Most logical and sound thought I've seen about this topic. I think the anger comes from not knowing how the contract truly works. When you really understand it you realize it's a big nothing burger and this situation is likely never going to happen again.
*****Official 2023-2024 Texas Rangers Off-season Thread*****
347,755 Views |
3663 Replies |
Last: 10 mo ago by Grapesoda2525
fc2112 said:
BTW - little brother down south is having kittens this morning. Leah Vann, the Chronicle's Astros reporter, was found to have posted this to her personal Facebook page:
Her personal Twitter and Facebook pages are all pro Ranger while she was reporting on the Oxys. She even referred to Altuve as a cheater during the ALCS this season.
Here's her crabbing on the issue yesterday.I don’t know what else to say other than I got heated during this year’s ALCS and made some rash comments on the internet that I can’t erase & regret making. I’ll always strive to treat the people I cover with respect while also doing my due diligence in reporting and when I…
— Leah Vann (@LVann_Sports) December 14, 2023
T&P for her job! If it was a Cubs jersey she would be fine, but that town has serious anger issues around anything having to do with the DFW area.
There's nothing wrong with a reporter being a fan of team x, but covering team y. You just can't let it come out in your coverage when doing your job. The Altuve stuff is more damning in my opinion. If she is a beat reporter, coming out and saying that isn't part of the job (unless it is proven and accepted by MLB as true). Columnists or TV/Radio commentators can opine on that if they want, but beat writers usually stick with "just the facts".
Maybe there is more to all of this, but I'm not chasing it down to find out.
Water Boy said:
Most logical and sound thought I've seen about this topic. I think the anger comes from not knowing how the contract truly works. When you really understand it you realize it's a big nothing burger and this situation is likely never going to happen again.
I also saw somewhere yesterday that there is an opt out for Ohtani, but only if certain front office type executives leave. Otherwise no opt out, there is also a no-trade clause.
That makes a lot of sense. I guarantee I do not understand all the details of how this contract is structured.
All the same - I still hold that the deferred comp model is a strategy rich clubs will use to strong arm poor clubs into much higher CBT levels in future CBAs.
All the same - I still hold that the deferred comp model is a strategy rich clubs will use to strong arm poor clubs into much higher CBT levels in future CBAs.
Couple things. I don't like the contract because I think it skirts the intent of what MLB is trying to do.
IMO, this goes back to the NJ Plan vs the Va Plan.
Everything does.
The CBT, or Competitive Balance Tax, was not just to implement a soft cap, IMO, the intent was to implement a way return some balance to teams that have a lower revenue stream. It includes the Competitive Balance Draft rounds.
I believe the attempt is to share the wealth. The problem is that this was anticipated and it was specifically allowed. It will come into the CBA and MLB will have to decide if it is worth a lock-out.
IMO, this goes back to the NJ Plan vs the Va Plan.
Everything does.The CBT, or Competitive Balance Tax, was not just to implement a soft cap, IMO, the intent was to implement a way return some balance to teams that have a lower revenue stream. It includes the Competitive Balance Draft rounds.
I believe the attempt is to share the wealth. The problem is that this was anticipated and it was specifically allowed. It will come into the CBA and MLB will have to decide if it is worth a lock-out.
The other side to that coin is that we have teams purposely being cheap and taking advantage of the additional revenue from the tax to maximize their profits. I truly feel for the teams in the middle but guys at the bottom of the chain are taking advantage of the system just like the dodgers. How about we make it fair all around and place a minimum salary cap. The floor starts at $75million. Go under and pay a tax.
Water Boy said:
The other side to that coin is that we have teams purposely being cheap and taking advantage of the additional revenue from the tax to maximize their profits. I truly feel for the teams in the middle but guys at the bottom of the chain are taking advantage of the system just like the dodgers. How about we make it fair all around and place a minimum salary cap. The floor starts at $75million. Go under and pay a tax.
I agree that there should be a minimum team salary level as well. Teams shouldn't be able to totally tank and have little to no salary on the roster. The players union should be all in favor of that one.
It's criminal what Oakland is allowed to do. A storied franchise now ruined. There's only a few teams that should have a legitimate gripe with what the dodgers did. I have no sympathy for billionaires who refuse to pay kind of money to build a good roster and rather play money ball. Pay up or stop complaining.
I was going to post something similar to this. The Dodgers are playing within the rules, and are trying to win world series rings for their fans. MLB fans everywhere should be asking why their team didn't make a similar pitch to Ohtani.Water Boy said:
It's criminal what Oakland is allowed to do. A storied franchise now ruined. There's only a few teams that should have a legitimate gripe with what the dodgers did. I have no sympathy for billionaires who refuse to pay kind of money to build a good roster and rather play money ball. Pay up or stop complaining.
About half of the league isn't even within $100,000,000 of the CBT threshold. Think about that and then compare it to the NFL or NBA where pretty much every franchise is at the cap number/tax number. In this bizzaro world of baseball fandom, we have fans that celebrate that they "didn't overpay" for a player or "built the team the right way" with draft picks and savvy extensions. The reality is that in any given year about 2/3 of the teams don't care to win a world series and more than shifts/game length/strikeouts this is what impacts why baseball is losing fans.
I know there are people that don't like the Yankees/Phillies/Dodgers, but I love that they go get guys to help them win. It might not work, but damn it's nice to see your team make a splash designed to win and make the team fun to watch. The Rangers essentially did this with the Seager/Semien signings, they decided they wanted to win and added 2 of the top 10 players in the sport to their team... and shockingly then won a world series.
The minimum needs to be set at about 180,000,000 and there needs to be stiff penalties for not hitting that number. The cheap ass owners would sell their teams and we could get more owners invested in winning to buy these franchises. If some of them need to move, so be it, baseball franchises have always moved cities.
Imagine being an Orioles fan and knowing that your team didn't even bid on Ohtani even being 180,000,000 under the CBT line. Put his bat in that lineup, and they are instantly the top team in the AL. But they didn't even try.
When Lebron was a free agent, every team with cap space offered him the max that they could, and those without the space tried to come up with ways to clear space to make a run at him. Only in MLB do teams PURPOSELY have no interest in the best players when they are available.
Water Boy said:
The other side to that coin is that we have teams purposely being cheap and taking advantage of the additional revenue from the tax to maximize their profits. I truly feel for the teams in the middle but guys at the bottom of the chain are taking advantage of the system just like the dodgers. How about we make it fair all around and place a minimum salary cap. The floor starts at $75million. Go under and pay a tax.
I thought there was a minimum.
The problem is that owners Luke Hicks are nefarious. He moved all the parking into a separate legal entity to shield it from team revenue. That allowed us to present lower revenue and thus no apply to minimum payroll.
It's possible, we know teams don't like paying taxes, and penalties like losing draft picks etc. are pretty stiff for repeat offenders.fc2112 said:
That makes a lot of sense. I guarantee I do not understand all the details of how this contract is structured.
All the same - I still hold that the deferred comp model is a strategy rich clubs will use to strong arm poor clubs into much higher CBT levels in future CBAs.
I would think though, that it's hard to imagine payrolls (non inflation adjusted) ever going much beyond the $300,000,000 mark. That gets you to an average salary per player of $11.5MM right there if it was split evenly among all 26 players. If we say that the $300MM is going to be split up primarily among the 9 position player starters +4 starters + the closer, that's splitting it 14 ways, and is a $21.5MM average per player. Even if you are trying to spend crazy money, it's hard to find enough free agents that really demand that much per year unless you just want to overpay on purpose.
So while perhaps some teams have a goal to raise the CBT line, I'm not sure I see the logic in them then spending 300,000,000 on their rosters. There just aren't enough players out there for them to sign even if they wanted to.
(For context, there are only 43 players in the league currently making more than 21.5MM per year and only 17 making more than 30MM per year)
(And yes I know the Mets did it last year, I just think that will end up being an outlier not a norm)
Well said. I think owners being cheap impacts the game way more than what the dodgers did. Also look at a team like Seattle. Seattle is close to being a winner with a great pitching staff. Although the offseason is far from over they have done nothing to improve their team and have arguably made their team worse. And great point with Baltimore. They have so much money to add to their team and nothing has been done so far. Your suggestion with 180 million being the minimum would actually way more helpful with the competitiveness of the game instead of trying to make block what the dodgers did in essentially a once in a lifetime deal that I don't see being done anytime soon in the future.
Was not aware there was a minimum since looking at Oakland's payroll is laughable. But what you just said proves that teams look for loopholes to appear more poor. Im all for getting rid of the dodgers loop hole if that means the teams at the bottom don't have any loopholes. It has to work both ways.
One of my favorite recent examples is Cody Bellinger, cut by the Dodgers, every team in the league had a chance to sign a young former MVP. He only gets a 1 year $20MM contract from the Cubs. This would have been the perfect chance for the Orioles, Pirates, Mariners, Diamondbacks, Reds, Royals, Rockies to put a 8 year $120MM offer on the table with an opt out after the 4th year.
Cost is only $14MM per year for an MVP caliber guy at his best, and gold glove defender in CF even at his worst. You give him a good guarantee and the opportunity to reestablish his value and be a free agent one more time if he plays up to or above that contract.
BUT NONE OF THEM EVEN KICKED THE TIRES ON BELLINGER
This is a broken system when teams that need good players don't even try to acquire good players.
Cost is only $14MM per year for an MVP caliber guy at his best, and gold glove defender in CF even at his worst. You give him a good guarantee and the opportunity to reestablish his value and be a free agent one more time if he plays up to or above that contract.
BUT NONE OF THEM EVEN KICKED THE TIRES ON BELLINGER
This is a broken system when teams that need good players don't even try to acquire good players.
Is Baltimore really 180 million under the cap? So in theory they could have signed Ohtani, Monty, Yamamoto, this year and still have cap space to offer Soto for next season. Could you imagine if Baltimore went all in with that core they have?
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/
This isn't fully accurate at this point because they have some arbitration eligible guys to finalize, but I'd imagine Baltimore will sit at about 60MM to start the season.
This isn't fully accurate at this point because they have some arbitration eligible guys to finalize, but I'd imagine Baltimore will sit at about 60MM to start the season.
Just a point on Seattle.
I agree they have torn down some of their O, but it is part of a "retooling" they are going through. It is similar to what the Rangers did.
They have a ton of players who had high strikeout rates. It was the low BA, tons of HRs, and tons of SOs. Odor, Mazara, Gallo, types.
The 3 outcome path was a fad and very popular around the league. Without being able to shift, that has changed, along with the SB value that the pitch clock has added.
OBP is now more valued as is small ball. Get guys on base and you can move them around easily with SB. You didn't want to risk a CS if Gallo was going to hit a HR.
I agree they have torn down some of their O, but it is part of a "retooling" they are going through. It is similar to what the Rangers did.
They have a ton of players who had high strikeout rates. It was the low BA, tons of HRs, and tons of SOs. Odor, Mazara, Gallo, types.
The 3 outcome path was a fad and very popular around the league. Without being able to shift, that has changed, along with the SB value that the pitch clock has added.
OBP is now more valued as is small ball. Get guys on base and you can move them around easily with SB. You didn't want to risk a CS if Gallo was going to hit a HR.
I can't find anything substantive, but I thought MLB required teams to spend a certain percentage of their revenue on players, in order to participate on the Competitive Balance Draft scheme. The lowest revenue generators were allotted extra draft picks, but in order to get them, they had to spend.Water Boy said:
Was not aware there was a minimum since looking at Oakland's payroll is laughable. But what you just said proves that teams look for loopholes to appear more poor. Im all for getting rid of the dodgers loop hole if that means the teams at the bottom don't have any loopholes. It has to work both ways.
The expectation was along the lines of Tampa that constantly has young top-end talent to replace the costly FAs they lose when the player gets paid elsewhere. The intent, though was to prevent some of what Oakland has done, and that is just not spend, and take the extra welfare.
IMO, it also acts as a disincentive. If you are making money off the welfare, then you have no incentive to improve your product, which will generate more gate revenue, which will then require you to spend more money on players.
You are playing in the $14M/yr game. The owners are playing in the $600M game (new O's stadium deal?).
The Orioles lease was up at Camden, similar to the Rangers at RBiA. Camden, IIRC, opened right before RBiA.
The Rangers were a "poor" team and didn't spend. Then, the City, et al, gave them $500M in a new stadium GLP, and suddenly the Owners are spending... albeit 2 years later.
Angelos just signed a new 30yr lease in Baltimore... and now he is looking to sell the team. You think he gives a damn about winning a WS when he may sell the team for $2B?
The Orioles lease was up at Camden, similar to the Rangers at RBiA. Camden, IIRC, opened right before RBiA.
The Rangers were a "poor" team and didn't spend. Then, the City, et al, gave them $500M in a new stadium GLP, and suddenly the Owners are spending... albeit 2 years later.
Angelos just signed a new 30yr lease in Baltimore... and now he is looking to sell the team. You think he gives a damn about winning a WS when he may sell the team for $2B?
COTS has them projected at $140below. It usually includes Serfs/Arbs.AggieEP said:
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/
This isn't fully accurate at this point because they have some arbitration eligible guys to finalize, but I'd imagine Baltimore will sit at about 60MM to start the season.
They have $2M committed to 2025, not including Arbs and Serfs. $1M to Bautista and $1M to buyout Kimbrel.
Of course there's a minimum a club has to pay it's players. The MLB minimum in 2023 was:
$720,000
Thus, the MLB minimum club salary is
26*($720,000) = $18,720,000
Or about what Ohtani will effectively earn from the Dodgers by June 1, 2024.
$720,000
Thus, the MLB minimum club salary is
26*($720,000) = $18,720,000
Or about what Ohtani will effectively earn from the Dodgers by June 1, 2024.
hahaha went poking around at deferred salaries. Not only are the Mets paying Bobby Bonilla $1 MM a year, they're still paying Bret Saberhagen too - $250,000 a year until 2028
Did Seattle make any notable offseason moves last year? I've heard about their plan to reduce strikeouts but the point is at some point you have to throw some money around and take a risk. We can all agree that you would like a mixture of both spending and having young talent produce(like the rangers) but you can't just be money ball mindset all the time. Seattle should be looking at guys like Matt Chapman, Bellinger, garver, or someone who can potentially bring that lineup to life.
Aren't the Angels still paying Pujols for like a personal services contract? I remember him and someone else getting that added to their deal then MLB changed the rules not to allow it.
I've said it a million times before, but MLB teams should be owned by billionaires who like baseball, not snake oil salesmen out to make a buck who lucked into owning one.DallasAg 94 said:
You are playing in the $14M/yr game. The owners are playing in the $600M game (new O's stadium deal?).
The Orioles lease was up at Camden, similar to the Rangers at RBiA. Camden, IIRC, opened right before RBiA.
The Rangers were a "poor" team and didn't spend. Then, the City, et al, gave them $500M in a new stadium GLP, and suddenly the Owners are spending... albeit 2 years later.
Angelos just signed a new 30yr lease in Baltimore... and now he is looking to sell the team. You think he gives a damn about winning a WS when he may sell the team for $2B?
The NFL has shown how hard it is to force an owner out, but it can be done, and would be better for the game if MLB could force a sale if owners are not making an effort to field a competitive product. I know the owners balk at this because they win no matter what financially right now and don't want their cash cows to be taken away, but they'd win even bigger if we had 30 franchises trying to win every year.
Part of what used to make spring training great each year (I'm thinking back to the 80's/90's is that you never knew who was going to pop up and be great each year. From 1979-1987 we had a different world series winner each year and among them, Baltimore, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Minnesota. Losers in the world series included Milwaukee and San Diego. In the early 90s we had Oakland, Cincinnati and Toronto win.
Right now fans of certain teams know their teams are going to suck next year, and that their owners don't care to add some of the big names available this winter. That's a losing proposition for baseball going forward that needs to be solved.
Since the Rangers had been bad for so long, it came as a surprise to me how many teams started bowing out so early last season. It pays to punt in July if there is less than a 50/50 chance of making the playoffs.
This is a good exercise - in the AL, the teams we absolutely know are going to suck next year.AggieEP said:
Right now fans of certain teams know their teams are going to suck next year, and that their owners don't care to add some of the big names available this winter. That's a losing proposition for baseball going forward that needs to be solved.
Indians
White Sox
Royals
Anaheim
Oakland
Teams that will probably suck but they'll go through the motions
Detroit
Boston
So of the 15 AL teams, about 50% are headed into the season without much expectation of doing anything.
Watch out for the Royals. They got hot at the end and won 12 out of the last 17 games. Also beat the astros 5 out of 6 in that stretch and have made some offseason moves. They could win around 70 games next year.
Tyler Mahle anyone? Just signed him to a 2 year deal.
He'll miss the first half of 2024. Still recovering from TJ. Good pitcher when healthy.
He'll miss the first half of 2024. Still recovering from TJ. Good pitcher when healthy.
gigem1223 said:
Tyler Mahle anyone? Just signed him to a 2 year deal.
He'll miss the first half of 2024. Still recovering from TJ. Good pitcher when healthy.
Just saw this. Is this good?
I hope I'm wrong but I don't see it. Saw he got 7.5 million in arbitration last year and we are basically paying him 22 million for 1 season and half a season of recovery starts. Hopefully he proves me wrong but it at least gives us a starter for 24.
I've always liked Mahle but I'm not quite understanding this move. Love it for 2025, but 2024? You already have a starter (deGrom) that is probably coming back around August. The question is, whose going to get us to August if we're not resigning Montgomery? I hate relying on older guys like Scherzer and Eovaldi to stay healthy. And what are we doing to address the pen and DH? If we're truly tight on money I feel like this money should've been set aside to address those concerns.
I loved Mahle when healthy. Big strikeout guy.
That being said, I'm guessing we're out in Monty now.
That being said, I'm guessing we're out in Monty now.
fc2112 said:
I loved Mahle when healthy. Big strikeout guy.
That being said, I'm guessing we're out in Monty now.
That was my thought.
World's worst proofreader
I think we'll have to see what the structure looks like.
Certainly not $11M per. Maybe it is $7M in 2024 and $15M in 2025. Hopefully it is like $2M in 2024 and $20M in 2025?! Heaney is $13M next year... surely we're not giving him $11M for 1/2 season.
I was expecting us to sign a couple MLB SPs to minor league deals to add depth in ST and have backups that might be more advanced that a typical minor leaguer... but this is a significant jump from what I was expecting.
He had his TJ in May 2023, so I'm guessing once the season starts he'll get put on the 60IL until after the ASB. Like deGrom, I don't know that I'm looking for anything in 2024 in their return.
One interesting thought may be you now have a sidesaddle for deGrom. Two guys on about the same recovery schedule that can motivate and push each other. As they have throwing sessions, you could have them alternate simulating innings using the same catcher?!
In 2025, we have Dunning and Gray... Eovaldi has a vesting option based on IP. Then, there is deGrom. He'd give us our 5th.
I don't know if this changes anything with Monty for the Rangers. If they were in, they may still be in, since Mahle won't be ready still mid-year. Depends on contract structure, I suppose.
Certainly not $11M per. Maybe it is $7M in 2024 and $15M in 2025. Hopefully it is like $2M in 2024 and $20M in 2025?! Heaney is $13M next year... surely we're not giving him $11M for 1/2 season.
I was expecting us to sign a couple MLB SPs to minor league deals to add depth in ST and have backups that might be more advanced that a typical minor leaguer... but this is a significant jump from what I was expecting.
He had his TJ in May 2023, so I'm guessing once the season starts he'll get put on the 60IL until after the ASB. Like deGrom, I don't know that I'm looking for anything in 2024 in their return.
One interesting thought may be you now have a sidesaddle for deGrom. Two guys on about the same recovery schedule that can motivate and push each other. As they have throwing sessions, you could have them alternate simulating innings using the same catcher?!
In 2025, we have Dunning and Gray... Eovaldi has a vesting option based on IP. Then, there is deGrom. He'd give us our 5th.
I don't know if this changes anything with Monty for the Rangers. If they were in, they may still be in, since Mahle won't be ready still mid-year. Depends on contract structure, I suppose.
Featured Stories
See All
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Florida Slam Dunk' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
Keys to the Game: No. 13 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Luke Evangelist
41:06
22h ago
4.1k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Tom Schuberth