[Heyman] Blue Jays offer to Kyle Tucker was $350M for 10 years. They certainly put in a big effort. Still one of the biggest winter winners with all they’ve done.

28 comments
  1. That is a very generous offer that should have got it done if it wasn’t for the lockout worthy nonsense the Dodgers and Mets have started.

  2. That’s about what I figured out offer was. I totally get why he went with the Dodgers offer, it’s almost double the AAV. Glad we didn’t try to get into that bidding war, but hopefully we still make at least one more offensive addition.

  3. Not paying that contract is a win. The blue jays have surprised us die hard fans with their scouting of players and more importantly they appear to have developed a reputation of home for their players while they are here. Perhaps 3-5 year contracts are the best

  4. Is what it is. Can’t say no to 60 per year regardless of what he said about wanting a long term deal

  5. Solid offer, there’s no way Tucker is worth 60 million a year. It’s actually much more than that too, at least for LA with the luxury tax payments they’ll be making.

    LA has a payroll north of 400m now, and will be solely responsible for the lockout we’re going to have. Fuck that team, I genuinely hope for the rematch and this time we don’t get fucked by a stuck ball or a robot pitcher.

  6. That’s a great offer. If they matched what the Dodgers gave I could see that being a disaster.

  7. Yeah I can see Tucker’s reasoning, pretty sure he can clear 110M after his dodger contract is done.

  8. More than fair, they did what they could just like Ohtani and Soto.

    60M for Kyle Tucker is one of, if not the most, ridiculous contracts in sports history.

  9. Makes sense that we lost this one. Tucker is in his prime now. In 4 years when he’s a free agent again you figure he easily signs another deal worth more than the $110M difference and he’ll have 6 years to make it up. I know the math isn’t perfect because of the value of money over time, but I think he made the right choice money-wise.

  10. Rogers and front office tried so can’t blame them. That a very generous offer. Can’t wait to see what Bam Bam can do over a full season.

  11. I’m proud of the restraint of the Jays. Tucker is NOT worth being in the same stratosphere as Ohtani.

    We knew from the start the jays weren’t acting out of desperation. Use the money for a closer or something.

  12. Crazy to think but that $350M for 10 years is a contract no top free agent will ever take again. Would Bellinger even take that now? Players used to like term but now it’s high AAV. Next couple years the Vladdy contract will look like an absolute bargain. Unless there’s a lockout after next season and the owners go scorched earth for a salary cap.

  13. Happy Jays didn’t get suckered out of $350 million for an oft injured mid player

  14. The only team that can overpay Tucker and put him around 5 to 7 on the batting order and wouldn’t bat an eye if he doesn’t pan out during the contract is serious FU money they can throw around.

  15. It’s a good offer, less than the initial projects, but in line with the kind of player Tucker is. Can’t really fault the Jays for it.

  16. The Dodgers TV deal is $8.3 BILLION over 25 years signed back in 2013 (so that money was worth way more back then and payrolls were significantly less too and invested well it generated a ton more money over the last decade or so before salaries started to explode) –  so about $332,000,000US a year starting 13 years ago – no one else in the league starts with that number in their bank account before the season starts. 

    That’s before even selling one ticket or one Ohtani jersey all over the world (he probably generates as much or more than his pay is anyways (some say upwards of $100,000,000 a year including commercial endorsements all over the world); so not even a net loss for the Dodgers financially either. The Jays TV money value will never be truly known because it’s all internal at Rogers with one side of the ledger helping the other side in terms of sports property value and media right value.

    Look up the history of Frank McCourt and the deal he made with MLB in terms of revenue sharing / the Dodgers have a deal where they get to shield more of their TV money than everyone else from Revenue sharing requirements that the “bigger clubs” have, as part of the LAD bankruptcy proceedings back in 2012 or so – they simply are playing under a different set of rules than everyone else – the Dodgers will pay the standard 34% rate in revenue sharing on just the first $84 million in local-television monies each year. Why? McCourt had previously negotiated such a deal with FOX prior to being litigated out of sight and mind by MLB. According to MLB’s own rules and a court ruling, $84 million per annum is “fair market value” for such a media contract, and anything over and above that the new ownership group will be able to shelter from revenue sharing. Rather than taking 34% of $332M it’s 34% on a quarter of that number – that’s a pretty nice bonus for the Dodgers that no one else has. 

    So yes, there are owners who are not spending which needs to be addressed, but to suggest that they all have the same ability to spend is not realistic, and to say the Dodgers have the same revenue sharing requirements as other large market clubs is also inaccurate.

  17. I hope the Dodgers go bankrupt at this point. I know it won’t happen. Kyle Tucker wasn’t worth $35m/year nevermind $60m. Hopefully it blows up in their face somehow

  18. Proud of Atkins. Gave it what you thought it was worth. Nothing more, take it or leave it

  19. I’m glad they put a ceiling on what they were willing to pay BOTH Tucker and Bo. You had a great off season Ross!

Leave a Reply