In Between the Lines

Ed Botti

February 2, 2026

As we prepare for Spring Training to officially kick off for Pitchers and Catchers on February 11 of this new 2026 year, I took a look back at all the transactions made this offseason.

Many fans feel that the Yankees essentially kept a status quo, with some minor additions, the management was kept intact, and one notable scapegoat in Mike Harkey.

Most are not happy, from what I can infer. The one thing I can say about that is, they had the best outfield in Baseball in 2025, and kept it intact for 2026.

I for one, am happy they did.

That’s really all they did. They did not address the other weaknesses on the field, such as the mess in the middle infield (IMO).

But, I am not going to discuss what they could or should have done. We have done a lot of that so far, and I expect more will follow.

I wanted to take a look at the rest of the league. Who spent and who cut salary.

Instead of opining (for the most part) I want to use the Socratic Method and ask you guys questions.

Unless you live under a rock, you saw that once again the Dodgers made significant off season free agent signings when they gave Kyle Tucker $240MM over 4 years and Edwin Diaz $69MM over 3 years.

Many of us, yours truly included, look at the World Champs spending big once again and wonder why our guys in the Bronx did not acquire a class "A" free agent and add on to a team that won 94 games, but also had/has clear holes to fill.

Why are the Dodgers spending like drunk sailors while the Yanks sit back and watch?

We see and hear all of the criticism they (and other teams) took as they watched the Dodgers try and separate themselves from the rest of the League.

Spotrac.com projects total spending for the 2026 offseason to exceed $3.9 billion. This follows a previous offseason where the Dodgers alone committed over $1 billion.

We hear it over and over, the Dodgers are the new Yankees. They know what they want, and they aren’t afraid to spend to get it.

The rest of the League and their fans sit back and wonder how in the world are these guys doing it?

We all know that they implemented a deferred salary strategy a few years back, but is that all they do?

As a matter of background, the Dodgers have deferred over $1 billion, with some reports indicating as high as $1.64 billion in total contract value to nine or more players, payable between 2028 and 2047. The massive deferrals are largely driven by Shohei Ohtani ($680 million) and Mookie Betts ($115 million), with annual payments exceeding $102 million in 2038 and 2039.

These deferrals allow the Dodgers to reduce the average annual value (AAV) of contracts for luxury tax purposes.

The Dodgers are making "Bobby Bonilla Day" look like chump change.

Many may not like it, but if they are operating under the same rules as everyone else, you really have no room to complain, right?

They are doing nothing different than the rest of the teams could do if they so desired. So no harm, no foul, right?

But, is that all they are doing?

Are they doing something else that the rest of teams can’t do?

Is this a level playing field?

Are all or most of the other owners just not as creative?

Are they really just doing what the Yankees have done for years?

Or, do the other owners have a legitimate argument to make because the Dodgers are getting something that the others are not?

Those are questions you can answer for yourself. I am just making sure you have all the info.

Many of you probably already know or have heard something about what I am going to address below, and some of you may not. However, since it is very rarely discussed anywhere, especially in any MLB owned or controlled media outlets, I thought I’d discuss it here today.

Photo AP

The Los Angeles Dodgers benefit from an inequitable loophole tied to their 25-year TV deal signed in 2013, which allows them to under report earnings for revenue-sharing purposes and gain a significant financial edge over the other teams.

The agreement, valued at billions over the long term with annual increases, lets the Dodgers retain more local media revenue despite MLB's redistribution system designed to help smaller markets.

The deal, signed after their 2012 bankruptcy, allows them to cap their revenue-sharing contributions.

How is that possible?

Let’s go back a few years to 2012. This was a complex period for MLB and the Dodgers, and there were many moving parts. Essentially with the team facing forthcoming bankruptcy after team owner Frank McCourt extracted funds from the club to finance his divorce, MLB and Commissioner Bud Selig decided to grant the Dodgers an opportune arrangement to pull themselves out of their self-inflicted wound, so they can be sold.

Beginning with the 2014 season, the Dodgers would be allowed to treat their media rights revenue as a maximum of $84 million for revenue-sharing purposes. That amount would escalate by 4% each year thereafter.

By the way, the valuation used was the exact same valuation that Selig put the brakes on ($3 billion local TV deal between the Dodgers and Fox Sports) effectively killing a divorce deal, and starting the whole Bankruptcy protection move by McCourt.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Get this, the deal would remain until the 2038 season is completed.

You read that right. 2038!

It almost makes that wasteful California High-Speed Rail project look good.

Simply put, it allows them, and only them, to pocket enormous local TV income while still benefiting from league-wide revenue sharing, which invigorates and powers their ability to spend big on super stars.

For some reason, Mr. Selig thought this was a fair and equitable deal.

Note: To keep things in perspective as far as Selig goes, in 2009 Selig also told Mike and the Mad Dog and all of Metro NYC that the ticket prices at the new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field were reasonable, which included those $2,600 seats behind home plate-- you know the ones that are almost always empty.

Selig resigned/retired prior to the 2015 season, and his parting gift was Rob Manfred.

In 2017 Commissioner Manfred and MLB comprehended the foolishness of their ways and adjusted the initial baseline to $130 million, without any retro adjustments.

Even worse, they left the term unchanged. 25 Years!

Putting my hands to a fire I guess I might have reluctantly agreed to a 3 or 5 year deal with completely different numbers. But 25 years?

This deal puts over $2 Billion dollars of benefits in the hands of the Dodgers that the other 29 teams do not have.

Unjust, IMO.

Does that sound equitable and fair?

None of us know the answer to the big question. Why?

Is it right that since McCourt had hardships and was getting divorced, the game of baseball has to pay for 25 years?

Even with the Manfred modification it has proven to be laughable, and even more notable, an unfair advantage.

The Dodgers have a 25-year, $8.35 billion partnership with Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable) that began in 2014 and runs through 2039, creating the exclusive regional sports network SportsNet LA.

So, they earn $334MM + per year from the deal and cap it at $130 million.

If you do the math, they have saved just about $1 Billion so far, with 12 years left.

Plus, it has been reported that the Dodgers have already made back the entire $700M Ohtani contract in its first year alone off of attendance, merchandising and marketing deals globally and specifically in Japan.

As a matter of background, since 48% of all teams' local revenues are shared, this deal means that the Dodgers are saving/banking over $70 million per year. They are only halfway through this revenue reset gift from Selig, Manfred and MLB.

In the first year of Ohtani's contract, the Dodgers saved the entire salary ($68 million) they deferred to after the end of Ohtani's deal, in revenue-sharing avoidance alone.

They are required to deposit that much into escrow.

That’s pretty easy to do when you have all that extra cash available since they didn't have to pay into the league's shared pool.

Accordingly, the Dodgers pay far less into the revenue-sharing pool than other large-market teams, and as a direct result maintain significantly more local income, allowing for substantial spending, like the deferred contracts for stars such as Shohei Ohtani.

Detractors call the extended commitment foolish and rightfully so.

It was initially intended to aid the team during financial hardship, not to impart continuous advantages that have enabled enormous spending sprees on stars like Ohtani, Betts, Yamamoto and Tucker, just to name a few.

The arrangement underwrites the Dodgers' capacity to construct super star rosters without the same constraints as opponents and other contending teams, provoking fairness concerns in a league devoid of a salary cap.

As the Dodgers continue to exhibit supremacy over free agency, the loophole energizes debates about MLB's revenue framework and potential changes needed before the next CBA.

Couple that with the Dodgers' widespread use of contract deferrals, and it further manipulates loopholes in the system, enabling them to sign super star high salary players while reducing immediate luxury tax penalties.

For practical purposes, the Dodgers' revenue-sharing "discount" initiated from a long-standing agreement presents them with a huge financial advantage not enjoyed by any other team, which allows them to dictate spending in a league without a hard salary cap.

It was a bad deal from the start, it has gotten much worse, and it doesn’t go away until 2038.

I suspect this may be one of the primary reasons why all 30 club owners are not in agreement with each other heading into the a new CBA negotiation.

The Dodgers' immense financial advantages powered by a substantial local media rights deal and subsequent high-spending approach have produced significant anger and frustration among other MLB owners.

Can you blame them?

This frustration and anger is contributing to an impetus for a stricter, or entirely new financial structure in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Many fans, talking heads and analysts contend that this is simply superior, competitive ownership working within the system. However many opposing teams view the Dodgers' financial situation as damaging to the competitive balance of baseball by creating an inequitable structure.

I am going to go out on limb and say that the Dodgers are pretty healthy from a financial perspective, and do not need the rest of the league to underwrite their operations for the next dozen years.

Again, I apologize if this is info you already knew about it. But based on the very limited amount of media coverage this deal gets, I wanted to make sure you all knew about it.

Please opine in the comments section. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Interesting stats presented to me this weekend.

Don’t interpret the below as anything more than me just pointing it out. I am not comparing the players in any way, shape, or form.

Aaron Judge never had more than 20 HR or 7 stolen bases in a minor league season. His MLB debut in 2016 saw a 44.2% K rate, yet he was a Top 50 prospect in 2017.

In 2025 Spencer Jones had 35 HR, 29 stolen bases, played exceptional defense, had a .933 OPS that was better than any Judge minor league season, and he's not Top 100?

Makes me wonder, who exactly decides these “Top 100” rankings and how?

Photo NBC

RIP to Grady Demond Wilson, better known in my circles as Lamont Sanford.

Stay warm! Pitchers and Catchers are packing up to go train!!