Jason Ross

For me, I define them this way: control is your ability to locate pitches within the zone, command is your ability to throw the ball precisely where you want. It's great if you can control a pitch; throwing strikes is objectively, the name of the game (most of the time). But we know mistakes exist in the zone. So you have to be able to command them in the zone; you don't want to float curveballs at the top of the zone, or leave fastballs in the middle. Just throwing strikes can't be enough at the highest levels. While I think these things can be linked in ways, they're not always linked. For example, I think we can see players who can "fix" their control by just forcing pitches into the zone. But then they create a new issue; meatballs. So they get rocked. I think Caleb Kilian is a good example of the opposite of this. In his journey to create more whiff and chase, he purposefully forced pitches out of the zone (or sacrificing control). But he created mechanical issues and he couldn't get that back (at least not without a significant amount of work, and now we're just back where we started). I do think pitch-lab improves command and control, but truly, pitch-lab is just the start of the journey. It shows pitchers their spin, how they're controlling their body. But it can't make a pitcher better and controlling their body. I think people underestimate just how hard it is to teach guys to control their bodies in a consistent, and new manner.

I don't think he's a super-ace, but Eno Saris ran a really good article today on the Athletic looking for comparables on lots of his data. Basically, he concluded that he thinks that based on stuff+, history, age, etc, that Yamamoto has everything you'd look for if you were scouting an ace, but with perhaps questions on durability and size. "We can say with a tiny bit more certainty that he’s like a Gausman with Bassitt’s curve and Eflin’s command, which would be a dominant combination but also has not necessarily existed in one human being before. Nobody knows what they’ll get for sure, but it’s clear that the underlying data suggests that his future MLB team is getting an ace and that the only question is how many innings they’ll get for their trouble." I'd guess teams are excited about the combined stuff+age for Yamamoto. I'm guessing the AAV will still be in the high 20's and low 30's with some sort of a 10 year contract (with possibly an opt out after, say, 6?). But I also get why you'd be in that market. How many 25 year old aces hit the free market? If you're looking at the stuff+ data and the like, this is rare, one shot, for a team. Normally when we see aces hit the market, you get guys like Snell; already into their 30's. This is a free, money-only shot at grabbing someone who has half a decade before they hit 30 with ace-upside stuff. Even if he hits all-star level instead of bonafied Cy-Young, that's rare occurrence in the MLB. Take it when you get it, right? There's real risk there too, he's a pitcher and a pretty diminutive one in terms of what we're used to seeing in terms of size. Maybe his stuff doesn't translate completely. But if you're a big market, there's always risk in arms, so if you can buy an ace for money...go for it. I'd really appreciate the Cubs being in on this one for these reasons; stuff wise he fits a need, age wise he fits a long term piece, and I just don't think you get many shots to just...buy a ready made potential ace. I also think they're more risk adverse than me and likely won't be. They seem to be pretty wary of these long term contracts.

The hope is that the Cubs are working on things that aren't being reported out side of vaguities. Perhaps a larger trade with Cleveland (Bieber/Naylor?), a trade with Seattle (SP?) or something off the radar. The Cubs have a tendency to operate rather quietly on things so it's probably something that would come together fast on our end, but took weeks of work to get done.

Based on recent reports on the Cubs not being interested in the price tag, it's feeling likely that the Cubs are just not involved.

Exactly where I sit. Clase is awesome, I think if the Cubs want to spend that much prospect capital, there are better ways to spend it.

And that's fair. The issue is, I think this is more of a fan created situation than one that is likely to materialize. I'll not say I know what the Cubs are going to do, and certainly, there's a non-zero chance this happens. With that said, Pete Crow-Armstrong fits almost, to a T, what this organization has valued over the course of the last handful of seasons: he offers a safe, projectable floor, plays a premium position, plays elite (likely) defense and adds plenty of value on the bases. We also have the Cubs talking, multiple times this offseason, about the future, the prospects... So I think it's fine to point out they could trade him. I find this scenario incredibly unlikely, however.

I'm probably out on Bellinger at 7/$180m. Good player, but a $25m AAV over the course of 7 years is assuming plenty of premium position time. Bellinger's quality of contact and 2-strike BABIP success last year is quite concerning moving forward and I don't have him projected as the 140 wRC+ he was; more like a 125 wRC+ hitter. At 1b, or LF, there's a larger importance placed on his bat. I'm never against forcing a good prospect to force their way in, but Pete Crow-Armstrong is a near lock to be on the MLB roster by mid-season barring a full collapse of the bat. His glove, his speed are both MLB ready-now and he's going to force that issue (especially on a team that loves up-the-middle defense). With the market Bellinger has, which should include but isn't limited to Toronto, San Francisco and Seattle, there's going to be a team who wants him at CF, not for half a season, or one year, but 3-5+ years. I'm not paying someone I'm moving to a far less premium position like he's a CF'er. If a market doesn't materialize, and he's looking for a Correa-type thing where you get him in for a 3 year contract, multi-opt-out high AAV thing? I'd be quite interested. But as long as you have other teams who are going to value him as a premium position player...pass. I think it'll come in a bit higher then that if someone sees him as a 4+ year solution to a premium position. Either in way of extra years of a bit higher AAV. The Cubs have other options, and other routes.

Now I'm mad again. But this time at the Cubs.

Heyman's already posted how this will effect the QO. Instead of $46m being averaged in, which is the real world value of his contract, $28m will be averaged in. I mentioned in that post, I'm pretty bad at mental math, so I'm not sure how massive of an effect that's going to be...but it'll have an effect. And I'm not sure it's so easy as "a player has to want to go somewhere". We've seen the MLB act with collusion before, and I think this could open up a situation in which it happens again. I don't trust these owners or this league as far as you can throw them. The league is totally cool with owners, effectively, destroying their teams for tax breaks and a new stadium, and others who pocket CBT money. I think it's nice to believe that this is the type of unicorn contract that won't be attempted again. I have a pretty negative view of the people who run this league and their ability to game an already rigged system.

No. It means when figuring out what the QO is next year, which incorporates the top 125 salaries in baseball, Ohtani's salary will be counted as $28m. The QO is the mean salary of the top-125. This, essentially, will lower the average of that top-125. How much? I'll admit and say "I suck hard at some math, so I'm not the guy to ask". But it will clearly effect that number in some fashion versus it being the CBT number ($46m) or the 10/$700m ($70m) it appeared to be on first look, as well.

But they are. The Dodgers get to keep $680 (a loan) for 10 years. There's a 0% interest fee on this. He's getting $700m. It's just only going to be worth $460 in real world money. That's how a loan with 0% interest works.

Well, it's also not just a 10/$460m deal and we can't treat is as such. I think that's unfair. It's that for real world but there's a lot going on here, as well. If the Dodgers wanted to sign him to that contract...fine by me. Pay the man $46m a year. But this puts a dangerous precedent in play. "You care about winning? You better defer your contract" and that's an unfair burden to place on these players. I really don't care who's idea it was in the end, Ohtani, the Dodgers...it's not good for baseball. This creates a few years, prior to the new CBA, where players can be exploited in these situations by multi-billion organizations. This feels like it can go south, really fast. Juan Soto is going to fee the pressure of this next offseason and he didn't ask for that, for example. Whether or not he ultimately has to do similar things, this wasn't the way MLB contracts had been working until...now. We'll see where they go from here, but it wouldn't be shocking to see MLB teams suddenly decide, as a whole, that large contracts will be offered in deferred payments from here on out (at least the big, 9-10+ year deals). I think there some real, massive, underlying issues at play here. I think it's fairly gross. I also think it's genius accounting by both player and team, don't get me wrong. Great for Ohtani, he gets to be on the biggest team in baseball, and gets to be surrounded by amazingly awesome talented players. He gets to be the highest paid player. The Dodgers get the best player at a super acceptable CBT price and this contract will largely pay for itself. But I also think it goes against what the CBT is supposed to do per the owners, and I think it makes a dangerous precedent for other teams and players.

This greatly sets a precedent for players, however. And it allows teams to create situations in which they can push money off. I'd have no problem if Ohtani signed a straight 10/$460m. What I do have an issue is teams asking players to essentially, loan them, 0% interest free money. It also creates a situation where teams and owners can essentially, for the next few years, push these payments off to the next person. Why not differ a contract for 20 years if you're 80. You'll be dead. This isn't a good look for the league or the rules they implement on themselves. You want to defer some money? Fine. But this feels like a tax loophole, not a legitimate contract in the spirit of the rules they implemented, either. It feels like that old definition of porn. I can't define when it's wrong, but I know it when I see it.

When's the next CBA up? Because I bet that's the last day of this rule.

The Union should be stepping in. This is bad for every other player in the league. And it circumvents the luxury tax rule the owners, themselves, created. Pay the man, but don't let him loan the Dodgers 97% of his salary for a decade

Holy horsefeathers. Ohtani is deferring $68m of his $70m every year. It brings his CBT to $46m. This is ridiculous.

For you? Perhaps. Watch the Cubs claim some LHP from the Braves in 2 days as their next move and a loud contingency of fans ramble about the team doing nothing and how Counsell will be the only move all offseason going off into panic mode.

I can't wait for the Cubs to make some sort of smallish transaction (like a waiver claim, or a small BP depth) only for the subsequent "they're not going to do anything" panic attacks.

As I posted to Rob, there's not a zero chance the Cubs trade Happ, but it's approaching zero. They're not going to ask him to waive his NTC this offseason, under a calendar year after signing a contract. You might rather they traded Happ, they won't be trading Happ.

I think it's probably even a bit more unlikely than just unlikely. Happ has been seen, at least with the Cubs, as a spokesperson/leader We can debate how important or overrated that is on our end, but I think we also have to understand how unlikely that is from a Cubs end. Do we really expect the Cubs to trade Happ, one year after an extension, with an NTC? Do we think they'd ask him to waive it? It's no zero because so very few things are a zero. Is trading Happ one of the most unlikely things to happen this offseason? I'd say yes. At this time, very much.

Happ has a NTC. He's not being traded.

Yeah, I'd be a little skeptical of Happ there. That said, he has played there before. He's athletic enough to where you'd assume he'd probably figure it out just fine. I wouldn't argue that Happ belongs at 1b, and I think it's very unlikely the Cubs wait out the Bellinger market, pay him like a CF'er and then move him to LF, anyways.

Which is fair, I haven't seen him either. But OAA and DRS have, and they think he's pretty good, so I think we both have to accept that they're probably far closer to the truth than our preconceived notions of what someone who looks like Josh Naylor can do, too. He doesn't look like your traditional first baseman, but whatever it is he does, it seemingly works well enough for the time being.

Regardless of his height, Josh Naylor has been a positive defender. He's a +9 OAA and a +2 DRS. I think height can help, but height is not as necessary as we like to see. Naylor doesn't have a great appearance, and yet, he's a good defender. He moves pretty well for his size.