MLB Hot Stove 2024/25

[MoeFOH]

Yes, Hot Stove 2024/25... a.k.a. Soto Season! 

Who lands him? Is it really down to the two New York teams? Will the Dodgers be in / all-in? Will Steve Cohen just outbid everyone? Will Soto simply go with the biggest $$$ or can a lesser offer entice him in other ways? Do you even care about Juan Soto? Ok. What's your team in need of? Who's top of your wishlist? What about Sosaki? Who have the Toledo Mud Hens got their eye on?... 

These and many more pressing questions require answers. After all, there's a long time between now and Opening Day... 

[MoeFOH]

 

[JohnS]

I don't think that Juan Soto will return to the New York Yankees, nor go to the Los Angeles Dodgers this off-season. The Yankees won't give him a long-term contract for $US700 million and the LA Dodgers have plenty of stars on their roster; I would think that Soto would prefer a competitive, more-balanced team (between the number of stars, middle-tiered players and upcoming rookies) that will front up the sum he's looking for.

As a Mets fan, I agree that owner Steve Cohen would have the funds and the type of team that Soto would like to come to. However, the Mets went quite deep into the postseason without him last year and I trust in manager David Stearns' ability to build a team for next season that will be similarly competitive. They can do that with or without Soto.

[MrBirdman]

We were discussing Soto on the election Zoom. @LizardGizmo thinks he’ll end up in Philly. I think that’s possible but less likely than going to a New York team. I don’t think the Dodgers are likely, it’s been widely reported that he prefers to remain on the East Coast. 

Worth noting that the Mets have a fair amount of room on their payroll opening up next season. As much as I’d hate to see it, I think that if it comes down to money alone, he’ll be a Met. Whether the Phillies “soft factors” like Harper can sway things is the wild card. I also think the Yankees will have a hard time letting him walk, so they are going to make a competitive bid. 

[LizardGizmo]

We were discussing Soto on the election Zoom. [mention=37421]LizardGizmo[/mention] thinks he’ll end up in Philly. I think that’s possible but less likely than going to a New York team. I don’t think the Dodgers are likely, it’s been widely reported that he prefers to remain on the East Coast. 
Worth noting that the Mets have a fair amount of room on their payroll opening up next season. As much as I’d hate to see it, I think that if it comes down to money alone, he’ll be a Met. Whether the Phillies “soft factors” like Harper can sway things is the wild card. I also think the Yankees will have a hard time letting him walk, so they are going to make a competitive bid. 

Before the Yanks blew it in the WS, I def was thinking he’d be in Philly. With the money the Mets are now throwing at him - hearing $660M - I don’t see anyone coming close.

[MrBirdman]

1 hour ago, LizardGizmo said:

Before the Yanks blew it in the WS, I def was thinking he’d be in Philly. With the money the Mets are now throwing at him - hearing $660M - I don’t see anyone coming close.

Agree, though with figures the proportion in deferrals makes a big difference. There’s no way he’s getting $660M without some deferrals, it would be 50% higher than the present value of Ohtani’s contract and that’s without factoring in the extra luxury tax of such a high AAV. 

[Puros Y Vino]

He should go to the Jays. Landing on the US teams might get him deported. 

[Ford2112]

Blake Snell just went to the scrubs for 5 years with deferred money. Scumbag.

[BoliDan]

I think the Dodgers are unstoppable next year. But I'd like to see the Red Sox owner actually make a move to at least pretend he wants to be competitive, so that's my wish. Also tired of Sox going to the Yankees, would like to see a rile reversal for once.

[ChanceSchmerr]

On 11/20/2024 at 12:52 PM, Puros Y Vino said:

He should go to the Jays. Landing on the US teams might get him deported. 

Soto should go to Toronto. $705M contract, guaranteed money in a deliberate bird-flip to the Dudgers and their anticompetitive buy-everyone-and-skirt-competitive-rules approach.

Rogers (Blue Jays owners) - Pay up, you cowards! The alternative is watching VGJ and Bichette walking after this year and a decade of irrelevancy to follow.

[Ford2112]

Bo Bichette will definitely have a new home.

[ChanceSchmerr]

5 hours ago, Ford2112 said:

Bo Bichette will definitely have a new home.

After this coming season. His value couldn't be lower right now. No need to trade him unless you're blown away at the trade deadline.

[MoeFOH]

I have to admit my ignorance with this deferred money caper... are the Dodgers the only ones doing it? Is it a rort or just clever, creative finance? Is this a completely new thing? I mean I've heard of front-loading contracts, etc... 

I'm a Red Sox fan but in the EPL I'm a Chelsea fan (Todd Boehly ownership group) and Chelsea have engaged in many unusually long-term player deals (typically for younger prospects) in order to skirt around the financial fair play rules, since his involvement as an owner. That tactic seems as though it comes with a fair degree of ownership risk, too, as the players could turn out to be sub par and subsequently you're stuck with a long-term contract you can't shift or have to take a bath on. This deferred money seems a totally different kind of kicking the can down the road deal... 🤔

Interested to know everyone's take on it. 

All that aside, the Dodgers rotation is now actually sick. Like I'm vomiting right now sick. Jesus, Joseph, and Mary! 

 

[BigGuns]

I will not claim to be a professional sports league contract expert by any means, but from what I have heard and (think I) understand, this is not a new thing - I believe the Nats executed similar deferred-money contracts with Strasburg and Scherzer a few years back - but the Dodgers are one of the few (only) doing it because of the negative effects it has on current market value. Said Strasburg and Scherzer contracts apparently hurt the Nats' market value and made it a challenge to sell the team at the time. As the ownership group isn't interested in selling the greatest franchise in the league anytime soon, this isn't an issue for the superior, great, unmatched, world-class LAD.

And to all you haters in this thread, I invite you to turn that emotion around to your respective teams and encourage your stingy owners to not be so cheap!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAAAA 😂🤣😅

[MoeFOH]

7 minutes ago, BigGuns said:

I will not claim to be a professional sports league contract expert by any means, but from what I have heard and (think I) understand, this is not a new thing - I believe the Nats executed similar deferred-money contracts with Strasburg and Scherzer a few years back - but the Dodgers are one of the few (only) doing it because of the negative effects it has on current market value.  Said Strasburg and Scherzer contracts apparently hurt the Nats' market value and made it a challenge to sell the team at the time.  As the ownership group isn't interested in selling the greatest franchise in the league anytime soon, this isn't an issue for the superior, great, unmatched, world-class LAD.

And to all you haters in this thread, I invite you to turn that emotion around to your respective teams and encourage your stingy owners to not be so cheap!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAAAA 😂🤣😅

It's very odd, Mike, as I grew up a passionate hater of silvertails (it's a national pastime here in Aus ), the Manly Sea Eagles come to mind (a rich North Sydney beaches NRL team that used to pinch all the poorer clubs players back in the non-salary cap days) but I don't have any of the same feelings towards the Dodgers... I actually quite like them. So, if this is simply a legit tactic, then more power to them. Now if it were the Yankees... that's a different story! Lol. 

If it's an unfair loophole, it'll no doubt be closed down soon enough. And sport generally has a way of levelling these things out... Jesus... listen to me, what bullshit wishful thinking is that!?...

Just give 'em the WS trophy now. 

[Ford2112]

1 hour ago, BigGuns said:

 

And to all you haters in this thread, I invite you to turn that emotion around to your respective teams and encourage your stingy owners to not be so cheap!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAAAA 😂🤣😅

I will always be a Dodger hater. I can't disagree with the statement about ownership being willing to spend. The NL West is stacked. Gotta pay to play now.

[BigGuns]

34 minutes ago, MoeFOH said:

It's very odd, Mike, as I grew up a passionate hater of silvertails (it's a national pastime here in Aus ), the Manly Sea Eagles come to mind (a rich North Sydney beaches NRL team that used to pinch all the poorer clubs players back in the non-salary cap days) but I don't have any of the same feelings towards the Dodgers... I actually quite like them. So, if this is simply a legit tactic, then more power to them. Now if it were the Yankees... that's a different story! Lol. 

If it's an unfair loophole, it'll no doubt be closed down soon enough. And sport generally has a way of levelling these things out... Jesus... listen to me, what bullshit wishful thinking is that!?...

Just give 'em the WS trophy now. 

We still have to play the games, Steve!!  It is not an unfair loophole...I know that to be certain. Coincidentally, I just stumbled on a little blurb about this (we apparently aren't the only blokes yapping about it) that these types of contracts have been exercised several times in the past, not just with the Dodgers - Rafael Devers 75M to 2043, Chris Sale 50M to 2036, Francisco Lindor 50M to 2041, Nolan Arenado 50M to 2041, Max Scherzer 105M to 2028.  Mookie and Freddie also have deferred money in their contracts. I think the issue here is that the massive amount deferred in the 3-time MVP (and second? to do it in both AL and NL) all-time stud Shohei Ohtani's contract has drawn more attention to it. Perhaps the amount combined with the butthurt of the 29 other franchises that just weren't quite cut out to attract such talent...I'm not sure. 

And to address the other topic of this thread - we don't want nor need Soto.  Y'all can have him.

[BigGuns]

1 minute ago, Ford2112 said:

I will always be a Dodger hater. I can't disagree with the statement about ownership being willing to spend. The NL West is stacked. Gotta pay to play now.

I would be supremely disappointed and mildly depressed if your hatred happened to cease one day.

[Ford2112]

Could be worse. Could be talking about the Raiders.

[JohnS]

1 hour ago, BigGuns said:

And to all you haters in this thread, I invite you to turn that emotion around to your respective teams and encourage your stingy owners to not be so cheap!  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAAAA 😂🤣😅

You know, Abba once said, "Money, money, money...ain't so funny, in the rich man's world!"

Well, if that's the case, then why is Steve Cohen always smiling in every image we see of him nowadays?

[MoeFOH]

28 minutes ago, BigGuns said:

And to address the other topic of this thread - we don't want nor need Soto.  Y'all can have him.

Thanks. We'll take him! Plus two starting pitchers, a bullpen stud, and keep all our top prospects. Add Vlad Jr next year. 

See you in the WS! 

Now I am talking some serious bullshit 

[MrBirdman]

5 hours ago, MoeFOH said:

I have to admit my ignorance with this deferred money caper... are the Dodgers the only ones doing it? Is it a rort or just clever, creative finance? Is this a completely new thing? I mean I've heard of front-loading contracts, etc... 

Using deferred money has become a more common approach to super high value contracts because of how the luxury tax in baseball has increased in the last two CBAs. It actually happened prior to that, but it was quite rare and usually driven by the player wanting the income spread out a bit. In MLB the luxury tax (there is no hard salary cap) is calculated based on the average annual value (AAV) of the contract, so the total $$$ divided by the number of years. That is the figure used each year of the contract for calculating luxury tax even regardless of what the player is actually paid in a given year. So, by deferring money, clubs lower the AAV at the cost of having it count towards the tax for a longer period of time. 

I will not go into a detailed explanation of the MLB luxury tax (officially called the "competitive balance tax") because the Wikipedia page does a good job. The bottom line is that for high payroll teams, the top luxury tax rate can hit 105% of every dollar your AAV payroll is over $301M (for 2025) if you've been a taxpayer for 3 or more consecutive years (which I think all top 5 payroll teams have done at this point). You also have your first-round pick dropped 10 spots if you hit the top tax bracket. There are lower brackets starting in the $200Ms. As you can imagine, that added tax can add up quickly. If you are a team like the Dodgers or Yankees and already flirting with the top rate, deferring money for a big new contract can save the club many of millions of dollars in tax each season.

A large portion of those dollars go to small market teams, and big market owners really don't like sending them even more money than they already do. And I don't blame them - take a team like the Pirates, whose owner fields terrible teams every season on a bargain basement payroll, unsurprisingly draws tiny crowds, and still makes bank because of revenue sharing. MLB should force Nutting to sell the team, but that's a whole other ball of wax!

[MoeFOH]

18 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

Using deferred money has become a more common approach to super high value contracts because of how the luxury tax in baseball has increased in the last two CBAs. It actually happened prior to that, but it was quite rare and usually driven by the player wanting the income spread out a bit. In MLB the luxury tax (there is no hard salary cap) is calculated based on the average annual value (AAV) of the contract, so the total $$$ divided by the number of years. That is the figure used each year of the contract for calculating luxury tax even regardless of what the player is actually paid in a given year. So, by deferring money, clubs lower the AAV at the cost of having it count towards the tax for a longer period of time. 

I will not go into a detailed explanation of the MLB luxury tax (officially called the "competitive balance tax") because the Wikipedia page does a good job. The bottom line is that for high payroll teams, the top luxury tax rate can hit 105% of every dollar your AAV payroll is over $301M (for 2025) if you've been a taxpayer for 3 or more consecutive years (which I think all top 5 payroll teams have done at this point). You also have your first-round pick dropped 10 spots if you hit the top tax bracket. There are lower brackets starting in the $200Ms. As you can imagine, that added tax can add up quickly. If you are a team like the Dodgers or Yankees and already flirting with the top rate, deferring money for a big new contract can save the club many of millions of dollars in tax each season.

A large portion of those dollars go to small market teams, and big market owners really don't like sending them even more money than they already do. And I don't blame them - take a team like the Pirates, whose owner fields terrible teams every season on a bargain basement payroll, unsurprisingly draws tiny crowds, and still makes bank because of revenue sharing. MLB should force Nutting to sell the team, but that's a whole other ball of wax!

I have a few takeaways (in general, not to just your post, Brett) :

- Hat's off to the Dodgers for the way they've played the existing system and have built a team and a culture that top players will gravitate to. They're going to be a juggernaut for the foreseeable future. 

- I think you'll see restrictions come in on the value you can defer or how that relates to the CBT. As it stands now it basically contradicts the idea of a CBT if the actual payroll on the field is $400m and on the books it's $275m (random example figures). 

- I have no issue with Star-studded teams and David & Goliath markets. It's what makes sport romantic in many instances. Players want to win, sure, but players also want to simply play. Stacked rosters can be hard to manage in many ways. Lesser payrolls offer more ownership of your role in the team. 

Anyhow, the first FA domino has fallen in Snell. Who's next? 

[Ford2112]

4 hours ago, MoeFOH said:

 

- Hat's off to the Dodgers 

 

[MrBirdman]

23 hours ago, MoeFOH said:

- I think you'll see restrictions come in on the value you can defer or how that relates to the CBT. As it stands now it basically contradicts the idea of a CBT if the actual payroll on the field is $400m and on the books it's $275m (random example figures). 

I agree that the more common it becomes the more owners might look to curb it - it isn't costless because it prolongs the cap hit, but of course the luxury tax will be much higher down the road. I highly doubt the players would agree to a CBA amendment without a giveback in return, so any change is unlikely to occur until the next round of bargaining. Players might agree to it and a tougher tax in exchange for a salary floor (see below), but I suspect it won't get addressed unless we start regularly seeing contracts with large deferrals for non-marquis free agents. 

23 hours ago, MoeFOH said:

- I have no issue with Star-studded teams and David & Goliath markets. It's what makes sport romantic in many instances. Players want to win, sure, but players also want to simply play. Stacked rosters can be hard to manage in many ways. Lesser payrolls offer more ownership of your role in the team. 

That's not the issue - it's unavoidable the way the league is currently structured. The issue is a system that offers small market owners little financial incentive to field a decent team because they can make a more reliable profit by keeping payroll low and getting revenue from the big market teams. Baseball's system relies on those owners to care about winning at least as much as making money, and at least one of them absolutely does not. If every small market owner acted like Nutting, the league would be as bad a product as the NBA has become, maybe worse. Fortunately, most small-market owners care enough about winning to invest in it from time to time. MLB either needs to force Nutting to sell the team or face ongoing pressure for a salary floor from players.

Players' top concern is getting paid, with winning a distant second - playing is essential to getting paid, but the Pirates trade away anyone decent before they become a free agent anyway. Sure, it gives room for fringe minor leaguers to start, but that's pretty minimal comfort to long suffering Pirates fans who just want a competitive team once in a while. Nutting won't even fire the Pirates' manager until his contract is up, regardless of how poorly the team is doing, because he doesn't want to pay a manager not working for the team (which is a level of miserliness almost never seen in pro sports).

I personally know Pirates fans who are pooling $50k+ to buy billboards in Pittsburgh demanding the team be sold. It's a shame that's what it's come to for such a storied franchise, home of Roberto Clemente, Willie Stargell, and winner of the 1960 World Series, frequently cited as history's greatest Fall Classic. Meanwhile, Nutting makes over $30M annually on a completely garbage product by leaching off other teams.

Had to get that off my chest guys. My father is a Pirates fan as was my grandfather, who just passed away. When I asked why he started rooting for the Phillies late in life, he said he was still a Pirates fan "but let's face it, we're completely hopeless" with Nutting as the owner.