxes, despite being born and raised in Florida and cutting his teeth in Texas. Tucker chose LA because the org has an A+ reputation for bringing the best out of guys and treating them even better. Spending 4% more than the year before isn’t a competitive advantage. And spending similar volume to the Mets, Yankees, Phillies, and Jays doesn’t guarantee the Dodgers free agents. But having near perfect front office, clubhouse, and fan stability is a competitive advantage that Friedman’s built. Every player in the League wants to wear the Dodgers’ home whites. Cashman’s had almost three decades to absorb that concept, but his Pinstripe Hubris has hamstrung his results. Soto burned him last year. Tucker this year. Every free agent shortstop of the last decade has chosen another town (and left NY with Anthony Volpe).

Smarter people than me will unpack this signing over the next few days and some might suggest this is the straw that breaks the League’s back. Expect guarantees of a lockout next winter. That’s all for tonight though. We can save another economics lesson for tomorrow.

Yeah….well. That is Chaim Bloom pictured above. And I have been thinking of you buddy. But we’ll go Hard in the Paint another night…