Jason Ross

Speaking as both a Kentuckian and someone who was just at Trace yesterday...EH Taylor is a fine choice (sadly, missed their recent EH Taylor drop by one day. Yesterday was a Blanton's day...which...is good but I'd rather the Taylor, myself).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sadly, as much as much as we believed Ohani was the holdup, I think the holdup here is Boras. Boras basically has a monopoly on every major bat on the market this year. Chapman, Bellinger, Hoskins are all still Boras clients. Lee was a Boras client, too. There's your secondary guys, but teams probably aren't going ga-ga for JD Martinez or Brandon Belt so much right now. With teams likely doing the same as the Cubs with these players (which is waiting the market out) and Boras waiting the market out, it could be a really slow market unless a team blinks (like the Giants with Lee, who got much more than I would have guessed) or a player gets impatient.

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".

Many of these mega contracts have conversations surrounding them that go like this: "Wow, someone signed him to X years for Y money? That's crazy" Until 2-3 years later as inflation continues to set in, and contracts go up, to go "The Whatevers get that player for only $X a year AAV? That's a steal". We did this with Cole, Harper, A-Rod...feels like we're probably getting there with Seager, too. Sometimes you miss, it happens. But these mega-mega deals are usually for really excellent talents and those talents alone. The Dodgers are run by a really smart kind of a dude, maybe the best VP of baseball. Yes, the Dodgers have a bit of extra financial backing to take these kinds of risks, but Friedman isn't an idiot. Stuff+ data exists on Yamamoto. Even ZiPS doesn't hate the contract. We'll see what Yamamoto becomes and if he's another example of this. But I have a sneaking suspicion this contract will work out for both parties.

They might be. Though they seem to already be pitching heavy and dumping offense, so we'll see. Maybe I'm reading them wrong, but they seem like a team far less likely to spend big on a FA SP than the others, and more likely to spend on bats or trade for bats with their pitching depth.

Eh, I think we're kind of in a point where the Cubs, Dodgers. Yankees. the Red Sox and Giants will all end up with one of Yamamoto, Imanaga, Snell and Montgomery, with a possibility the Rangers jump in on Montgomery and at least one of those teams is forced/decides to look for their rotational help via trade. Maybe the Dodgers would rather go Giolito if they think they can fix him, or like, Boston goes with Stroman (Breslow connection), but I think those teams are likely playing some form of musical chairs regardless of the Yamamoto choice at this statge. The Mets feel like the one team who's kind of "Yamamoto or bust". The rest probably go into the same market the Cubs are in. So really, as long as it's not "the Mets" or "the Phillies" (who feel like an outside choice) the Cubs are probably in the same boat regardless.

So one thing I think we're maybe not paying attention to on the Yamamoto front is the Red Sox strong pursuit and the Cubs seemingly...lack of pursuit. Craig Breslow is now running the Red Sox and as we all should know...Breslow was a very important part to our pitching infrastructure the last four seasons (and our assistant GM). What I think is an interesting look is how the Cubs dropped out basically, around the time Breslow left. The Cubs, over the summer, were sending scouting contingencies to Japan to personally watch Yamamoto. They were considered a "favorite" to sign him at the start of the offseason. After Breslow left for Boston, we get pretty luke warm comments on Yamamoto from Hoyer. Since then, the Cubs are arguably, the only top-market not with vested interest and meeting with Yamamoto. Breslow and the Red Sox are seemingly among one of the teams still "in" on Yamamoto. Breslow, now the VP of the Red Sox, appears to be willing to go $300m on Yamamoto, a player he likely, is very well knowledgeable on. The Cubs, seemingly, have no interest on that front. Is Breslow better at scouting pitching? Is he a rookie VP of Baseball Ops who is overvaluing Yamamoto? Does Hoyer just not like 10+ year contracts but actually likes Yamamoto? It's hard to tell. Interesting thread here I don't think is getting the love it probably deserves.

I'm hoping it's temporary. Figure, he's just hitting the 1.5 year mark from TJS right now and pitchers tend to take around that long to really build back up. It's probably different for a position player than a pitcher, but maybe it's not so different for a catcher.

Which really wouldn't be shocking. The book on Amaya was always "glove over bat" profile. While he graded out pretty average last year defensively, he basically hadn't caught since the summer of 2021. It wouldn't be very surprising to see him take a jump forward regardless of any devil magic. Add in Counsell's history with the devil magic and there's probably even a better chance Amaya goes from average to even above average with the glove.

Nope. At least not the one from Milwaukee. Strittmatter is currently in Colorado with the Rockies. It was announced earlier on that no one from Milwaukee was coming over with Counsell. Hopefully it's more Counsell's eye for talent and not just luck for why he was surrounded by good coaching.