2023-24 MLB offseason thread

[McCall]

4 hours ago, Lights Out said:

I also don't get why everyone bitched so hard about the Mets' and Padres' spending but they ignore the Dodgers'.

The only people who "bitched so hard" about the Mets' and Padres' spending are they same ones bitching about the Dodgers' spending.

[BBTV]

Apparently there's an out clause, though unsure how it's triggered since it has yet to be reported who this is talking about (manager, GM, owner, backup catcher, etc.)

 

The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal reports that Ohtani has a clause in the deal which states, “if specific change in Dodger personnel, player may opt out of contract at end of season the change occurs.”

 

(per NY Post.  I haven't fact checked.)

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, Lights Out said:

Any restrictions on spending the league can come up with are toothless if teams can just avoid the consequences of their spending by deferring most of the money.

 

But I don't think that's what's actually happening.  They're putting $46ish million into an account each year.  That's all (other than the $2M/year) they're paying for him.  Using a future value calculator, at 6%, with compound interest and each subsequent $46M, that comes to $690M.  So tweak the numbers some to get it to $680M, plus his $20M ($2M*10), and there you go.

 

Unless I'm completely wrong about how this deal works (and I think it's been confirmed that I'm not) this is a 10/$460M contract, it's just that he'll get $700M total by 2044, which any player could do if they invested the majority of their contract.  In fact, I assume most of the stars do, and probably get even more at the end of 10 years.

 

The way they're able to afford other players is because by paying him the money later (which I assume is accomplished via compound interest) they could sign him to a lower-value present value contract, which lowers the payroll and tax.  But again - any player could simply put 98% of their salary in an interest-bearing account.  The only difference is that the team is doing it before paying him, which actually hurts him because he could earn far more by investing himself.

 

https://www.calculator.net/future-value-calculator.html?cyearsv=10&cstartingprinciplev=46%2C000%2C000&cinterestratev=6&ccontributeamountv=46%2C000%2C000&ciadditionat1=end&printit=0&x=Calculate#calresult

 

(Note - these numbers are not accurate, just an approximation based on some of what's been thrown around.  I have no idea how to get to the actual amount of money and interest, but I think these are reasonable assumptions.)

[McCall]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

Apparently there's an out clause, though unsure how it's triggered since it has yet to be reported who this is talking about (manager, GM, owner, backup catcher, etc.)

 

The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal reports that Ohtani has a clause in the deal which states, “if specific change in Dodger personnel, player may opt out of contract at end of season the change occurs.”

 

(per NY Post.  I haven't fact checked.)

Mark Walter (Controlling Owner) and Andrew Friedman (President of Baseball Operations)

[BBTV]

More on how it works:

 

https://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/39104627/shohei-ohtani-contract-dodgers-deferrals-free-agency

 

Everyone does it, just not with this much money, and with such a high percentage of the deal.  According to the article,

 

"In Peter Angelos' tenure as the owner of the Orioles, he preferred contracts that deferred salary, to be paid later rather than sooner. For example: when slugger first baseman Chris Davis signed a seven-year, $161 million deal in 2016, there was so much deferred salary within the details that Angelos personally assessed the present-day value at closer to $117 million."

 

"Agents will sometimes agree to deferred money to affect the perception of the contract -- to hit certain salary benchmarks, to establish new precedent. The optics have always mattered."

 

In terms of a standard contract, it's a 10 year $460,814,765 deal.  The Dodgers are not getting a break anywhere.  The "$700M" number isn't real (meaning, while he will eventually receive that much, it's not real in present value as if a traditional contract was signed.)  But it sounds cool for the agent to say.  It's basically $46M/year, but the team is holding it and paying it into escrow - they're not able to sign new players because they aren't paying him - rather than paying him directly and letting him invest it.  I'm not sure why the player wouldn't want the $46M and simply put it into safe investments, other than this puts the risk of weird things - like a global pandemic - on the team, not him.

 

Look - I'm no Dodgers fan, and hope nothing more than for them to fail, as they're a roadblock for my team - but this isn't nearly as dramatically bad as people have made it out to be, and the Dodgers are hardly the first team to do this (they've even done it with Freeman and Betts.)

 

 

[Digby]

12 hours ago, BBTV said:

I'm not sure why the player wouldn't want the $46M and simply put it into safe investments, other than this puts the risk of weird things - like a global pandemic - on the team, not him.

 

I think it's a mix of that and most jocks not being able to be trusted with making smart investments. In fairness, that applies to most people in general, as the response to this deal illustrates. I guess the tax situation is real too -- if you can defer that money and get it fully paid as a resident of anywhere but California, and I wonder if that also means the deferred money is free of the jock taxes paid to 20 other states or whatever?

 

Also wasn't part of the weird/hilarious Freddie Freeman guilt-ridden saga about leaving Atlanta that he felt his agents misled him about the value of his LA deal, not realizing the deferrals meant he was getting about the same deal as Atlanta offered anyway?

 

In general I think the details were so scarce and not clear that I understand why fans initially thought this was nefarious work on the Dodgers' part, but I don't get the yelling about a loophole, if the CBA between the league and the players union has specificially addressed all this stuff.

[davee3]

Hey everyone, thrilled to be diving into the 2023-24 offseason with you all! What a wild ride the 2023 season was. The Rangers pulling off the World Series victory was a real shocker, but hey, that's what makes baseball magical.

Speaking of surprises, can we talk about the Brooklyn Dodgers? I know they fell short in the playoffs, but seeing them back in contention after all these years was just... electric. Seeing them rock those classic Brooklyn Dodgers jackets brought back a wave of nostalgia. I wouldn't mind rocking one myself, maybe to a game next season!

Of course, we can't talk about an offseason without mentioning the Houston Astros. They put up another dominant regular season, but those pesky Yankees got the better of them in the ALCS. Do you think they'll shake things up this offseason? Can't wait to see what Dusty Baker cooks up, and wouldn't be surprised if his new coaching staff comes sporting some fresh Houston Astros jackets.

 

[TrueYankee26]

 

Jeter's back in the Bronx

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Seems like spending a billion dollars on two players isn't so great for baseball. I don't know.

[Dynasty]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Seems like spending a billion dollars on two players isn't so great for baseball. I don't know.

 

MLB is literally the closest thing we have here to European soccer. While it takes more than just being a destination team to effectively target the big names, it really does do wonders for the players themselves. It's like deciding if you want to play in perfect-weather SoCal where you will make a name for yourself, or go to Pittsburgh where you have less spotlight and have other limitations.

 

It really does suck if your team isn't attractive or loaded with money, but I've accepted that as the norm when it comes to this league. But hey! At least the players are winning, right?

[Lights Out]

9 hours ago, Dynasty said:

MLB is literally the closest thing we have here to European soccer.

 

College football is way closer to soccer. Actually, it's even worse nowadays since at least soccer pretends to have rules and leadership. CFB is just chaos that only benefits a small handful of blue bloods and is slowly killing the sport for everyone else.

 

For all the MLB's flaws, they just had a Diamondbacks/Rangers World Series a couple months ago, capping off a wild postseason where all the 100-win teams combined to win exactly one playoff game and got eliminated early. Something like that is borderline impossible in European soccer or CFB, but playoff baseball is a great equalizer that produces all sorts of unexpected matchups.

 

On that note: whenever the Dodgers sign their next superstar, I just start wondering which 82-win team they'll end up losing to in the NLDS. At least when the Yankees used to throw their money around like this, they would actually win. 

[infrared41]

Tank weighs in on the Dodgers signing Yamamoto.

 

 

[The_Admiral]

The brilliance of it is that "he has delivered nothing but pain, misery, and disappointment" sounds like it was translated from the Japanese. I am disrespectful to dirt. Can't you see that I am serious? 

[Dynasty]

2 hours ago, Lights Out said:

For all the MLB's flaws, they just had a Diamondbacks/Rangers World Series a couple months ago, capping off a wild postseason where all the 100-win teams combined to win exactly one playoff game and got eliminated early. Something like that is borderline impossible in European soccer or CFB, but playoff baseball is a great equalizer that produces all sorts of unexpected matchups.

 

The postseason has definitely been random. I was referring more to the regular season if anything. How teams like the Dodgers who have had a large stretch of  90+ wins a season or the Yankees who haven't even had a losing season since 1992(!). If you are a fan of the Royals or Pirates of the world, you're just hoping for a winning season or a taste of relevancy. With the former, you have something to look forward to, the latter... not so much.

[The_Admiral]

3 hours ago, Lights Out said:

For all the MLB's flaws, they just had a Diamondbacks/Rangers World Series a couple months ago

Diamondbacks and Rangers in the World Series was a flaw.

[Shumway]

3 hours ago, infrared41 said:

Tank weighs in on the Dodgers signing Yamamoto.

 

 

 

Anyone just anxiously waiting for his glasses to perfectly fall down like his hat did in the subway? 

[BBTV]

Can't wait for the Dodgers to get knocked out by an 87-win Phillies team.

 

What sucks for fans of the Pirates and Royals isn't that the Dodgers spend money, it's that their owners won't.  Until teams open their books and show that they're not making any money (which they won't, because they do make money despite what they claim) it's hard to pity those clubs.  I feel for their fans, but not the ownership.

 

Obviously a team like LA is going to generate a ton more revenue than a team in Pittsburgh, even if the Pirates were perennial contenders.  But let's not pretend that they couldn't sign some star players if they decided to make an effort to be anything other than an event to attend when there's absolutely nothing else to do, and even then, giving your dog a bath might be more entertaining.

[Lights Out]

5 hours ago, BBTV said:

What sucks for fans of the Pirates and Royals isn't that the Dodgers spend money, it's that their owners won't. 

 

In many cases, they can't spend money like the Dodgers. The contract the Dodgers gave Ohtani is more than the net worth of the Diamondbacks', Marlins', and Reds' owners and about the same as the Brewers' and Rockies'.

 

I'm not defending other teams' owners for being cheap. But what not being cheap would realistically look like for most owners would still be downright anemic compared to the Dodgers' infinite war chest. The Dodgers' spending is a huge part of the problem too.

[BBTV]

2 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

 

In many cases, they can't spend money like the Dodgers. The contract the Dodgers gave Ohtani is more than the net worth of the Diamondbacks', Marlins', and Reds' owners and about the same as the Brewers' and Rockies'.

 

I'm not defending other teams' owners for being cheap. But what not being cheap would realistically look like for most owners would still be downright anemic compared to the Dodgers' infinite war chest. The Dodgers' spending is a huge part of the problem too.

 

But that assumes a "static" budget.  The Marlins still make money, and should be able to pay for contracts without the owner dipping into his own personal checking account.  It's not like they have a static $500M (Bruce Sherman's estimated net worth according to Google) that will be drained by the end of someone's big contract.  Sports teams are separate legal entities anyway, and any "donations" owners make have to be accounted for (not that they can't, I just don't think it happens much - if at all.)

 

A team like the Dodgers absolutely brings in more money than the Marlins.  Part of that is simply being in the 2nd-largest market (which the Marlins obviously can't do anything about), but part of that is also due to winning and marketing, and the Marlins can match that if they wanted to, even if it meant taking some huge risks.

 

I think the biggest difference between the Dodgers/Yankees and Marlins/Pirates is that the Dodgers/Yankees can afford to take risks and be wrong, whereas the Marlins/Pirates have to be near perfect, because they can't simply go "oh well" and sign another $50M/year guy if the one they signed last year blows.  

 

But they don't even try.  They don't even take the risk.  You can't fail if you don't play, but the irony is that you always fail if you don't play.

[Lights Out]

3 minutes ago, BBTV said:

But that assumes a "static" budget.  The Marlins still make money, and should be able to pay for contracts without the owner dipping into his own personal checking account.  It's not like they have a static $500M (Bruce Sherman's estimated net worth according to Google) that will be drained by the end of someone's big contract. 

 

Of course. The point of comparing to the owners' net worth is more just to illustrate how crazy the kind of money is that the Dodgers are throwing around. They're now making players richer than owners. When that's the going rate to sign a top free agent now, even the mid-market teams are going to start getting priced out.

 

I think the sport absolutely needs a salary floor so we don't have a bunch of "start-and-park" teams like the Marlins every year. But the big-market spending is becoming so out of control that unless there's also a hard salary cap, I don't see how it doesn't eventually end in disaster for the sport.