Official 2024 Off-Season Thread!

Enscheff said:
MLBTR is claiming the yearly CBT hit is $46 per year.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2023/12/shohei-ohtanis-contract-will-defer-68mm-per-year.html

Regardless what the actual value is, this is very clearly an attempt to circumvent the CBT, and MLB said they would shut down such attempts. It's a complete joke if they let this contract go as currently reported.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but MLB allowed it because it's in the damn collective bargaining agreement. And it'll probably be a point of contention next time that comes up.
 
bravesnumberone said:
Well yeah, but MLB allowed it because it's in the damn collective bargaining agreement. And it'll probably be a point of contention next time that comes up.
Click to expand...

The extra lame thing is MLB would have vetoed a 14/400 contract for Judge from the Padres specifically because it was trying to sidestep the CBT.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/12/latest-on-padres-pursuit-of-aaron-judge.html

So 14/400 is too far, but paying $700M over the course of 100 years is fine? This is crazy hypocrisy. I fully expect the Ohtani bidding to pick right back up.
 
SJ24 said:
What? You mean you think he's not a done deal to LA?
Click to expand...

It better not be. This is very clearly trying to sidestep the CBT, and if MLB was going to veto 14/400 they sure as hell better veto whatever this abomination is.

I very rarely agree with people when they cry about things not being "fair", but this is a clear case of it.
 
Enscheff said:
Exactly. The risk was worth it to potentially solve LF for the rest of the contention window. However, it was a risk that Kelenic is unplayable and they punted LF for 3-4 months and then have to fix it again.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's a particularly greater risk for Kelenic than Heyward or Rosario honestly.

But any event, the upside is higher which probably makes it the better decision.

If it doesn't work you pick something up at deadline like you might do anyway if you went with the other two.
 
Enscheff said:
It better not be. This is very clearly trying to sidestep the CBT, and if MLB was going to veto 14/400 they sure as hell better veto whatever this abomination is.

I very rarely agree with people when they cry about things not being "fair", but this is a clear case of it.
Click to expand...

MLB will probably lose the challenge but at the very least they should make a dog and pony show of it.
 
Southcack77 said:
I don't see how that's a particularly greater risk for Kelenic than Heyward or Rosario honestly.

But any event, the upside is higher which probably makes it the better decision.

If it doesn't work you pick something up at deadline like you might do anyway if you went with the other two.
Click to expand...

I suppose we just agree to disagree that Heyward/Verdugo/Rosario are equally as likely to be unplayable as Kelenic in 2024, or even close to as risky. I'm beyond tired of arguing the semantics of the word "risk".
 
chop2chip said:
The CBA clearly states there’s no limitation to deferrals. Maybe there is an exception somewhere else in the CBA that applies to teams trying to game the CBT that supersedes that language.
Click to expand...

The CBA also doesn't limit contract length, yet MLB was prepared to veto Judge's 14/400 deal with SD because, "The league’s justification for doing so would’ve been the contract length was an artificial means for the team of working around the competitive balance tax."

That provision is also in the CBA and this is clearly a case they should apply it. This Ohtani deal is much more egregious.
 
Ohtani made 40 million in just endorsement deals last year. The next highest is Trout at 5 million. He didn't need this contract money up front.
 
It seems pretty clear to me that if 14/400 was deemed by MLB to be too long for Judge, 20/700 certainly better be deemed too long for Ohtani as well.

There is no way to justify vetoing one without vetoing the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top