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

[Jfoley89]

43 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Which is fair point. But they didn't have a waitlist before Ohtani and Yamamoto signed in LA. I was very careful in the post you quoted in that I said "we can debate the Cubs actions..." I think the Chicago Cubs have done themselves a disservice by acting the way they have. But the Cubs decided, on their own, to create this situation. If the Cubs want to put forward mediocre products year over year, they'll get mediocre attendance. 

Ohtani signing in LA didn't make the Cubs waitlist drop. The Cubs did that. If the Cubs put forward a team capable of winning 88+ games next year...I'm sure they'll be just fine.

Do you see a realistic path to get to an 88 win team next year?  Particularly based on Jed's behavior and history, I'm not certain there's going to be much of a value bin to shop in this year.  Mets and Yankees still need arms. Rangers may be interested in a Montgomery reunion, and I can't see any circumstances that Stroman comes back. 

[Brian707]

3 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

is today confidently incorrect about basic econ concepts day or something

Yes 

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, The20thK said:

Isn’t that true, to some extent, with every contract? Yet no one ever says it that way. 

They don't. But the Ohtani contract is also, for all intents and purposes, one of a kind. We have only seen a handful of 10+ year contracts to begin with. And then at that, no one has ever deferred 97% of his contract to 10-20 years down the road. Unlike any other, this is a contract that looks one way, but acts very differently. Yamamoto will get paid more in year 1 of his contract than Ohtani will in the first 10 years of his. Granted, there's a reason for that, and Ohtani is easily the most marketable human being in the sport right now, so he'll be fine. 

[Jfoley89]

5 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

They'll pay him $700m net. But because of deferrals and time, when we factor in how long he'll wait to get that money (including inflation) he'll get what would be the equivalent of $460m. 

I'm aware, but it's effectively gaming the system.  Harper's 13 year contract didn't get devalued for LT purposes because of length. I understand it was legal, but it's also bs.

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, Jfoley89 said:

Do you see a realistic path to get to an 88 win team next year?  Particularly based on Jed's behavior and history, I'm not certain there's going to be much of a value bin to shop in this year.  Mets and Yankees still need arms. Rangers may be interested in a Montgomery reunion, and I can't see any circumstances that Stroman comes back. 

As much as I've been frustrated with the Cubs lack of agency...yeah of course. It might not be sexy, but trade for Bieber, add a Chapman/Bellinger, add a Hoskins/Belt, and a RP? The Cubs are paper division champions with the possibility of 4+ top-10 prospects (PCA, Horton, Brown, Caissie, Shaw are your most likely candidates) capable of helping at the MLB level at some point. Can add a tradable asset or two at the deadline, too. 

I've been vocal about my concerns with the Cubs. But I don't think that's a particularly crazy offseason for anyone to hope for and it probably puts the Cubs right on that doorstep. It's not even an offseason I love. But hey, the path is there. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

1 minute ago, Jfoley89 said:

I'm aware, but it's effectively gaming the system.  Harper's 13 year contract didn't get devalued for LT purposes because of length. I understand it was legal, but it's also bs.

Harper's contract is actually frontloaded in real dollars, he gets 30 million in year 1, 26 million for the next 9 years, and 22 million for the final 3. So even if they did that as NPV(and maybe they do? I forget if they do it for all contracts or just those with deferrals) it would be a trivial difference, maybe even a higher LT number depending on the discount rate.

[Tryptamine]

You ever wake up, check the forums, see 3 or 4 pages of new posts, start reading then regret you're never getting those 5 minutes back?

[LBiittner]

Just now, Tryptamine said:

You ever wake up, check the forums, see 3 or 4 pages of new posts, start reading then regret you're never getting those 5 minutes back?

horsefeathers you read faster than me.

[Jfoley89]

4 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

As much as I've been frustrated with the Cubs lack of agency...yeah of course. It might not be sexy, but trade for Bieber, add a Chapman/Bellinger, add a Hoskins/Belt, and a RP? The Cubs are paper division champions with the possibility of 4+ top-10 prospects (PCA, Horton, Brown, Caissie, Shaw are your most likely candidates) capable of helping at the MLB level at some point. Can add a tradable asset or two at the deadline, too. 

I've been vocal about my concerns with the Cubs. But I don't think that's a particularly crazy offseason for anyone to hope for and it probably puts the Cubs right on that doorstep. It's not even an offseason I love. But hey, the path is there. 

I cannot imagine Jed Hoyer spending 200 million to get Bellinger, but I may be surprised. Bellinger and Bieber get us back to even from last year if healthy and still productive despite Belli's exit velocity. Thinking Bieber is a lock for here after Glasnow feels like a setup for disappointment. I'd bet money on Hoskins/Belt, a Gio-type, and maybe a relief pitcher.  Too many quotes this year about not blocking our future for me to expect more.

[Jfoley89]

7 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Harper's contract is actually frontloaded in real dollars, he gets 30 million in year 1, 26 million for the next 9 years, and 22 million for the final 3. So even if they did that as NPV(and maybe they do? I forget if they do it for all contracts or just those with deferrals) it would be a trivial difference, maybe even a higher LT number depending on the discount rate.

So do you think we'll see more contracts similar to Ohtani, or do you think the union steps in?  With RSN uncertainty, do you think they're comfortable with players pushing 70 to 80% of their comp into the future to give their team a competitive advantage? 

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, The20thK said:

Also, didn’t the Cubs underperform their based on their numbers? Like our record last year should have been better right? 
 

How much value (wins) does Counsel bring as the manager? 

On the first end, we did, but I have a lot of questions about that. The Cubs did a lot of run scoring in blowout games, and how much that should truly count, I think, is debatable. Looking up and down the roster, I don't see a 90 win team last year like RD suggests. And PECTOA projections have the Cubs currently sitting at like 78 wins with the current roster; I don't think the Cubs have last 12 wins, for example. PECOTA has it's own issues, but general point. I think the amount the Cubs under performed is a bit over stated.

On the second, I really don't know. I think people overrate how bad Ross was (I think he was as good/bad as any manager normally would be). I think people overstate how much Counsell will add at times. But I do think he'll make some difference. I'm just not confident enough to suggest a win-number. Even if it's just on the margins, it's a good thing.

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, Jfoley89 said:

I cannot imagine Jed Hoyer spending 200 million to get Bellinger, but I may be surprised. Bellinger and Bieber get us back to even from last year if healthy and still productive despite Belli's exit velocity. Thinking Bieber is a lock for here after Glasnow feels like a setup for disappointment. I'd bet money on Hoskins/Belt, a Gio-type, and maybe a relief pitcher.  Too many quotes this year about not blocking our future for me to expect more.

I don't think he'll spend $200m on Bellinger, either. But I don't really know any team is going to spend $200m on Bellinger. Boras may want that, but that doesn't mean someone will. We aren't the only people concerned with the batted ball data, and if we know, teams know. I think the Cubs would spend $160m on Bellinger. And I think that's on the table as we wait this out.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

4 minutes ago, Jfoley89 said:

So do you think we'll see more contracts similar to Ohtani, or do you think the union steps in?  With RSN uncertainty, do you think they're comfortable with players pushing 70 to 80% of their comp into the future to give their team a competitive advantage? 

I don't, because the player has to agree to it.  Teams are not that stratified that they can risk being the one to bring up the idea of massive deferrals without potentially alienating that player.  Players have lawyers and agents and accountants too, so it's not like they don't know what's being offered and what that means in practical purposes.  Maybe you see a few more teams try to do smaller deferrals, but that's been a pattern with certain ownership groups before(e.g. the Nats), and the LT savings if you aren't doing Ohtani scale deferrals are very, very small

[LBiittner]

The only player addition in the 2018/19 offseason was the robust danny descalso. 

Different times, different circumstances. We can only pray or is it prey?

[gflore34]

Saying this ask a complete novice to baseball finances - how are the Dodgers not on the hook for dead money in the next 30 years?

[JBears79]

50 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

You ever wake up, check the forums, see 3 or 4 pages of new posts, start reading then regret you're never getting those 5 minutes back?

No because its 5 minutes of me not working and getting paid for it. I think it comes out net neutral for me

[Michael Busch Light]

Haven't read this thread yet, but does anyone else think this is a pretty decent deal for this guy assuming he's as good as the numbers suggest?  I know the years scares everyone off, but he's 25.  We are already seeing some regret from Harper on his deal length.  I think the players are being dumb taking some of these long deals.  I could see some holdouts in the future for these guys if they outperform. 

Edit:  Didn't realize Yammamoto got 2 opt outs.  That makes sense for him. Harper really screwed up not getting that. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Javy Bystro

[Transmogrified Tiger]

12 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

Saying this ask a complete novice to baseball finances - how are the Dodgers not on the hook for dead money in the next 30 years?

They are, but for the purposes of baseball's soft cap, it only impacts them for the duration Ohtani is on the team.  Normally, the amount a player counts towards the luxury tax payroll is the AAV of the deal they signed.  If I sign a free agent for 5/100, they'll count 20 million towards the luxury tax each year regardless of if I'm paying them 30 million in year 1 or 10 million.  In the case of deferrals, the CBA says to use the Net Present Value of the contract to know what AAV they assign to the deal.  Net Present Value basically says 'using a set discount rate, how much is this contract worth in today's dollars'.  Since a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar 10 and 25 years from now, the net present value of Ohtani's 10/700 deal is roughly 460 million, so he counts 46 million towards the luxury tax for the next 10 years and then nothing afterwards.  So the luxury tax captures the economic benefit that they gave to Ohtani, but the deferrals are so extreme it makes the announced 700 number not very 'real' outside of being technically correct.

[CubinNY]

Just now, Javy Bystro said:

Haven't read this thread yet, but does anyone else think this is a pretty decent deal for this guy assuming he's as good as the numbers suggest?  I know the years scares everyone off, but he's 25.  We are already seeing some regret from Harper on his deal length.  I think the players are being dumb taking some of these long deals.  I could see some holdouts in the future for these guys if they outperform. 

The opt-outs mitigate some of the risk on the player side. I think he's going to be good. I also don't think he nor the Dodgers expect him to end with them on this contract. 

[Michael Busch Light]

19 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

Saying this ask a complete novice to baseball finances - how are the Dodgers not on the hook for dead money in the next 30 years?

They don't seem to care.  So many gutless owners/GM's like the Mariners and Cubs who are more concerned about making sure they are profitable year to year rather than going for it.  These teams are all making money. 

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Don't forget to add the $50 Million posting fee on top of that.

And the 50 million signing bonus.  Cost the Dodgers 35.5 AAV equivalent.

[mul21]

1 hour ago, The20thK said:

Cool. Did the taxpayers pay for the stadium or the renovation? 
 

No? Oh! Looks like you can remember the last time an owner paid for their own stadium. And it wasn’t even all that long ago was it. 
 

Why don’t you stop being arrogant and admit that your statement, while trying to defend your position, was either ignorant or irrational? 

I disagree with the way Tom approaches almost everything but his disdain for owners and their profiteering is spot on.  And you probably need to bring it down a notch because you're being a huge dick about this when you're dead wrong.  A few instances of owners footing the bill is the exception, not the rule and the fact that they have people like you stanning for them not spending money is part of the problem.

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, CubinNY said:

a salary cap is not the solution to making teams better able to compete. It is the solution to rising costs. The smart teams will always have a leg up. It just won't cost this so much. 

I don't know the exact solution but the disparity between payroll between the richest and small market teams seems to be increasing and it isn't good for competitiveness and the sport in general.  They need to do something next CBA.

Total spending isn't the issue, it's the distribution.

[Jfoley89]

10 minutes ago, mul21 said:

I disagree with the way Tom approaches almost everything but his disdain for owners and their profiteering is spot on.  And you probably need to bring it down a notch because you're being a huge dick about this when you're dead wrong.  A few instances of owners footing the bill is the exception, not the rule and the fact that they have people like you stanning for them not spending money is part of the problem.

We get it.  You hate people with money and success.  It's literally the only thing you've posted about since I've been here.  

[Jfoley89]

6 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I don't know the exact solution but the disparity between payroll between the richest and small market teams seems to be increasing and it isn't good for competitiveness and the sport in general.  They need to do something next CBA.

Total spending isn't the issue, it's the distribution.

The death of the RSN is about the only thing I can think of to resolve this. I couldn't care less how much players earn, and it matters little to me if they get more or less, but getting all the teams spending within 50-100 million of each other would be great.  The NBA model is a solid way of how to do it.