Neither were most on that list. I don't think the Ohtani deal will reset the market, other than we may see more deferred money deals (the Mets did it last year with Edwin Diaz for tax purposes, so it isn't a first for those purposes). If Bregman finds a $300M taker, he should absolutely take it, and the Astros should wish him well.
That's due to the structure of the sport - no salary cap, and far more focused on local revenues as opposed to national ones. You switch other leagues to this system, and teams like Dallas would spend way more than Cinci; or the Lakers would spend way more than the Jazz. When you have a cap, there's incentive for teams to spend up to the cap because they know other teams won't just spend more. In baseball, there's no incentive for a $100MM payroll team to go to $200MM - if they all did that, the $200MM teams would just go to $300MM and they'll all be back to square one except spending an extra $100MM.
So you're saying poor teams don't spend more simply because richer teams will spend more as a result? I think thats exactly what the poor teams want you to believe. The well-defined middle class of baseball also doesn't have this fear. NFL and NBA teams still get local revenue thats disparate based on market size. Portland does not have the local media deals that Houston has. But those leagues do have better TV contracts with shared revenue amongst. The poorest NBA team is "richer" than the poorest MLB team if you just look at non-gate/non-merchandise revenue (meanwhile the poorest NFL team is "richer" than 2/3'ds of all pro sports teams not in the EPL). Again, I don't believe every baseball team should just add to their payroll to add. Its mainly calling out the poor teams who have NEVER spent, regardless of where they were in terms of possibly contending or possibly competing. They'll optimize their homegrown run as much as they can... and when its time to pull the plug, they do so again and again while their fan base (what's left of them) just has to take it. And those teams will always be solvent based on the revenue sharing plan.
Betts, Scherzer, Turner, Freeman, and now Ohtani Just un****ing believable how the Dodgers seem to always get the best talent every time via trade or free agency. They have too much of a money advantage over everyone. And I can't watch or listen to anything that isn't talking about Ohtani and it's pissing me off.
It’s only going to get worse man. Dodgers still have moves to make and so do the Yankees. Imagine how bad mlb and the media want a Yankees dodgers World Series.
And yet, their payroll was the same as the Astros last year. It's like people don't actually pay attention to what these teams do. Dodgers' current payroll, with Ohtani, is still lower than the Astros so far for 2024.
There's the occasional team that does that. But you could also just argue that it's smart management. The vast majority of free agent deals don't work out, so it's not necessarily a good use of limited resources. Sometimes, these teams identify a player that they consider to be actually worth it - Wander Franco, for the Rays, for example - despite how that turned out. But they need to have the payroll flexibility when that opportunity comes around. But even a team like the Marlins occasionally signs big free agents. But then they don't work out and then trade them away. As an example, Marlins signed Stanton to a crazy deal; and then people thought it was ridiculous that they dumped Stanton after 1 or 2 years, but that turned out to be a good move. I agree it sucks for the fan base, though.
I'm mostly just triggered by the fact that they're always the favorites to land the big names at the trade deadline or free agency. And more often than not it's predictable and actually happens. You can't say their TV deal doesn't give them an advantage, though.
Those are also more perplexing because the Marlins weren't necessarily ready to build around Stanton at the time... and the Rays certainly don't plan on building around any one player... and we also know that one single star player means absolutely nothing for a baseball team and barely scratches the surface for a fan base to rally around (ahem - hopefully Astros aren't just banging the Yordan "and everybody else" drum in 2028). These teams can spread resources to the lineup as well as pitching. Yes, take more risks to secure your homegrown talent, but don't just stop there. Supplement a potential winning team with veterans for places of need. Token spending isn't something that helps a poor team not be "poor". In fact they probably reinforce their cheapness when those moves don't work out, even when they were misguided decisions to begin with (to pay big money for one player and cut costs everywhere else).
Ultimately I imagine the Dodgers offer was in a league of it's own dollar wise. But with that much wealth you are losing out on considerable investment earnings deferring a decade. One way or the other...he isn't hurting. He makes an absurd amount of endorsement money. He's in an extremely unique situation compared to most players who earn very little, so he can "survive" on only 2 million a year.
No, the entire amount hits during the life of the player contract (2024-2033), the tax amount is just discounted based on the present value of the deferred amount. In Ohtanis case his AAV for CBT purposes will be ~$46M/yr.
he can't invest that money. it will just lose value. by the time he's paid it will have far less purchasing power.
I assumed it would be with interest but I just saw it was reported that it is WITHOUT interest. This should not be acceptable to the MLB.
