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

[WhyCantWeWin]

1 minute ago, Jfoley89 said:

Dodgers still have rotational openings

I think they only have 14 mil more space before the highest luxury tax tier. So I don't think they have a big swing left in them. They could trade for Bieber and his very reasonable salary. 

[mul21]

9 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. 

By all accounts they were both offered more money on an AAV basis than the Dodgers offered.  Both guys clearly wanted to be in LA and there's not much anybody can do about that.  It's a huge city, it's closest to Japan, and has a huge Asian population amongst who knows what other factors made that the most comfortable destination for them.

Also, your insistence that a salary cap is the solution is just dumb.  There's a reason these franchises keep escalating in value almost exponentially and it's not because they're scraping by just barely making any profits every year.  It's because the greedy millionaire and billionaire owners keep pocketing massive profits.  I'd much rather see those dollars in the hands of the talented player than a bunch of pencil pushing turds who think a banana costs $10.  There needs to be a salary floor and there needs to be substantial penalties for too many losing seasons in a row to get them off their dead asses and give their fans hope so we don't see Oakland type situations any more.

[Jfoley89]

4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

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.

In the last 20 years, the Royals and the White Sox are the only small market teams to win a World Series. You can definitely be competitive and such, but the ability to spend is the single biggest advantage in baseball. 

[LBiittner]

Shota Imanaga 

Imagine if the Cubs signed him and Harry was still alive and broadcasting? I'd love to hear him say that name backwards.

The joys of simpler times when we all new we had a crap team 

[Bertz]

There's an argument that over the next ten years as RSN contracts expire and cord cutting hits its end game that most of MLB's revenue will be national.  With more of an NFL-shaped revenue setup an NFL-shaped cap and floor system might make sense.

But like that's certainly not what's being argued here.

[Irrelevant Dude]

Oh by the way, the Dodgers have been able to do all this while maintaining a Top 10 farm system.

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, The20thK said:

1908, you are smart. Probably one the smartest guys on this board. You read that arrival and didn’t see the flaws in analysis? 
 

the biggest one being that he is evaluating tickets prices and salaries on an annual Instead of trending them? Or how about comparing an MLB team to IBM and market share? Very few MLB teams have to worry about market share since it’s largely tied to geographical location. No one loyal to Microsoft because they live in Seattle. Teams ABSOLUTLEY look at losses and gains over multiple year periods. 
 

You create a graph showing the cost of salaries and the cost of attending games and my guess is that you’d see a strong correlation over time. 

Sure. It's an imperfect study, I don't want to suggest it's flawless. But what's more imperfect? Looking at the correlation of actual data or just saying "well, ticket prices will go up because of spending because I think so?" This comes back a lot of the time to things like when we use defensive metrics when evaluating a baseball player. Just because something is imperfect, does not make it invalid in the face of a competing argument based on feelings. 

The cost of baseball games is likely, partially effected by spending. But it's not so heavily correlated it's a worry here. End result, Ohtani getting paid isn't a bad thing, nor does it matter to me. Glad the best baseball player we've ever seen in our life got paid like it. 

[Bertz]

3 minutes ago, The20thK said:

What’s the waitlist looking for Cubs season tickets? What does that suggest to you? Maybe it’s more than anecdotal. 

Market based pricing and the partnership with stubhub removed a lot of the incentives to lock in those ticket packages

[Hairyducked Idiot]

18 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. 

You didn't actually take econ 101, did you 

[Jason Ross]

10 minutes ago, Jfoley89 said:

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 

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.

[Rcal10]

11 minutes ago, Jfoley89 said:

In the last 20 years, the Royals and the White Sox are the only small market teams to win a World Series. You can definitely be competitive and such, but the ability to spend is the single biggest advantage in baseball. 

Than the Royals are the only small market team to win then WS in the last 20 years. Since when are the White Sox a small market team? 

[Jfoley89]

8 minutes ago, Bertz said:

There's an argument that over the next ten years as RSN contracts expire and cord cutting hits its end game that most of MLB's revenue will be national.  With more of an NFL-shaped revenue setup an NFL-shaped cap and floor system might make sense.

But like that's certainly not what's being argued here.

Of course it is.  You're never getting a cap without a floor, and the floor should be a minimum of the national TV share and any revenue sharing.  Basically force attendance, concessions, and merchandise sales to be the sources of profit.  It'll make being better the only way to be more profitable. 

 

On a side note, this site may be the first time I consider downloading an ad blocker. 6 videos per comment is way over the top. 

[CubinNY]

there is no rational basis on which to have a discussion with irrational people. You point out a fact and they disregard the fact and move the peanut from one shell to the next.

[Jfoley89]

Just now, Rcal10 said:

Than the Royals are the only small market team to win then WS in the last 20 years. Since when are the White Sox a small market team? 

Fair.  Cheap if not small market.  I just stayed in an airbnb on the Southside, and the field area itself is gorgeous.  The rest wasn't great🤣🤣🤣

[LBiittner]

4 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Than the Royals are the only small market team to win then WS in the last 20 years. Since when are the White Sox a small market team? 

No worries for the Sox, they'll end up in Nashville eventually 

[Jfoley89]

4 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Ha! I can’t think of the last time an owner paid for a stadium in any sport. It’s all billed to the public, including maintenance, but the revenue and profits remain private 

SoFi, MetLife, and Gillette are all privately owned in the NFL.

[Jfoley89]

Just now, LBiittner said:

No worries for the Sox, they'll end up in Nashville eventually 

Don't wish that evil on me.  I'll take an expansion team local over that ownership group

[Transmogrified Tiger]

7 minutes ago, The20thK said:

I agree that the Cubs have the finances to compete against anyone. But I disagree that it is a good thing for baseball as the “haves”” will continue to distance themselves from the “have-nots”.

Do you view this offseason has continued a trend in that regard?  Because the Dodgers spending in the last few weeks has taken their LT payroll from 4th in MLB and 3rd in the NL to....3rd in MLB and 2nd in the NL.  They underspent their norm last year and then dropped enough payroll from their roster to pay for all their FA signings. They're leaning into stars and "scrubs" (in quotes because they have a strong farm and PD) more than escalating their spending into a higher gear.

[Jfoley89]

Just now, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Do you view this offseason has continued a trend in that regard?  Because the Dodgers spending in the last few weeks has taken their LT payroll from 4th in MLB and 3rd in the NL to....3rd in MLB and 2nd in the NL.  They underspent their norm last year and then dropped enough payroll from their roster to pay for all their FA signings. They're leaning into stars and "scrubs" (in quotes because they have a strong farm and PD) more than escalating their spending into a higher gear.

Because of deferred money that should also be corrected in the next CBA. Its great gamesmanship on their part to have only 2/3rds of the outlay for Ohtani count against them, but that's just another advantage of the rich teams. 

[Jfoley89]

How bad would the Rays be paying 68 million a year for a guy that wasn't on the team for a decade? 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

8 minutes ago, Jfoley89 said:

Because of deferred money that should also be corrected in the next CBA. Its great gamesmanship on their part to have only 2/3rds of the outlay for Ohtani count against them, but that's just another advantage of the rich teams. 

 

6 minutes ago, The20thK said:

To be fair… they are manipulating the numbers significantly with Ohtani contract. 

 

No they are not gaming the system, the only 'manipulation' is so Ohtani can claim to have gotten say that eye popping number.  There was never a 700 million offer in real terms available to him from the Dodgers or anyone else, and it's been widely reported that Ohtani shared the deferral idea of his own volition with other teams.

[17 Seconds]

I can't believe the Yankees balked

 

[Jfoley89]

3 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

 

 

No they are not gaming the system, the only 'manipulation' is so Ohtani can claim to have gotten say that eye popping number.  There was never a 700 million offer in real terms available to him from the Dodgers or anyone else, and it's been widely reported that Ohtani shared the deferral idea of his own volition with other teams.

So how much money will the Dodgers pay him in total?  Is he only receiving 460 million and they're voiding the other 240?

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, Jfoley89 said:

So how much money will the Dodgers pay him in total?  Is he only receiving 460 million and they're voiding the other 240?

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. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

is today confidently incorrect about basic econ concepts day or something