Yoshinobu Yamamoto to...the Dodgers? Really? Again?

[CubinNY]

Just now, The20thK said:

This isn’t about the Cubs being able to afford those contracts. I know you can make an argument for that. This is about the disparity experienced by the entire league. 
 

the point of my post is if you had 10 teams will to pay Ohtani what he got, then he would have gotten even more. That means at some point down the road, a Wisdom-type player is gonna be worth 30m a year. 
 

The fact that few teams are willing to join the Dodgers in the spending spree is the only thing keeping ANY player relatively affordable. 

lol.

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Having multiple opt outs caps this potential benefit though, with the caveat we don’t know when those are yet AFAIK.

It does. It's certainly even more player friendly. That said, the overall point I think remains: I have no issue with this amount of money or the contract structure. I'll log a prediction of "whenever this deal ends, both sides will have probably made out just fine". 

[Brian707]

I would rather be the Doyers than being part of the field.  Doyers can be 2-1 odds every year while the field is 1-2. The Cubs were part of the field for 108 years, I guess they as usual are content until 2124

[Brian707]

3 minutes ago, The20thK said:

This isn’t about the Cubs being able to afford those contracts. I know you can make an argument for that. This is about the disparity experienced by the entire league. 
 

the point of my post is if you had 10 teams will to pay Ohtani what he got, then he would have gotten even more. That means at some point down the road, a Wisdom-type player is gonna be worth 30m a year. 
 

The fact that few teams are willing to join the Dodgers in the spending spree is the only thing keeping ANY player relatively affordable. 

[Jason Ross]

Just now, The20thK said:

“A bit of extra financial backing”?

 

was that tongue in cheek? 

Not really tongue in cheek. The RSN the Dodgers have give them a pretty big leg up on most other teams. They basically start every year +$100m over the rest. I think all owners should be opening up the pocket books more, but we also live in reality where they simply don't. The Dodgers get extra wiggle room to do that because the year-to-year profit margins are just more lubricated. 

I think the Cubs should have been in on the Yamamoto market and I'm less afraid of this contract than others. Sadly they weren't involved.

[CubinNY]

8 minutes ago, The20thK said:

Agreed. But it won’t solely be controlled by finances. 
 

I just think the league would be better, and smaller teams would have better fan bases, if their teams actually had sustainable ways to compete. 

They do. They all do. Look at the Rays. The only difference between the Rays and the Pirates is who is running the organization. Money is an advantage, but it's not what separates the winners from the losers. 

Your proposed solution only limits how much money the actual players are making. If the owners had a 51/49 revenue-sharing plan with the players, there would likely be a salary cap. But they are not going to do that.

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by CubinNY

[Jfoley89]

He's not really wrong though.  I'd imagine this is the worst possible offseason for MLB as a brand. The Dodgers have spent more on 2 players than the combined payrolls of any single MLB division.  It's great for the Dodgers, and they're right to maximize their advantage, but been an incredibly slow offseason and a perception of futility from 26 other teams, it's dropped engagement and interest dramatically. 

 

Hell, I had the option of going to the Cubs convention this year, and I'm passing because why drive to Chicago for this? 

[LBiittner]

This is a fun morning. I'm pouring another cup of coffee before brunch.

[Jason Ross]

On the topic of "is this bad for baseball" I'll say "nope, not at all". This isn't the first team to flex financial muscle and become the defacto best team (the 90's Yankees were essentially this same thing). The other 29 fanbases now have a collective "bad guy" to root against. The Dodgers in the playoffs will bring in huge audiences as everyone wants to see someone knock them off. And when some team likely does (not because they're better, but the reality is the field wins more than a single team) everyone will celebrate that team across the sport. What the Mets did last year didn't ruin baseball. The Dodgers this year won't ruin baseball. 

And it's bringing conversation. Look at what we're doing...it's before 10am on the east coast, the Cubs still haven't signed a single 40-man-guy and we're having baseball discourse. This isn't unique to us either, I'm sure. Red Sox forums, Mets forums, probably all doing the same. And once OD roles around, we'll all forget and get into Cub mode anyways. 

Baseball will be fine. Good for the Dodgers. Wish the Cubs were more like the Dodgers. 

[CubinNY]

Just now, The20thK said:

You can’t always pull the one team who is getting it done, for now, and use them as an example. I can name 15 other teams who have very little chance to compete each year. 
 

like hitting my head against a brick wall. I'm done. 

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, The20thK said:

I know that’s why the “bit of extra” part was funny. They have l, as you’ve stated now, a “pretty big” advantage. 
 

Let’s say more team were in on Ohtani. How much higher would his price have gone? 

I'll say this: I don't think the Dodgers have so much more in their war chest that they're the only team capable of signing Yamamoto. Which is why I chose to say a "bit". It' a little underselling, but at the same time, I think more teams should be acting the way the Dodgers are, too.

[NorthsideAvenger]

22 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Maybe the best thing is for the Dodgers to win so this argument goes away.  I'm tired of seeing the Cubs and others use this as a justification for not spending.  Buying good players doesn't guarantee anything, and the field will always be favored over any individual team, but that doesn't mean teams shouldn't try to boost their odds of winning.

Agreed. I rather be in the Dodgers spot. 

[Jason Ross]

Just now, The20thK said:

But look what we are talking about…

 

it’s not baseball! 

We're talking about baseball. The owners, the contract, the structure of professional baseball. We're not talking about a baseball game but it's December 22nd, there isn't a baseball game. If this isn't "talking about baseball" than every post between October and April shouldn't count, either. But I'm not interested in arguing semantics as to what talking about "baseball" is. The point is, this won't ruin anything. Baseball will continue steaming ahead the same way it was before. 

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, The20thK said:

The question remains:

 

what does Ohtani get if 10 teams could/would afford his current contract? How high would the Dodgers have had to go? Same for Yamamoto? 
 

You can want the Cubs to challenge the Dodgers at that price… but doing so only increases the costs of Ohtani AND every other player in baseball. 

That's not a bad thing. Baseball players getting paid more is a good thing for baseball. And before we go into the economics of attending baseball games ("but games and tickets will be more expensive"), plenty of studies have shown that spending on payroll has little effect on the cost of a baseball game and that these two are largely independent of each other. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

23 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

It does. It's certainly even more player friendly. That said, the overall point I think remains: I have no issue with this amount of money or the contract structure. I'll log a prediction of "whenever this deal ends, both sides will have probably made out just fine". 

I would handicap it as more of a tossup, depending on how strictly you view the Dodgers' happiness with the deal.  Any outcome where Yamamoto opts out is good for them because even if it's only a couple years they got an elite pitcher.  The outcomes where he doesn't opt out though(which is probably much more likely) are stacked in favor of them not being happy with the investment.  12 years is a really long time and 27 million is non-trivial even for the Dodgers.

[Bertz]

Rob Manfred worrying about the second biggest market in the sport getting good fun marketable players while simultaneously giving a nation of 125M a reason to start tuning into all their games

Baseball's boned!

[Bertz]

Just now, The20thK said:

I thinks it ludicrous to suggest that payroll doesn’t affect the cost of attending games. I understand it’s not the sole reason for costs increasing but it is certainly a significant factor.

It's not, this is 100 level economics.

[Jfoley89]

4 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

On the topic of "is this bad for baseball" I'll say "nope, not at all". This isn't the first team to flex financial muscle and become the defacto best team (the 90's Yankees were essentially this same thing). The other 29 fanbases now have a collective "bad guy" to root against. The Dodgers in the playoffs will bring in huge audiences as everyone wants to see someone knock them off. And when some team likely does (not because they're better, but the reality is the field wins more than a single team) everyone will celebrate that team across the sport. What the Mets did last year didn't ruin baseball. The Dodgers this year won't ruin baseball. 

And it's bringing conversation. Look at what we're doing...it's before 10am on the east coast, the Cubs still haven't signed a single 40-man-guy and we're having baseball discourse. This isn't unique to us either, I'm sure. Red Sox forums, Mets forums, probably all doing the same. And once OD roles around, we'll all forget and get into Cub mode anyways. 

Baseball will be fine. Good for the Dodgers. Wish the Cubs were more like the Dodgers. 

You may be right, but we just pivoted from a 20 game Wrigley ticket package to Titans season tickets as the family xmas present. It's interesting to discuss the financials and such, but I'm mostly just apathetic when it comes to MLB at this point. The Dodgers are definitely doing what's best for them, and I wish the Cubs would match it, but spending a billion dollars per offseason makes mlb far closer to the EPL than must watch television for me.  If they fire Jed, then maybe we get in on it, and I can be an insufferable United type fan, but it's got to be depressing being a fan of the 20 teams that start the season eliminated every year. 

[Jason Ross]

Just now, The20thK said:

If everyone spent like the dodgers, what would Ohtani have gotten? 

To the first point: You can suggest whatever you want about spending. The data suggests player contracts and team ticket prices remain independent of each other. There's just nothing to suggest the two are connected outside of what you want to believe. You can certainly have your belief, but data says something else. I'll side with the data.

To the second point: who gives a horsefeathers? I don't. As stated, data suggests ticket prices won't go up. If the Dodgers can afford this kind of a deal, other teams can too. Let Ohtani get paid. Good for Ohtani. Good for the Dodgers.

[Bertz]

2 minutes ago, The20thK said:

Correct! It’s basic economics to suggest that any rising cost in a business will affect the cost of consuming the product. 

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Jfoley89 said:

You may be right, but we just pivoted from a 20 game Wrigley ticket package to Titans season tickets as the family xmas present. It's interesting to discuss the financials and such, but I'm mostly just apathetic when it comes to MLB at this point. The Dodgers are definitely doing what's best for them, and I wish the Cubs would match it, but spending a billion dollars per offseason makes mlb far closer to the EPL than must watch television for me.  If they fire Jed, then maybe we get in on it, and I can be an insufferable United type fan, but it's got to be depressing being a fan of the 20 teams that start the season eliminated every year. 

Which is fair, and your choice, I don't want to suggest your individual choice can't be effected. But here's the thing: someone else will buy those tickets so while I think your personal agency here matters, it's an anecdote, not a trend.I don't think baseball will have any long term effects. Now, we can debate how the Cubs actions will effect things, but as long as the Cubs put out a team who can win 85 games...they'll be fine. And baseball itself will be fine. If other teams take the John Fisher route with Oakland...well things will be bad. But they were doing that before Ohtani and Yamamoto anyways.

[WhyCantWeWin]

Imanaga to the Yankees now I suppose? What other teams would be in on Montgomery then? Hoyer might end up getting a steal by being the cheap bastard he is. 

[Jfoley89]

1 minute ago, WhyCantWeWin said:

Imanaga to the Yankees now I suppose? What other teams would be in on Montgomery then? Hoyer might end up getting a steal by being the cheap bastard he is. 

Dodgers still have rotational openings

[Transmogrified Tiger]

4 minutes ago, Jfoley89 said:

You may be right, but we just pivoted from a 20 game Wrigley ticket package to Titans season tickets as the family xmas present. It's interesting to discuss the financials and such, but I'm mostly just apathetic when it comes to MLB at this point. The Dodgers are definitely doing what's best for them, and I wish the Cubs would match it, but spending a billion dollars per offseason makes mlb far closer to the EPL than must watch television for me.  If they fire Jed, then maybe we get in on it, and I can be an insufferable United type fan, but it's got to be depressing being a fan of the 20 teams that start the season eliminated every year. 

Like 20 teams were in playoff contention until mid-September, and a few of those who were not were some of the biggest payrolls and/or markets in the game(SD, NYM, LAA, BOS).

Spending increases your margin for error, but the most important factor in how successful(and consistently successful) teams are in the last 2 CBAs is how well run the organization is.

[Jfoley89]

1 minute ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Which is fair, and your choice, I don't want to suggest your individual choice can't be effected. But here's the thing: someone else will buy those tickets so while I think your personal agency here matters, it's an anecdote, not a trend.I don't think baseball will have any long term effects. Now, we can debate how the Cubs actions will effect things, but as long as the Cubs put out a team who can win 85 games...they'll be fine. And baseball itself will be fine. If other teams take the John Fisher route with Oakland...well things will be bad. But they were doing that before Ohtani and Yamamoto anyways.

The Cubs no longer have a season ticket waiting list, and they've failed to break 3 million in attendance post sell off/covid. I have no doubts the Cubs will be fine, but I'm not sure the product on the field isn't affecting attendance to a degree