Jason Ross

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.

To counterpoint the first end: teams like the Dodgers and the Astros do so because they're not attempting to win on the margins. The Dodgers can try an Andrew Heaney or an Alex Wood every year because even with those players, they're going to win 93-95 games. Come the playoff time, they bin these guys if they suck, or replace them mid-season with a purchase. Teams like the Rays do so out of pure necessity; they can't not try to fix people. The Cubs are in a goldlilocks zone right now of not being good enough to throw innings or PA's away while not being so incapable of spending that they have an excuse not to find better. If the Cubs were a hands down 90+ win team, I'd be far more amenable to the Cubs playing and tinkering with guys who offer useful profiles if they can work magic. Currently, the Cubs look like they'll probably enter next season in that 85-88 win territory. Good enough to be paper divisional champions, but not so good they have innings to just throw away. While I think a trade could change the equation, I'm not sure they're going to ever to a stage where it's so drastic they have innings for Turnbull. Currently, the Cubs have: Steele, Hendricks, Taillon, Wicks, Smyly, Asad and Wesneski who are likely to make starts in 2024. They'll likely add at least one SP, and maybe two raising that number to 8 or 9. It's a forgone conclusion barring injury that Cade Horton will likely vault into that group by June. Even with a trade where the Cubs lose two of those, Spencer Turnbull is, what, 8th or 9th in line? For someone who wants to resurrect his career, that's not good odds when someone like, Oakland will probably put you 6th in line or so. For the Cubs, you still remain in a situation where you're so very unlikely to use him. Another year, another Cubs team and I think Spencer Turnbull, as explained by yourself, offers an interesting amount of data that suggests with work, tweaks, and changes (don't want to discount that. This is good stuff, Matt!), there's a useful MLB arm. I just think the Cubs aren't either bad or good enough for this to be the best place for him to do that. So really all I disagree with is the "Cub" part.

I don't think the Spencer Turnbulls of the world are bad, but I don't think the Cubs have much to offer someone like Turnbull, either. If you're Spencer Turnbull, you're likely looking for an MLB opportunity to rebuild your career. You're might not get a guarantee to start, but you'd like a pathway. The Cubs don't need to be giving Turnbull's a chance at this stage. We're past the "maybe if we can fix this guy, we can use this guy" stage, IMO. This is a team who, after missing out on Ohtani, will likely still need to win on the margins. Not desperately, but it's not going to be a juggernaut. We have multiple arms I'd far rather see start games. We have other arms who will be useful in the bullpen. It's time to leave the rebuild well in the past and make sure innings are going to arms you trust more. In 2021, I'd say that the Cubs would be a decent bet to take a Turnbull, find something there, and flip him at the deadline as a useful bottom rotational arm for a contending team who was wracked with injuries. Maybe a Washington National type team does that for Turnbull and in July, the Cubs are wracked with injury and we'd like him then. But as of now, while I don't think he'd be an awful player to gamble on for a team, I just don't see the Cubs being able to offer him anything. He's the kind of guy who can probably offer some rebuilding team something, but as a contending team who's less than a juggernaut, probably is too much of a risk to give him much of a chance.

I'd have been a fan of adding Kelenic. Damn.

Yeah, I like the Morel for Woo concept. I think the Morel-for-Woo stuff makes a lot of sense in the event the Cubs move a SP, which may be something they'd need to do to either get Glasnow or Bieber/Clase from the Guardians.

Can't tell if I think the Rays are trying to push the Braves/Dodgers narrative for Glasnow to force an issue with the Cubs, or the Cubs are seemingly losing ground there. Glasnow is one of the few players the Cubs are likely "in" on that represents a true departure from what they're missing: truly impactful talent. Bieber, Imanaga, and Montgomery are all fairly good players but none represent the upside Glasnow does, something I think the team is sorely lacking.

"Tyler Glasnow remains a target, but the Braves and Dodgers look like stiff competition… Hoskins, Glasnow and Shoto Imanaga all make sense and remain targets. Cleveland, the Minnesota Twins and the Seattle Mariners remain teams to watch on the trade market, along with the New York Mets and Alonso. Matt Chapman fits the mold that Hoyer has sought in recent winters, and if Jordan Montgomery’s market doesn’t get out of hand, he looks attractive — especially without a qualifying offer. " The Athletic

Most contracts are coming in higher than expected so far on the upper end of the market. Probably closer to 6/$150m. To your greater point: I'll take 1 year of Bieber over the Montomgery contract. Montgomery is fine. I don't love that contract.

Three smaller transactions today: Will Smith to KC Austin Hedges to Cleveland Andrew Chafin to Detroit. All one year deals. Hopefully signs that things are starting to move a bit here.