Jason Ross

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.

Yeah, Smyly is out at Driveline, too. With that said, I think they're in very different situations. Bieber's just 28 (going on 29), and has been good much more recently. He's also got the elbow injury which could explain both the loss of velocity and something that he could get back. Drew Smyly was not very good in 2022 regardless of the ERA and is 34. I'm far more willing to believe that Shane Bieber's Driveline experience and Drew Smyly's are not that similar.

I've come around a bit on Bieber and think there's some hope for him. While certainly the velocity decline is concerning, I think there's some bounceback there potentially. He sat out a few months with inflammation. You'd have to have a pretty extensive physical performed there, and be confident he wasn't about to explode, but if the inflammation is gone then it wouldn't be shocking to see the velocity return (in some fashion). I know it wasn't there in his last two starts of 2023, but that's a pretty small sample and it wouldn't be shocking to see him not be at 100% yet right off the bat. He's also out at Driveline right now doing work. His curveball and slider have kind of fallen into each other with velocity and shape. A fix to separate the two (more of a sweeper to create horizontal movement) could help recapture some secondary stuff. He's only signed as a one year thing right now and I'd not be super jazzed on an immediate extension unless the Cubs are already seeing the velocity back, but I think there's some hope there. Not enough I can speak to it being fixed, it's all behind the scenes stuff we can't know, but like I said, I'd have a bit of hope.

That's why I used BBTV. We can debate it all we want, but BBTV thinks that Alcantara/Brown/Canario is a gross overpay. Like almost 3x the value. So while I think we're prone to underrating trades, I don't think we're underrating it that much here.I think BBTV is pretty sketch...but that Straw deal is doing a lot of work. He's been a sub 70 wRC+ hitter for a while and was .4 fWAR last year. Still has 3/$18.7m left. It's rough.

I respect Matt but I think he's pretty high on the Cubs side of the Bieber/Naylor trade. Reports today from the Guardians side of things are that the G's are not impressed by offers for Bieber and that teams are treating him like a salary dump. Canario+Birdsell is probably a good bit above a pure salary dump, even if I have reservations on Canario. Myles Straw is legitimately a salary dump. I'm sure you know my high skepticism for BBTV, but BBTV thinks Brown and Canario for those three alone is a rejected trade on the Cubs side because of how much of a dump contract Straw is. We can debate that, but I doubt the Cubs would need to give up both Alcantara and Brown, on top of Canario if they're taking Straw back. I'd guess they might need to give up a bit more than simply Brown/Canario, but I'd guess it'd be well south of Kevin Alcantara to get it done. Once we take Straw and his putrid contract out, then we're getting closer to a trade where the Cubs would have to part with better and better prospects.

Matt Mervis is 25 years old and will be essentially 26 come opening day. Hayden McGeary is interesting enough. Neither are prospects the Cubs are going to be worried about blocking. They very much could sign a long term option and block either of those two.

If there's one thing to point to about Ricketts not attending the panel, historically it's one of the least attended events at the Con. We'll see if it means anything towards the Cubs doing much in the offseason, but I think it might just be a coincidence and one where the Cubs just axe it because it's not popular.

While not directed at me (at least, I don't think I've been throwing a temper tantrum, but maybe I need to be more self reflective) I know I've been vocal that the Cubs don't appear to have a clear and defined plan, so I do want to clarify my feelings. I do think the Cubs have a plan. but where my frustrations lie is in the seemingly lack of agency, the Cubs plan has. Clearly, I can't know the plan for the offseason as sadly, Jed forgot to CC me on that email (which I find rude, frankly), but as an outside observer and how the offseason is being framed by those who are close to the Cubs, it's hard to tell where the Cubs plan to have much agency in their offseason. Seemingly, the Cubs offseason plan from here on out is "wait the market out, sign the guys who's market doesn't materialize". And there's an argument to be made that maybe the Cubs don't see any difference between all of the players out there in the second tier so they'll be happy with anyone they can get in that tier,, so this allows for the Cubs to maintain flexibility and get guys in on cheaper contracts, which fair, if that's the case. On the other hand, if your plan is "sign the players others don't want" then I wonder who do you actually like? Where my fear is is that there's a fine line between an offseason in which the Cubs come away with a bunch of smart spending and flexibility and another that is highlighted with prospect hoarding and indecisiveness in the name of those two things. Right now, maybe the market isn't moving super fast, however a bunch of teams have dipped into the secondary tier and come away with players on perfectly acceptable contracts/trades, so it's not like it's impossible to have gone in there. And while I don't think the Cubs are doing nothing it's not like the Cubs couldn't have accomplished something by now either. There comes a point when you have to have a plan and attempt to execute it past "maybe a few guys will slip through the cracks and we can hoover 'em up" and my fear is that I'm not sure the Cubs have the aggressiveness to accomplish something like that. None of that is to say I want the Cubs to spend ridiculously and overpay, just that I question how much agency the Cubs are giving themselves versus how much is being put on other teams. I hope my fears are misplaced. I don't mean to sound like I'm doom-bonering, or throwing a tantrum, only expressing my fears that the Cubs aren't being run in the way I'd necessarily like to see the Cubs run.

We'll have to see what they do with the pitching. Their behavior in the hitter's market may be exclusive to hitters, but also, may not be. The Cubs very well may have a "wait and see" approach there, too. For whatever reason, they didn't get Glasnow. They didn't get Nola, though he seems like he was likely going back to Philadelphia. They didn't jump in on Gray. They also are the only major market not invested in the Yamamoto market. When many of these markets miss on Yamamoto, it's likely many will turn to Imanaga, Snell and Montgomery. Are the Cubs going to show agency here? Or will they, once again, wait it out and see? The Cubs are not a team who seemingly gets into bidding wars for players, so I think it's fair to wonder how they're going to handle that market as much as the offense.

I don't think the lack of action is the only thing helping that feeling, though. The reporting on how the Cubs are going about this (and from multiple areas, national and local) is playing a pretty large factor in this, as well. And I don't think the Cubs comments (from Hoyer, from Carter, etc) are helping much, either. And we can question how accurate the reporting is. Both Nightengale and Mooney/Sharma have reported the Cubs interest in the Lee market (which wasn't something we had heard about all ofseason) so there's probably more action that's happening behind the scenes. With that said, it also kind of feels like the Cubs aren't operating with a defined vision of X, Y and Z and are more than happy to hope they can get one of X, Y or Z for less than market rate; which isn't bad business in theory, but also isn't really how you'd expect a team with the market size of the Cubs to act, either.