2k23 Offseason Transactions

[Sour Masher]

Outside of maybe 7-8 players, this year's free agents all seem like they are overhyped (and probably overpaid). Feels like teams are caught in the middle rounds of a fantasy draft and are reaching.

The contracts have surprised me this year as well, but I guess that is the market. No one deal stands out as way worse than the others. Really, it is length of the deals that has surprised me. 13 years for Correa, 11 for Turner and Bogaerts, 8 for Nimmo. As has been pointed out, it is safe to assume this is just how teams are deciding to spread out money, but I think it is short sighted to do it that way, especially for the teams that would not be going over the luxury tax threshold with a shorter, bigger salary per year deal. These contracts never end well.

[Ken]

I am angry because the Cubs are not rebuilding correctly.

So you think they have all the other pieces in place they just need a free agent or two to be competitive now?

[Sour Masher]

So you think they have all the other pieces in place they just need a free agent or two to be competitive now?

What is the harm of a big market team that makes oodles of cash throwing a bone to fans with a couple of high priced signings even if they are tangential to the true rebuilding process, as long as they don't block blue chip prospects long term?

I get where you are coming from--it is hard to hear complaints from folks who root for bigger market teams that have won recently and have fans that don't know how much harder it is to root for spendthrift teams. You would hate to see the Rangers throw money around that doesn't really help them contend when you know they have limited resources and have to build right for a small window to make winning a work. The Cubs are not really in that situation. They have the luxury to build right and throw some stupid money around to give the fans something to root for short term. I don't follow the Chicago news, but Gregg seems frustrated by the pinkie promises that they were gonna spend on some stars. If the team has been making such promises, that is unwise, as it will just annoy the fanbase when they decide it is unwise to spend right now on the players available. That may be the right move for a lot of teams, and many Cubs fans may see the logic in it too, but it doesn't have to be the move for the Cubs. A lot of their fans, like the fans of other big market teams, want it both ways. It isn't really a fair playing field, which sucks, but that is the way baseball is.

[Ken]

What is the harm of a big market team that makes oodles of cash throwing a bone to fans with a couple of high priced signings even if they are tangential to the true rebuilding process, as long as they don't block blue chip prospects long term?

Ultimately that type thinking would work with unlimited cash. If an owner has unlimited cash and he's willing to spend it with no actual tangible benefit, then sure, I can see the point. I think we conceptually think of these owners as having unlimited cash but in reality even the big spenders don't want to throw away cash. And with the current rules, going over the soft caps has actual consequences - you lose some of your ability to acquire new talent.

So a big sunk contract is going to weigh down the future payroll flexibility of any team. There's no true bottomless pockets in baseball - there's no team that's just buying up all the big free agents.

I get where you are coming from--it is hard to hear complaints from folks who root for bigger market teams that have won recently and have fans that don't know how much harder it is to root for spendthrift teams. You would hate to see the Rangers throw money around that doesn't really help them contend when you know they have limited resources and have to build right for a small window to make winning a work.
The Cubs are not really in that situation. They have the luxury to build right and throw some stupid money around to give the fans something to root for short term.

Believe it or not Texas would be considered big market - based on the population of DFW and the media market, they are top 5 or 6 in mlb, especially since they don't have to share their market.

But look what Texas did - they were terrible for a long time and they built up their farm, and now they are pushing in their chips (bats in 2021, DeGrom in 2022). I honestly don't see it working, but it's exponentially better than if they had just brought in random top free agents too early a few years back.

I don't follow the Chicago news, but Gregg seems frustrated by the pinkie promises that they were gonna spend on some stars.

I'm dubious about the actual promises - earlier in the Cubs thread it was stated that they were targetting some large portion of the top free agents. That sounds like fan speculation to me, I've yet to see a real source. But maybe I'm missing it.

If the team has been making such promises, that is unwise, as it will just annoy the fanbase when they decide it is unwise to spend right now on the players available. That may be the right move for a lot of teams, and many Cubs fans may see the logic in it too, but it doesn't have to be the move for the Cubs. A lot of their fans, like the fans of other big market teams, want it both ways. It isn't really a fair playing field, which sucks, but that is the way baseball is.

It may annoy the casual fan to not be familiar with the roster during a rebuild, I was just surprised it annoyed the hardcore/educated fan like Gregg.

[the heat]

Rodon to Yankees, 6/$162

[revo]

Benintendi to the White Sox, 6yrs, $75m

[madducks]

The Red Sox DFA 1B Eric Hosmer.

The Dodgers signed SP Noah Syndergaard earlier in the week for 1 year/$13 million.

[Moonlight J]

We all knew that Hosmer deal was bad when it was signed, but wow. Padress still owe him $12.28, 12.26 and 12.24M over the next three years too

[onejayhawk]

We all knew that Hosmer deal was bad when it was signed, but wow. Padress still owe him $12.28, 12.26 and 12.24M over the next three years too

After figuring out how to beat the Yankees, the Red Sox have morphed into them.

[Gregg]

Benintendi to the White Sox, 6yrs, $75m

The largest contract in White Sox history.

[Gregg]

We all knew that Hosmer deal was bad when it was signed, but wow. Padress still owe him $12.28, 12.26 and 12.24M over the next three years too

Ha, I am shocked that there is no rumor about the Cubs going after him...yet.

[Moonlight J]

Ha, I am shocked that there is no rumor about the Cubs going after him...yet.

Might as well since the Padres are still paying a huge chunk of the bill

[ThatRogue]

Dansby Swanson to the Cubs: $177/7
J.D. Martinez to the Dodgers: $10/1

[Sour Masher]

It will be interesting to see how the four SS deals play out in terms of cost per win, when all the deals are done. It will also be interesting to see how many of them end up in the HOF. Swanson has next to no shot, even if he plays well the next 7 years, but the other three could get there if they play up to expectations for the first half of their deals and can accumulate some stats beyond that.

[madducks]

The Pirates sign C Austin hedges for 1 year/$5 million. Maybe the Pirates will let their pitchers bat and use the DH for Hedges.