Hot Stove 2023-2024

"fans direct their anger at players instead of the billionaire owners who make all the rules"

Except the owners didn't make all the rules here? They're collectively bargained with the union - and no, they didn't take into the account a player giving those owners a bunch of money because why the fuck would you ever think you'd need to take that into account?

i don't know who ben verlander is. some dumb baseball guy?

anyway, you guys are talking about the future earnings of hundred million dollar players when the precedent that has been set that is actually materially effecting the earnings you guys apparently care so much about were the ozzie albies and ronald acuna type contracts that have now led to the corbin carrol and jackson chourio contracts where kids w/ barely any money are being incentivized to give up huge amounts of potential money in their prime earning years in order to "buy out" all the years of artificially depressed salaries put in place by the owners to hoard money. the amount of players who are even going to get to free agency to have their earnings "undermined" by the evil ohtani is rapidly dwindling by the day because the owners have moved on to screwing their best players before they even hit the majors. but maybe i heard that on ben verlander's podcast i'll have to go back and check

I think what you had said earlier is that more small market teams should do a Rays. But it’s incredibly hard to pull off. And I’m sure lots are trying, but it’s not a real solution to financial imbalance in the league. (I’d also add that the issue is getting blown out of proportion a little too right now)

That was an xpost to HP

So just to confirm, everyone up in arms about this thinks torn ucl ohtani is worth significantly more than 460 million over 10 years. I do, to clarify. It’s the players right to charge what they want for what they value. Part of this feels like the condescending attitudes Ozzie allies got for his contract exemption. That might have been terrible for the sport, but the guy is an individual and has the right to play where he wants for what he wants. People online were treating him like a kid that new nothing when that came out.

Yes this is a different situation, but there are elements of this

Didn’t see your post before bringing up Albies Jordan

as to "if you want to be mad at ohtani knock yourself out" you're aggressively missing the point of that post. IDGAF about Ohtani or the deal. If he'd signed for the Giants I don't think it makes them a championship quality team and probably cripples them eventually (because our billionaire scumbags would not just keep spending). The Dodgers were going to spend out the ass regardless so this just means the chucklehead who also owns Chelsea can waste a few hundred million more on that dogshit.

I don't see any reason to pretend that fans don't get mad whenever a player appears to build a supporting cast to carry them or that they should direct their ire at 'owners' when in this one specific instance it's entirely a product of the player's agency.

you guys are talking about the future earnings of hundred million dollar players when the precedent that has been set that is actually materially effecting the earnings you guys apparently care so much about were the ozzie albies and ronald acuna type contracts that have now led to the corbin carrol and jackson chourio contracts where kids w/ barely any money are being incentivized to give up huge amounts of potential money in their prime earning years in order to "buy out" all the years of artificially depressed salaries put in place by the owners to hoard money

I know this will shock you to the grave but it's possible for someone to disapprove of multiple things!

Agree thinwall. It’s not easy to pull off, money makes things easier, but all owners have money (I think?). How each team chooses to play the game of baseball is on them. Who is crying for how this deal affects John Fisher right now? Yes it sucks to be a fan of a John fisher owned team, but the dodgers ownership aren’t responsible for the happiness of John fisher team fans

If you're team 'abolish the draft, make every 18-year old a free agent and kill the remnants of the reserve clause,' (as everyone should be) it would still be entirely possible to not approve of Ohtani essentially playing for free for some of those billionaire scumbags.

I don't see any reason to pretend that fans don't get mad whenever a player appears to build a supporting cast to carry them or that they should direct their ire at 'owners' when in this one specific instance it's entirely a product of the player's agency.

putting aside that you're basically just asking me to acknowledge that people are dumb, i think you're conflating basketball and baseball. ohtani won 2 MVPs for teams that didn't even come close to making the playoffs. you can't build superteams in baseball. these feelings are not rational

I dunno, I personally think ohtani should keep playing baseball for the masses because it’s what he wants and what we (most of us) want. But for those who want him to suffer a career ending injury, I guess I can’t argue with you if those are your priorities?

If you're team 'abolish the draft, make every 18-year old a free agent and kill the remnants of the reserve clause,' (as everyone should be) it would still be entirely possible to not approve of Ohtani essentially playing for free for some of those billionaire scumbags.

― papal hotwife (milo z), Monday, December 11, 2023 8:03 PM (five minutes ago)

but the reason why someone might care about abolishing the draft and making teenagers free agents is because teenagers haven't made any money. the reason why someone might not care that much about whether ohtani is donating hundreds of millions back to the owners of the dodgers is because he's already insanely wealthy. how mad do you get about wealth transfers between extremely rich parties when sports aren't involved?

i think it's wack that lebron's salary is capped because he has made the NBA billions upon billions of dollars that it will never come close to repaying him for. but when i start thinking about things that need to be fixed about the NBA that one isn't really at the top of the list. you see what i'm saying?

You're just making a version of the THEY JUST PLAY A GAME argument now.

no i'm saying that it's possible to enjoy sports w/o being irrationally angry at players over their financial decisions

He’s really not

i'm also saying that you're describing ohtani as "playing practically for free" when in reality he will be making like $450 million to $500 million on this deal and offering that your framing of this issue might not be the most sound

Thank you

i think you're conflating basketball and baseball. ohtani won 2 MVPs for teams that didn't even come close to making the playoffs. you can't build superteams in baseball. these feelings are not rational

It takes more than 2.5 players but freeing up $48 million a year (and given his ancillary value, more than that) is worth 6-7 wins a season for a team that isn't incompetent (on top of Ohtani's 5-9 wins). This is different from Steve Cohen setting money on fire because it's actual money saved (with luxury tax implications) rather than just banking on an owner spending until they have to take out payroll loans.

A baseball "superteam" doesn't mean they win every ring for ten years, no - but Lebron's Heat also got owned by Flu Dirk and A Bunch of Guys.

I don't know that people being mad about the concept of a superteam is any dumber than your argument that these people should in this instance be mad at owners (for... not turning down free money?).

He’s really not

He is, though. "They're already rich who cares" is the base stance of everyone who gets mad at sports unions for striking to demand better pay or conditions.

Are you saying ohtani is worth 46 million (his current estimated yearly pay) PLUS 48 mil for a grand total of 94 million a year????????

To clarify, yes 2 million yearly pay but 46 mil for luxury tax purposes

It’s not “they’re already rich who cares”, it’s “an adult can make their own decision”.

If people were pissed at me because I took the 200k a year job at the hospital next door to me instead of the 300k job on the other side of the country…..

460mil over 10 years is still the largest MLB contract ever. Easily beating second Trouts $426.5 million over 12 years. This is still the most money a player has ever gotten, this is still the most a single player has ever effected the luxury tax. He's just structured his contract so as to make sure his team is not completely burdened by him thus defeating his main purpose for playing: to win games.

My understanding is Ohtani took this approach (massively deferring his salary to keep team payroll flexible) with all the teams he negotiated with

So this wasn't a Dodgers-exclusive thing. Seems like he thought this was the best way to win in his new destination

— Jack Harris (@ByJackHarris) December 11, 2023

And lets be honest, which is worse for competition: The dodgers spending 70 mil a year on a player, or 46 mil a year on a player? I'm big for paying the players, but if the dodgers are entering the 70mil territory, they've now doubled the status quo of what a great player should/could earn. I think they're negatively effecting the fanbases of cheap-owner led teams more with a 700mil no deferrals deal, than this 46mil business. But there wasn't this vocal an outcry at how unfair things were when this first broke

"They're already rich who cares" is the base stance of everyone who gets mad at sports unions for striking to demand better pay or conditions.

― papal hotwife (milo z), Monday, December 11, 2023 8:23 PM (twenty-six minutes ago)

the argument i'm making is "they're already rich who cares" *when we are talking about the 5-8 players in baseball who have deferred money in their contracts*. further, what i am saying is that this idea that ohtani is betraying or undermining the union is ridiculous because the rank and file union members will never make enough money to deal w/ the possibility of salary deferment. the majority of players *on the all star team* in a given year will never even make enough money to deal w/ salary deferments. your notion that this has anything to do w/ strikes or better pay/conditions is ridiculous, sorry.

xp to myself!

so why did he do it this way rather than just a plain jane 460mil 10 year no deferral? because 2 mil actually paid helps to win now ("win now" attitude being the conditional approach to any contract he would sign; thanks Angels), and probably for tax reasons? I'm fine with players trying to win now, I'm okay with non-citizens not paying crazy man tax to the country they're currently living in (I imagine shohei will move back to japan after his career?). I'm okay with players playing slightly cheaper so they don't have to move/lifestlye (is this more than a 10% discount? do other teams offer significantly more than 506mil/10 years when everything is accounted for? was someone offering a 770 mil contract with the same deferrals?)

It’s not “they’re already rich who cares

"you guys are talking about the future earnings of hundred million dollar players"

"the amount of players who are even going to get to free agency to have their earnings "undermined" by the evil ohtani"

"because he's already insanely wealthy. how mad do you get about wealth transfers between extremely rich parties when sports aren't involved?"

Every full season MLB player will earn more next season than a median worker will earn in 10. Every 2023 first round draft pick gets a bonus check equivalent to about 50 years of median individual income (so no, objection to the concept of a player draft is not about those players 'not having earned any money').

If relative wealth sets a limit on which sports labor questions you care about - most of us shouldn't care about any of them!

It’s not “they’re already rich who cares”, it’s “an adult can make their own decision”.

Yes, an adult can make their own decision - and other adults can look at that and go "that's fuckin' lame" for any number of reasons.

Sucks to not get ohtani, but don't think this is a crime against baseball, think it's reasonably fair when all is accounted for, think the outcry against ohtani (Ohtani specifically, say what you want to the dodgers/mlb/other owners) is absolutely ridiculous. Questioning whether people being cool with a career ending injury for ohtani have: cognizant thoughts, like baseball, are anything other than complete assholes

Yes, an adult can make their own decision - and other adults can look at that and go "that's fuckin' lame" for any number of reasons.

It's also very weird to be dismissive because it 'only impacts a few guys' while also recognizing that owners are villainous scum. Inconceivable that they would take a precedent and run with it (like, uh, buying out years way under market value).

my concern here is, what happens with team that might go all-in with this kind of thing. like, completely mortgage the future for 5 or 10 or 12 years of dominance; and then the team down the road has all these bills to pay and suddenly doesn't have the budget to put a competitive team on the field for another decade? it's going to be brutal for the owners down the road (whoever they may be), impossible for the next GM who inherits those bills to pay, and terrible for the team's fan base. i don't begrudge Ohtani for doing this and not really the dodgers either; but - i realize this is sort of a "slipper slope argument" - i forsee a lot of misery in the future if this sort of thing is allowed to get out of hand.

it "only impacts a few guys" who are clearly some of the best and most competitive players in baseball who now have competing interest of money/winning and this allows them some more flexibility toward the latter side of that equation without necessarily sacrificing the former (in the long run).

Just because something positively impacts a team, does not mean it negatively impacts its players. team x players is not a completely zero-sum game, there is the possibility of win-win in there.

my concern here is, what happens with team that might go all-in with this kind of thing. like, completely mortgage the future for 5 or 10 or 12 years of dominance; and then the team down the road has all these bills to pay and suddenly doesn't have the budget to put a competitive team on the field for another decade? it's going to be brutal for the owners down the road (whoever they may be), impossible for the next GM who inherits those bills to pay, and terrible for the team's fan base. i don't begrudge Ohtani for doing this and not really the dodgers either; but - i realize this is sort of a "slipper slope argument" - i forsee a lot of misery in the future if this sort of thing is allowed to get out of hand.

Completely fair concern, but to a certain extent this is what teams have already been doing with the rise of tanking. This just allows teams to be even more calculated in their tanking.

What would partially solve this problem, both tanking and massive deferments? Salary floor

salary floor and honestly i think they need to cap what % of a player salary you can defer. i feel like a mid-market team could really wind up leaving a unsurmountable time bomb for itself (and their fans) through an effort to outspend some larger market rivals.

It's also very weird to be dismissive because it 'only impacts a few guys' while also recognizing that owners are villainous scum. Inconceivable that they would take a precedent and run with it (like, uh, buying out years way under market value).

― papal hotwife (milo z), Monday, December 11, 2023 9:08 PM (two minutes ago)bookmarkflaglink

i know this will shock you to the grave but it's possible for someone to think owners are villains while also thinking that the free agent contracts of players like max scherzer, jacob degrom, and freddie freeman are not exactly the most pressing labor issue

all joking aside, you're simply missing the point. the reason why contracts involving 19-22 year olds giving up 10 years of earning power is concerning is because those players are not typically advocated for by the union, which is largely made up of older more established players who tend to look out for the guys they see in the locker room. there will be no precedent set that allows deferred money to overtake MLB because the union will defend itself before that ever happens. kids in the minors aren't being advocated for by the union, generally speaking. and of course there's just the simple stuff about the vast gap in power dynamics between players in their first few years who are young and have not made life changing money vs players like ohtani and the rest of them.

I don't know that people being mad about the concept of a superteam is any dumber than your argument that these people should in this instance be mad at owners (for... not turning down free money?).

― papal hotwife (milo z), Monday, December 11, 2023 8:21 PM (fifty-two minutes ago)

i also want to return to this real quick -- if you're mad that ohtani is allowing the dodgers the opportunity to improve their team even further by subverting the luxury tax structure via a loophole regarding deferred money, then yes you should be mad at the owners. the luxury tax is in the CBA and thus collectively bargained but let's be honest about who really cares about the structure of the luxury tax & thus who constructs it and the rules that govern it. it's not the players. the idea that it's ohtani's responsibility to be on a team that is not too good is completely bizarre & the fact that in the past sports fans have unleashed their anger on players and not owners is not a compelling argument to me

So to conclude:

This completely predictable event of a great player wanting to play on a competitive team is completely normal and we should maybe recognise this and stop with the attacks on both sides but rather hope that our teams will work to be more competitive?

Don’t have to be L.A to be a dynasty. Houston had (are still in?) one. Cincinnati had one in the 70’s. San Francisco had one a decade ago. The Cardinals…. They’re the cardinals. Oakland had one in the 70’s, etc.
NY/LA make up 3 of the 23 World Series this century. Baseball is always anyones game

let's be honest about who really cares about the structure of the luxury tax & thus who constructs it and the rules that govern it. it's not the players.

What? It’s absolutely a negotiating concern for the players/union. It’s the de facto salary cap!

The owners wouldn’t have any loopholes in the luxury tax that allow for increases in overall spending if they had a choice (they wouldn’t have a luxury tax at all, they’d have a hard cap).

the reason why contracts involving 19-22 year olds giving up 10 years of earning power is concerning is because those players are not typically advocated for by the union, which is largely made up of older more established players who tend to look out for the guys they see in the locker room

See above for value of signing bonuses and what players earn on the major league minimum (why would I be concerned with millionaires but not multi-millionaires?) but more importantly this is isn’t actually true.

The union has not traditionally bargained for minor leaguers and draftees, because they’re not part of the union. The MLBPA advocates for young MLB players as much as it does for older players - increasing minimums, trying to stop service time manipulation, chipping away at how the remnants of the reserve clause work.

Your arguments for how Ohtani’s contract is an issue of the owners’ behavior are incoherent.

I don't think baseball owners want a hard cap, there have always been free-spending owners in the free agent era. I don't think there's any consensus about a hard cap among the owners. Baseball needs a salary floor more than it needs a cap.

Bob Nightengale's tweet (about 100 posts up) is clearly the essence of the agreement, Ohtani will live large on endorsements for the next ten years and then take up residence in the Bahamas or whatever is best for him tax-wise.

Players signing extensions when they reach the majors is not something I would blame on the owners. Players have a clear incentive to take that guaranteed money and be essentially set for life despite having minimal MLB experience. Many of those contract look great for the owners five years down the line but the lesson is that more players should bet on themselves and hold off on signing a long term deal. I think the union should take a more active role in advising players on this, but it's not so cut and dry when you're 22 years old and the team offers you 70 mil in guaranteed money.

my concern here is, what happens with team that might go all-in with this kind of thing. like, completely mortgage the future for 5 or 10 or 12 years of dominance; and then the team down the road has all these bills to pay and suddenly doesn't have the budget to put a competitive team on the field for another decade?

That's a slippery slope that I wouldn't want to head down, what if a team mortgages its future by emptying its farm system and goes all-in to win? At the end of the day these are adults making tough decisions, there's no way to ensure against a decision looking bad in five or ten years.

As long as the six year reserve period exists, those buyout contracts generally aren't terrible for players - injuries and declines happen. Scott Kingery made $14mn over the last two years to be bad in AAA.

Owners absolutely want a hard cap, it's in their best interests. The most free-spending owner doesn't want to pay Aaron Judge $35mn a year when an artificial limit could make that $25mn. It's not like splashing out big numbers is all that effective for buying free agents now anyway - the biggest ones get a few offers in the same ballpark and pick. Harper would still be a Phillie and Judge a Yankee with a cap - the team just wouldn't have to be on the hook for as much money. Steve Cohen would probably just sign everyone to 25 year contracts.

Wanting a hard cap and wanting to keep salaries down aren't quite the same thing. Collusion forced salaries down, and it still goes on today (there was undeclared collusion in the 2018 offseason I think, nobody was getting signed and everybody knew something fishy was happening). If teams want to spend then we should let them. It's not like substantially more teams would make offers to Judge at $30M/yr vs $35M/yr. Fewer teams would probably bid for him because some would be constrained by a cap.

The problem is more with the mid-tier salaries for solid MLB regulars that might be worth 2-3 WAR per year. Teams can easily pass up on those players (most of whom aren't marketable to a large degree) and spend far less money on an unproven prospect or bargain bin player. There's no disincentive in the system for doing that.

don't get the hating on Ohtani, I mean if any player has earned the right to say fuck it, I'll do what it takes to get on a playoff team, it's him. like you wanna talk "bad for baseball" how about the fact that your marquee, once-in-a-lifetime talent hasn't even made the playoffs, where the games matter a lot and people are actually watching?

that said I'm actually stunned there are no rules in place preventing something like this from happening, seems like a real bad precedent for marquee free agents. makes me upset I didn't get that Brewers GM job, I would've offered him a cool trillion dollars, starting in 2033. sure we don't have the money but that's the next guy's problem

That's a slippery slope that I wouldn't want to head down, what if a team mortgages its future by emptying its farm system and goes all-in to win? At the end of the day these are adults making tough decisions, there's no way to ensure against a decision looking bad in five or ten years.

idk for me this is like a team going "you give us Acuna's contract now, then when it expires in 2029 you can pick any five guys from our farm team", just feels like it's artificially upsetting what's already a pretty fickle balance. the Dodgers I'm sure will be fine but imagine a small market team trying to pull this sort of thing off. its not really fair to the fans of the future.

I mean if any player has earned the right to say fuck it, I'll do what it takes to get on a playoff team, it's him. like you wanna talk "bad for baseball" how about the fact that your marquee, once-in-a-lifetime talent hasn't even made the playoffs, where the games matter a lot and people are actually watching?

also I think it's bad for the game in that it makes the Dodgers very easy to root against which I don't think the league wants when you've got (presumably) an all-time great player on the team. reminds me a bit of Durant on the Warriors, which was only possible due to some recently closed loophole that the team had lucked into.

(if you don't follow the NBA: Golden State set the all-time record for wins in a season, and THEN landed the best player in the league next to LeBron without losing any of their important dudes, which led to them steamrolling everyone until said player got hurt)

Also why are people so upset that I think he’s a dickhead for his choice, are you new to sports fandom or what? He’s an adult with a ton of agency who made this choice. He’ll make more money than the majority of players put together. Don’t make out we all need to nod along approvingly.

xp not familiar but that sounds fucking boring

but don’t pretend that structuring the thing to avoid paying the full whack of aav is “Good for the sport”.

basically my argument is that the Angels suck so much that it may actually wind up destroying Major League Baseball

Do California teams have the worst owners?

Giants - Charles Johnson: racist Trump donor, cunt, wish him the worst
A’s - John Fisher: revenue hoarding, club destroying, as above
Angels - Arte Moreno: had two generational talents in their primes and couldn’t finish above .500, destroyed the game

No idea who owns the Dodgers but I’m sure they’re pricks